interesting moment yesterday on final

Cubdriver wrote:
On 29 May 2007 04:52:23 -0700, Denny wrote:

All these maneuvers are legal and appropriate training procedures....

Sure they are. And so is making a right turn after stop at a red light
in most places --- but remember that the other guy has the right of
way!

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.)

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.


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## insert tail number here
## KHAO, KISZ
"Many UNIX utilities have undocumented limitations..."
-- Programming perl, Larry Wall and Randal L. Schwartz

"Jose" wrote in message
news

No, the object is not to "convey position". It is to "enable visual
acquisition".


The object is to convey position.


AIM

4-1-9. Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control
Towers

g. Self-Announce Position and/or Intentions

1. General. Self-announce is a procedure whereby pilots broadcast their
position or intended flight activity or ground operation on the designated
CTAF. This procedure is used primarily at airports which do not have an FSS
on the airport. The self-announce procedure should also be used if a pilot
is unable to communicate with the FSS on the designated CTAF. Pilots
stating, "Traffic in the area, please advise" is not a recognized
Self-Announce Position and/or Intention phrase and should not be used under
any condition.



A position and intention report is of limited usefulness if
I can't see the traffic. But if I can, then the sighting trumps the
report.


An accurate position and intention report is useful even when the traffic
cannot be seen. If a Skyhawk reports "RIKKI inbound" when I'm on downwind I
know it's not a factor for me. If the report is "five miles out on a
straight-in" I know I better not turn base until I spot the traffic.



On a busy 122.9, that's not easy.


Yes it is. Key the mic, say "Where's RIKKI?" Very easy



Also, by the time the information is
conveyed, the aircraft is elsewhere.


Yes, in the short time it takes to convey the information the aircraft has
moved a bit inside RIKKI.



Yes, they typically fly without the kinds of charts that would show the
information, and further, that information is hard to find in flight even
if it's on a VFR chart. It also takes eyeballs away from the window,
which is the last thing you want in the pattern.


The information is shown on the Sectional Aeronautical Chart and in the
Airport/Facility Directory. Do typical VFR pilots not use these materials
to become familiar with all available information concerning a flight?



A report that is useful to few might as well be useful to none.


Nonsense.

Dave wrote:
Since anybody
flying IFR no doubt has a GPS that will provide
an instant distance and ETE readout,

I wouldn't assume everyone flying IFR has a GPS. I have access to six
aircraft in the two flying clubs I'm in. Two of them (the IFR trainer
in each club) don't have GPS. I don't want to get into a debate on
whether or not an IFR trainer should have a GPS. The planes aren't my
personal aircraft, so such a debate would be pointless. The point is
people are using them to get their instrument rating and they don't have
GPS. That is probably typical of IFR trainers as most FBO's as well.
No one wants to put $10K+ into a trainer to add an instrument approved
GPS receiver.

So, it's better to assume that the pilot doesn't have an accurate
distance or ETE.


it seems to me that an
announcement like the following would be understandable to
everyone: "Cessna 1234 IFR inbound for landing runway 1 XYZ 5 miles
out ETE 2 minutes" would fill the bill. With that
info I know where to look and when to expect him. It would also be
nice to know if this inbound pilot is really landing or
intends to declare a missed approach (which folks who practice IFR
approaches in VFR condtitions usually do).

If you are flying an instrument approach on a VFR day and there are
other planes in the pattern, you should break off your approach and fly
the miss early if you are going to conflict with the other traffic. If
not, then it doesn't matter.

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.

For the VFR guy who is too good to fly the pattern with the rest of us
schmucks, get over yourself. If that extra .1 hour flying a full
pattern is more important to you than your (and everyone else's) safety,
then you shouldn't be flying anyway.

If you absolutely must fly a straight in approach, time it so you can
slip in an open spot in the pattern without conflicting with those
already established. And know where five miles and two miles out from
the field are. If you are so good that you don't have to fly a pattern,
at least be able to accurately tell the rest of us where you are without
resorting to IFR fixes that less than half of the pilot population is
likely to know.

