I think I did the allowed thing....

[Palmpilot]

These efforts to explain away the Fekete case are pretty amazing, and seem to ignore the fact that the guy on base got the revocation, not the guys making straight-in approaches.

 

[Palmpilot]

Only because they'd be intentionally creating a collision hazard. Even though the pattern traffic might have the right-of-way, he can't knowingly create a collision hazard just because the straight-in traffic didn't yield as he should have.

If you can find an enforcement case where a straight-in pilot was sanctioned for not yielding to traffic in the pattern, I'd like to see it.

 

[OverTQ]

These efforts to explain away the Fekete case are pretty amazing, and seem to ignore the fact that the guy on base got the revocation, not the guys making straight-in approaches.

Nobody is ignoring that. We're simply pointing out that the pattern entry method seems to be irrelevant. The consistent factor is that he cut them off on final, as was stated in the letter. Some of those aircraft had flown the pattern and then were cut-off on final, some flew straight-in and then were cut off, per the letter, on final.

Any explaining we're doing is to try to assist you in your apparent confusion between the pattern entry method (straight-in entry) and the landing leg of the pattern (final).

Nothing I can find in this letter corroborates your view. The regulations don't corroborate your view. And the AIM actually conflicts with your view.

 

[Palmpilot]

There's a lot here, but it basically only says that a straight-in is a valid approach. What it doesn't clarify is how to determine when the straight-in has the right of way over an aircraft in the pattern. In the case cited, pattern aircraft were "cutting off" Straight-ins. What it doesn't deal with and what many folks are asking is when does the straight-in shift to being on final?

You're not cutting someone off unless they're close enough for there to be a collision hazard. The fact that the guy on base got the emergency revocation instead of the straight-ins implies that if that if the aircraft involved are close enough together to matter, then the straight-in traffic is on final. If the straight-in traffic is NOT close enough for there to be a collision hazard, then when the straight-in shifts to being on final doesn't make any difference.

In the real world, it seems much easier. Figure out where the straight in is and if you can't land and clear ahead of him, extend your downwind. For the straight-in, figure out how busy the pattern is and whether it makes more sense to work into the pattern or if you can slide in without distrupting a whole bunch of other planes.

I agree with this.

 

[Palmpilot]

Thanks for showing us the decision that youve been referencing for so long!

What, is clicking on a link too hard?

I didn't quote the whole decision, which is nine pages long. See the attachment if you want to see the whole thing.

 

[OverTQ]

Here are the reasons given for the revocation:

During the flight operation described in paragraph 2 above, you failed to give way to an aircraft that had the right of way by virtue of the fact that it was on final approach and at a lower altitude than your aircraft.

You turned inside of a Piper Arrow, identification no. N2841V, when that aircraft was on final approach to the [airport].

You turned inside of a helicopter, identification no. N506TH, when that aircraft was at a lower altitude and ahead of you in the pattern.

Upon landing your aircraft during the flight operation described in paragraph 4 above, you came dangerously close to a Piper aircraft that had just landed and was clearing the runway; you also came dangerously close to a Beech Baron aircraft, identification no. N1849R, that was in position on runway 10, awaiting takeoff.

You were aware that the R-22 was making a final approach to Runway 10 at the time you turned your aircraft onto final approach to Runway 10, and that your turn would place your aircraft in the path of the R-22's approach to Runway 10.

Your turn from base leg to final approach in the path of the R-22 created a collision hazard endangering the lives and property of others.

While you were flying the base leg for Runway 28, you confirmed specifically with the Citation jet via radio that it was on final approach to Runway 28 and then turned your aircraft onto final approach to Runway 28.

At the time you turned your aircraft onto final approach for Runway 28, you were in front of and at an altitude higher than that of the Citation jet.

We note, in this connection, that the Citation the respondent cut in front of, in violation of the right-of-way rules, had flown the pattern.

I've yet to find something that says the straight-in pattern entry was relevant.

 

[Palmpilot]

Nobody is ignoring that. We're simply pointing out that the pattern entry method seems to be irrelevant. The consistent factor is that he cut them off on final, as was stated in the letter. Some of those aircraft had flown the pattern and then were cut-off on final, some flew straight-in and then were cut off, per the letter, on final.

I agree that how an aircraft gets on final is irrelevant, as long as it doesn't cut off traffic that is already on final.

