Flying straight in at uncontrolled field?

[CC268]

I have always flown the "book" pattern even if it wasn't the most convenient and required me to overfly midfield to enter the downwind. However, many times it seems like it would be easiest to just fly straight in (and it seems like many do it). I flew straight into Payson a few times with my instructor, but I haven't flown straight into an uncontrolled field since I got my PPL.

What do you guys do? Thoughts? Opinions?

 

[Timbeck2]

Payson isn't known for a lot of touch and go traffic so it may be pretty safe for the straight in although I've been there at least five times and always flew over the field for a right base (hey look, there's a sale on mulch at Home Depot!) to 24. I've never landed 6. At uncontrolled fields with a lot of student traffic such as Casa Grande for example, I would be wary of a straight in.

 

[kyleb]

If I'm set-up for a straight in, I'll listen on frequency for other aircraft, make calls announcing my position and intention of landing, and if there is no response, I'll make a radio call for a straight in approach. All of that takes place at ~10 miles out. From there, I'll monitor the radio and make 2-3 more announcements on my approach. As I near the field, I'm looking for other traffic. If I find any, I'll adjust my approach as necessary.

Pretty much like any other approach to an uncontrolled field - talk, look, adjust, and merge...

 

[Lowflynjack]

You can fly a straight in approach as long as you don't interfere with someone flying a standard pattern. However, you mentioned flying over midfield to enter downwind. If you're crossing over midfield and turning directly into downwind, you're not flying a standard pattern. If you're flying over midfield and continuing out until you can teardrop, or turn around and enter on a 45, then that would be standard. I do all of these types of landing, but if someone enters on a 45 to downwind and I'm doing one of the other two entries, I yield to them and make it clear to them that I'll be no factor.

 

[Clip4]

You can fly a straight in approach as long as you don't interfere with someone flying a standard pattern. However, you mentioned flying over midfield to enter downwind. If you're crossing over midfield and turning directly into downwind, you're not flying a standard pattern. If you're flying over midfield and continuing out until you can teardrop, or turn around and enter on a 45, then that would be standard. I do all of these types of landing, but if someone enters on a 45 to downwind and I'm doing one of the other two entries, I yield to them and make it clear to them that I'll be no factor.

Really?

91.113 (g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.

 

[BigBadLou]

Flying straight in at uncontrolled field?

This is gonna get good again.
In before the thread lock.

Now, you can fly straight in but only if you fly a Cirrus, call a 35-mi final and say ATITAPA. Ask Br-Y-an for good instructions on how to do that properly.

 

[Lowflynjack]

Really?

91.113 (g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.

Yep, really. I've posted this before.

AOPA published a story about two pilots who had their licenses suspended for not following the correct pattern. One got a 25 day suspension just for flying an unauthorized right-hand pattern. The second got a 20 day suspension, but he claimed he made a straight-in approach as he turned right into a long final. They determined it wasn't a straight-in approach and it caused another airplane who was flying the correct pattern to have to deviate. "The NTSB held that even if this was a valid straight-in approach, it would still be a violation of the regulation because the approach interfered with the other aircraft approaching the airport. “Aircraft making valid straight-in approaches at uncontrolled airports would, nevertheless, be deemed in violation of FAR 91.89(a) [now 91.126 and 91.127] if they interfered with other aircraft operating in the standard left-hand pattern." Interesting story you can read here.

 

[coloradobluesky]

Here's what I heard once "Conquest soandso straight in from 4 miles out, somebody play tower because Im coming in"
So I said "whats your airspeed"
"180 knots"
'Hmm, 180 knots thats 3 miles a minute', thunk i.
"OK speedie, Ill extend my final, looks like you have the final, dont run into the helicopter landing on the ramp"
And in he roared.

 

[Clip4]

Yep, really. I've posted this before.

AOPA published a story about two pilots who had their licenses suspended for not following the correct pattern. One got a 25 day suspension just for flying an unauthorized right-hand pattern. The second got a 20 day suspension, but he claimed he made a straight-in approach as he turned right into a long final. They determined it wasn't a straight-in approach and it caused another airplane who was flying the correct pattern to have to deviate. "The NTSB held that even if this was a valid straight-in approach, it would still be a violation of the regulation because the approach interfered with the other aircraft approaching the airport. “Aircraft making valid straight-in approaches at uncontrolled airports would, nevertheless, be deemed in violation of FAR 91.89(a) [now 91.126 and 91.127] if they interfered with other aircraft operating in the standard left-hand pattern." Interesting story you can read here.

Just about all IFR traffic arrives from a straight in approach. In fact any approach where the final course is with 30 degrees of the runway heading is straight in. A plane on final has the right of way.

The interp you post is where an aircraft was making a turn close to an airport.

