On final at an uncontrolled field

vintage cessna said:
If there are, let us say, 4 aircraft in a traffic pattern, and a fifth aircrafts elects to conduct a straight in approach, does that fifth aircraft have the right of way over other aircraft in the pattern?
Click to expand...

The fifth aircraft has the right-of-way over any of those four aircraft that would be in conflict with it.
 
Velocity173 said:
I always thought it was funny that the lower aircraft has the right of way but not to abuse this to overtake or cut in front of an aircraft that's on final approach to land. What are the odds that I would be lower than the aircraft on final approach to land? I guess if I was a helicopter doing right traffic but that's about it.:dunno:
Click to expand...

A helicopter must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft.
 
Ron Levy said:
If push comes to legal shove between what it says in 91.113(g) and what it says in AC 90-66A, 91.113(g) wins every time. See Administrator v. Fekete for the gory details.
Click to expand...

Then the AC could only serve to mislead a pilot.
 
"Listen and avoid"is the best term I have seen in this thread. I see way to many pilots doing this. They modify their normal entry and traffic pattern for an airplane that they don't even "See" Now you got an airplane that they don't know where it is, and they are doing non standard maneuvering to avoid it.

I advise pilots that with very few exceptions that until you "see" the other aircraft they should advise the other aircraft of our position and what we are doing (even if they didn't say "Äny Traffic please Advise":)) and modify our pattern only enough to better see where they reported they are (like raise or lower a wing to look behind it). I think it is just as likely that maneuvering to avoid aircaft you don't see is just as likely to create a collision hazard as it is to avoid it. An exception is possibly avoiding the pattern all togeather because there are to more aicraft in the pattern than you are comfortable with.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
If push comes to legal shove between what it says in 91.113(g) and what it says in AC 90-66A, 91.113(g) wins every time. See Administrator v. Fekete for the gory details.
Click to expand...
Here ya go:
Here's another. This one's at Ramona, CA, same place the Forest Service tanker and Baron collided doing an overhead approach a few years later. Sounds to me like the Pitts was doing an overhead too, or a part of one (constant bank, no rollout, didn't see the Citabria on final):
Ya'll be keerful, hear?

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
Old Geek said:
How? Open the door and put my head out? I can't see the tail of my plane from inside the cabin.
Click to expand...

Cross hold line. Turn toward final approach. Look for airplanes on final. Do one-eighty to line up with runway. Add throttle. (It's OK to just turn 45 degrees toward the final approach if that allows you to see anyone heading your way.)

Bob Gardner
 
Velocity173 said:
I always thought it was funny that the lower aircraft has the right of way but not to abuse this to overtake or cut in front of an aircraft that's on final approach to land. What are the odds that I would be lower than the aircraft on final approach to land? I guess if I was a helicopter doing right traffic but that's about it.:dunno:
Click to expand...

If you're flying in an airport that allows jets, they will probably have a higher pattern altitude than 1000 AGL. Even without that, inexperienced pilots seem to fly B-52 patterns at the wrong altitude all the time.

I was most worried about the different pattern altitudes at Petaluma (O69), which has a lower altitude (500 MSL) for the swarm of ultralights there. Similarly, gliders often fly a much shallower approach than we do. In both cases, the other guy gets the right of way. Technically, we get it if we're on final and a glider isn't, but the glider isn't capable of a go-around, so I wouldn't insist on this at all. It might be tempting for some people to squeeze ahead of a glider, as they will need help to clear the runway and 1/2 mile spacing behind is not enough. Don't do this.

Not that this is advisible, but you could also fly your pattern well below pattern altitude, to abuse this rule.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
I was most worried about the different pattern altitudes at Petaluma (O69), which has a lower altitude (500 MSL) for the swarm of ultralights there. Similarly, gliders often fly a much shallower approach than we do. In both cases, the other guy gets the right of way. Technically, we get it if we're on final and a glider isn't, but the glider isn't capable of a go-around, so I wouldn't insist on this at all. It might be tempting for some people to squeeze ahead of a glider, as they will need help to clear the runway and 1/2 mile spacing behind is not enough. Don't do this.
Click to expand...

From reading the reg, it's not obvious to me which takes priority, the final approach rule, 91.113(g), or the category rule in 91.113(d), but as you note, gliders can't do go arounds, so it seems like gliders should get the right of way over airplanes regardless of the phase of flight. I don't know if there are any FAA interpretations or case law on that, but as you say, it certainly wouldn't make sense to try to squeeze in ahead of a glider.
 