Any explaining we're doing is to try to assist you in your apparent confusion between the pattern entry method (straight-in entry) and the landing leg of the pattern (final).

Nothing I can find in this letter corroborates your view. The regulations don't corroborate your view. And the AIM actually conflicts with your view.

You seem to be confused about what my view is. I'm saying that if you're on final, how you got there doesn't matter unless you cut off someone who was already on final. People seem to be claiming that aircraft that enter the pattern via a straight-in approach are not on final and therefore don't have the right-of-way.

 

[Palmpilot]

If two planes wanting to land are close enough to have a conflict, right of way goes to the lower plane, provided they don't abuse this to cut off planes on final appproach. [In your often mentioned case, cutting off other planes close enough to be in conflict was the action.] So sometimes right of way will go to the plane in the pattern, sometimes to the guy straight in--it's case by case depending on speed, position and altitude.

But if you want to always yield to the other plane, that's fine. It's your choice. But that doesn't mean because you like sausage that the rest of us can't have bacon with our eggs.

As far as I know, no one has been arguing that you have to yield the right-of-way to straight-ins that are not close enough to pose a hazard.

 

[Palmpilot]

I've yet to find something that says the straight-in pattern entry was relevant.

If you read the section I quoted, the respondent argued that he thought that he had the right-of-way over straight-ins, and he offered as an excuse that FAA publications had led to his having that misconception. The NTSB rejected that excuse.

 

[OverTQ]

If you read the section I quoted, the respondent argued that he thought that he had the right-of-way over straight-ins, and he offered as an excuse that FAA publications had led to his having that misconception. The NTSB rejected that excuse.

Read it again.

Specifically, he suggests that his conduct resulted from his confusion--for which the FAA is assertedly responsible by virtue of allegedly inconsistent regulations and advice--over the legality of straight-in approaches at uncontrolled fields such as Millville.

In this connection he implies that he believed that if straight-in approaches were not permitted, then aircraft landing in accordance with the airport's traffic pattern need not yield to aircraft that had not.

He in effect submits that he now understands [...] that straight-in approaches are permissible at uncontrolled fields and, accordingly, he will change his operating procedures by yielding the right-of-way, when the rules so dictate, to aircraft that have not flown the pattern

His claim was that straight-in approaches weren't legal, and because they were not legal, he didn't need to yield to someone that wasn't conducting a legal pattern entry. They rejected his excuse, and they explain why, but nowhere do they say the rejection was because straight-in traffic has right-of way.

He, supposedly, now understands that straight-in approaches are legal, and he will yield when the rules so dictate. He didn't say yield unequivocally to straight-in traffic, but when the rules dictate he needs to yield.

 

[Palmpilot]

Read the last bolded statement. He, supposedly, now understands that straight-in approaches are legal, and he will yield when the rules so dictate.

91.113(g) dictates that one must not cut off traffic on final. If the traffic on final is not close enough to be a factor, then there is no requirement to yield.

The bottom line of the case is that he was cutting off aircraft that were on final, and some of the planes he cut off were straight-ins. The pilots on final, including the straight-ins, didn't get the revocation. He did. I say again, if someone can find a case where a straight-in was sanctioned for failing to yield to traffic in the pattern, I'd like to see it.

 

[OverTQ]

The bottom line is that the judgement you've been referencing is irrelevant. It only seems to place importance on traffic that is on final.

If you still harbor the view that straight-in traffic has the right-of-way by default, you should look at the CFR, where there is no such regulation. The regs do give preference to aircraft that are on final; they do not give preference to aircraft on a straight-in.

If that's not enough for ya, you can read the AC, where it says that straight-in entries should not disrupt the flow of other aircraft:

Straight-In Landings.

The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern when arriving or departing a non-towered airport or a part-time-towered airport when the control tower is not operating, particularly when other traffic is observed or when operating from an unfamiliar airport. However, there are occasions where a pilot can choose to execute a straight-in approach for landing when not intending to enter the traffic pattern, such as a visual approach executed as part of the termination of an instrument approach. Pilots should clearly communicate on the CTAF and coordinate maneuvering for and execution of the landing with other traffic so as not to disrupt the flow of other aircraft. Therefore, pilots operating in the traffic pattern should be alert at all times to aircraft executing straight-in landings, particularly when flying a base leg prior to turning final.

It's pretty clear.

