Straight In Approach

[Graueradler]

I would have sworn that there is an FAA figure showing the traffic pattern that shows both the 45 degree to the down wind entry and a straight in approach with no commentary indicating a preference. I would have also sworn that it is in the AIM. I know I have seen it. The only thing I can find in the AIM (03 version) is figure 4.3.3 which only shows the 45 degree entry to the down wind. Am I going nuts? Where is it?

 

[SkyHog]

I would have sworn that there is an FAA figure showing the traffic pattern that shows both the 45 degree to the down wind entry and a straight in approach with no commentary indicating a preference. I would have also sworn that it is in the AIM. I know I have seen it. The only thing I can find in the AIM (03 version) is figure 4.3.3 which only shows the 45 degree entry to the down wind. Am I going nuts? Where is it?

In the 2005 AIM - Figure 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 both show 45 degree downwind entry, but make no mention of the straight in entry.

Diagrams 5.4.7 and 5.4.8 shows straight in and base approaches, but it appears thats for instrument approaches.

The AIM glossary defines the final approach of a traffic pattern as:

e. Final Approach. A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended runway centerline. The final approach normally extends from the base leg to the runway. An aircraft making a straight-in approach VFR is considered to be on final approach. (emphasis added by me).

I don't know if this helps you, but it was fun to look at for me anyways.


EDIT: I also found this in an AC. Seventh page should be what you're looking for

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

 

[poadeleted20]

It's not there, but don't worry -- it's still legal. You aren't violating the "all turns in the pattern in one direction" rule since you aren't making any turns, and the FAA, backed by the NTSB, has nailed pilots flying the depicted patterns who turn in front of and cut off planes making straight-ins.

 

[Richard]

Bobby, why do you ask? My rule is to avoid straight-in finals at uncontrolled flds.

 

[Graueradler]

I asked because I was at an ASF safety lecture last night in which the lecturer (Mark Grady) talked about someone on a straight in colliding with someone who had made the 45 to the downwind entry and losing a subsequent jury type lawsuit because of AIM figure 4.3.3. I approached him after the meeting because I remembered an FAA diagram that also showed the straight in and am now having trouble finding it.

If there is traffic, I don't use a straight in but I start talking 10 to 12 miles away from the field and if there is no other known traffic and the straight in is convenient, I use it - watching for no radio traffic while I am doing it. Some of these rural airports see less than half a dozen planes a day.

 

[Graueradler]

Thanks Nick,

The AC diagram is the one that I remember.

Bobby

 

[poadeleted20]

I asked because I was at an ASF safety lecture last night in which the lecturer (Mark Grady) talked about someone on a straight in colliding with someone who had made the 45 to the downwind entry and losing a subsequent jury type lawsuit because of AIM figure 4.3.3.

If that is how the jury found, the guy on the straight-in had an ineffective lawyer, because the regulations (which trump any advisory guidance like the AIM) give the aircraft on final (including a straight-in) right of way. See 14 CFR 91.113(g) and Administrator v. Fekete, NTSB Order EA-4236, (http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4236.PDF). Unless there's more to the story, based on those legal findings and the Court of Appeals ruling on FAA interpretation of FAR's, this should have been a slam dunk for the pilot on the straight-in.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

If that is how the jury found, the guy on the straight-in had an ineffective lawyer, because the regulations (which trump any advisory guidance like the AIM) give the aircraft on final (including a straight-in) right of way. See 14 CFR 91.113(g) and Administrator v. Fekete, NTSB Order EA-4236, (http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4236.PDF). Unless there's more to the story, based on those legal findings and the Court of Appeals ruling on FAA interpretation of FAR's, this should have been a slam dunk for the pilot on the straight-in.

Even armed with 91.113 you can't find a majority within any randomly selected twelve pilots who won't swear up and down that the aircraft making a straight in is a bozo, at fault, shouldn't be there, yada, yada. How do you expect to find a jury of twelve lay people who would find otherwise?

 

[Richard]

Even armed with 91.113 you can't find a majority within any randomly selected twelve pilots who won't swear up and down that the aircraft making a straight in is a bozo, at fault, shouldn't be there, yada, yada. How do you expect to find a jury of twelve lay people who would find otherwise?

Ed, you make a good point.

