Straight-ins at uncontrolled airports?

On Feb 5, 7:19 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
"Danny Deger" wrote:

I haven't flown in a while, but am in the market for a used plane.

I recalling hearing somewhere that straight-in approaches are now approved
at uncontrolled airports. Is this correct?

Danny Deger

I prefer the overhead break to the downwind, where you can see other
traffic and space yourself accordingly. We do this all the time at
Spruce Creek -- especially when flying formation. It gets everybody on
the ground fastest.

Yeah, there's nothing like having 4 planes in the pattern and a 4 ship
of something going 60 knots faster than anyone else call initial and
break onto the downwind. Everyone else, break out of the pattern so
mister 4-ship can land his formation quickly and taxi together to the
coffee shop. I don't have problems with airplanes doing an overhead
if the pattern is empty or there's a tower to call the break but doing
it at a pilot controlled airfield with multiple aircraft in the box
pattern is asking for trouble.

"150flivver" wrote:

I prefer the overhead break to the downwind, where you can see other
traffic and space yourself accordingly. We do this all the time at
Spruce Creek -- especially when flying formation. It gets everybody on
the ground fastest.

Yeah, there's nothing like having 4 planes in the pattern and a 4 ship
of something going 60 knots faster than anyone else call initial and
break onto the downwind. Everyone else, break out of the pattern so
mister 4-ship can land his formation quickly and taxi together to the
coffee shop. I don't have problems with airplanes doing an overhead
if the pattern is empty or there's a tower to call the break but doing
it at a pilot controlled airfield with multiple aircraft in the box
pattern is asking for trouble.


Yea, what is with the slow traffic making B52 patterns? The RV 4
shipwill have landed before the C172 turns final. Heck, yesterday
after returning from Cabella in Sydney NE my 2 ship (RVs) had to fall
in behind a Warrior. How humiliating.



Ron Lee

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...


They've never been prohibited (at least in the U.S.).

--

Say's a non pilot...

BT writes:

Say's a non pilot...

This non-pilot is right, and most of the so-called pilots are saying
the same thing. Show me the regulation that prohibits them.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Feb 5, 8:12 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
"Kev" wrote in message
Exactly. They need to announce down to about every mile to the field
on a straight-in. I've had someone announce they were twenty miles
out on a straight-in, so I turned base. Lo and behold they were
actually one mile out... and cut me off.

Sounds like you were cutting him off. Did you scan for traffic?

Obviously I scanned for traffic, which is why I'm still here ;-)

He claimed to be twenty miles out, or about 10 minutes away at
Cherokee speeds. Plenty of time for me to land first. However, he
was much, much closer. Apparently he was overloaded doing the
practice approach.

In the pattern, it's easier to see where someone is. Straight in, you
often just have to believe what they say. (That is, trust but
verify ;-)

Kev

On Feb 5, 1:52 pm, "Jay Beckman" wrote:
"Danny Deger" wrote in message

...

I haven't flown in a while, but am in the market for a used plane.

I recalling hearing somewhere that straight-in approaches are now approved
at uncontrolled airports. Is this correct?

Danny Deger

Straight In has never been "disapproved."

It may not, however, be the best way to arrive.

YMMV,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

It may not have been disapproved by official regulation.
It is disapproved by many pilots, though. ;)
Especially me. I have enough to deal with when everyone, including
me, is where they belong.

To me the key is nobody bending metal or ending up dead.

Even if the pattern isn't full, maybe there's only one guy on downwind,
that's all it takes for me to take another option of either announcing an
upwind opposite the downwind traffic or a crossover to the downwind, what
ever allows me to keep my eyes on him and other possible traffic as I
transition into the pattern.

Something else I try to practice is that when transferred to the local
traffic advisory, I not only announce my position on the approach including
altitudes, but I use terms that VFR or non local pilots in the area will
understand. I think this is an area where some of the pilots such as Jay
refers to can improve their SOP. Granted, when the pattern is full, this
maybe too much info when everybody's trying to announce their positions and
intentions, again, a pilot must be able to adjust to the circumstances.

