interesting moment yesterday on final

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

That aircraft in the pattern have the right of way. You know, the part you
snipped.


AC 90-66A does not indicate that aircraft in the pattern have the
right-of-way over aircraft on final.



IFR fixes provide zero informaiton to a VFR pilot.


Is bad information better than no information?



Only because you wish to ignore the FAA recommendations in AC 90-66.
Aircraft entering on a straight in approach should not disrupt traffic in
the pattern.


I'll ignore all recommendations that are discourteous , reduce safety, and
are inconsistent with the FARs. Everybody should.

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

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news

Because it screws up everyone else in the pattern! I absolutely HATE it
when some dolt in a C152 insists on flying a B-52 pattern!


Me too, but we're talking about a straight-in approach.



People that insist on straight in approaches at uncontrolled fields are just
as bad if not worse. Not following FAA recommend procedures is proabably
worse.

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

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

Because 10 miles is not a final, it's an approach.


Where do you find those definitions?



AC 90-66A, if you believe in such things.

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

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

Paragraph 8e states the turn to base leg should commence 45 degrees from
the threshold, which requires final to be the approximately as long as
the
downwind is from the runway.


Stating that the turn from downwind to base leg should commence 45 degrees
from the threshold does not mean that final does not extend beyond the
base leg.

So now you are going to try to convince us that final doesn't follow base
leg. Do you have a reference?




Where is AC 90-66 inconsistant with the FARs?


FAR 91.113(g) states very clearly that aircraft on final have the
right-of-way. If you believe AC 90-66A says aircraft flying a full
pattern have the right of way you must believe that AC 90-66A is
inconsistent with the FARs.


No, as a matter of fact, the FAA clearly states in AC 90-66A that:

Aircraft on straight in approach should not disturb traffic in the standard
traffic pattern;

And, right-of-way rules apply as stated in FAR 91.113.

Obviously the FAA interprets FAR 91.113 much differently than you do.

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

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

Sure it does. You can easily have two aircraft on final after their turn
from base leg.


How does FAR 91.113(g) apply in that case?


Just as it's stated. If two aircraft turn final from base leg, 91.113g is
still very useful.

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

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

Again, so what's you point?


It was stated, "If conditions are so bad that the arriving aircraft can't
transition in time, then it's unlikely that the airport is VFR legal
anyway." The airport can remain legal well after conditions deteriorate
to preclude circling.



Since AC 90-66A doesn't speak to that particular point, and I'm not aware of
anything that does, maybe you should ask the FAA?

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

AC 90-66A, if you believe in such things.

Please cite them.

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

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

So what's you point?


Circling may not be an option.



I don't know, you snipped it.


I snipped nothing.


You're trolling.

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

"Maxwell" wrote in message
...

AC 90-66A, if you believe in such things.

Please cite them.


You can read, can't you?

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

"Jose" wrote in message
t...

The object of conveying position is to let others know where to look for
you, so that they can =see= where you are. Otherwise we'd all be happy
with UAVs flying around. And no that's not a non-sequitor.


The object of conveying position is to let others know where you are. If
others know where you are it may be unnecessary for them to =see= where
you are.



They have to know where RIKKI is with respect to where they are. That's
subtlely (but importantly) different from simply knowing where RIKKI is.
They also need to know where you are =actually= going, and where they are
headed. They need to =maintain= separation. Once you are past RIKKI,
nobody knows where you are. That is where visual acquisition comes in
handy.


If they know where RIKKI is and they know where they are they know where
RIKKI is with respect to where they are.



You are unusual.


Not really, many pilots make an effort to be aware of what's around them.



No.

All information has bearing on a flight. Most information's impact is
marginal, and safely ignored. It can reasonably be argued that the
location of the last IFR stepdown fix on a newly commissioned NDB
approach
whose location is only revealed on the latest IFR plates would constitute
such marginal information as it concerns a VFR flight in CAVU conditions.
It could also be reasonably argued that the location of "the playground"
is equally marginal. Until, after an accident, it turns out that one of
the aircraft reported "over the playground", and the other aircraft
should
of course know exactly where he is, and his failure to do so consitituted
failure to "be familiar with all relevant information...". (Change "the
playground" to "the lady" for a more compelling but equally valid
example).


The relevant information is the information that concerns that flight.
That's what relevant means.



In what case? On what sectional is RIKKI?


The case we're talking about is GALEY, near Houghton County airport. It's
on the Green Bay sectional.



And yes, typical VFR pilots use sectionals, and have them in the cockpit.
However, they don't memorize all the intersections, and trying to find
one
on the chart one while approaching a busy pattern is not good piloting
procedure.


They don't examine them during flight planning to familiarize themselves
with their destination?