PBristolJr said:
What about a formation landing?
Click to expand...
A standard formation (all aircraft within 1 mile horizontally and 100 feet vertically of the lead aircraft) is treated as a single aircraft for ATC purposes. As for landing at a nontowered airport, see 91.111. And if 3 cuts 2 off in the base turn, Lead is going to eat 3 for lunch after landing no matter what the FAR's or ATC might say -- but that's a flight matter, not an FAA issue.
 
roncachamp said:
A helicopter must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft.
Click to expand...

Obviously. I fly helicopters for a living. I'm only saying a helicopter pattern might well below an airplane's altitude on final.:)
 
Ron Levy said:
If push comes to legal shove between what it says in 91.113(g) and what it says in AC 90-66A, 91.113(g) wins every time. See Administrator v. Fekete for the gory details.
Click to expand...

I agree. For me personally, flying a single piston engine aircraft, I won't have other people adjust their downwind simply because I want to do a straight in. Now If I was flying a Citation doing a visual approach, screw it I'm not wasting the gas to go around to the 45!
 
Velocity173 said:
Obviously. I fly helicopters for a living. I'm only saying a helicopter pattern might well below an airplane's altitude on final.:)
Click to expand...

Above, below, or same altitude, a helicopter must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft.
 
roncachamp said:
Above, below, or same altitude, a helicopter must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft.
Click to expand...

Is a heli hovering 10' at the departure end interfering with patter ops if there's traffic waiting to depart (or land)?
 
roncachamp said:
Above, below, or same altitude, a helicopter must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are getting at here. If I'm doing closed traffic at an airport and fixed wing are doing closed traffic the only way to avoid their flow is for me to do right traffic. Are you suggesting I can avoid their flow by doing left traffic? As far as the altiudes I brought up earlier. Generally a fixed wing altitude is 1000 ft and a helicopter is 500 ft and a little closer in to the runway. If I'm at 500 on a right downwind I could easily be under their altitude on final. That's the only thing I was bringing up.
 
Velocity173 said:
I agree. For me personally, flying a single piston engine aircraft, I won't have other people adjust their downwind simply because I want to do a straight in.
Click to expand...
Your plane, your money, your time, your choice. But I'm not going out of my way unnecessarily just to fly the 45-downwind entry, and if I'm on a straight-in, and someone in the pattern deliberately and knowlingly cuts in front of me and forces me to go around, their N-number will get reported to the cognizant FSDO, just like Fekete.
 
Ron Levy said:
Your plane, your money, your time, your choice. But I'm not going out of my way unnecessarily just to fly the 45-downwind entry, and if I'm on a straight-in, and someone in the pattern deliberately and knowlingly cuts in front of me and forces me to go around, their N-number will get reported to the cognizant FSDO, just like Fekete.
Click to expand...

I was doing a practice approach to my local airport last weekend and was essentially on a long final. There was a swarm of aircraft in the pattern (lots of students). I basically saw it as my responsibility to fit into their flow and go around if I couldn't (and I announced as such). I did end up going around and was fine with that. Ron -- would you have expected them to make way for you in this type of situation?
 
Sam D said:
I was doing a practice approach to my local airport last weekend and was essentially on a long final. There was a swarm of aircraft in the pattern (lots of students). I basically saw it as my responsibility to fit into their flow and go around if I couldn't (and I announced as such).
Click to expand...
Again, you plane, your time, your money, and your choice.

I did end up going around and was fine with that. Ron -- would you have expected them to make way for you in this type of situation?
Click to expand...
I would expect them to do what the FAA requires, just as I do, and that is either turn early enough that they don't interfere with my arrival, or to extend to follow me.
 
Velocity173 said:
If I was flying a Citation doing a visual approach, screw it I'm not wasting the gas to go around to the 45!
Click to expand...

Sam D said:
There was a swarm of aircraft in the pattern (lots of students). I basically saw it as my responsibility to fit into their flow and go around if I couldn't (and I announced as such). I did end up going around and was fine with that.
Click to expand...
You did good. I flew a Citation a good many years and would have gone around in that situation. Coming in anywhere from 120 to 140 KIAS, those airplanes reporting on downwind have an annoying way of materializing out of thin air on base ready to turn final right in front of you. Blame it on students or haze or bad eyes, but when it's obviously busy it's better to circle and take inventory of where everybody is. Maybe even bounce out away from the airport and come back after the logjam untangles.

dtuuri
 
Velocity173 said:
I have no idea what you are getting at here. If I'm doing closed traffic at an airport and fixed wing are doing closed traffic the only way to avoid their flow is for me to do right traffic. Are you suggesting I can avoid their flow by doing left traffic? As far as the altiudes I brought up earlier. Generally a fixed wing altitude is 1000 ft and a helicopter is 500 ft and a little closer in to the runway. If I'm at 500 on a right downwind I could easily be under their altitude on final. That's the only thing I was bringing up.
Click to expand...