For those on downwind encountering another pilot performing a straight in
approach, don't forget about the ability to extend your downwind leg. Don't
let yourself get so locked into your "standard" pattern of turning base when
45 degrees from X at Xagl at Xrpms and Xkts that you find yourself flustered
and brain locked when an approaching airplane announces something that you
aren't expecting. Standard procedures are safe procedures, especially at
night or at unfamiliar airports but leave some flexibility in your bag of
tricks for the unexpected. The same can be said for an unexpected aircraft
entering an extended base in front of you while you are on downwind. Be
ready. Have a plan but be ready, willing, and able to change your plan.
Play 'what-if'. What are your options? Which is the safest? That's the
option that you want to be willing to use, even if the other guy isn't.

JimB

"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote in message
news:ELCdnYJpMrZIJFrYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...
I haven't flown in a while, but am in the market for a used plane.

I recalling hearing somewhere that straight-in approaches are now
approved at uncontrolled airports. Is this correct?



I assume you are not trying to win friends and influance people?

I am gleening from this thread the state of straight-ins has not changed
over the years. To me a key is how busy the pattern is. If I am lined up
at night, I like the straight-in. It is pretty rare to have a full
pattern at night.

Danny Deger

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

In article .com,
"150flivver" wrote:

On Feb 5, 7:19 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
"Danny Deger" wrote:

I haven't flown in a while, but am in the market for a used plane.

I recalling hearing somewhere that straight-in approaches are now approved
at uncontrolled airports. Is this correct?

Danny Deger

I prefer the overhead break to the downwind, where you can see other
traffic and space yourself accordingly. We do this all the time at
Spruce Creek -- especially when flying formation. It gets everybody on
the ground fastest.

Yeah, there's nothing like having 4 planes in the pattern and a 4 ship
of something going 60 knots faster than anyone else call initial and
break onto the downwind. Everyone else, break out of the pattern so
mister 4-ship can land his formation quickly and taxi together to the
coffee shop. I don't have problems with airplanes doing an overhead
if the pattern is empty or there's a tower to call the break but doing
it at a pilot controlled airfield with multiple aircraft in the box
pattern is asking for trouble.

If the 4-ship is calling initial, they are probably 2-3 miles out,
meaning that they are at least a minute from break, allowing a
reasonably competent C150 or C172 to complete downwind, fly base and
land well before they even get there.

It is those "professional pilots in training" that insist on
"stabilized" approaches with 2-mile finals in a C172 dragging at 80
knots who really clog things up.

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 04:16:49 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:


It is those "professional pilots in training" that insist on
"stabilized" approaches with 2-mile finals in a C172 dragging at 80
knots who really clog things up.


One of the reasons they are on long finals is they followed
McNicholl's advice to extend downwind to give the guy on a straight in
approach the right of way. Once a crowded pattern extends it won't
pull back in until all of the traffic is cleared. With a few people
doing touch and go's that won't be happening anytime soon.

On 5 Feb 2007 19:28:37 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 5, 1:52 pm, "Jay Beckman" wrote:
"Danny Deger" wrote in message

...

I haven't flown in a while, but am in the market for a used plane.

I recalling hearing somewhere that straight-in approaches are now approved
at uncontrolled airports. Is this correct?

Danny Deger

Straight In has never been "disapproved."

It may not, however, be the best way to arrive.

YMMV,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

It may not have been disapproved by official regulation.
It is disapproved by many pilots, though. ;)
Especially me. I have enough to deal with when everyone, including
me, is where they belong.

With Jets coming in, if they flew the pattern or not, they'd be so far
out no one would know the difference here.

Training planes fly a fairly tight pattern.
High performance is a bit wider and longer,
Twins are wider and longer still.
Big twins, still more and Jets are much farther out.

Of course, here we have on instrument approach that is half pattern
altitude and comes in on a 137 degree heading while our runways are
06/24 and 18/36. The GPS approaches to 06 and 24 might as well be
straight in. The IAF is 11 miles out with the FAF being 5.1 from the
end of the runway. (all in a straight line)

Late in the day it can get pretty busy so any one in the pattern needs
their head on a swivel. With the different class planes and three
approaches, traffic may be *anywhere*
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com