GPS approach in VFR wx at uncontrolled field

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

... and as was pointed out here recently, if you wish to do a straight-in
approach to landing, you must not interfere with any airplanes in the
traffic pattern. You must break-off your approach and join the traffic
pattern at the appropriate altitude, etc.


A straight-in has the right of way.

Mark Hansen wrote:



... and as was pointed out here recently,


If so then that person was wrong.


if you wish to do a straight-in
approach to landing, you must not interfere with any airplanes in the
traffic pattern.

No such FAR.


You must break-off your approach and join the traffic
pattern at the appropriate altitude, etc.

Hogwash

On 03/12/07 17:03, Newps wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:



... and as was pointed out here recently,


If so then that person was wrong.

Oh, great. Now I have to remember where I read that ;-\

I'll try to remember and post back.




if you wish to do a straight-in
approach to landing, you must not interfere with any airplanes in the
traffic pattern.

No such FAR.


You must break-off your approach and join the traffic
pattern at the appropriate altitude, etc.

Hogwash

On 03/12/07 17:44, Mark Hansen wrote:
On 03/12/07 17:03, Newps wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:



... and as was pointed out here recently,


If so then that person was wrong.

Oh, great. Now I have to remember where I read that ;-\

I'll try to remember and post back.

I was referring to the post by "Allen" in this thread on the 5th, wherein it
was stated:

[snip]
The Board held that even if this was a straight-in approach, it would still
be a violation of the regulation because the approach interfered with
another aircraft approaching the airport. The evidence showed that the
airliner conflicted with a Cessna 402, causing the Cessna to abort a
practice VOR/DME approach to the airport. It was the same aircraft that the
Boeing captain maintained he altered his course to avoid.

The Board said: "Aircraft making valid straight-in approaches at
uncontrolled airports would, nevertheless, be deemed in violation of FAR
section 91.89(a) [now 91.126 and 91.127] if they interfered with other
aircraft operating in the standard left-hand pattern."

So, while a straight-in approach to an uncontrolled airport is legal under
the FARs, the straight-in approach must be started some considerable (but
undefined) distance from the runway and the traffic pattern, and it must not
interfere with aircraft in the traffic pattern or on an instrument approach.

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

I was referring to the post by "Allen" in this thread on the 5th, wherein
it
was stated:

[snip]
The Board held that even if this was a straight-in approach, it would
still
be a violation of the regulation because the approach interfered with
another aircraft approaching the airport. The evidence showed that the
airliner conflicted with a Cessna 402, causing the Cessna to abort a
practice VOR/DME approach to the airport. It was the same aircraft that
the
Boeing captain maintained he altered his course to avoid.

The Board said: "Aircraft making valid straight-in approaches at
uncontrolled airports would, nevertheless, be deemed in violation of FAR
section 91.89(a) [now 91.126 and 91.127] if they interfered with other
aircraft operating in the standard left-hand pattern."

So, while a straight-in approach to an uncontrolled airport is legal
under
the FARs, the straight-in approach must be started some considerable (but
undefined) distance from the runway and the traffic pattern, and it must
not
interfere with aircraft in the traffic pattern or on an instrument
approach.


The board, and Allen, are in error.