"Cleared Straight-In Runway X; Report Y Miles Final"

I would interpret her clearance to mean I should report
5 miles out on the extended runway center line. There
could be traffic issues that caused her to request you follow
this path to the runway.


"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message
...
Hi, all. Ran into this one flying back from KOSH a couple weeks ago:

I check in with the KPRC controller "20 Miles NE" of Love Field in
Prescott,
AZ. She clears me with "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L, Report 5 miles
final."

I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately 240
(hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline).

At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report
"5
mile final." She questions my position and gets all snippy (indeed, darn
right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am not on the extended
centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be "careful about this."

Hence, the question is "What does 'Cleared Straight-in; Report X miles
Final" really mean?" Is it. . . .

(1) You must fly directly from your current position to a point on the
extended centerline that is X miles from the numbers, and then report
(sounds like a base to me).

or

(2) You can fly directly from your current position to the numbers (thus
"straight-in"), and report when you are X miles away.

I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought otherwise (it
seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR domain, it ought to
work well enough for VFR situations). Regardless, it is potentially
dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently. Which
definition is right?

Regards, Jim

She said cleared "straight in" for runway 21L. That (to me) is to come in
on the final approach path, i.e. extended runway centerline. I think tower
controllers always give you a position to enter the airport traffic pattern.
They either give you a downwind, base or "straight in" (i.e. final).

In your situation I think I would have adjusted course to intercept the
final approach fix or the runway centerline 5 miles out which ever was
greater.

Further, it might have been a concern of hers that from your position 240
degrees coming in to 21L you would cross the final approach path of 21R on
short final. If she assumed you'd be on the extended center line of 21L she
might have cleared someone on 21R at the same time making a dangerous
situation.

Kobra
(no expert)


"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message
...
Hi, all. Ran into this one flying back from KOSH a couple weeks ago:

I check in with the KPRC controller "20 Miles NE" of Love Field in
Prescott,
AZ. She clears me with "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L, Report 5 miles
final."

I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately 240
(hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline).

At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report
"5
mile final." She questions my position and gets all snippy (indeed, darn
right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am not on the extended
centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be "careful about this."

Hence, the question is "What does 'Cleared Straight-in; Report X miles
Final" really mean?" Is it. . . .

(1) You must fly directly from your current position to a point on the
extended centerline that is X miles from the numbers, and then report
(sounds like a base to me).

or

(2) You can fly directly from your current position to the numbers (thus
"straight-in"), and report when you are X miles away.

I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought otherwise (it
seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR domain, it ought to
work well enough for VFR situations). Regardless, it is potentially
dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently. Which
definition is right?

Regards, Jim

Mike Adams wrote:
More likely is what others have said - by staying
on the centerline, they have more flexibility to
sequence traffic on the left downwind, and others
can spot you easier if you're in a predictable
location.

Others spotting you easier where most would look if they hear someone is making
a "straight-in" approach is the best reason, IMO.

Something similar happened to me today at an uncontrolled airport that brought
this discussion to mind. As I was about to enter the 45 for a left downwind, I
heard another aircraft announcing that they were on the left downwind. I
scanned the entire area but did not have them in sight. I announced when I was
on the 45, still looking. As I entered the downwind, I announced and asked the
other aircraft for an update on their position. He said he was on an "extended
downwind, about to turn base." I looked everywhere, but expected to see him
more or less way in front of me and/or to the left as he made his left base
turn. Instead, I finally saw him coming across from my right (I was still on
downwind) making what I would describe as a *diagonal* combination base/final
straight from some point WAY out to my right!

Of course, he was considerably further than 30° off of the centerline, but more
important was that his description wasn't accurate for where he was or what he
was doing. IMO, he was on a *WIDE* downwind, which he didn't say, and he didn't
"turn base," he just flew a diagonal line to the runway! I interpret "extended
downwind" to mean traveling further downwind before turning base, not flying
the downwind 1.5 miles away from the runway.

If I were an ATC today, I sure would have said something, too!

Thanks for your comments, Peter. Here's my thoughts:

Frankly, I don't see how "be careful about this" is patronizing or
otherwise
indicates a person having a bad day.

