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

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.

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.

O.K, O.K. Maybe closing your eyes for five seconds may not be the best idea
I've ever come up with. Guess I should have thought that one through a
little better.

Mea culpa...



"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
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,
I'd just drop this, move on, and remember the experience. Did you get
flight following or go IFR to PRC, if so maybe I talked to you NE of
PRC. Anyway, is PRC a contract tower, I don't know, just wondering.
As far as the controller in question, a few things are possible: she
didnt say anything else about it, right? So she probably forgot about
it and moved on to other things, busy or not. If she was truly troubled
by it, but not enough to have you call in, she probably questioned
herself if she was clear enough to you in what she wanted of you.
If it was that big a deal, it'll probably be something she changes
about the clarity of her clearances, and she'll watch out for readbacks
that show the slightest amount of doubt in what's expected of the
pilot.

Personally I read alot in the tone of readbacks, even if theyre correct.
Sure, I could always say later that "hey, he read it back right, it's on
his back", but I dont like answering those kinds of questions, nor do
I like tapes pulled. Resolve it at the time if possible and move on and
do my job.

If you fly enough you know controllers and pilots both screw up. You
also know, as someone else rightly pointed out, that a controller can
be manipulative, unfairly so to make you look bad and them good. I
see it fairly often with certain personality types where I work. It's
almost as if they're setting someone up for failure for their own
kicks. I'm not implying that was the case here, might've been a power
play on her part, she mightve been genuinely surprised or alarmed
to not see you where she expected. But if there was no traffic, why
make a big deal of it. We dont have the tape, we dont know how
she put it. It could've been just her way of talking that seemed rude
to you, but wasn't her intent. If she said nothing else about it, she
didnt consider it a big deal, and neither should you.

At the risk of this post being longwinded, I'll give you a recent
example. It alone will probably flare up this topic again with
people and their opinions and references. For some reason,
this airline we regularly work started changing the way they
operate and comply with clearances out of one of our airports.
In short, they get a VFR climb on an IFR clearance and think
they can deviate 120 degrees from their IFR route, but the
clearance they request, and receive, is VFR climb on course,
which in itself is a questionable clearance in itself IMO, but
that's another story. Anyway, imagine Dept Pt A, first fix
is Pt B about 25nm away is a 200 heading, Pt C is about 100
nm away on a 050 heading. These aircraft would take off
and fly a 130 heading to join the course between B and C, or
just turn direct C. This started hapenning on a daily basis,
several times a day, different crews. Controllers were noticing,
and not particularly caring for it, but not saying anything about
it except amongst themselves. Finally, as tactfully as I could,
I asked what was up. I guess my only real beef is that they ask
for VFR climbs, the airlines I'm talking about here, but they
really only want it to climb on course (no departure procedure)
and dont want the responsibility of separating themselves, which
a VFR climb requires. But I didnt bring it up with these guys (2
different crews), I just said if all of us had the "no harm, no foul"
rule, we'd let it slide if there wasnt traffic. But the ONE time
there is traffic and this turn puts them right in its face, the crew
will have to answer as to how they perceived "as filed" meant
a deviation like this. They apologized and saw the point I was
trying to make, which is basically covering their own butts. I
told them it wouldnt go any further than that, but just ask for the
shortcut, how often is that particular one turned down? Hardly
ever. Luckily, this sector is kind of off by itself and out of the
hearing range of my supervisor. Once they hear something like
this, the "no harm, no foul" rule goes right out the window and
it's nothing but trouble for everyone involved. Phone calls, etc.

Point I'm trying to make (slowly, gradually, sorry) is that I'm
sure theres been times where I may have snipped at a pilot that
messed up, it's hapenned to me as a pilot (sometimes my mistake,
sometimes not). I cant speak for all controllers, but most I know
are over it pretty quickly, whether you stay on freq for just a
few more seconds or an hour. If I notice myself doing that, and
I get the impression the pilot feels as if he's on the verge of having
to call in or get violated, I try to make it clear that is not the case.
I only get in trouble by my conversational tone on freq, which the
supervisors hate, and I hear about regularly. Now you see why
I dont want tapes pulled? Picture hangar flying, that kind of
chit-chat, but on freq. Makes for a more enjoyable and relaxed
experience for all, and that's what I'm shooting for.

One last thought, in reference to your "it is potentially
dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently"
statement, more controllers should be pilots. That wont change
the definitions, but less of an "us against them" mentality that
is out there.

As usual, these are just my observations, experience, and opinions.
You guys that argue just for arguments sake, or flame for kicks, can
pound it sideways, as my main man Phil Hendrie says.
To the rest, happy flying,
Chris

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 20:11:23 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
wrote in
. net::

more controllers should be pilots.

And, the corollary, more pilots should be familiar with Order 7110.65,
is also true.