(Note to Dave: after rereading this it appears I'm jumping on your
post. That's not the case. I'm merely trying to expand on your point.)


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## insert tail number here
## KHAO, KISZ
"In short, just as the Multics mentality of careful access
control shows up throughout Unix, the cretinous CP/M mentality
of uncontrolled havoc shows up in DOS and all its mutant children."
-- Tom Christiansen

"Dave" wrote in message
oups.com...

Asking questions on the CTAF is not a good idea.


Why not?

The object is to convey position.

The =object= is to enable visual aquisition. The =method= is by
conveying position.

An accurate position and intention report is useful even when the traffic
cannot be seen. If a Skyhawk reports "RIKKI inbound" when I'm on downwind I
know it's not a factor for me.

So such a report is useful to =you=, an IFR pilot who is also a
controller and happens to know where RIKKI is. RIKKI might be the last
step-down fix, a mile from the threshold, on an approach with which you
are not familiar, at an airport at which you are newly arriving, and
whose approach plate is in your flight kit in the back seat. In that
case, that skyhawk definately is a factor for you.

On a busy 122.9, that's not easy.
Yes it is. Key the mic, say "Where's RIKKI?" Very easy

The other airplanes hear "squeal...key" and don't respond. Or they hear
"where's RIKKI" and key the mike. Then you hear "squeal miles squeal
other traffic squeal advise two"

The information is shown on the Sectional Aeronautical Chart and in the
Airport/Facility Directory. Do typical VFR pilots not use these materials
to become familiar with all available information concerning a flight?

They typically become familiar with what they consider relevant
information. They do not typically memorize it. No pilot becomes
familiar with "all available" information. That's a silly impossibility
designed so that the FAA can hang you if they want.

Typically the information is only on an approach plate. VFR pilots
typically do not review approach plates. Some may never have even seen
one. It is "information", it is "available". And no I don't think it
is reasonable to expect a VFR pilot to have become familiar with all IFR
approaches into an airport.

A report that is useful to few might as well be useful to none.
Nonsense.

I'll see your nonsense and raise you a "tosh on that!".

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On May 29, 2:48 pm, "Mark T. Dame" wrote:
Dave wrote:
Since anybody
flying IFR no doubt has a GPS that will provide
an instant distance and ETE readout,

I wouldn't assume everyone flying IFR has a GPS. I have access to six
aircraft in the two flying clubs I'm in. Two of them (the IFR trainer
in each club) don't have GPS. I don't want to get into a debate on
whether or not an IFR trainer should have a GPS. The planes aren't my
personal aircraft, so such a debate would be pointless. The point is
people are using them to get their instrument rating and they don't have
GPS. That is probably typical of IFR trainers as most FBO's as well.
No one wants to put $10K+ into a trainer to add an instrument approved
GPS receiver.

So, it's better to assume that the pilot doesn't have an accurate
distance or ETE.


I agree that not everyone has a GPS - but for myself I wouldn't be
without a portable unit - for situational awareness as
well as navigation. I have VOR/DME/RNAV in my plane, but seldom use it
anymore.


it seems to me that an
announcement like the following would be understandable to
everyone: "Cessna 1234 IFR inbound for landing runway 1 XYZ 5 miles
out ETE 2 minutes" would fill the bill. With that
info I know where to look and when to expect him. It would also be
nice to know if this inbound pilot is really landing or
intends to declare a missed approach (which folks who practice IFR
approaches in VFR condtitions usually do).

If you are flying an instrument approach on a VFR day and there are
other planes in the pattern, you should break off your approach and fly
the miss early if you are going to conflict with the other traffic. If
not, then it doesn't matter.

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.

For the VFR guy who is too good to fly the pattern with the rest of us
schmucks, get over yourself. If that extra .1 hour flying a full
pattern is more important to you than your (and everyone else's) safety,
then you shouldn't be flying anyway.