"So, we can glean from this case that, according to the NTSB, a turn to final one to two miles out in a jet airliner is not a straight-in approach. And, according to at least one NTSB law judge, an approach after a turn to final five or six miles out would be considered a straight-in approach."

So if you think you are not going to be violated when you fail to yield to an aircraft arriving straight in, go for it.

 

[Timbeck2]

Well now, this thread is off in the weeds.

 

[CC268]

Ehhh I think I will just fly by the book still.

 

[CC268]

This is gonna get good again.
In before the thread lock.

Now, you can fly straight in but only if you fly a Cirrus, call a 35-mi final and say ATITAPA. Ask Br-Y-an for good instructions on how to do that properly.

It was an honest question...wasn't trying to start a war..but I guess that is inevitable on PoA sad face

 

[Lowflynjack]

Just about all IFR traffic arrives from a straight in approach. In fact any approach where the final course is with 30 degrees of the runway heading is straight in. A plane on final has the right of way.

Technically you're right. However, you have to define "final". In the cases I mentioned above, the FAA said there is no such thing as an extended final. Anything over 3 miles is not considered final. A plane making a long IFR approach does not have the right-of-way. I guess if it's truly IFR conditions, you should have the right-of-way since nobody should be flying a standard pattern at that time.

 

[CC268]

You can fly a straight in approach as long as you don't interfere with someone flying a standard pattern. However, you mentioned flying over midfield to enter downwind. If you're crossing over midfield and turning directly into downwind, you're not flying a standard pattern. If you're flying over midfield and continuing out until you can teardrop, or turn around and enter on a 45, then that would be standard. I do all of these types of landing, but if someone enters on a 45 to downwind and I'm doing one of the other two entries, I yield to them and make it clear to them that I'll be no factor.

yes like this..

 

[CC268]

think I might fly to Lake Havasu tomorrow

 

[Lowflynjack]

It was an honest question...wasn't trying to start a war..but I guess that is inevitable on PoA sad face

I don't think it's a war, just something that we need to discuss! I'm not mad, but I'm citing cases where airline pilots were punished. I admit, I fly straight-in quite often, but I make sure I'm not in anyone's way flying the proper pattern.

It's interesting that 91.126 says we MUST fly a left-hand pattern unless the airport has visual markings indicating a right-hand pattern. It doesn't mention flying straight in. My interpretation of this is, I can't fly a right-hand pattern just because it's convenient, which I always thought I could.

§ 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.
(a)General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.

(b)Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace -

(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right

 

[Skyrys62]

I keep a small balloon filled with hot air in the cabin with me. That gives me right of way almost always.

Plus should I become disoriented in heavy IFR conditions, I can think back to the 6PC video and use it to find which way is up.

 

[kayoh190]

It was an honest question...wasn't trying to start a war..but I guess that is inevitable on PoA sad face

Nah - you just touched on a topic that traditionally gets a lot of varied responses. You might as well have asked about high wing vs. low wing. Besides, we haven't had a good traffic pattern argument around here in awhile.

 

[Lowflynjack]

yes like this..

View attachment 54226

Yes, a lot of people do that. I just fly over midfield and turn directly onto downwind. AOPA listed the way you posted as preferred, but the way I do it as acceptable as well. Again, if someone was entering on a 45, or already in the pattern and I feel like I'll interfere with them, I would fly the pattern you showed.

 

[Lowflynjack]

I keep a small balloon filled with hot air in the cabin with me. That gives me right of way almost always.

I'm full of hot air, so maybe I should keep an empty balloon I could fill up quickly if needed!

 

[Clip4]

Technically you're right. However, you have to define "final". In the cases I mentioned above, the FAA said there is no such thing as an extended final. Anything over 3 miles is not considered final. A plane making a long IFR approach does not have the right-of-way. I guess if it's truly IFR conditions, you should have the right-of-way since nobody should be flying a standard pattern at that time.

Excuse me, but every IAP has a final segment. Someone 1 mi clear of clouds VFR is legal in Class G. That is why IFR traffic makes a radio call even when no one else should be flying.

 

[CC268]

Yes, a lot of people do that. I just fly over midfield and turn directly onto downwind. AOPA listed the way you posted as preferred, but the way I do it as acceptable as well. Again, if someone was entering on a 45, or already in the pattern and I feel like I'll interfere with them, I would fly the pattern you showed.

Yea I fly over midfield and turn directly downwind at some fields as well.

 

[Skyrys62]

Besides, we haven't had a good traffic pattern argument around here in awhile.

I would say this is more of a bad traffic pattern argument heh heh

 

[Lowflynjack]

Excuse me, but every IAP has a final segment.

I'm not an instrument pilot. How long is the final segment typically?

