"Cleared Straight-In Runway X; Report Y Miles Final"

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message
...

Regardless, a plane flying "to the numbers" from 30 degrees off the
downwind side will cross every possible base leg to that runway.

It will also cross every possible downwind leg at some point. For
example, a plane on downwind set up for a 1/2 mile base leg could
collide with the inbound plane 0.866 miles downwind from the numbers.

On the other hand, if that inbound plane were to set up for a 5 mile
final, there would be no possible conflict for any pattern
configuration inside those 5 miles. That's a great reason for a tower
controller to ask for it.


It's a good reason if she has or anticipates other traffic.

Hi,

Recently, Peter Duniho posted:

"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message
...
Actually, no. If you think about it, if you approach the numbers at
a ~30 deg angle, and a "proper" downwind to base turn is made at a
~45 deg angle, there will be no conflict whatsover.

How do you figure that? Firstly, the "45 degree key point" taught
students for where to turn base is just a rule of thumb...base turns
are made much earlier and much later than that, depending on factors
other than just following a rote procedure.

Secondly, the flight path of an airplane flying 90 degrees to the
runway heading on base intersects the flight path of an airplane
flying 30 degrees to the runway heading, heading straight for the
numbers. Since the flight paths intersect, there certainly IS a
potential for a conflict.

This thoery is correct, AFAICT. However, in practice that should get the
controller issuing such a clearance fired. I don't *ever* want to be on a
straight-in 5 mile final if other traffic is going to wind up on some
random variant of base at the same time. That said, There are many times
at controlled airports (and even more at uncontrolled airports) when there
are aircraft on base and final (and everywhere else) at the same time. The
controllers call out those positions and issue a clearance if the other
traffic is in sight. I've also had controllers call my base turn during
heavy traffic.

IOW, the controller's job is to insure spacing. As Jim hasn't mentioned
whether there was other traffic inbound or in the pattern, I'd think that
would be an important factor in whether he was right or wrong to be
off-center. If there was no traffic, there'd be no conflict and the
controller was just being manipulative. If there was traffic, and the
controller didn't call it out, that might be grounds for complaint. After
all is said and done, the FARs make it quite clear who the PIC is, and one
requirement is that they're in the cockpit.

Neil

I think Steven interprets the parenthetic reference to "final approach
course" as a definition of Final Approach Course as the Extended Runway
Centerline.

Whether that is a valid definition and a true requirement could come into
question, but I'm inclined to agree with Steven on this one. IMHO, if a
request from Tower for a "straight in approach" was the same as a request
from Tower for "straight for the numbers", one of the two terms would not
be used.

I've found in my few years of flying that the cost of 60 seconds in the air
is generally cheaper than the cost of compromising safety and/or breaking
rules...


"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in
:

STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH VFR- Entry into the traffic pattern by
interception of the extended runway centerline (final approach course)
without executing any other portion of the traffic pattern.

Thanks, Steven. Just to be clear, what source are you quoting this
from? Also, I must point out that my approach and landing met this
criteria. I "intercepted the extended runway centerline without
executing any other portion of the traffic pattern." In this case, I
chose to intercept the extended runway centerline at approximately 1/4
mile from the numbers, while reporting a "Five Mile Final" when I was
five miles from doing so. The issue is: Was this correct? Or, must
a pilot literally intercept the extended center line at a specific
distance (which some on this forum seem to assume that the controller
implied when she directed me to "Report 5 miles final")?

Regards, Jim


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

"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message
...

Hi, all. Ran into this one flying back from KOSH a couple weeks
ago:

I check in with the KPRC controller "20 Miles NE" of Love Field in
Prescott, AZ. She clears me with "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L,
Report 5 miles final."


What did she clear you for? "Cleared Straight-in Runway 21L" is not
an approach or landing clearance.



I fly directly towards the numbers. My heading was approximately
240 (hence, I'm ~30 deg off of the extended centerline).

At 5 miles from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I
report "5 mile final." She questions my position and gets all
snippy (indeed, darn right rude) that I am "not on final" since I am
not on the extended centerline. She patronizingly cautions me to be
"careful about this."


Well, she's right about not being on final. "Final" means that an
aircraft is on the final approach course or is aligned with the
runway.



Hence, the question is "What does 'Cleared Straight-in; Report X
miles Final" really mean?" Is it. . . .

(1) You must fly directly from your current position to a point on
the extended centerline that is X miles from the numbers, and then
report (sounds like a base to me).

or

(2) You can fly directly from your current position to the numbers
(thus "straight-in"), and report when you are X miles away.


"Straight-in" by itself is undefined, but there are other defined
terms that include it.

STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH IFR- An instrument approach wherein final
approach is begun without first having executed a procedure turn, not
necessarily completed with a straight-in landing or made to
straight-in landing minimums.

STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH VFR- Entry into the traffic pattern by
interception of the extended runway centerline (final approach course)
without executing any other portion of the traffic pattern.