So, at this point, you have not provided an interpretation or ruling in which an agency or law judge asserts that straight-in traffic has the right-of-way. We've beat this thing up now, and neither of us can find that assertion. However, you wrote

I say again, if someone can find a case where a straight-in was sanctioned for failing to yield to traffic in the pattern, I'd like to see it.

I don't feel like we should substantiate our view with a legal judgement when you have not substantiated your view with a legal judgement, considering that the regulations and guidance already supports our view.

But, for the sake of discussion, because I enjoy nerding out on aviation topics, and because I'm just simply a nice guy I will attempt to provide that!

Administrator v. Dibble. It (or at least the quoted language) supports our view that straight-in traffic does not, by default, have right-of-way over pattern traffic. I can't find the text of it online, but I found the following from another case that references it. I'll quote from that in substitution. You can download the rest at https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/3671.pdf

There [Administrator v. Dibble], we stated that "straight-in approaches were acceptable if the approach did not interfere with aircraft executing a normal left-hand pattern and if the straight-in approach did not deviate more than 30 degrees from the center of the runway as measured from the threshold of the runway."

Cheers.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If two planes wanting to land are close enough to have a conflict, right of way goes to the lower plane, provided they don't abuse this to cut off planes on final appproach.

Nope - The guy on final has the right of way, not the lower one, unless they're both on final.

§91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
(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.

The rules don't say that traffic on a straight-in automatically gets right-of-way. They do say that if that traffic is on final, it has right-of-way. Straight-in approach is not the same things as final.

Actually, it is. You can be 10 miles out on a straight-in approach and still be on final.

Only because they'd be intentionally creating a collision hazard. Even though the pattern traffic might have the right-of-way, he can't knowingly create a collision hazard just because the straight-in traffic didn't yield as he should have.

Straight in traffic does not have to yield. They're on final. Traffic in the pattern must yield. I'm not saying it's not a dick move in some cases, but it is what it is.

FINAL− Commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach course or is aligned with a landing area.

 

[OverTQ]

Say it all you want, but the peoples' whose opinions matter don't agree with you.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Say it all you want, but the peoples' whose opinions matter don't agree with you.

I haven't seen them agree with you either...

Bottom line, right of way doesn't matter unless there's a conflict, and it's pretty clear from the established case law that if a conflict exists between an aircraft on a straight-in final and an aircraft coming around the pattern, the aircraft in the pattern is to give way to the one on final.

If there's no conflict, none of this even matters.

 

[OverTQ]

I haven't seen them agree with you either...

Then you haven't read this thread.

I've quoted, twice, directly from an AC that says straight-in approaches should be executed in a way that doesn't interfere with traffic in the pattern.

Like 100 pixels above your reply I quoted an NTSB opinion that states that straight-ins are acceptable if they don't interfere with pattern traffic.

I linked to a case that differentiates between straight-in approaches and final. People have had their licenses suspended because they confused "straight-in" and "final", and followed the wrong rules.

The regulation you just quoted says that the lower aircraft has right-of-way, provided it doesn't cut in front of an airplane on final. To reiterate, there is a difference between a straight-in entry and "final". This is backed up by the NTSB, in multiple cases.

it's pretty clear from the established case law that if a conflict exists between an aircraft on a straight-in final and an aircraft coming around the pattern, the aircraft in the pattern is to give way to the one on final.

Obviously, you can't turn right in front of an airplane and cause a collision just because you were supposed to have given the right-of-way. At that point, it's careless and reckless not to stay the hell out of the way. That does not change the fact that the straight-in traffic should have found a way to work into the pattern, and shouldn't have prompted a loss of separation in the first place.

To use an analogy, if you're at an intersection turning left with no stop sign, thus you have the right-of-way, and you see someone approaching from your right is going to blow through their yield sign, you can't pull out in front of them, knowingly causing a collision risk, just because they were supposed to have yielded to you. In the case that we've been talking about, the guy knowingly cut these other aircraft off. He purposefully caused a concern for safety, on multiple occasions. And, 'careless or reckless' was considered relevant to the decision.

While you were flying the base leg for Runway 28, you confirmed specifically with the Citation jet via radio that it was on final approach to Runway 28 and then turned your aircraft onto final approach to Runway 28.

As I pointed out previously, nowhere in that judgement is the straight-in approach considered the relevant factor, but rather, the fact that the airplanes were on 'final'.