It was a matter of her tone. Like most pilots, I like to think I know what
I'm doing. And, when I'm doing things right, I don't like a controller
"correcting" me--especially what I feel is an uncivil and patronizing tone.
The real issue is: "Was I right?" Based on the many responses, there
appears to be some difference of opinion on that.

commenting on that to Jim, he now has (I hope) learned the proper
procedure
(which he obviously did not know prior).

IS this the proper procedure? Pilots tend to resolve things definitively on
this forum by quoting the FAR, AIM, or other appropriate authority. In the
absence of such explicit guidance, we can only offer opinion backed by
informed logic and experience. So, let me restate: Where does it
unequivocally state that being on the extended center line is a requirement
for a "straight-in" VFR approach? If so, please define "on the extended
center line" for me. How close is close enough? 10 ft? 100 ft? 1/4 mile?
30 degrees at 20 miles? Perhaps some of the folks on this forum can just
fly much more precisely than I do g. Indeed, that is why I believe in the
IFR domain, the definition of "straight-in" includes the 30 degrees. This
provides for a REASONABLE definition of "straight-in" that clearly should be
sufficient for VFR applications.

Regards, Jim

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
. 158...

The term 'final' may have a correct definition according to the AIM, but
why would the controller care whether you fly a straight-final or an
angled-final unless there is a traffic conflict?

I think the most important answer is for the same reason it's important to
report your CORRECT position while at an uncontrolled field: it simplifies
the business of actually SEEING the airplane reporting their position.
The
tower is just as interested in seeing you as other airplanes are. If you
are not where you claim to be, that's a problem, and a rather serious one
at
that.

Other reasons include things like other traffic in the vicinity (though
the
tower controller is not tasked with separating airborne traffic, they
still
do help with that), trying to keep traffic away from noise-sensitive
areas,
or sequencing (trying to help along the process of airplanes arriving at
the
runway with an even spacing).

Bottom line, there are a number of reasons the controller might care that
you report the correct position.

In that case, the
controller should have issued a traffic alert and to maintain visual
separation. In the absence of any such alert, I can only assume that the
controller was just having a bad day.

It wasn't necessarily other traffic that was an issue, this time. But
even
if it was, the controller may well have expected Jim to be somewhere
different, in a position that would not have required a traffic alert be
issued to him. Perhaps the controllers comments were along the lines of
"this didn't matter this time, but you should get it right next time,
because it might matter then".

Frankly, I don't see how "be careful about this" is patronizing or
otherwise
indicates a person having a bad day. I have had to deal with controllers
who were genuinely having a bad day, and they were downright abusive. A
pilot *should* be careful about reporting an incorrect position, and by
commenting on that to Jim, he now has (I hope) learned the proper
procedure
(which he obviously did not know prior).

He used words like "snippy" and "rude" and "patronizing", but until I hear
the tape, I'm not going to take his word for it. None of the *words* he
quoted indicate any of those things, and the controller was well within
her
rights to point out Jim's error. It's just as likely that Jim was being
defensive about his own actions, coloring his interpretation of what the
controller said.

Pete

If the plane went direct to the numbers and had to cross the downwind
leg (and that's the way I read it), most of the pattern would be
unusable when the plane got close

Actually, no. If you think about it, if you approach the numbers at a ~30
deg angle, and a "proper" downwind to base turn is made at a ~45 deg angle,
there will be no conflict whatsover.

Regards, Jim


"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message
...
Andrew Sarangan wrote:
The term 'final' may have a correct definition according to the AIM,
but
why would the controller care whether you fly a straight-final or an
angled-final unless there is a traffic conflict?

So that the controller can plan on using the rest of the space to
sequence traffic. That's what they do.

In this case, keeping a plane on straight-in five mile final keeps the
entire downwind leg available, and planes can be sequenced both before
and after the plane on final.

If the plane went direct to the numbers and had to cross the downwind
leg (and that's the way I read it), most of the pattern would be
unusable when the plane got close. Light planes change speed quickly
too, so the time it would be unusable would be difficult to predict as
well.

In that case, the
controller should have issued a traffic alert and to maintain visual
separation.

The plane was 20 miles out. A zillion things can happen before it gets
there. Issuing a traffic alert would have been pointless.

In the absence of any such alert, I can only assume that the
controller was just having a bad day.