I honestly wonder who has the right-of-way sometimes. For example, my airport is 17-35. The instrument pilots like to fly the approach for 17, even when the winds favor 35. I've seen many pilots take off when a plane was coming toward them saying they were going missed. Sometimes they get closer than I would feel comfortable with.

 

[RyanB]

I have always flown the "book" pattern even if it wasn't the most convenient and required me to overfly midfield to enter the downwind. However, many times it seems like it would be easiest to just fly straight in (and it seems like many do it). I flew straight into Payson a few times with my instructor, but I haven't flown straight into an uncontrolled field since I got my PPL.

What do you guys do? Thoughts? Opinions?

I did a straight in a few nights ago at my non-towered home drome. People have always debated this and made it into a much bigger deal than it should be.

It's not something I do regularly, but when it's appropriate than I'll do it.

 

[RyanB]

I'm not an instrument pilot. How long is the final segment typically?

I typically try to fly a tight enough pattern that would allow me to make the runway if a failure were to occur. My final legs at non-towered fields are maybe 1/4 - 1/2 mile, give or take.

Edit: I read the post wrong. This is for VFR box patterns.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

Excuse me, but every IAP has a final segment. Someone 1 mi clear of clouds VFR is legal in Class G. That is why IFR traffic makes a radio call even when no one else should be flying.

A lot of people "forget" where Class G begins and think that in the pattern of any uncontrolled field is class E. it can be 700 overcast with clear skies 3 miles down the way and vfr traffic can be flowing in and out, totally legal, while ifr traffic is plummeting through the clouds from the top.

 

[jordane93]

If I'm set-up for a straight in, I'll listen on frequency for other aircraft, make calls announcing my position and intention of landing, and if there is no response, I'll make a radio call for a straight in approach. All of that takes place at ~10 miles out. From there, I'll monitor the radio and make 2-3 more announcements on my approach. As I near the field, I'm looking for other traffic. If I find any, I'll adjust my approach as necessary.

Pretty much like any other approach to an uncontrolled field - talk, look, adjust, and merge...

This. If there's no one in the pattern, I'm not going to do a tear drop and enter the downwind. I'm just going straight in.

 

[Lowflynjack]

I typically try to fly a tight enough pattern that would allow me to make the runway if a failure were to occur. My final legs at non-towered fields are maybe 1/4 - 1/2 mile, give or take.

Edit: I read the post wrong. This is for VFR box patterns.

LOL, I was just about to ask you! I also fly a very tight VFR pattern. I wonder if someone flying IFR could be considered on final when 5 miles out for instance. I'm usually going to yield to any other planes since I fly for fun and I'm rarely in a hurry, but sometimes the guys flying IFR are talking to approach and switch over to the field frequency when they're fairly close in.

 

[Lowflynjack]

If we want to talk about non-standard patterns... on a nice morning with no wind, I'll take off 35, turn around do a touch-n-go on 17, then turn around and land on 35, etc. I also like to pull power midfield, turn base at the end of the runway and land long to save taxi time, and it's always good to practice non-standard landings. You never know when the engine is going to quit.

 

[FastEddieB]

I virtually never fly a straight in approach at a non-towered field.

Over 4+ decades I've read about enough midairs from that practice that I choose to avoid them. Typically low wing descending onto a high wing, but many other permutations as well.

But I'm aware that pilots exist who do come straight in, so I'll be looking for them. I consider it a tad rude and a slight safety isssue, but not enough to get worked up about.

 

[dmspilot]

Yep, really. I've posted this before.

AOPA published a story about two pilots who had their licenses suspended for not following the correct pattern. One got a 25 day suspension just for flying an unauthorized right-hand pattern. The second got a 20 day suspension, but he claimed he made a straight-in approach as he turned right into a long final. They determined it wasn't a straight-in approach and it caused another airplane who was flying the correct pattern to have to deviate. "The NTSB held that even if this was a valid straight-in approach, it would still be a violation of the regulation because the approach interfered with the other aircraft approaching the airport. “Aircraft making valid straight-in approaches at uncontrolled airports would, nevertheless, be deemed in violation of FAR 91.89(a) [now 91.126 and 91.127] if they interfered with other aircraft operating in the standard left-hand pattern." Interesting story you can read here.

Neither of those cases back up your claim that traffic on a straight in have to yield to traffic in the pattern. In fact you said so yourself that they were violated for doing a right turn so neither of them were doing straight in, so they are totally irrelevant.

 

[Lowflynjack]

Neither of those cases back up your claim that traffic on a straight in have to yield to traffic in the pattern. In fact you said so yourself that they were violated for doing a right turn so neither of them were doing straight in, so they are totally irrelevant.