Altitude is irrelevant, you avoid the flow of fixed-wing traffic by avoiding that traffic.
 
roncachamp said:
Altitude is irrelevant, you avoid the flow of fixed-wing traffic by avoiding that traffic.
Click to expand...

Think I understand now. You're saying I was suggesting a helicopter would mix it up with a fixed wing on final. No, I never said that. Simply saying the only time I could think of where an aircraft in the pattern would be lower than one on final would be a helicopter. My pattern at an uncontrolled airfield would be to land parallel to the runway on opposite traffic patterns. I would stress uncontrolled airfield though because at controlled fields a helicopter could easily be using the final approach segment to the runway with fixed wing.
 
dtuuri said:
You did good. I flew a Citation a good many years and would have gone around in that situation. Coming in anywhere from 120 to 140 KIAS, those airplanes reporting on downwind have an annoying way of materializing out of thin air on base ready to turn final right in front of you. Blame it on students or haze or bad eyes, but when it's obviously busy it's better to circle and take inventory of where everybody is. Maybe even bounce out away from the airport and come back after the logjam untangles.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

So then you bust off the approach, go out and enter the downwind only to run right up a C-150 on downwind? Either way you look at it your speed is going to eat up other aircraft in the pattern. It's common sense that the piston guys in the pattern are just going to have to give way to you because of your speed. Plus, it's just simply unrealistic to make a Citation bust off an approach, burn more gas than that C-150 even carries to go out and re-enter on the downwind.
 
Velocity173 said:
So then you bust off the approach, go out and enter the downwind only to run right up a C-150 on downwind? Either way you look at it your speed is going to eat up other aircraft in the pattern. It's common sense that the piston guys in the pattern are just going to have to give way to you because of your speed. Plus, it's just simply unrealistic to make a Citation bust off an approach, burn more gas than that C-150 even carries to go out and re-enter on the downwind.
Click to expand...
You're forgetting that turbine patterns are at 1500' AGL, so there's no conflict really. I've given way often in those circumstances, though like all good corporate pilots I like to minimize time enroute and time mixing it up with traffic at small airports. But in a lot of cases it just makes better sense to wade in rather than dive.

dtuuri
 
vintage cessna said:
At least a Jet is easier to spot and adjust to, than say a Tiger.
Click to expand...
It might be easier to spot but it's much easier to adjust to other aircraft which are going your same relative speed. Then you also need to look at it the other way. Imagine being in the faster aircraft when everyone else is smaller and slower. Say you are flying your 172 in a pattern full of ultralights.
 
Everskyward said:
It might be easier to spot but it's much easier to adjust to other aircraft which are going your same relative speed. Then you also need to look at it the other way. Imagine being in the faster aircraft when everyone else is smaller and slower. Say you are flying your 172 in a pattern full of ultralights.
Click to expand...

I prefer Jets to come straight in, where I can keep them in front of me and in sight, and not have to worry about getting run over. I find the faster the aircraft relative to mine the easier the adjustment since the faster aircraft is out of the way quicker.
 
When it comes down to it, it's simply using professional common courtesy in the pattern. Couple weeks ago I'm bringing the helicopter back to the airport. A King Air is holding short for an opposite direction take-off. I'm on a straight in but also with about a 10 kt tailwind. I realize I might be holding up a fixed wing departing into the prevailing wind. At 2 miles I tell the King Air I'm going to terminate the approach and go around to a right downwind as not to interfer with his departure. He said no, don't bother with that we can wait a minute while you land. See, communication and being professional goes a long way. Too often people want to complain for petty pattern stuff that really doesn't matter.
 
dtuuri said:
You're forgetting that turbine patterns are at 1500' AGL, so there's no conflict really. I've given way often in those circumstances, though like all good corporate pilots I like to minimize time enroute and time mixing it up with traffic at small airports. But in a lot of cases it just makes better sense to wade in rather than dive.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

Wait just a darn minute. You want to exercise judgement? What about case law?
 
