Straight-ins at uncontrolled airports?

Advisory Circular 90-66A, Operations at Airports Without an Operating
Control Tower, is the reference. It clearly illustrates straight-in
approaches to both single and parallel runways.

Bob Gardner

"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...
I haven't flown in a while, but am in the market for a used plane.

I recalling hearing somewhere that straight-in approaches are now approved
at uncontrolled airports. Is this correct?

Danny Deger

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com wrote in message
news:ELCdnYJpMrZIJFrYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...
I haven't flown in a while, but am in the market for a used plane.

I recalling hearing somewhere that straight-in approaches are now
approved at uncontrolled airports. Is this correct?



I assume you are not trying to win friends and influance people?

I am gleening from this thread the state of straight-ins has not changed
over the years. To me a key is how busy the pattern is. If I am lined up
at night, I like the straight-in. It is pretty rare to have a full pattern
at night.

Danny Deger

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

"Crash Lander" wrote in message
...

Yes, but that doesn't mean an a/c can just cut short the pattern and push
in front of everyone else just because he wants to come straight in.


Someone cutting a pattern short wouldn't be on a straight-in approach.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

As others have told you, it's never been illegal to do a straight-in
approach.

However, PLEASE try to refrain from doing them when the pattern is
full. Not only is it rude, it's often dangerous to attempt when
you've got three on downwind, one on base, and one already on final.
I see this happen all too often -- almost invariably by the charter
guys, who have a paying guy in the back that's late for his meeting --
and it results in frayed nerves and flared tempers.


Simple solution. The straight-in should follow the aircraft on base and the
aircraft on downwind alter their patterns to follow the straight-in.

"Jim" wrote in message
news

Yes. This is particularly wonderful when a pilot announces a
five-mile straight-in final to an uncontrolled field.


How is it wonderful?

"Kev" wrote in message
ups.com...

Exactly. They need to announce down to about every mile to the field
on a straight-in. I've had someone announce they were twenty miles
out on a straight-in, so I turned base. Lo and behold they were
actually one mile out... and cut me off.


Sounds like you were cutting him off. Did you scan for traffic?

Bingo. AC90-66A is current and applicable.
91.126 does not apply because it is limited to "turns" in the traffic
pattern, not the approach itself. There should be no turns in a straight in
approach and all maneuvering should be performed prior to the traffic
pattern. Pay heed to other traffic and 91.111 or 91.113 won't catch you
either.
Jim

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
. ..
Advisory Circular 90-66A, Operations at Airports Without an Operating
Control Tower, is the reference. It clearly illustrates straight-in
approaches to both single and parallel runways.

Bob Gardner

"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...
I haven't flown in a while, but am in the market for a used plane.

I recalling hearing somewhere that straight-in approaches are now
approved at uncontrolled airports. Is this correct?

Danny Deger

In article ,
"Danny Deger" wrote:

I haven't flown in a while, but am in the market for a used plane.

I recalling hearing somewhere that straight-in approaches are now approved
at uncontrolled airports. Is this correct?

Danny Deger

I prefer the overhead break to the downwind, where you can see other
traffic and space yourself accordingly. We do this all the time at
Spruce Creek -- especially when flying formation. It gets everybody on
the ground fastest.

"Danny Deger" wrote in message
...
I haven't flown in a while, but am in the market for a used plane.

I recalling hearing somewhere that straight-in approaches are now approved
at uncontrolled airports. Is this correct?

Danny Deger

As has been pointed out, there is nothing "illegal" about straight in
approaches. The issue is whether you are really, really sure you are not
disrupting other aircraft operating in the standard pattern.

Also, there are people out there in camouflaged Cubs which don't have
radios. No matter how many calls you make, they won't hear you. So
(hypothetically), your safety could depend on you seeing an aircraft that is
very hard to see against certain backgrounds. Alternately, you are depending
on the pilot of that airplane (which has poor external pattern visibility)
seeing you.

From my perspective, traffic patterns are spooky even without people flying
non-standard patterns. There is simply no way to be 100% certain you've seen
all the traffic. So I do everything I can to increase my chances of seeing
everyone else and making sure they see me. That means standard pattern
entries...

I might add, that pilots doing a straight-in landing for Instrument
practice, should be sure to announce their intentions and distance....
a lot. Too often I hear something like "Podunk Traffic, Flyswatter
123 inbound VOR-A, passing Bipsy. [Where "BIPSY" or whatever is an
inbound instrument waypoint.] Most VFR pilots have no clue what or
where these codes and waypoints are. This makes for nasty close
calls on the base and final legs.

Please always add something like "Ten miles north, straight-in for
landing runway 18".

Kev

On top of all that, what if the instrument approach happens to be
downwind, and the pilot never intended to land anyway (planned missed
approach)? It makes a real mess of the traffic flow. Does everybody
else have to get out of their way? I don't think so.

IMHO these folks have no business flying practice approaches if there
is any significant
traffic at the (uncontrolled) airport in question.