She kept the pattern squence moving, and even the plane 20 miles out
knew (or should have known) what to expect. It sounds to me like she
was having a great day.

Why put yourself in a position that A) leaves you hard
to find by other aircraft looking for someone "on final"

John, IMHO, I was "on final." The whole point I'm trying to make is that I
don't believe you have to be precisely on the extended center line to be on
final. Rather, to me "Cleared Straight-In" implies that you should not make
a downwind or base turn, but simply fly direct to the airport, align
yourself with the runway, and land. I also don't agree you are necessarily
any "harder to find" on final if you are offset within 30 deg.

from which
you *must* make a 30 degree turn at low altitude on short final?

If the prospect of making a 30 degree turn at low altitude on short final
fills you with dread, you should never try to land a Pitts (which routinely
requires you to slip it in while offset from the centerline). Also, why
necessarily wait until short final to make an abrupt low altitude turn? One
could simply turn gradually and gracefully in a shallow bank turn to end up
aligned with the extended center line. Hardly dangerous.

Common
sense, prudence, and professional practice would all lead you to a point
on
the extended centerline some miles out from the field.

Un huh. I suppose the absolutely correct thing for me to have done was to
setup a waypoint in my GPS exactly five miles out from the numbers on the
extended center line and fly direct to that. Please. I prefer to do more
meaningful things when I'm close to an airport (like look for traffic).

It costs you nothing
to do so, and makes the system simpler and safer.

Actually, it costs you about one minute more flying. May not seem like a
lot to you, but after 26 hours of flying to KOSH and back, every minute
seems valuable.

Regards, Jim

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message

I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought otherwise
(it
seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR domain, it ought
to
work well enough for VFR situations). Regardless, it is potentially
dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently. Which
definition is right?

There may be some rule or combination of rules and definitions that would
allow you to fly direct from present position to the threshold, but why
would you want to? Why put yourself in a position that A) leaves you hard
to find by other aircraft looking for someone "on final", and B) from
which
you *must* make a 30 degree turn at low altitude on short final?Common
sense, prudence, and professional practice would all lead you to a point
on
the extended centerline some miles out from the field. It costs you
nothing
to do so, and makes the system simpler and safer.

STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH VFR- Entry into the traffic pattern by interception
of
the extended runway centerline (final approach course) without executing
any
other portion of the traffic pattern.

Thanks, Steven. Just to be clear, what source are you quoting this from?
Also, I must point out that my approach and landing met this criteria. I
"intercepted the extended runway centerline without executing any other
portion of the traffic pattern." In this case, I chose to intercept the
extended runway centerline at approximately 1/4 mile from the numbers, while
reporting a "Five Mile Final" when I was five miles from doing so. The
issue is: Was this correct? Or, must a pilot literally intercept the
extended center line at a specific distance (which some on this forum seem
to assume that the controller implied when she directed me to "Report 5
miles final")?

Regards, Jim


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
link.net...

"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message
...

Hi, all. Ran into this one flying back from KOSH a couple weeks ago:

I check in with the KPRC controller "20 Miles NE" of Love Field in
Prescott, AZ. She clears me with "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L,
Report 5 miles final."


What did she clear you for? "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L" is not an
approach or landing clearance.



I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately 240
(hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline).

At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report
"5
mile final." She questions my position and gets all snippy (indeed,
darn
right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am not on the extended
centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be "careful about this."


Well, she's right about not being on final. "Final" means that an
aircraft
is on the final approach course or is aligned with the runway.



Hence, the question is "What does 'Cleared Straight-in; Report X miles
Final" really mean?" Is it. . . .

(1) You must fly directly from your current position to a point on the
extended centerline that is X miles from the numbers, and then report
(sounds like a base to me).

or

(2) You can fly directly from your current position to the numbers (thus
"straight-in"), and report when you are X miles away.


"Straight-in" by itself is undefined, but there are other defined terms
that
include it.

STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH IFR- An instrument approach wherein final approach is
begun without first having executed a procedure turn, not necessarily
completed with a straight-in landing or made to straight-in landing
minimums.

STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH VFR- Entry into the traffic pattern by interception
of
the extended runway centerline (final approach course) without executing
any
other portion of the traffic pattern.

STRAIGHT-IN LANDING- A landing made on a runway aligned within 30° of the
final approach course following completion of an instrument approach.