 

[Palmpilot]

The bottom line is that the judgement you've been referencing is irrelevant. It only seems to place importance on traffic that is on final.

The fact that they took the trouble to discuss the respondent's misconceptions about straight-ins suggests that they did place some importance on straight-ins, especially when they wrote this:

"The right-of-way rules for landing at an airport prescribe
priorities for landing based on the relative positions of
aircraft as they approach an airport. They cannot be ignored
whenever another aircraft is executing a straight-in approach."​

The "relative positions" mentioned there are defined in 91.113(g).

If you still harbor the view that straight-in traffic has the right-of-way by default, you should look at the CFR, where there is no such regulation. The regs do give preference to aircraft that are on final; they do not give preference to aircraft on a straight-in.

What makes you think that an aircraft making a straight-in approach is not on final? From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

"FINAL APPROACH-IFR− The flight path of an
aircraft which is inbound to an airport on a final
instrument approach course, beginning at the final
approach fix or point and extending to the airport or
the point where a circle-to-land maneuver or a missed
approach is executed."​

Most final approach fixes are well outside the normal traffic pattern, and most instrument approaches are flown straight-in. This seems to be a fairly giant hole in your argument.

Even if you continue to believe that a straight-in aircraft is not on final approach, suppose you're on base and you see an aircraft inbound on the final approach course and close enough to be a collision hazard. What difference does it make whether he got there via a straight-in, or just flew a wider pattern than you did? Earlier, you said that the type of pattern entry doesn't matter, but now you seem to be arguing that entering final approach via a straight-in means that someone else has the right-of-way.

If that's not enough for ya, you can read the AC, where it says that straight-in entries should not disrupt the flow of other aircraft:

That's not quite what it says. It makes several statements, some of them mentioning straight-ins, and some of them not. The statement about not disrupting the flow of other aircraft just mentions 'pilots," not straight-ins specifically.

"Pilots should clearly communicate on the CTAF and coordinate maneuvering for and execution of the landing with other traffic so as not to disrupt the flow of other aircraft."
​

It's good advice for everyone, but there's nothing there that says it's OK to cut off traffic on a long final (aka "straight-in"). In any case the right-of-way rules are defined by regulations, not by advisory circulars.

So, at this point, you have not provided an interpretation or ruling in which an agency or law judge asserts that straight-in traffic has the right-of-way. We've beat this thing up now, and neither of us can find that assertion.

Some of us are apparently not looking very hard. Regarding an agency assertion, you appear to have overlooked this:

"In this connection he implies that he believed that if straight-in
approaches were not permitted, then aircraft landing in
accordance with the airport's traffic pattern need not yield to
aircraft that had not.5 He in effect submits that he now
understands, based in part on discussions with FAA personnel
after the hearing, that straight-in approaches are permissible at
uncontrolled fields and, accordingly, he will change his
operating procedures by yielding the right-of-way, when the rules
so dictate, to aircraft that have not flown the pattern."​

The fact that he said he would "change" his operating procedures, partly in response to his discussions with the FAA, implies that the procedure in the immediately preceding sentence, i.e., not yielding to straight-ins, is what he needed to change. There is no evidence to contradict his characterization of those FAA discussions, and the NTSB does not dispute it.

However, you wrote

I don't feel like we should substantiate our view with a legal judgement when you have not substantiated your view with a legal judgement, considering that the regulations and guidance already supports our view.

No, the regulations and case law support our view. The guidance is self-contradictory, inconclusive, and in any case cannot countermand 91.113(g). Some of it is good advice, but it's still just advice.

But, for the sake of discussion, because I enjoy nerding out on aviation topics, and because I'm just simply a nice guy I will attempt to provide that!

Administrator v. Dibble. It (or at least the quoted language) supports our view that straight-in traffic does not, by default, have right-of-way over pattern traffic. I can't find the text of it online, but I found the following from another case that references it. I'll quote from that in substitution. You can download the rest at https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/3671.pdf

One of the attorneys on the forum had this to say about Dibble:

"Ironically, the guy they busted in Dibble made a right turn to final, thereby interfering with another aircraft that was already on a straight in approach."​

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...uncontrolled-field.103937/page-6#post-2313735

You can do what you want, but if I'm on base and I see an aircraft that's on the final approach course and close enough to be a factor, I'm going to yield the right-of-way. I'm not going to cross examine him about how he got there or whether he made a straight-in.