It's my choice to avoid the straight-in final. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm flying the 45 to downwind or any other recommened entry, or as Deakin says, a 45 Nazi, just what it says. And you can be sure I'm clearing final every step of the way. If another pilot decides to make the straight-in final at uncontrolled flds it is his perogative and I do not think him stupid, dangerous, or a bozo.

 

[Graueradler]

The NTSB made it pretty clear that the plane on final has right of way and even more so when it is the lower aircraft. It seems a little contradictory that the Advisory Circular in Paragraph 7.e. addresses the straight in approach as "should be completed so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and departing traffic. Pilots in the pattern should be alert for aircraft executing straight ins (paraphrased)." This would seem to imply a priority for planes flying the normal pattern.

I would think that any entry into the pattern should be conducted so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving or departing traffic.

I see no reason to change my current paractices.

The event described by Mr. Grady was a wing tip to wing tip collision in which both planes landed safely.

 

[poadeleted20]

Even armed with 91.113 you can't find a majority within any randomly selected twelve pilots who won't swear up and down that the aircraft making a straight in is a bozo, at fault, shouldn't be there, yada, yada. How do you expect to find a jury of twelve lay people who would find otherwise?

That's what a good lawyer is for -- picking the right twelve people who will believe what the lawyer says. Since a civil trial goes on a majority, not unanimous verdict, the lawyer has to pick the right people and "educate" them to his point of view, and then need only get 7 out of the 12 to agree with him. More often than not, it seems the best lawyer, not the best case, wins, but in this case, with the law on his side, it shouldn't take Johnny Cochran to win.

 

[poadeleted20]

The NTSB made it pretty clear that the plane on final has right of way and even more so when it is the lower aircraft.

Actually, 91.113(g) makes that clear -- the NTSB is just applying that regulation to a legal case.

It seems a little contradictory that the Advisory Circular in Paragraph 7.e. addresses the straight in approach as "should be completed so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and departing traffic. Pilots in the pattern should be alert for aircraft executing straight ins (paraphrased)." This would seem to imply a priority for planes flying the normal pattern.

It might "seem to imply" that, but when there's a conflict between regulations and advisory information (like AC's and the AIM), the regulations are controlling -- that's a matter of law. That final sentence in 91.119(g) makes it clear that even if you're lower, you can't "cut in front of" a plane on final unless he's far enough out that you won't force him to go around, as did Fekete -- who paid the penalty for that move.

I would think that any entry into the pattern should be conducted so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving or departing traffic.

I agree, and that's as much a matter of courtesy and professionalism as a matter of law.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Actually, 91.113(g) makes that clear -- the NTSB is just applying that regulation to a legal case.

It might "seem to imply" that, but when there's a conflict between regulations and advisory information (like AC's and the AIM), the regulations are controlling -- that's a matter of law. That final sentence in 91.119(g) makes it clear that even if you're lower, you can't "cut in front of" a plane on final unless he's far enough out that you won't force him to go around, as did Fekete -- who paid the penalty for that move.

I agree, and that's as much a matter of courtesy and professionalism as a matter of law.

As a student pilot on the downwind to an untowered field, an approaching legend-in-his-own-mind asked me to extend my downwind so he could control and complete his straight-in approach at what he must have fantasized was Mach 2 or something. Of course I extended downwind and when I passed his low wing aircraft off my left wing about 3 or 4 miles out, I wondered just what he was trying to prove by initial announcements of final approach at what must have been 9-10 miles out !

He & his 3 PAX were deplaned and almost to the restaurant by the time I landed and, rolling by, I detected a rather sheepish look on his no-class face.

This one was a fairly harmless and common case of "look how important I am in my oh-so-fast airplane or something" but, always keep eyes & ears open and broadcast properly because "pilots" will do strange and unexpected things at the most inopportune times.

 

[Bill]

so he could control and complete his straight-in approach

He wasn't shooting a practice app was he?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

He wasn't shooting a practice app was he?

Naw, just cruisin' in VFR at TPA from the east, at Hoquiam, WA.

(even if he were shooting an IR approach, no difference at that distance)

 

[mmthomas]

Thoughts on this issue from a defense lawyer:

The fact that the plane on a straight-in final was not violating any regulations and had the right of way would not absolve the pilot of liability for negligence if a reasonably prudent pilot under the same or similar circumstances would have used the standard 45 degree entry. And these and other forums are replete with opinions from reasonably prudent pilots that straight-in finals should be used only rarely and with caution.