Velocity173 said:
When it comes down to it, it's simply using professional common courtesy in the pattern. Couple weeks ago I'm bringing the helicopter back to the airport. A King Air is holding short for an opposite direction take-off. I'm on a straight in but also with about a 10 kt tailwind. I realize I might be holding up a fixed wing departing into the prevailing wind. At 2 miles I tell the King Air I'm going to terminate the approach and go around to a right downwind as not to interfer with his departure. He said no, don't bother with that we can wait a minute while you land. See, communication and being professional goes a long way. Too often people want to complain for petty pattern stuff that really doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Why use the runway at all?
 
Simply saying the only time I could think of where an aircraft in the pattern would be lower than one on final would be a helicopter.
Click to expand...

If your'e operating at a location where ag aircraft are working, the other traffic may not be doing much talking, and may never get higher than 500' AGL.
 
roncachamp said:
Why use the runway at all?
Click to expand...
Lots of reasons. In this case taking the parallel taxiway puts my rotor wash a little to close to the runway. Probably wouldn't bother a King Air but I don't chance it when dealing with fixed wing. Plus too often people complain of our rotor wash when it even wasn't a factor for them. Obviously with a helicopter I could go direct the pad on the ramp. This would bring my aircraft over populated areas, hangers, cars etc. Of course then I could say screw it, I'm a helicopter and don't have any minimun altitude but I do care about flying friendly. Doesn't matter that I didn't cause hazards to persons or property on the ground, all it takes is someone calling in a noise complaint.

Helicopters frequently want the runway for certain training maneuvers. A couple weeks ago I did my 135 checkride and the examiner did left traffic (oh no) and a 1000 ft pattern. If we're doing an auto we go to the runway in case we have to set it down for an emergency or need room for a go around. If we're doing a run-on/roll-on once again we want the runway. Just the safe thing to do.

So, basically when I'm coming back to our home base (airport) and there isn't anyone else in the pattern I do a straight in to the runway. Also another thing, when coming back at night, even with goggles, I don't have to worry about pranging into an antenna/wires by going direct the ramp from the opposite side of the pattern. I look at the VASI, stay on glide path and don't worry about obstructions. Got enough worries landing in the middle of a road at night, don't need to chance it coming back to my home field.:D
 
DouglasBader said:
If your'e operating at a location where ag aircraft are working, the other traffic may not be doing much talking, and may never get higher than 500' AGL.
Click to expand...

Correct. We had one guy at my old field that came out of nowhere just a few hundred feet up and do straight ins.
 
Not all runways are created equal. I landed on an uncontrolled 2000 foot grass runway Saturday morning. Had there been another plane on the runway, or even NEAR the runway I would NOT have landed. If OTOH I would have been at my home field, an uncontrolled 4000 foot paved runway, If someone were taking off and in the air at the far end of the runway, I probably wouldn't have too much hesitancy.
 
If I remember rightly, the ATC standard for separation between planes on the same runway is something like 3000 or 3500 feet, so landing with less spacing than that at an uncontrolled field would not seem prudent.
 
Palmpilot said:
If I remember rightly, the ATC standard for separation between planes on the same runway is something like 3000 or 3500 feet...
Click to expand...
3000 feet is the least runway spacing they're allowed, but depending on aircraft types, it may also be 4500 or 6000 feet.
...so landing with less spacing than that at an uncontrolled field would not seem prudent.
Click to expand...
ATC also has to keep aircraft in flight separated by 3-5 miles horizontally and 1000 feet vertically. Do you think that two airplanes in the pattern with less than that separation would be imprudent on that basis alone? I do not, and I don't think that a minimum of 3000 feet spacing is necessary for prudent operation in all nontowered airport cases, either. If I'm in a Cub over the numbers of a 2500-foot runwayabout to touch down, and there's another Cub which is 300 feet from the far end about to turn off, I wouldn't have the least qualms about continuing. OTOH, if I'm in a Glasair III, and there's a Cub 4000 feet in front of me, I'm going around without question.
 
Ron Levy said:
ATC also has to keep aircraft in flight separated by 3-5 miles horizontally and 1000 feet vertically. Do you think that two airplanes in the pattern with less than that separation would be imprudent on that basis alone?
Click to expand...

:confused: ATC does not separate light aircraft in the pattern by 3-5 miles, so I don't see any reason why pilots would need to.

In any case, I wasn't suggesting a hard and fast rule, which is why I used the word "seem."

I do not, and I don't think that a minimum of 3000 feet spacing is necessary for prudent operation in all nontowered airport cases, either. If I'm in a Cub over the numbers of a 2500-foot runwayabout to touch down, and there's another Cub which is 300 feet from the far end about to turn off, I wouldn't have the least qualms about continuing. OTOH, if I'm in a Glasair III, and there's a Cub 4000 feet in front of me, I'm going around without question.
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top