interesting moment yesterday on final

"Maxwell" wrote in message
m...

Typical VFR pilots often fly without radios.


No they don't. While there are VFR pilots who often fly without radios that
is atypical today.

"Maxwell" wrote in message
m...

Unless a practice IFR approaches can be made without interruption of
pattern traffic, they should divert to upwind leg upon encountering
traffic.


What about non-practice IFR approaches? What are they supposed to do to
avoid interruption of pattern traffic?

"Maxwell" wrote in message
m...

I don't know, I'm just posting the info Steven was looking for and how it
reads to me. I actually found this by accident while doing an unrelated
Goggle search.


Steven wasn't looking for the info, Steven has all the info.



The way I read it you can still do most any kind of approach as long as
you don't disrupt normal traffic in the pattern. But the way I read it,
with
regards to right of way, traffic using the rectangular pattern listed in
the AIM is said to be favored.


Instead of concentrating on material that is not regulatory you might
consider examining some material that is. I suggest FARs 91.113 and 91.126
for starters.

Mark T. Dame wrote:

For the student pilot who doesn't even know what the VOR-29 approach is,
much less the location of RIKKI, TIKKI, or MIKKI, the IFR practice pilot
should provide an estimated distance. Your approach plate tells you
what that distance is, so there's no guessing and no relying on a GPS or
LORAN or other RNAV equipment that you may or may not have.


Bingo! This would seem to throw out the argument that using "RIKKI" is
more accurate than "x mile final". The pilot flying the approach should
have a fairly accurate idea of his distance to the runway. By giving the
distance instead of a fix, it is more likely that all pilots in the pattern
will know where he is, without creating unnecessary chatter on the CTAF.

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

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

Instead of concentrating on material that is not regulatory you might
consider examining some material that is. I suggest FARs 91.113 and
91.126 for starters.

Do you actually remember all this stuff, or do you have to search for it
before you post?

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

wrote in message
...

Do you actually remember all this stuff, or do you have to search for it
before you post?


I remember much of it, some things I have to verify before posting.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
wrote in message
...

Do you actually remember all this stuff, or do you have to search for
it before you post?


I remember much of it, some things I have to verify before posting.

That is quite impressive really. Especially considering it is all I can do
to remember my way home from work half the time. :-)

Do you have to reference this information for work regularly?

--
Mike Flyin'8
PP-ASEL
Temecula, CA
http://flying.4alexanders.com

wrote in message
...

Do you have to reference this information for work regularly?


Nope.

"Mark T. Dame" wrote in message
...

That's the key, the way I read it. Traffic flying the full recommended
pattern has the right of way of traffic not flying the full pattern. That
includes those making base leg entries, straight into downwind entries,
and straight in approaches (both visual and instrument, be it practice or
actual). (All of that assumes the airport is above the VFR minimums. If
it isn't, then IFR rules apply and "right of way" is theoretically a
non-issue because ATC handle sequencing the departures and arrivals.)


The airport can be above VFR minimums but still require an instrument
approach, imagine good visibility under a low overcast. What's an arriving
IFR aircraft supposed to do if he's still in cloud at the circling MDA and
there are VFR aircraft in the pattern?



Basically, you can fly whatever you want, but only if it doesn't conflict
with traffic established in the recommended pattern. That holds true any
time you enter the pattern. Even when using the recommended 45 degree
mid-field downwind entry, traffic already on the downwind (presumably from
a take off staying in the pattern) has the right of way and it's your
responsibility to time your entry so as not to interfere with existing
traffic. So for a straight in approach, if there's no one in the pattern
or you can make the approach without interfering with those who are, then
go for it. If not, it's your responsibility to figure out how to sequence
yourself into the traffic flow without causing a conflict.

All of that said, flying a proper pattern doesn't give you the right to
cut off someone flying a straight in approach. That's the gist of the FAA
ruling someone posted elsewhe the guy was violated for intentionally
cutting off aircraft making straight in approaches or really long
downwinds. That's a no-no.

Finally, there is no FAR one way or the other. Just the AC and the ASF
publication. Bottom line: the traffic pattern is no place for a ****ing
contest. Just be courteous to those around you and pay attention for
those who aren't.


FAR 91.113(g) does not exist? Where the hell do you get your information?

"Maxwell" wrote in message
m...

Why does the aircraft on final have the right-of-way?


Primarily because FAR 91.113(g) says aircraft on final have the
right-of-way.