In most states, the fact that the plane in the pattern violated the right of way regulation would make the pilot of that plane partially responsible for the accident. This would not preclude recovery from the straight-in pilot, but would reduce the amount of recoverable damages.

Also, as Ron has noted in other contexts, the fact that the plane on straight-in final was complying with all applicable regulations would not absolve him or her of a charge of violating the "careless and reckless" regulation.

 

[poadeleted20]

The fact that the plane on a straight-in final was not violating any regulations and had the right of way would not absolve the pilot of liability for negligence if a reasonably prudent pilot under the same or similar circumstances would have used the standard 45 degree entry....In most states, the fact that the plane in the pattern violated the right of way regulation would make the pilot of that plane partially responsible for the accident. This would not preclude recovery from the straight-in pilot, but would reduce the amount of recoverable damages...

So I guess the best answer is that if you're on a straight-in and someone in the pattern cuts you off and doesn't want to yield as he should, don't play chicken -- forget legality, think safety, and just go around on the "cold" side, keeping him in sight and avoiding him, and let the local ASC deal with him later. If he wants to make a case of it after that, take it to the Feds knowing that before an ALJ rather than 12 bozos off the street, he's toast. But when you do make a straight-in, play by the rules -- listen up on CTAF, lights on, make your calls, and watch out for dummies.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

There are times I do straight ins;

arriving on an IFR flight plan many times I'm aligned for a straight in when released by ATC; and, low traffic airports like where sometimes take my plane for maintenance.

But I always make calls on CTAF and look for other traffic. If there is other traffic, I work to fit in or join in a manner that doesn't disrupt. I could see having a conflict with a NORDO I didn't see, but if the other plane's pilot is communicatin, no problem. I never talk about the right of way; just how I can work into traffic.

I find most other pilots very courteous and understanding. I have to be careful of the fact that I'm a little faster (120 knot blue line) and have to fly a wider pattern than many GA guys. I have had someone come in right behind me broadcasting they were landing on one runway and actually landed opposite direction. No one else was there--no harm--no foul. She was a little embarrassed, but promised not to do it again.

Best,

Dave

 

[gismo]

This one was a fairly harmless and common case of "look how important I am in my oh-so-fast airplane or something"...

Keep in mind that some if not most pilots flying fast airplanes on straight in approaches are doing so because it's easier to mix with slower traffic that way in many cases. And a straight in call 9-10 miles out doesn't preclude an aircraft ready to turn base from doing so as long as there's room. A call to the faster airplane suggesting such a course of action would generally elicit a "go ahead" from me in such a situtation.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Keep in mind that some if not most pilots flying fast airplanes on straight in approaches are doing so because it's easier to mix with slower traffic that way in many cases. And a straight in call 9-10 miles out doesn't preclude an aircraft ready to turn base from doing so as long as there's room. A call to the faster airplane suggesting such a course of action would generally elicit a "go ahead" from me in such a situtation.

What you say is true, and quite different from this guy's scenario that I outlined, who was in a 4 seat Cherokee (not a fast airplane), requesting specifically that I extend my downwind, while still 9-10 miles out.

He was Bush League all the way.

 

[poadeleted20]

He was Bush League all the way.

I was watching a NASCAR race when one car slid up the turn into another who was moving up on the outside, sending the outside car hard into the wall and out of the race; the inside car, having transferred his excess centripital (centrifugal?) energy to the outside car, regained control, avoided the wall, pitted, changed four tires, and was on his way. The outside driver was in that helmet/gloves/epithet-throwing mode, standing on the tracking and gesturing to the other driver who he thought was #1, or something like that, as the inside driver came around again under the yellow. They get the outside driver on mike before he even gets to the infield hospital, and immediately he accuses the other driver of crashing him out over some previous interaction they'd had. Mike-holder tells him the inside driver had a right rear going down, and every driver knows that when that happens, you're going up the track out of control with no way to stop it -- the outside driver just happened to pick the wrong time to pass. Outside driver then says, "Oh, well then, if that's what happened, I guess that's just racing."

