Pattern Wars - The New FAA Answer - Or Not

[dbahn]

As I see it, the big failing in the wording is the ambiguity in where exactly is that point when you are in the pattern and when you're not. Has to be ambiguous I suppose to a point when mixing aircraft of vastly different performance. I recon the best way to differentiate that point might be based on TPA..... the point at which at a normal decent rate you reach TPA.

The big mistake there is that you're assigning a privilege to being "in the pattern". There is none, or if there is one please cite the source, not the opinion. It's a common and deadly misconception of "being there first" or "announcing my position" or other misconceptions which simply don't apply to collision avoidance.

And if you can find a reliable source that there is any merit in arguing about what constitutes distance on final and applying that to collision avoidance, please post that as well. In the meantime, also please note the Pilot Controller Glossary (an FAA publication with lots of definitions - like most glossaries) DE'FINES "final" as anywhere on the final approach course and defines "final approach course" as "without regard to distance." I'm going with that until someone can convince me otherwise . . .

 

[dtuuri]

I think the point of entry into downwind from upwind is you over fly and have a chance to talk and observe before you enter. It’s a choice for any pilot to do that before you land whether there’s is radio advisory or not.

Here in the US we want immediate gratification! You Canadians enjoy scenery.

 

[Walboy]

VFR? They should be conforming to VFR pattern rules not doing the missed approach, no? Or did @dbahn say he was scud-running?

Scud running? I'm not sure why a red herring or straw man logical fallacy is necessary.

The fact of the matter is that this airport is saturated with student training of all kinds. Missed approches are flown all the time as part of the required training in Task C [Missed Approach] of Instrument Approach Procedures and likely being demonstrated on a checkride. There are four approaches that have essentially the same missed approach prodecures. In the interest of expediency, almost all approaches terminate in a missed approach whose holding fix coincides with the IAF to those same approaches.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, the point I'm attempting to make is there are times when entering the patten on the upwind can be harzardous. This would be one of them.

 

[Salty]

I am just so glad the nontowered fields I fly to always seem to be populated by very friendly and accommodating pilots.

It’s always “Happy to extend so you can get in” and “Mind if I squeak in ahead of you?” and “I’ll break it off and rejoin to give you room”
I have NEVER heard ugliness, the places I frequent. (Texas, NM mainly)

This attitude is huge in making things safe AND pleasant!

Must not have any cirrus on the field. I kid. Sort of.

 

[Punkinhead]

If you’ve ever tried to follow a Cub in a turbine airplane, especially when the Cub feels it’s “his” airport, you might feel that the fewer pattern lets you fly, the better.

I always yield to faster traffic when flying a Cub. If I was in a hurry I wouldn't be in a Cub. We have a nearby class D that's used for ATC training so we get a lot of inexperienced guys in the tower who will try to clear me to land with a jet (or something slower but still fast like an Aerostar) 5-10 miles out when I'm still in the downwind. Sometimes in takes a very explicit explanation of relative airspeeds to get across that it's best for everyone if he lands straight in before me. Plus, I'm retired so I'd rather the poor schlub that's just trying to make a living get in and empty his bladder after a multi-hour flight.

 

[dtuuri]

...the point I'm attempting to make is there are times when entering the patten on the upwind can be harzardous. This would be one of them.

I agree it would be risky to make right turns when VFR in contravention of the departure procedures specified in the AIM. @dbahn would be operating i/a/w 91.126(b), a higher authority, imo. There should be local rules for practice approaches, imo.

 

[Clip4]

The regulation the FAA should adopt is regulation of number of practice landings at uncontrolled airports without leaving the pattern.

 

[Doc Holliday]

 

[dbahn]

I see from this thread that all the old arguments on this subject are alive and well. So much for the new AC clarifying anything.

Agree completely. The argument will go on forever, leaving people to develop their own concepts. Here are mine - the priorities in order of importance:

1. See and avoid: An unambiguous command to all pilots regardless of ROW, pattern position, altitude, general misconceptions, opinions, "what I was taught" or any other factor. It's the first and primary rule in 91.113

2. CFR 91.113 - Right-of way-rules : an all-encompassing regulation that prioritizes actions to avoid an aircraft that has the ROW.

3. Courtesy and Advisory Circulars: a range of recommendations based on mutual voluntary cooperation of pilots designed to improve the safe flow of traffic all while recognizing the "more absolute" authority of #1 and #2 above and often dependent on radio communication when able (excludes NORDO and other some other aircraft). It includes practices that may be unique to a given airfield.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The regulation the FAA should adopt is regulation of number of practice landings at uncontrolled airports without leaving the pattern.

Subreg: If you can’t learn to land within the proscribed number, you shouldn’t be flying?