Okay, I'll give it one more go. Like many of you, I am fascinated by this
passion for flight that occupies many of our souls. I started this thread
to present a real-world flying example that I thought some of you would find
interesting. Judging by the many different perspectives presented, many of
you seem quite engaged by the topic. Initially, I also hoped to learn
something, and share a possible flying error that I thought I may have
committed, so that others could potentially learn something. And, yes, I am
an ATP/CFII who's very lucky to be able to fly an aerobatic,
high-performance, complex, taildragger from Mexico to Canada--and everywhere
in between. I'm fairly experienced, but that doesn't mean that I don't make
constant mistakes while flying (like all of you).

Of course, USENET has its limitations (not the least of which is having to
occasionally come into contact with rude, over-bearing people who insist on
making presumptuous personal attacks in their zeal to convince people how
much smarter they are than anyone else). I won't engage in similar
behavior, but I think everyone knows the individuals I'm talking about. For
those of you who have approached this topic professionally, without
resorting to such uncivil conduct, I thank you for your insights and
thoughts. I'm always amazed at how the relative anonymity of the Internet
compels people to make the most absurd and offensive comments about complete
strangers. During my 20 years in the Marine Corps, such communication in
public would often end up with the offending individual picking his teeth
off the bar-room floor.

In between all the nasty comments and boorish behavior, I still think
there's a lot of valuable learning going on, so I'll persist. I think I've
been able to finally resolve the issue I originally presented (at least in
my mind).

Here's what I learned thus far, and how:

I called a Class C airport near where I reside and spoke to their "ATC
Procedures Specialist" named Doug. Doug told me many interesting things:

(1) The expression "Report 5 miles final" is not an instruction. It is
not standard phraseology, and thus it is merely a request. Hence, there was
no legal obligation to even comply with the request (certainly there was no
violation of the FARs as some of you seem to believe). Moreover, Doug
believes there is never a requirement to fly to a precise spot on the
extended centerline during a VFR final approach (as some of you so
passionately have stated repeatedly)--regardless of whether the controller
makes this "Report X miles Final" REQUEST.

(2) At Doug's airport, they consider every approach within a 45 degree
cone of the centerline to comply with the "Make Straight In, Runway X"
instruction. Clearly, there is NO OBLIGATION to intercept the centerline at
any PARTICULAR point (although it must be intercepted at SOME point to land
the plane; which I clearly did in this case--at ~1/2 mile from the numbers).

I then called KPRC, and spoke to a very cordial gentlemen named Mr. Paul
Wirdsky (sp?), who is assigned as the Tower Manager. He is the supervisor
of the controller who precipitated this thread. After listening to my
account, he stated the following:

(1) He believes his controller clearly made a mistake, and that there is
no obligation for a pilot to intercept the centerline precisely at any
particular point. In his view, flying directly towards the airport as I
did, and aligning with the runway at about 1/2 NM before landing, was the
proper and correct thing to do.

(2) He is reviewing the tape, and will counsel the controller on her
well-intended but poorly-delivered "correction" of a pilot when the
controller mistakenly applied her own personal misinterpretation of the
regulations.

These guys seem fairly definitive to me. Oops, sorry--this is USENET. I
know some of you still will never accept their well-informed opinions, so
let me offer some additional ideas for you to think about (so perhaps logic
will prevail where expert opinion does not).

In reference to the following definition:

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.

There is nothing in this definition that suggests the pilot must intercept
the extended runway centerline at any particular point (rather it simply
must be intercepted at SOME point). Consequently, the real issue I posed is
whether one can be "on final" without being precisely on the extended
centerline. I believe you obviously can. Here's some specific themes on
the topic:

(1) Flying is inherently IMPRECISE. Specifically, nobody flies on or
intercepts an extended centerline PRECISELY. No one. Not on an ILS, not
visually, not ever. If the FAR and PTS standard was "The Applicant must
intercept the extended centerline at precisely the distance instructed by
the controller to report on final," not one of us would have our tickets.
So, what's an acceptable level of precision? I asked this question before,
but none of the naysayers seemed to respond. If I HAVE to fly to the
extended centerline at precisely 5NM, how far can I be off and not violate
the FARs? 1 foot? 10 feet? 1/4 mile? BTW, how does even one FIND this
precise position without reference to a GPS? Even if I have a GPS, do we
measure from the numbers, the touchdown zone, or the Airport Reference Point
(ARP)? Clearly, trying to apply this level of precision when flying VFR at
150 kts is ridiculous. I think a better standard might be the one posed by
the ATC Procedures Specialist above where "every approach within a 45 degree
cone of the centerline complies with the "Make Straight In, Runway X"
instruction."

(2) "Final" is a general direction. I can approach any airport from any one
of 360 possible angles (in whole degrees). Thus, the odds are 1/360 that
the direction I am approaching from is precisely aligned with the runway
centerline. The question you should ask yourself is what maximum number of
degrees you would be comfortable being offset from the centerline so that
you would call it a final approach? 0.1 deg? 1 deg? 10 degs? 30 degs?
45 degs? In other words, don't think of final as ONE specific heading, but
a SET of headings all generally aligned towards the runway. A downwind and
base leg should similarly be defined in terms of a GENERAL direction--not a
specific and precise line.