STRAIGHT-IN LANDING- A landing made on a runway aligned within 30° of
the final approach course following completion of an instrument
approach.



I obviously vote for #2, but the controller clearly thought
otherwise (it seems to me that if 30 deg = "straight-in" in the IFR
domain, it ought to work well enough for VFR situations).
Regardless, it is potentially dangerous when controllers and pilots
define things differently. Which definition is right?


For VFR purposes, you're not on "final" until you're aligned with the
runway. She instructed you to report a five mile final, which you
would never be on unless you altered your course to the airport.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message

....a very quick,
through, competent, intelligent individual... [who] manages his own
[__________]

Your descriptive above exactly applies to the type of accomplished
professionals in other fields (such as physicians, or programmers) who may
well think themselves smarter than the aviation system. However, your fine
personal commendation would outweigh what may be my misinterpretation of the
simple printed word. If I have done so I apologize to Mr. Cumminsky.


Perhaps the root of the confusion stems from the two disparate
meanings for the same term 'Final' under IFR and VFR.

I'm not sure. IFR and VFR are two different worlds, and ought not be that
easily confused. The IFR discuss and define 'approach segments', etc.,
while the VFR do not, as I recall. Perhaps back one step further, I think
to the tome that used to be referred to as the 'TERPS manual'; to the
standard that allows an established instrument approach to be defined as
'straight-in' if aligned within 30 degrees of the runway. You could be on a
final approach segment under IFR while off centerline by 25 degrees, but
that definition would not carry over to "being on final approach" under VFR.

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message
...

Regardless, a plane flying "to the numbers" from 30 degrees off the
downwind side will cross every possible base leg to that runway.

It will also cross every possible downwind leg at some point. For
example, a plane on downwind set up for a 1/2 mile base leg could
collide with the inbound plane 0.866 miles downwind from the numbers.

On the other hand, if that inbound plane were to set up for a 5 mile
final, there would be no possible conflict for any pattern
configuration inside those 5 miles. That's a great reason for a tower
controller to ask for it.


It's a good reason if she has or anticipates other traffic.

Ity's probably time for the OP'er to say he now sees he may have been in error.
The good thing about posting the quesiton is that it also may have made some
readers more aware of what ATC instructions mean.

As an aside, a long tiome ago I was making an ILS into BED after dark, and
tower asked me for a landing light so they could see where I was (this was a
long time ago). Now that was a time when I did not comply with tower -- a
landing light in the clouds is a good way to really screw up night vision. I
told them the landing light would have to wait until I had the runway in sight.

Relative to your anecdote, I have a question: Why not simply close your
eyes, turn on your landing light for five seconds, turn it off, open your
eyes? This would have given tower their visual ID without impacting your
night vision.

If you're flying an ILS and in a cloud it could be safely assumed you are on
an IFR flight plan, in which case tower would have been providing
separation.

If you're in a cloud, you would not be able to maintain separation yourself
as you wouldn't be able to see much of anything, especially at night.

If your aircraft is properly trimmed, five seconds away from the panel and
controls should not have a serious impact on aircraft stability.

It sounds like the situation described earlier on this thread where your
entire focus was on your wants and needs, with no consideration for the
larger picture.



"AJW" wrote in message
...

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message
...

Regardless, a plane flying "to the numbers" from 30 degrees off the
downwind side will cross every possible base leg to that runway.

It will also cross every possible downwind leg at some point. For
example, a plane on downwind set up for a 1/2 mile base leg could
collide with the inbound plane 0.866 miles downwind from the numbers.

On the other hand, if that inbound plane were to set up for a 5 mile
final, there would be no possible conflict for any pattern
configuration inside those 5 miles. That's a great reason for a tower
controller to ask for it.


It's a good reason if she has or anticipates other traffic.

Ity's probably time for the OP'er to say he now sees he may have been in
error.
The good thing about posting the quesiton is that it also may have made
some
readers more aware of what ATC instructions mean.

As an aside, a long tiome ago I was making an ILS into BED after dark, and
tower asked me for a landing light so they could see where I was (this was
a
long time ago). Now that was a time when I did not comply with tower -- a
landing light in the clouds is a good way to really screw up night vision.
I
told them the landing light would have to wait until I had the runway in
sight.

"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message ...
What would an instructor say when we line up for 'final' at 30 degrees
to the runway? Probably not good job'...

Well, let's see. I got on the ground efficiently and precisely with the
minimum amount of fuel and time required.

That happens to me all the time. It does not mean that every flying
decision I make is correct

It was a completely safe
operation, and consistent with my understanding of the FARs and common
sense. Since I do hold a CFI ticket, that's exactly what I would have said
g There's a big difference between teaching a student to fly precise
legs in the pattern, and the real-world of getting from A to B.

What if ATC replies 'make left traffic, report 5 mile left base'?
Would you have driven straight for the numbers?