 

[PaulS]

I landed at Venice Municipal Airport in Florida in April, it was busy, but no issues. For me or anyone else (I fly Cirrus). On the way out there were at least 5 in the pattern, a young lady in a Cirrus, looked like she was flying some sort of taxi service, had pulled out before I started and was still there ahead of me as I pulled up for my runup. She kept asking for room to depart and the 4 or 5 in the pattern ignored her. This went for quite a bit until one had mercy on her and extended his downwind a half mile so she could get out. I was getting near to finishing my run up and a premier jet pulls up, asks me if I was ready to go, I told him no, be my guest. He took about 30 seconds, my guess to call ATC for his release, meanwhile the pattern guys are back into their rhythm of filling the pattern. The jet rolls up the hold short line, waits for the guy who had just touched down to take off again, meanwhile the next guy probably about 45 seconds from landing calls short final. The jet guy pipes up, says Premier jet, departing rwy 23 as he starts rolling onto the runway. Predictably the guy on short final, announces he's on short final, then realizes the jet is going, so he says "oh well, I guess I'll yield to the jet, on the go." The jet took off and was probably at 500 feet by the time the final guy reached the threshold. The guy doing the go around tried to get into it with the jet, but the jet guy didn't take the bait. I just sat there and laughed at the boss move, not something I'd do though. I suspect there was some history here.

A few minutes later I was ready to go and they let me out pretty quickly after I asked.

 

[ateamer]

People’s definition of “short final” varies wildly, but in most cases it seems to be a mile or more. To me, short final means about 10 seconds or less, roughly a quarter mile for most piston singles. An increasingly common call seems to be “base to short final”, when the plane has just rolled wings level on a wide downwind and will be flying a one-plus mile final. In the time bewteen them making that call and crossing the threshold, there is literally enough time for two planes to depart with adequate spacing (assuming they’re not doing the flight school 30 item checklist sitting on the runway, but rather balls to the wall and the engine hitting max power as the nosewheel straightens).

 

[Skyrys62]

“Negotiations are not over just because you’ve called 'straight-in'.”

This should be a test question on FAA exam.
Maybe on checklist too... if anyone uses those

 

[MauleSkinner]

People’s definition of “short final” varies wildly, but in most cases it seems to be a mile or more. To me, short final means about 10 seconds or less, roughly a quarter mile for most piston singles. An increasingly common call seems to be “base to short final”, when the plane has just rolled wings level on a wide downwind and will be flying a one-plus mile final. In the time bewteen them making that call and crossing the threshold, there is literally enough time for two planes to depart with adequate spacing (assuming they’re not doing the flight school 30 item checklist sitting on the runway, but rather balls to the wall and the engine hitting max power as the nosewheel straightens).

“Short final” is the equivalent of “I really don’t know where I am…use caution.”

 

[dbahn]

"Short final" to me means start looking near the threshold and then out to the final approach course from there. I don't see how anyone can rely on the transmission to accurately depict exactly where they are in the pattern unless they specify an unambiguous ground reference or other waypoint, and instrument waypoints aren't very helpful to many of the pilots.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The big mistake there is that you're assigning a privilege to being "in the pattern". There is none, or if there is one please cite the source

"any turn into a straight-in approach must be made sufficiently far from the runway that it does not interfere with the normal traffic pattern. This naturally requires consideration of the aircraft using that airport. "

and

"There, 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."

That's the 1992 FAA v. Boardman case (the second Alaska Airlines traffic pattern case) quoting the "established interpretation" from the 1985 Dibble case.

 

[luvflyin]

 

[Half Fast]

To me, short final means about 10 seconds or less, roughly a quarter mile for most piston singles.

To me, short final means, “No, you don’t have time to get out in front of me. If you pull onto the runway and I continue my approach, there is some non-zero probability we will co-occupy space. HOLD SHORT.”

 

[Brad W]

The big mistake there is that you're assigning a privilege to being "in the pattern". There is none, or if there is one please cite the source, not the opinion. It's a common and deadly misconception of "being there first" or "announcing my position" or other misconceptions which simply don't apply to collision avoidance.

And if you can find a reliable source that there is any merit in arguing about what constitutes distance on final and applying that to collision avoidance, please post that as well. In the meantime, also please note the Pilot Controller Glossary (an FAA publication with lots of definitions - like most glossaries) DE'FINES "final" as anywhere on the final approach course and defines "final approach course" as "without regard to distance." I'm going with that until someone can convince me otherwise . . .




View attachment 119013


View attachment 119012

You've got my point wrong....it's not at all about merit....or some bull headed stance of I was there first, get out of my way....
quite the contrary.... it's more about trying to get the "I'm on final so I have the right of way" folks to think outside their box and be a little more considerate.... hoping they my change their paradigm of trying to beat the system to their advantage over everyone elses.