(3) "Final" is a state of mind. If I MUST be on the extended centerline to
be on "final" (a statement which many of you have made), how do you account
for S-Turns? How do you justify deliberately off-setting for wake
turbulence? When a gust knocks me off the centerline, am I no longer on
final? If I slip it in without once being on the centerline (until the
flare), did I just make an approach "without flying a final?" Please.

BTW, since many of you asked: There was no traffic within the Class D
airspace known to me--certainly none in my view, and the control frequency
was not used at any time between my initial check-in, and my "5 Mile Final"
report. FWIW, I also learned that the KPRC Tower has radar.

In short, I've concluded my decision-making and behavior in this particular
situation to be safe, legal, justifiable, and 100% correct. I would do the
exact same thing next time, and I encourage my fellow pilots to consider
doing the same. That said, there's certainly nothing WRONG with offsetting
to intercept the extended centerline at an extended distance from the
airport in order to get more time to get setup for the landing, etc. (just a
little circuitous for my tastes--as well as potentially dangerous or
impracticable in some situations when considering terrain, etc.). Of
course, many of you will find gross fault with the above, while continuing
to nit-pick, argue about punctuation, and throw wildly uninformed
accusations about the competency of myself and the ATC folks I've cited
above. Ahhh, USENET. Recommend everyone try to get a little less keyboard
time, and a whole lot more stick time. Thanks!

Fair winds,

Jim

"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."

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."

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.

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?

Regards, Jim

"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message
...
[...]
In short, I've concluded my decision-making and behavior in this
particular
situation to be safe, legal, justifiable, and 100% correct.

You are hilarious. By your own admission, you were at a position different
from where you claim to be, and yet you still persist in thinking that a
bunch of other different statements make you right. You might want to
(re?)read the FAA's publications regarding the five hazardous attitudes.

Whatever...you're right, this is Usenet, and it takes all sorts. I just
hope I'm not around the next time you report your position. I prefer that
people claiming to be at a particular spot actually *be there*.

Pete

you were at a position different from where you claim to be

Nope. I was at a position EXACTLY where I claimed to be. I was 5 miles
from the airport, and I WAS on final. Thus "5 Miles Final."

As I have attempted to point out numerous times, the real issue is: "Must
you be on the extended centerline to be on final?" You believe the answer
is "Yes." I belive that the answer is "No."

Aviation is funny like that. Do you slip with flaps? Do you climb initally
at Vx or Vy on takeoff? Do you power for altitude and pitch for airspeed
(or vice versa)? We can agree to disagree, but I think you are just as
wrong as you appear to believe I am.

Pete, please answer the following question: "Have you ever approached the
runway on the final leg of your pattern NOT on the extended centerline?"
Congratulations, Pete! You just flew what somebody called an "angled final"
in an earlier email.

I like the expression "angled final" in some ways. It accurately captures
my contention that ALL FINALS ARE ANGLED. The trivial case is, of course,
the final that just happens to be on the extended centerline (this would be
the 0 deg angle). Thus, since all finals are angled, "angled" is redundant.

Regards, Jim

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message
...
[...]
In short, I've concluded my decision-making and behavior in this
particular
situation to be safe, legal, justifiable, and 100% correct.

You are hilarious. By your own admission, you were at a position
different
from where you claim to be, and yet you still persist in thinking that a
bunch of other different statements make you right. You might want to
(re?)read the FAA's publications regarding the five hazardous attitudes.

Whatever...you're right, this is Usenet, and it takes all sorts. I just
hope I'm not around the next time you report your position. I prefer that
people claiming to be at a particular spot actually *be there*.

Pete

you were at a position different from where you claim to be

Nope. I was at a position EXACTLY where I claimed to be. I was 5 miles
from the airport, and I WAS on final. Thus "5 Miles Final."

As I have attempted to point out numerous times, the real issue is: "Must
you be on the extended centerline to be on final?" You believe the answer
is "Yes." I belive that the answer is "No."

I suspect this could go on for a long time, but legalities aside, does anyone
disagree with the notion that "5 mile final" position report would by most of
us suggest that somewhere mainly along the extended centerline of the runway is
where we'd probably see traffic?

I respectfully submit that as pilots we get in the habit of making position
reports -- at controlled airports or not -- so as to help other airplanes FIND
THE DAMNED TRAFFIC!!!

Thank you for your consideration.

"Jim Cummiskey" wrote in message
news:qHoTc.37435$ih.16698@fed1read07...

Nope. I was at a position EXACTLY where I claimed to be. I was 5 miles
from the airport, and I WAS on final. Thus "5 Miles Final."


You're changing your story. In your initial message you wrote; "At 5 miles
from the airport (still offset from the centerline), I report '5 mile
final'." So which is it? Were you on final when you reported or were you
offset from the centerline?



As I have attempted to point out numerous times, the real issue is: "Must
you be on the extended centerline to be on final?" You believe the answer
is "Yes." I belive that the answer is "No."


You say that like it's a matter of opinion.