Straight-ins at uncontrolled airports?

Casey Wilson wrote:




Maybe, if that were based just on FAR91.113b.
Where does "on final" begin? If I'm abeam the numbers on downwind and
an inbound calls "...at 3300 feet [pattern altitude] on 15 mile final" for
the same runway, can I cut in front of him or not? FAR 91.113b seems tenuous
(subjective) while 91.113g seems to explicitly deny me that option.


If you fly your normal pattern and get in front of the straight in
leaving a normal spacing then life is good. That part about not using
the fact you're on final unreasonably covers this.

Steven P. McNicoll writes:

Just what does it mean for the pattern to be full? If the pattern is truly
full, what is an itinerant arrival supposed to do? Hold somewhere until
someone gets tired of doing touch and goes?

I'm still not sure that I see the advantage to patterns. It just seems like
it puts a lot of aircraft in close proximity to each other. And unless they
are all aircraft of identical type, "the" pattern will actually be several
patterns, some with slow, low aircraft, and others with higher, faster
aircraft. Unfortunately, all of these patterns may still be sharing a single
runway. It sounds like a recipe for accidents.

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

On Feb 8, 5:11 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:
I don't understand. Are you saying you scanned for traffic, spotted traffic
one mile out on final, and then turned base?

Nope. As I said, he called straight-in final, claiming to be twenty
miles out... or about ten minutes away. Plenty of time for us to
land (I was with a CFI at the time). Less than a minute later we
turned base, but luckily spotted him coming straight in over a hill,
and only a half mile from landing... so we went around. And yes, it
was the same aircraft.

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 ;-)

I've heard others say that, but I've never found find it difficult to spot
traffic on final.

It's hilly enough around here that it can be difficult to spot an
aircraft on straight-in final.

Cheers, Kev

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:41:52 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
.. .

I know if I have time enough to land if he's telling the truth:-))
OTOH that's just inside the FAF and it might be me.


Can you rephrase that? I have no idea what you're trying to say.


And you expect me to remember?

I was referring to the comment about the 5 mile final previous to my
post. IOW if some one calls in on a 5 mile final and I'm on down
wind, I know I have at least two minutes or more (if he's telling the
truth) to land. From my position in the pattern I should know if I
have that much time. OTOH I call final when I pass the FAF for the
GPS 24 or 06 approaches. That is about 5 miles out (5.1 to be
specific) and I fly the approach at 120 MPH. That means I should get
to the runway in 2 1/2 minutes. So calling final passing the FAF lets
most of those in the area know where I am and about how much time they
have.




Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Feb 9, 3:46 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll writes:
Just what does it mean for the pattern to be full? If the pattern is truly
full, what is an itinerant arrival supposed to do? Hold somewhere until
someone gets tired of doing touch and goes?

I'm still not sure that I see the advantage to patterns. It just seems like
it puts a lot of aircraft in close proximity to each other. And unless they
are all aircraft of identical type, "the" pattern will actually be several
patterns, some with slow, low aircraft, and others with higher, faster
aircraft. Unfortunately, all of these patterns may still be sharing a single
runway. It sounds like a recipe for accidents.


On the contrary - it is usually fairly orderly, and definitely not a
recipe for accidents. Most aircraft are able to cruise at 90 - 100
kt, anything more than that makes the average circuit too small..
Everyone flies at the same altitude, and you just adjust your speed to
suit. I have had 150kt groundspeed a few times when it's just me in
the circuit, but if there were other aircraft I would definitely slow
down..

Just curious - what would you use instead? I can imagine all sorts of
chaos without a circuit/pattern - people coming from all different
directions all wanting to land.. At some airfields you can be number
ten or twelve in the circuit, I can't imagine how else you could make
arriving traffic into any sort of orderly line.. And you have some
clue where to look for people in the circuit / pattern.

This is wikipedia's take on the reason for circuits / patterns:

The use of a pattern at airfields is for air safety. Rather than have
aircraft flying around the field in a haphazard fashion, by using a
pattern pilots will know from where to expect other air traffic, and
be able to see it and avoid it. GA pilots flying under Visual Flight
Rules (VFR) will not be separated by air traffic control, and so the
pattern is a vital way to keep things orderly.


That was from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_pattern

On Feb 9, 8:22 pm, "chris" wrote:
On Feb 9, 3:46 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

Steven P. McNicoll writes:
Just what does it mean for the pattern to be full? If the pattern is truly
full, what is an itinerant arrival supposed to do? Hold somewhere until
someone gets tired of doing touch and goes?

I'm still not sure that I see the advantage to patterns. It just seems like
it puts a lot of aircraft in close proximity to each other. And unless they
are all aircraft of identical type, "the" pattern will actually be several
patterns, some with slow, low aircraft, and others with higher, faster
aircraft. Unfortunately, all of these patterns may still be sharing a single
runway. It sounds like a recipe for accidents.

On the contrary - it is usually fairly orderly, and definitely not a
recipe for accidents. Most aircraft are able to cruise at 90 - 100
kt, anything more than that makes the average circuit too small..
Everyone flies at the same altitude, and you just adjust your speed to
suit. I have had 150kt groundspeed a few times when it's just me in
the circuit, but if there were other aircraft I would definitely slow
down..