I'm not saying don't yield.... yes, in the name of safety, yield....but more importantly I beleive that rules and regulations or not, that we all should strive to be generous and giving in trying to coordinate with others so that we can all fit into the line...and yes, even to the point of giving priority/advantage to those with emergency or to those actually trying to just land with purpose vs doing stop and go training (or whatever). Just like walking down the sidewalk....if I'm walking down the right side but come face to face with someone walking the other way on the left....if they want to be so bold has to hold their line I will most often turn a bit to avoid collision.... and I'll even be especially gracious if there's any indication that the other person also makes effort to yield and aren't trying to be just a common bully.

And to that point....yeah, right there in your screenshot visual aids. Kinda making my point. "Final Approach Course"....THAT right there..... yep, sure thing...common language might be to shorten or simplify the term to just "Final".....but it's NOT the final leg of a pattern! Two different things....sure the approach to the airport is without regard to distance...... But entry into the pattern is absolutely not the same as intercepting a localizer or otherwise lining up many miles out
and folks that do that are acting kinda like that bully walking down the sidewalk threatening to run everybody over.... they probably think they are in the right....but I think they are in the wrong.

 

[dbahn]

"any turn into a straight-in approach must be made sufficiently far from the runway that it does not interfere with the normal traffic pattern. This naturally requires consideration of the aircraft using that airport. "

and

"There, 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."

That's the 1992 FAA v. Boardman case (the second Alaska Airlines traffic pattern case) quoting the "established interpretation" from the 1985 Dibble case.

Wasn't aircraft speed and distance also a factor in that decision? As I recall without looking it up, the pilot was busted for making a right hand turn into a final with a left hand pattern, essentially trying to take advantage of the ROW rules. I wonder how they would have ruled if Boardman had made a left hand turn to final at the same distance from the airport?

 

[dbahn]

You've got my point wrong....it's not at all about merit....or some bull headed stance of I was there first, get out of my way....
quite the contrary.... it's more about trying to get the "I'm on final so I have the right of way" folks to think outside their box and be a little more considerate.... hoping they my change their paradigm of trying to beat the system to their advantage over everyone elses.

I don't disagree with any of that, and my experiences is that most pattern activity works that way with the exception of a few people whose own self-importance seems to override their sense of courtesy.

Personally, I'd like to see some form of regulatory control over the use of straight-in approaches but as soon as you try to do that, even in theory, it seems to create other problems that are just as bad or worse than the current regulations.

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

To me, short final means, “No, you don’t have time to get out in front of me. If you pull onto the runway and I continue my approach, there is some non-zero probability we will co-occupy space. HOLD SHORT.”

 

[Daleandee]

I see from this thread that all the old arguments on this subject are alive and well. So much for the new AC clarifying anything.

That was kinda my point in posting the new AC along with Paul's thought's on the matter. I agree ... this really clarifies nothing and seems to add to the confusion.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Wasn't aircraft speed and distance also a factor in that decision?

they were. They were part of defining the pattern. Since it was a fast airplane, what its pattern was for the purpose of the left turn rule was expanded. I dint know what the situation was in the earlier case. Too early for the NTSB database.

 

[cowman]

This must be an issue at certain airport or certain areas. I'm approaching 800hrs of flight time and I have NEVER run into an issue in the traffic pattern. Most of the time most uncontrolled fields aren't that busy and there isn't even a potential conflict. Occasionally when there is, someone usually volunteers to extend downwind, do a 360, etc because most of us don't have issue with delaying a minute or two to keep everyone comfortably separated.

But just to play along here.... returning home from an airport I frequently fly to puts me on pretty darn close to a 310 heading and it so happens that my home field has a runway 31 which is frequently the most favorable runway for wind. Is the FAA really saying that in such a situation I shouldn't just come straight in, thus getting my airplane on the ground and out of the pattern in the most efficient and straightforward manner? What if I've filed IFR and start the approach, popping out of the clouds at 2,000agl? Am I supposed to fly the pattern then?

Speaking of IFR what are they going to do with all the traffic flying training/practice instrument approaches?

Now I'm understanding that they wrote this as advisory and wiggle room has been left for common sense, but if wiggle room is needed for common sense then why put this out at all?

 

[Country Flier]

This must be an issue at certain airport or certain areas. I'm approaching 800hrs of flight time and I have NEVER run into an issue in the traffic pattern. Most of the time most uncontrolled fields aren't that busy and there isn't even a potential conflict. Occasionally when there is, someone usually volunteers to extend downwind, do a 360, etc because most of us don't have issue with delaying a minute or two to keep everyone comfortably separated.