 

[Palmpilot]

I linked to a case that differentiates between straight-in approaches and final. People have had their licenses suspended because they confused "straight-in" and "final", and followed the wrong rules.

Apparently, the people who wrote the Pilot/Controller Glossary have the same confusion.

Can you point out the case where the license of a pilot on a straight-in was suspended for not yielding to another aircraft? I must have missed it.

 

[Hank S]

I give up. @Palmpilot and @flyingcheesehead have their minds firmly made up and nothing will dissuade them, that regardless of what is going on, traffic doing a straight in approach to an empty or full pattern always and in every case has right of way. It's to the point of religious zealotry, nothing in the FARs will change their mind.

I am certainly through trying.

But do watch for me in the pattern if you're flying straight in, because if you aren't close, I'm not waiting for you.

 

[Palmpilot]

I give up. @Palmpilot and @flyingcheesehead have their minds firmly made up and nothing will dissuade them, that regardless of what is going on, traffic doing a straight in approach to an empty or full pattern always and in every case has right of way. It's to the point of religious zealotry, nothing in the FARs will change their mind.

I am certainly through trying.

But do watch for me in the pattern if you're flying straight in, because if you aren't close, I'm not waiting for you.

Both sides have their minds made up. As for straight-ins, I seldom fly them unless I'm flying an instrument approach, and when I do, I don't expect people to yield the right-of-way, because there's so much disagreement on the subject.

 

[Dave Theisen]

WOW. If you are about to take off and can do so safely, do it. If you can’t, wait. If you are on downwind and there’s traffic on the straight in, if you can safely turn before them, do it. If not, extend your downwind and follow.

This ain’t rocket surgery!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I give up. @Palmpilot and @flyingcheesehead have their minds firmly made up and nothing will dissuade them, that regardless of what is going on, traffic doing a straight in approach to an empty or full pattern always and in every case has right of way. It's to the point of religious zealotry, nothing in the FARs will change their mind.

The FARs are what made up my mind in the first place.

But do watch for me in the pattern if you're flying straight in, because if you aren't close, I'm not waiting for you.

No worries, in the rare instance that someone else is in the pattern and they would actually conflict with my straight-in, I'll generally defer to them and fly an offset upwind entry to go around the pattern, not because I have to, but because I'm not a dick and they were there first.

Usually, though, it goes like this:

"Podunk traffic, Mooney 10 miles west, straight in runway 9, Podunk"
"Podunk traffic, Cessna turning downwind runway 9, Podunk"
"Podunk Traffic, Mooney 5 miles west, straight in runway 9, Podunk"
"Podunk Traffic, Mooney short final runway 9, full stop, Podunk"
"Podunk Traffic, Mooney clear of all runways, Podunk"
"Podunk Traffic, Cessna turning base runway 9, Podunk"

 

[James331]

But maybe not the smart thing.

Un-towered airport. Flying a Skycatcher.
I'm doing run up on 23.
Citation calls straight in for 05, 10 miles out about the time I finish and get ready to take off.
I'm thinking, he's out and not in the pattern, 10 miles...I should be able to take off, turn left early, and leave him room to land without getting sporty.
So I call that I'm departing 5 for closed pattern.
As I hit the throttle, the Citation calls 8 miles and switching to a right entry for runway 05.
I take off, turn left, and am about mid-field when I see the Citation abeam me on the right pattern.
He turns and lands ahead of me.

As I understand, straight in approaches are not in the pattern and have no priority for landing so I was technically within my rights to take off.
Upon reflection, I'm thinking the better thing to do would have been to contact the Citation, offer to hold short, and just wait for him to get in.

Your thoughts?

Could have been doing a circle approach

But yes, you should have just hit the button and asked, if you think maybe you should do something, chances are you should not only do it, it should have done it minutes ago.

“Should I clarify on the radio”

“Should I stop there for some gas”

“Should I have my mechanic check this out”

“Should I go around”


YES

 

[Palmpilot]

To summarize, 91.113(g) says that traffic on final approach has the right-of-way. It also says that a lower aircraft has the right-of-way, but shall not take advantage of that to cut in front of traffic on final approach. To me, "cut in front of" means to turn close enough in front of another aircraft to interfere with its approach; thus if traffic on final approach is far enough out, then other traffic can operate ahead of it without violating its right-of-way.