You're correct, those cases don't, however in one of those cases, the NTSB said even if it was a straight-in approach, as the pilot claimed it was, it would be in violation. If you read the article, the pilot said his airline told him he must be lined up no less than 4 miles out, so his right turn 4 miles out should not be considered a right-hand pattern, but instead a straight-in approach.

The NTSB held that even if this was a valid straight-in approach, it would still be a violation of the regulation because the approach interfered with the other aircraft approaching the airport. “Aircraft making valid straight-in approaches at uncontrolled airports would, nevertheless, be deemed in violation of FAR 91.89(a) [now 91.126 and 91.127] if they interfered with other aircraft operating in the standard left-hand pattern.” The captain lost his pilot’s certificate for 20 days.

 

[dmspilot]

Technically you're right. However, you have to define "final". In the cases I mentioned above, the FAA said there is no such thing as an extended final. Anything over 3 miles is not considered final. A plane making a long IFR approach does not have the right-of-way. I guess if it's truly IFR conditions, you should have the right-of-way since nobody should be flying a standard pattern at that time.

Not sure how you can claim that an aircraft on the final approach segment of an instrument approach is not on final approach.

 

[FastEddieB]

It's so easy to just do it the recommended way.

To do it otherwise, because the law may not mandate it, smacks of one of the 5 hazardous attitudes we're warned to look out for.

Want to guess which one?

 

[Palmpilot]

Ehhh I think I will just fly by the book still.

The problem is that the various "books" that apply contradict each other. The regulation book says that planes on final have the right-of-way, and doesn't contain any mandate to fly a pattern, but says that any turns you make must be in the specified direction. Meanwhile, Advisory Circular 90-66A recommends flying the pattern, and says that straight-ins should not "disrupt the flow of arriving and departing traffic," which seems to conflict with the regulation that gives right-of-way to traffic on final. The AIM does not depict straight-ins, but it does define the term in the Pilot/Controller Glossary, and I haven't found anywhere that it expresses a preference for either flying the pattern or flying straight-in.

So you have to take your pick of which FAA "book" you want to follow. No wonder there are so many arguments about this!

 

[Clip4]

I'm not an instrument pilot. How long is the final segment typically?

I honestly wonder who has the right-of-way sometimes. For example, my airport is 17-35. The instrument pilots like to fly the approach for 17, even when the winds favor 35. I've seen many pilots take off when a plane was coming toward them saying they were going missed. Sometimes they get closer than I would feel comfortable with.

John,

It can very quite a lot because the approach altitudes vary for obstacles, but generally they are 3.5-8 NM.

 

[CC268]

The problem is that the various "books" that apply contradict each other. The regulation book says that planes on final have the right-of-way, and doesn't contain any mandate to fly a pattern, but says that any turns you make must be in the specified direction. Meanwhile, Advisory Circular 90-66A recommends flying the pattern, and says that straight-ins should not "disrupt the flow of arriving and departing traffic," which seems to conflict the regulation that gives right-of-way to traffic on final. The AIM does not depict straight-ins, but it does define the term in the Pilot/Controller Glossary, and I haven't found anywhere that it expresses a preference for either flying the pattern or flying straight-in.

So you have to take your pick of which FAA "book" you want to follow. No wonder there are so many arguments about this!

Haha I knew someone was gonna get me for saying that

 

[Clip4]

Not sure how you can claim that an aircraft on the final approach segment of an instrument approach is not on final approach.

Not sure how one can argue an aircraft having an ATC clearance on final approach, which requires the pilot to follow the procedure, is not on final approach. Heck in some cases the MDA is still in Class E with minimum visibility of 1 SM.

 

[Lowflynjack]

The problem is that the various "books" that apply contradict each other. The regulation book says that planes on final have the right-of-way, and doesn't contain any mandate to fly a pattern, but says that any turns you make must be in the specified direction. Meanwhile, Advisory Circular 90-66A recommends flying the pattern, and says that straight-ins should not "disrupt the flow of arriving and departing traffic," which seems to conflict the regulation that gives right-of-way to traffic on final.

So, based on 91.126 (1) and 90-66A, I would interpret the rules to be as I stated above. If flying a standard pattern, you must fly the direction the airport has marked. If flying straight-in, you can't interfere with someone on a standard approach.
§ 91.126 (1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right.
Advisory Circular 90-66A straight-ins should not "disrupt the flow of arriving and departing traffic.

I honestly thought until last year that I could fly a left hand pattern for 17 at my airport where it has a designated right hand pattern. I thought it was a recommended pattern and a good idea to follow that recommendation, but not mandatory. I now know its not my choice. However, according to what I read, if I'm coming from the East and turn right onto final 4 or 5 miles out, I'm legally making a straight-in approach and not a left hand pattern... and they wonder why we have so many discussions about this!