It seems to me that in many situations, we jump to conclusions about the other guy's motive when his actions mess up our day. Perhaps if you set your mind so that when something like this happnes, you first consider the other pilot "inadequately educated" rather than "Bush League," there's a chance for some reasonably professional discussion once you all get on the ground. "Hi, I'm Dave, and I'm the instructor who was in that other plane in the pattern just now. I wonder if I can ask you a question about what happened out there?" Going in with that attitude and that sort of approach can make all the difference between you walking off with a chip on your shoulder and the other guy having his discourtesy reinforced, versus him walking away with a better understanding of "good-neighbor" flying and you feeling that you've accomplished something positive.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I was watching a NASCAR race when one car slid up the turn into another who was moving up on the outside, sending the outside car hard into the wall and out of the race; the inside car, having transferred his excess centripital (centrifugal?) energy to the outside car, regained control, avoided the wall, pitted, changed four tires, and was on his way. The outside driver was in that helmet/gloves/epithet-throwing mode, standing on the tracking and gesturing to the other driver who he thought was #1, or something like that, as the inside driver came around again under the yellow. They get the outside driver on mike before he even gets to the infield hospital, and immediately he accuses the other driver of crashing him out over some previous interaction they'd had. Mike-holder tells him the inside driver had a right rear going down, and every driver knows that when that happens, you're going up the track out of control with no way to stop it -- the outside driver just happened to pick the wrong time to pass. Outside driver then says, "Oh, well then, if that's what happened, I guess that's just racing."

It seems to me that in many situations, we jump to conclusions about the other guy's motive when his actions mess up our day. Perhaps if you set your mind so that when something like this happnes, you first consider the other pilot "inadequately educated" rather than "Bush League," there's a chance for some reasonably professional discussion once you all get on the ground. "Hi, I'm Dave, and I'm the instructor who was in that other plane in the pattern just now. I wonder if I can ask you a question about what happened out there?" Going in with that attitude and that sort of approach can make all the difference between you walking off with a chip on your shoulder and the other guy having his discourtesy reinforced, versus him walking away with a better understanding of "good-neighbor" flying and you feeling that you've accomplished something positive.

Sure, now days, that is one of the things I might do but, as the aforementioned student pilot, I did not know enough about proceedures to realize immediately just how bush-league this type of pilot can be. I also spent some time wondering if I was operating properly, and asked my CFI about the scenario later.

Also, I think the fact that from the point he passed abeam about 4 miles out going into final until way after he was deplaned, his sheepishness was so thick that you could cut it with a knife, showed that he was at least somewhat aware of his actions.

 

[gismo]

...his sheepishness was so thick that you could cut it with a knife, showed that he was at least somewhat aware of his actions.

JOOC how did you perceive this "sheepishness"? I'm not saying you weren't correct, just that I doubt I could discern the difference between sheepishness and say, an urgent need to pee.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

JOOC how did you perceive this "sheepishness"? I'm not saying you weren't correct, just that I doubt I could discern the difference between sheepishness and say, an urgent need to pee.

You're on the right track, we're making progress here on this important issue.

The two looks could indeed be said to be somewhat related but the thick sheepish to which I referred can be distinguished as follows:

Reference and compare a teenager's no doubt logical to him comment I heard once that, he "had to pee so bad he could taste it" -accompanied by the look you envisioned above. Then distinguish that look from the slightly more complicated and uncomfortable facial expression (accompanied by direct eye contact across a few tie-downs for a longer time than a just in-passing acknowledgement) that follows the realization by that person that the particularly bad taste in their mouth is that of the residual left there from the bull sh*t that has just passed through from their mouth onto the radio waves in the form of their pompous request.

I hope this helps.

 

[gismo]

I hope this helps.

I don't know if it helps, but it sure made me laugh.

 

[Ghery]

Straight in from the south to rwy 1 at PWT this evening. Hardly any deviation from the initial course from OLM. Only hassle was the 172 doing 360s about 5 miles south of the airport on the runway centerline. He stopped and headed south just before I called on the radio to make sure he saw me (all lights on and wingtip strobes flashing). Otherwise, no problem at all blending in. Listen on the radio from way out (15+ miles), eyeballs outside (and a second set in the right seat - son has good eyesight) and pay attention. Not so difficult.