Nope, I would have driven straight for the normal point in the pattern where
one turns from base to final (approximately 1/2 mile from the numbers at a
45 deg angle to the runway). Actually, your question (although deliberately
smart-alecky and inane), really brings this problem into base relief. Are
you suggesting that I should have picked a point on the EXTENDED BASE 5
miles away and flown to that? If so, I see that as clearly just as wrong as
the "Report Y Miles Final" issue. In my view, a pilot should fly DIRECT to
the turning points in the pattern, NOT artifically extended just because the
controller really wants to know, "When will you be about five miles away?"

Obviously, this is your view, but where is documentation or FARs that
show it to be a true view?

Flying from 20 miles NE to the point 5 miles out on the RW centerline
is a bit less than 16 miles.

So rather than flying 20 miles in a straight line you fly 21 miles in
a pair of lines...


Thus, my decision to fly DIRECT to the point in the pattern where one turns
from base to final seems justifiable (while reporting five miles away from
the airport). Thoughts?

My thoughts are what happens to subsequent inbound traffic on a long
left base told to look for traffic on a long 5-mile final?


HankC

"Jim Cummiskey" writes:

[...] If so, please define "on the extended center line" for me.
How close is close enough? 10 ft? 100 ft? 1/4 mile? 30 degrees
at 20 miles? Perhaps some of the folks on this forum can just fly
much more precisely than I do g. [...]

30 degrees at 20 miles translates to about 10 miles off the extended
centerline. That would be wide by a space larger than the entire
control zone. 30 degrees at 5 miles is 2.5, which is wider than the
entire typical VFR circuit. Does this basic trigonometry help put your
error into perspective?

- FChE

Relative to your anecdote, I have a question: Why not simply close your
eyes, turn on your landing light for five seconds, turn it off, open your
eyes? This would have given tower their visual ID without impacting your
night vision.

If you're flying an ILS and in a cloud it could be safely assumed you are on
an IFR flight plan, in which case tower would have been providing
separation.

If you're in a cloud, you would not be able to maintain separation yourself
as you wouldn't be able to see much of anything, especially at night.

If your aircraft is properly trimmed, five seconds away from the panel and
controls should not have a serious impact on aircraft stability.

It sounds like the situation described earlier on this thread where your
entire focus was on your wants and needs, with no consideration for the
larger picture.



"AJW" wrote in message
...

As an aside, a long tiome ago I was making an ILS into BED after dark, and
tower asked me for a landing light so they could see where I was (this was
a
long time ago). Now that was a time when I did not comply with tower -- a
landing light in the clouds is a good way to really screw up night vision.
I
told them the landing light would have to wait until I had the runway in
sight.


Sorry, but in the circumstances I cited, I told the tower They'd get no light
until I was out of the clouds, and they didn't complain. WhenI'm flying an
approach in clouds at night I turn off strobes, too. I do NOT fly with my eyes
shut, not even for 5 seconds.

Re traffic avoidance, it was solid IFR, I think the ceiling had to have been
about 300 feet or so. I don't remember if there was someone at the threshold
waiting to go, although it's likely with approach painting me a ciouple of
miles out that they'd have realeased someone for take off.

I think in this case I made the right decision, but it'll be interesting to see
what others here will say.

"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message ...
What would an instructor say when we line up for 'final' at 30 degrees
to the runway? Probably not good job'...

Well, let's see. I got on the ground efficiently and precisely with the
minimum amount of fuel and time required. It was a completely safe
operation, and consistent with my understanding of the FARs and common
sense. Since I do hold a CFI ticket, that's exactly what I would have said
g There's a big difference between teaching a student to fly precise
legs in the pattern, and the real-world of getting from A to B.

What if ATC replies 'make left traffic, report 5 mile left base'?
Would you have driven straight for the numbers?

Nope, I would have driven straight for the normal point in the pattern where
one turns from base to final (approximately 1/2 mile from the numbers at a
45 deg angle to the runway). Actually, your question (although deliberately
smart-alecky and inane), really brings this problem into base relief.

Thank you. I was hoping to get you to look at this from different
*angle*

The need to name-call those with differing opinions is telling.

Are
you suggesting that I should have picked a point on the EXTENDED BASE 5
miles away and flown to that? If so, I see that as clearly just as wrong as
the "Report Y Miles Final" issue. In my view, a pilot should fly DIRECT to
the turning points in the pattern, NOT artifically extended just because the
controller really wants to know, "When will you be about five miles away?"

That is not the question being asked.

The question is "When will you be about five miles out on final?"...

Thus, my decision to fly DIRECT to the point in the pattern where one turns
from base to final seems justifiable (while reporting five miles away from
the airport). Thoughts?

You did not say you were flying to a "the point in the pattern where
one turns from base to final" (original post: "I fly directly towards
the numbers"). Even if you had, you imply (final-ly) that 'final' is
the RW centerline...

After all, how can one fly a 'final' to a point where base intercepts
'final' and then turn on 'final' if you were on 'final' all along?


HankC