I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought otherwise
(it
seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR domain, it ought
to
work well enough for VFR situations). Regardless, it is potentially
dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently. Which
definition is right?


For VFR purposes, you're not on "final" until you're aligned with the
runway. She instructed you to report a five mile final, which you would
never be on unless you altered your course to the airport.

"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message
...
[...] So, let me restate: Where does it
unequivocally state that being on the extended center line is a
requirement
for a "straight-in" VFR approach?

You were told to report "5 mile final". Regardless of what you think a
"straight-in approach is" (and frankly, I find your equivocating on that
point mind boggling...I never saw a straight line that had a 30 degree bend
in it), a "5 mile final" is *only* a point on the runway's extended
centerline 5 miles out. There is no ambiguity.

Your continued defensiveness on the question definitely causes me to
question your interpretation of the controllers communication to you as
well. You are obviously sore about the incident, and are trying very hard
to come out as the person in the right, in spite of considerable clear
evidence to the contrary.

Pete

"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message
...
Actually, no. If you think about it, if you approach the numbers at a ~30
deg angle, and a "proper" downwind to base turn is made at a ~45 deg
angle,
there will be no conflict whatsover.

How do you figure that? Firstly, the "45 degree key point" taught students
for where to turn base is just a rule of thumb...base turns are made much
earlier and much later than that, depending on factors other than just
following a rote procedure.

Secondly, the flight path of an airplane flying 90 degrees to the runway
heading on base intersects the flight path of an airplane flying 30 degrees
to the runway heading, heading straight for the numbers. Since the flight
paths intersect, there certainly IS a potential for a conflict.

I'd agree that the odds of there being a conflict on the downwind leg
(rather than the base leg) are low (though not nonexistent since extended
downwinds are a common enough procedure, especially at towered airports),
but to say that "there will be no conflict whatsoever" is hugely and
inappropriately optimistic.

Pete

"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message
...
Why put yourself in a position that A) leaves you hard
to find by other aircraft looking for someone "on final"

John, IMHO, I was "on final."

The definition of "final" clearly indicates that you were not.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that I
don't believe you have to be precisely on the extended center line to be
on
final.

Then you'd better start lobbying the FAA to change the pilot/controller
glossary. It does not current agree with your belief.

Rather, to me "Cleared Straight-In" implies that you should not make
a downwind or base turn, but simply fly direct to the airport, align
yourself with the runway, and land.

Align yourself with the runway, yes. Do it 100 feet from the numbers, no.
If you've been told to report a "5 mile final", you need to be aligned with
the runway by the time you're 5 miles from the runway.

I also don't agree you are necessarily
any "harder to find" on final if you are offset within 30 deg.

You are free to disagree, of course. But that doesn't make it true. If you
tell someone you are at a position aligned with the runway, and you are
actually 2.5 miles away from that position, that makes it VERY hard to find
you.

[...]
Un huh. I suppose the absolutely correct thing for me to have done was to
setup a waypoint in my GPS exactly five miles out from the numbers on the
extended center line and fly direct to that. Please. I prefer to do
more
meaningful things when I'm close to an airport (like look for traffic).

If you can't look at your chart and identify a position 5 miles away from
the airport on the extended runway centerline, you have no business flying
an airplane. You should not need a GPS to comply with the controller's
instructions.

Actually, it costs you about one minute more flying. May not seem like a
lot to you, but after 26 hours of flying to KOSH and back, every minute
seems valuable.

That's got to be the most ridiculous part of your defense I've heard so far.
Both because 60 seconds is a trivial amount of extra time, no matter how far
you've flown, and because from 20 miles out, adjusting your flight path to
aim for a true 5 mile final adding 60 seconds to your flight time means you
are cruising at about 60 knots. If you are flying something that cruises at
60 knots and you can't stand an extra 60 seconds of flight, you have the
wrong airplane.

In any case, you would have been well within your rights to decline the
controller's instruction and request a true point-to-point straight flight
from your position to the runway. The question here isn't whether it was
reasonable to ask you to deviate, but whether you even understand that you
were asked to do so.

The more I read your responses in this thread, the more I wonder if you are
really genuinely interested in learning the actual answer to your question.
It sure doesn't seem like you are.

Pete