But just to play along here.... returning home from an airport I frequently fly to puts me on pretty darn close to a 310 heading and it so happens that my home field has a runway 31 which is frequently the most favorable runway for wind. Is the FAA really saying that in such a situation I shouldn't just come straight in, thus getting my airplane on the ground and out of the pattern in the most efficient and straightforward manner? What if I've filed IFR and start the approach, popping out of the clouds at 2,000agl? Am I supposed to fly the pattern then?

Speaking of IFR what are they going to do with all the traffic flying training/practice instrument approaches?

Now I'm understanding that they wrote this as advisory and wiggle room has been left for common sense, but if wiggle room is needed for common sense then why put this out at all?

I have over 1000 hours, and I never have had problems with ROW either. Usually, I'm asking, "Where is everybody?" when I fly. Seems like I'm the only one up whenever I fly, so conflicts can't happen.

 

[Mongoose Aviator]

Usually, I'm asking, "Where is everybody?" when I fly.

I optimistically assume that was a joke and not just another version of "Any Traffic in the Area Please Advise".

 

[IK04]

"Upwind" is not the same as "departure" so you wouldn't fly the upwind over the runway but rather offset to the side. So personally if I'm approaching from the opposite side of the pattern I''d rather fly upwind to get a good look at the pattern (and the windsock) then start the crosswind and downwind as soon as it looks clear. It adds all of about 60 seconds or less and both increases my visibility to other aircraft and my ability to spot other aircraft.

Also, on the upwind you are flying in the same direction as landing and departing traffic, so the closure rate between two aircraft is much slower. In the NORDO Cub it's not unusual for me to enter the upwind even if I'm in position to land straight it, because I'm more visible to other aircraft for a longer period of time and more turns, and I have more time to study the whole airport environment. At least NORDO aircraft know for sure that no one is listening to them.

In the narrow canyon type airstrips in Alaska, I typically flew into an upwind and used the overflight to examine the surface for bad things, then descended once it was safe to turn final. Some of those strips had a SSFO or RCO to announce position in the pattern and talk to FSS.

Sometimes a straight-in was the best plan, if the terrain and conditions were suitable.

 

[Brad W]

This must be an issue at certain airport or certain areas. I'm approaching 800hrs of flight time and I have NEVER run into an issue in the traffic pattern. Most of the time most uncontrolled fields aren't that busy and there isn't even a potential conflict. Occasionally when there is, someone usually volunteers to extend downwind, do a 360, etc because most of us don't have issue with delaying a minute or two to keep everyone comfortably separated.

But just to play along here.... returning home from an airport I frequently fly to puts me on pretty darn close to a 310 heading and it so happens that my home field has a runway 31 which is frequently the most favorable runway for wind. Is the FAA really saying that in such a situation I shouldn't just come straight in, thus getting my airplane on the ground and out of the pattern in the most efficient and straightforward manner? What if I've filed IFR and start the approach, popping out of the clouds at 2,000agl? Am I supposed to fly the pattern then?

Speaking of IFR what are they going to do with all the traffic flying training/practice instrument approaches?

Now I'm understanding that they wrote this as advisory and wiggle room has been left for common sense, but if wiggle room is needed for common sense then why put this out at all?

My rusty-pilot read on it is this
that's one of maybe two reasons they say it's ok to make straight in approaches to final
but based on all the ambiguity...and perhaps a little on consideration for others, etc.... it's conditional.
sure...fly your straight in approach for final entry...but only when there's not a lot of other traffic in the pattern/area....
if you get a sense that there's a lot of traffic that would make coordinating your pattern entry difficult or upsetting to several others.... then perhaps it would be better to plan a different pattern entry.
My gut tells me this idea is more aligned with the FAA intention in their language.

 

[EdFred]

Planes that burn the most fuel in a given time period should be given right of way in in the pattern order to reduce the carbon footprint. Do it for the children.

 

[PaulS]

I will say, if you announce you are on a straight in final without a distance, you are kind of a turd.

 

[EdFred]

I will say, if you announce you are on a straight in final without a distance, you are kind of a turd.

I once announced a 100+ mile straight in to Gaston's.
I honestly don't remember if I flew the pattern or came straight in on that approach.

 

[dbahn]

I once announced a 100+ mile straight in to Gaston's.
I honestly don't remember if I flew the pattern or came straight in on that approach.

Well, you certainly had plenty of time to decide . . .

 

[Half Fast]

I once announced a 100+ mile straight in to Gaston's.

HF radio?

 

[EdFred]

HF radio?

I was a bit above pattern altitude at that point, like 8500.