Just curious - what would you use instead? I can imagine all sorts of
chaos without a circuit/pattern - people coming from all different
directions all wanting to land.. At some airfields you can be number
ten or twelve in the circuit, I can't imagine how else you could make
arriving traffic into any sort of orderly line.. And you have some
clue where to look for people in the circuit / pattern.

This is wikipedia's take on the reason for circuits / patterns:

The use of a pattern at airfields is for air safety. Rather than have
aircraft flying around the field in a haphazard fashion, by using a
pattern pilots will know from where to expect other air traffic, and
be able to see it and avoid it. GA pilots flying under Visual Flight
Rules (VFR) will not be separated by air traffic control, and so the
pattern is a vital way to keep things orderly.

That was fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_pattern

Oh, and I forgot one other point I was going to make - if you do a
circuit at an uncontrolled field, it gives you a chance to double-
check the windsock is favourable instead of coming straight in, only
to have to do a go around if the wind is wrong.. That's if you didn't
do an overhead rejoin, which is often a good idea at uncontrolled
airfields.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll writes:

Just what does it mean for the pattern to be full? If the pattern is truly
full, what is an itinerant arrival supposed to do? Hold somewhere until
someone gets tired of doing touch and goes?

I'm still not sure that I see the advantage to patterns. It just seems like
it puts a lot of aircraft in close proximity to each other. And unless they
are all aircraft of identical type, "the" pattern will actually be several
patterns, some with slow, low aircraft, and others with higher, faster
aircraft. Unfortunately, all of these patterns may still be sharing a single
runway. It sounds like a recipe for accidents.


This is where ATC's job shines; Whereas you think they are only
there to serve pilots (from another forum, you say, "Remember, ATC is
at the service of pilots, not the other way around. In the U.S., the
pilot in command is the final authority, not ATC. That's why ATC refers
to pilots as "Sir."), you have no clue about what ATC does, nor how
they do it.

As I have mentioned, as well as people here (who are
controllers) have also mentioned, the main purpose for ATC is to
provide separation of traffic in his/her airspace. This is such a
situation. When you have a fair number of planes in the pattern for a
given field, ATC provides the separation for these planes, and keeps
the traffic running smoothly.

You would know that if you have read any documentation that
people here have told you to read. But I digress; you seem to think you
know it all, so we'll all just sit back and laugh at you while you
continue to make a complete idiot of yourself.

I'll remind myself to invoke the Dilbert Rule the next time you
start an argument (which shouldn't take long at all).

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFzCYcyBkZmuMZ8L8RAgwgAKDGmXTHAmuZ0WhvKQhIls 3tNeUC9gCg48jY
X4pjSizr3D5YRWGVMZgMcY8=
=e9im
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

chris writes:

Just curious - what would you use instead?

The skies of simulation (e.g., VATSIM) are usually pretty quiet, so I've
developed somewhat of a preference for straight-in approaches, which I suppose
is a bit of a crutch. Seeing clearly to fly a pattern is also more difficult
in simulation, although it can still be done (once I fixed the twist axis of
my throttle to let me "turn my head," things got a lot easier). Very often
there are simply no other aircraft around, so flying a pattern is academic.

As I've improved in holding headings and altitude when flying by hand, I've
flown more patterns, and sometimes I do pattern work explicitly. In Class B
airspace, however, I'll usually fly a pattern with autopilot (if I'm told to
fly the pattern), because I want to make sure that I don't stray up, down, or
sideways with a lot of other traffic nearby.

I can imagine all sorts of
chaos without a circuit/pattern - people coming from all different
directions all wanting to land.

Maybe. But wouldn't they just converge onto a straight path aligned with the
final approach?

I'm sure there is time-tested logic behind patterns, I'm just having trouble
seeing it.

The use of a pattern at airfields is for air safety. Rather than have
aircraft flying around the field in a haphazard fashion, by using a
pattern pilots will know from where to expect other air traffic, and
be able to see it and avoid it. GA pilots flying under Visual Flight
Rules (VFR) will not be separated by air traffic control, and so the
pattern is a vital way to keep things orderly.

If everyone is spaced evenly at the same speed and altitude on the same path,
I can see that. But with people moving at potentially different speeds and
altitudes, on legs of variable length, it seems more difficult. And even
though visibility isn't as good in simulation as in real life, you still can't
look behind you in real life, either.

At a busy towered airport, I'd probably request a straight-in approach if I
could get it, or file IFR and take an ILS approach.

When I'm completely alone at an airport, I've occasionally made some wild
approaches. I wouldn't do that in real life, though, because they are pretty
risky (although I usually manage to land safely).

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

chris writes:

Oh, and I forgot one other point I was going to make - if you do a
circuit at an uncontrolled field, it gives you a chance to double-
check the windsock is favourable instead of coming straight in, only
to have to do a go around if the wind is wrong.. That's if you didn't
do an overhead rejoin, which is often a good idea at uncontrolled
airfields.

An overhead region? What is that?

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

I agree that patterns are a good idea - but many don't know or don't
care about using them properly. The local uncontrolled airport on
saturday afternoon is bad enough, but things get really crazy at
aviation events. They come in from all directions and at all
altitudes, and it seems that everybody has a different idea of how
wide their pattern should be. Having a tower doesn't necessarily
insure an orderly trafffic flow - I have seen Oshkosh descend into
chaos, as I'm sure have most who have flown in there.

David Johnson