Some people believe that an aircraft making a straight-in approach is not on final approach, but FAA guidance on where final approach begins is not clear cut. The P/CG defines "FINAL" without specifying a starting point, and it defines "FINAL APPROACH -IFR" as beginning at the final approach fix or final approach point. Meanwhile, AIM Section 4-3 defines "final approach" as extending from the base leg to the runway, but it doesn't specify a particular distance from the runway at which the base leg must be flown, other than saying that the turn to final should be completed at least 1/4 mile from the runway.

AIM 4-3-3d Note 1 says:

"Pilots are encouraged to use the standard traffic
pattern. However, those pilots who choose to execute a
straight−in approach, maneuvering for and execution of
the approach should not disrupt the flow of arriving and
departing traffic. Likewise, pilots operating in the traffic
pattern should be alert at all times for aircraft executing
straight−in approaches."​

It doesn't explicitly say that pattern traffic has right-of-way over straight-ins, but I can see how it could give some people that impression. If that is what the FAA intends, then it SHOULD be explicit, including an amendment to 91.113(g), because the recurring controversies about this show that there is lack of a common understanding of what the rules are.

Personally, I think it would be a bad idea for the FAA to write a regulation that gives pattern traffic right-of-way over straight-ins. It would create dilemmas for aircraft in the pattern who could have difficulty determining whether they had the right-of-way, because it might not be obvious whether the aircraft on final was a straight-in, or had just flown a larger pattern. This is especially true if one or more of the aircraft has no radio. It could make things especially difficult for traffic making instrument approaches in marginal VFR weather.

Extending downwind to accommodate a straight-in is just not that hard in most cases.

As it stands, no one can or should depend on having the right-of-way, regardless of where they are relative to the pattern. That the FAA's lack of clarity on this has not resulted in more accidents is probably a tribute to the fact that pilots are more polite in the air than they are on Internet forums.

 

[James331]

To summarize, 91.113(g) says that traffic on final approach has the right-of-way. It also says that a lower aircraft has the right-of-way, but shall not take advantage of that to cut in front of traffic on final approach. To me, "cut in front of" means to turn close enough in front of another aircraft to interfere with its approach; thus if traffic on final approach is far enough out, then other traffic can operate ahead of it without violating its right-of-way.

Some people believe that an aircraft making a straight-in approach is not on final approach, but FAA guidance on where final approach begins is not clear cut. The P/CG defines "FINAL" without specifying a starting point, and it defines "FINAL APPROACH -IFR" as beginning at the final approach fix or final approach point. Meanwhile, AIM Section 4-3 defines "final approach" as extending from the base leg to the runway, but it doesn't specify a particular distance from the runway at which the base leg must be flown, other than saying that the turn to final should be completed at least 1/4 mile from the runway.

AIM 4-3-3d Note 1 says:

"Pilots are encouraged to use the standard traffic
pattern. However, those pilots who choose to execute a
straight−in approach, maneuvering for and execution of
the approach should not disrupt the flow of arriving and
departing traffic. Likewise, pilots operating in the traffic
pattern should be alert at all times for aircraft executing
straight−in approaches."​

It doesn't explicitly say that pattern traffic has right-of-way over straight-ins, but I can see how it could give some people that impression. If that is what the FAA intends, then it SHOULD be explicit, including an amendment to 91.113(g), because the recurring controversies about this show that there is lack of a common understanding of what the rules are.

Personally, I think it would be a bad idea for the FAA to write a regulation that gives pattern traffic right-of-way over straight-ins. It would create dilemmas for aircraft in the pattern who could have difficulty determining whether they had the right-of-way, because it might not be obvious whether the aircraft on final was a straight-in, or had just flown a larger pattern. This is especially true if one or more of the aircraft has no radio. It could make things especially difficult for traffic making instrument approaches in marginal VFR weather.

Extending downwind to accommodate a straight-in is just not that hard in most cases.

As it stands, no one can or should depend on having the right-of-way, regardless of where they are relative to the pattern. That the FAA's lack of clarity on this has not resulted in more accidents is probably a tribute to the fact that pilots are more polite in the air than they are on Internet forums.

Right of way isn’t really the issue, it’s being on the same page as everyone else and working together.

No one ever said “glad I exercised my right of way”.