interesting moment yesterday on final

Recently, John Godwin posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in
news:nHOZh.4712$uJ6.3886 @newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:

No. That detail was one of the rationales used by the CFI to make the
claim.

That being the case, it should be left taffic.

That's how I understood it, and how most of the traffic flows. Most !=
all.

Neil

I've flown into LNN many times for gas. The pattern should be left, unless
otherwise indicated. If you're flying out of T and G, Larry and his
instructors may need some re-education.


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
t...
Recently, Steven P. McNicoll posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. ..

Look up Lost Nation Municipal airport (LNN). There is only a pattern
altitude. Direction is up to the pilot.


That's not correct. When approaching to land LNN each pilot of an
airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left .

Where is that established? Apparently, you are aware of something that the
CFIs and other pilots based at LNN don't know. While most of the time
people fly left traffic, it certainly isn't what happens all of the time.

Neil

Recently, Viperdoc posted:

I've flown into LNN many times for gas. The pattern should be left,
unless otherwise indicated. If you're flying out of T and G, Larry
and his instructors may need some re-education.

I am a T & G member, and know that Larry doesn't need re-education. ;-)

As for your "unless otherwise indicated", I'm not sure what you're
suggesting.

As for the instructor that made the statement, I haven't flown with him
before or since, but for other reasons. I don't know if he's still with
T&G.

I brought this up because it is not unusual to see right traffic at LNN
(non-T&G planes, btw), and I haven't heard of anyone getting busted for
this (that lent credence to the instructor's statement). FWIW, I always
fly left traffic at LNN, regardless of what others are up to.

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:

I brought this up because it is not unusual to see right traffic at LNN
(non-T&G planes, btw), and I haven't heard of anyone getting busted for
this (that lent credence to the instructor's statement). FWIW, I always
fly left traffic at LNN, regardless of what others are up to.


Maybe these right traffic folks were taught by the CFIs you were referring
to originally. To tell students that LNN is somehow exempt from 91.126
seems ludicrous. You implied that there is more than one instructor at that
airport that thinks this is the case.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

Recently, JGalban via AviationKB.com u32749@uwe posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

I brought this up because it is not unusual to see right traffic at
LNN (non-T&G planes, btw), and I haven't heard of anyone getting
busted for this (that lent credence to the instructor's statement).
FWIW, I always fly left traffic at LNN, regardless of what others
are up to.


Maybe these right traffic folks were taught by the CFIs you were
referring to originally. To tell students that LNN is somehow
exempt from 91.126 seems ludicrous. You implied that there is more
than one instructor at that airport that thinks this is the case.

I wouldn't know where the right traffic folks were taught, but if pilots
are not busted for flying right traffic, what does that imply? And to be
clear, I only heard one CFI say such a thing, and I have no idea whether
he is still around there.

Neil

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:14:32 +0000, Judah wrote:

On our CNX-80's (or whatever they're called now , you can push a button
to monitor the standby frequency. The selected frequency will cut off the
standby frequency if both are receiving...

Perfect.

It's a great unit...

Sigh I'll have to take your word on it.

- Andrew

Neil Gould wrote:

I wouldn't know where the right traffic folks were taught, but if pilots
are not busted for flying right traffic, what does that imply?

It doesn't imply a thing to me. I don't expect FAA cops to be hanging
around non-towered fields monitoring traffic patterns. The only time you
usually see anyone "busted" for a violation like this is after metal gets
bent.

And to be
clear, I only heard one CFI say such a thing, and I have no idea whether
he is still around there.

Gotcha. In one of your earlier posts you had referred to CFIs in the
plural sense.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200705/1

Andrew Gideon wrote in
news
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:14:32 +0000, Judah wrote:

On our CNX-80's (or whatever they're called now , you can push a button
to monitor the standby frequency. The selected frequency will cut off the
standby frequency if both are receiving...

Perfect.

It's a great unit...

Sigh I'll have to take your word on it.

They're marketed now as GNS-480 I believe. You might be able to find one on
EBay...

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
An aircraft on final has the right-of-way, big jet or 150.


Not if he is 5 mile out!



Distance doesn't matter. If right-of-way is an issue the aircraft on final
has the right-of-way.

It appears you interpret "right-of-way" to mean "the next aircraft to land".
That's not what it means. Right-of-way rules come into play only if the
aircraft concerned would otherwise occupy the same piece of sky, or nearly
so. If you're on downwind when another similar aircraft announces a long
straight-in you should be well in front of him and right-of-way shouldn't be
an issue. If it's a faster aircraft then right-of-way may well be an issue
so you'll have to extend your downwind to follow him.



I prefer the overhead approach, so I can
determine the least disruptive arrival. You approach at pattern
altitude, down the runway, check for traffic on downwind and break to
the downwind. That way, you are not charging into traffic turning base
to final, while you are watching for the airspeed to diminish to drop
the gear, wait for "gear safe" and set up landing. IMHO, the straight in
ranks among the "least preferred" of approaches.



There's nothing inherently wrong with a straight in approach, it is often
the safest. The problem is many pilots that believe a full pattern should
always be flown don't properly scan for traffic.


I don't have a problem with folks flying a straight in as long as they
do it well. I did have issue with the twin who's first announcement was
XXXX final abeam the Cessna when I was on my 2nd pattern of my FIRST
SOLO. I think he was low and in the ground clutter when I looked up
final. About 30 seconds after he announced I say him shoot past me and
well below. When I was a student the other thing that bothered me a lot
was the instrument guys coming in on straight in and they were playing
strictly by the books, but I had NO idea what Rikki inbound meant. 5
miles out on a straight in would have made so much more sense to me!

Margy

Margy Natalie wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
An aircraft on final has the right-of-way, big jet or 150.


Not if he is 5 mile out!



Distance doesn't matter. If right-of-way is an issue the aircraft on
final
has the right-of-way.

It appears you interpret "right-of-way" to mean "the next aircraft to
land".
That's not what it means. Right-of-way rules come into play only if the
aircraft concerned would otherwise occupy the same piece of sky, or
nearly
so. If you're on downwind when another similar aircraft announces a long
straight-in you should be well in front of him and right-of-way
shouldn't be
an issue. If it's a faster aircraft then right-of-way may well be an
issue
so you'll have to extend your downwind to follow him.



I prefer the overhead approach, so I can
determine the least disruptive arrival. You approach at pattern
altitude, down the runway, check for traffic on downwind and break to
the downwind. That way, you are not charging into traffic turning base
to final, while you are watching for the airspeed to diminish to drop
the gear, wait for "gear safe" and set up landing. IMHO, the straight in
ranks among the "least preferred" of approaches.



There's nothing inherently wrong with a straight in approach, it is often
the safest. The problem is many pilots that believe a full pattern
should
always be flown don't properly scan for traffic.

I don't have a problem with folks flying a straight in as long as they
do it well. I did have issue with the twin who's first announcement was
XXXX final abeam the Cessna when I was on my 2nd pattern of my FIRST
SOLO. I think he was low and in the ground clutter when I looked up
final. About 30 seconds after he announced I say him shoot past me and
well below. When I was a student the other thing that bothered me a lot
was the instrument guys coming in on straight in and they were playing
strictly by the books, but I had NO idea what Rikki inbound meant. 5
miles out on a straight in would have made so much more sense to me!

Margy

I was taught to make calls based on distance rather than approach fix
when practicing approaches in VMC at an uncontrolled airport for just
this reason.

Matt