If you absolutely must fly a straight in approach, time it so you can
slip in an open spot in the pattern without conflicting with those
already established. And know where five miles and two miles out from
the field are. If you are so good that you don't have to fly a pattern,
at least be able to accurately tell the rest of us where you are without
resorting to IFR fixes that less than half of the pilot population is
likely to know.

(Note to Dave: after rereading this it appears I'm jumping on your
post. That's not the case. I'm merely trying to expand on your point.)

No offense taken - I basically agree with your comments. You have
identified the problem: the arrogant a**holes
out there who seem to think that everybody else is obliged to get out
of their way when they decide to come
barreling in.

David Johnson

On May 29, 3:30 pm, Jose wrote:
The object is to convey position.

The =object= is to enable visual aquisition. The =method= is by
conveying position.

An accurate position and intention report is useful even when the traffic
cannot be seen. If a Skyhawk reports "RIKKI inbound" when I'm on downwind I
know it's not a factor for me.

So such a report is useful to =you=, an IFR pilot who is also a
controller and happens to know where RIKKI is. RIKKI might be the last
step-down fix, a mile from the threshold, on an approach with which you
are not familiar, at an airport at which you are newly arriving, and
whose approach plate is in your flight kit in the back seat. In that
case, that skyhawk definately is a factor for you.

On a busy 122.9, that's not easy.
Yes it is. Key the mic, say "Where's RIKKI?" Very easy

The other airplanes hear "squeal...key" and don't respond. Or they hear
"where's RIKKI" and key the mike. Then you hear "squeal miles squeal
other traffic squeal advise two"

The information is shown on the Sectional Aeronautical Chart and in the
Airport/Facility Directory. Do typical VFR pilots not use these materials
to become familiar with all available information concerning a flight?

They typically become familiar with what they consider relevant
information. They do not typically memorize it. No pilot becomes
familiar with "all available" information. That's a silly impossibility
designed so that the FAA can hang you if they want.

Typically the information is only on an approach plate. VFR pilots
typically do not review approach plates. Some may never have even seen
one. It is "information", it is "available". And no I don't think it
is reasonable to expect a VFR pilot to have become familiar with all IFR
approaches into an airport.

A report that is useful to few might as well be useful to none.
Nonsense.

I'll see your nonsense and raise you a "tosh on that!".

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Good comments, Jose - I fully agree.

David Johnson

"Cubdriver" usenet AT danford DOT net wrote in message
...

No, in this case the writer is saying that the traffic on final
T-boned the the plane turning final from base.


I know what the writer is saying. The traffic on final has the
right-of-way, T-boning cannot occur unless the traffic flying from base to
final fails to yield.

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

"Cubdriver" usenet AT danford DOT net wrote in message
...

No, in this case the writer is saying that the traffic on final
T-boned the the plane turning final from base.


I know what the writer is saying. The traffic on final has the
right-of-way, T-boning cannot occur unless the traffic flying from base to
final fails to yield.


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

"Maxwell" wrote in message
m...

Aircraft flying a full pattern do have the right of way.


That's not correct.

§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing,
have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the
surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an
aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting
to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are
approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower
altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule
to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake
that aircraft.



Reporting points should be done in miles at uncontrolled airports.


Why?



Everyone should consider aircraft may be correctly operating without radio
communications.


Yes, or incorrectly operating with radio communications.


http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...h light=90-66


Did you bother to read any of that? Paragraph 8.k states; "Throughout the
traffic pattern, right-of-way rules apply as stated in FAR Part 91.113."



http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa08.pdf


From the Appendix, page 13"

"(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or
while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft
in flight or operating on the surface, except that they
shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft
off the runway surface which has already landed and is
attempting to make way for an aircraft on final
approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching
an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the
lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take
advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is
on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft."