Straight in caused a delay, std pattern would cause more

[docmirror]

OK, a little while ago I landed at an uncontrolled airport on a straight in. I was tuned to the CTAF well more than 10 miles out, no traffic reports on the radio while I listened. I report '<airport> 10 miles south, planning a straight in to RWY 35<airport>.

At that time, I had the airport in sight, but couldn't make out anything moving from that distance. As I got closer, I reported 5 mile final RWY 35<airport>. Just after that, I distinctly saw some movement down at the 17 end. There is no AWOS but the AWOS nearby had winds at 265@5. There is no 'calm wind' runway defined.

I kept coming, and reported '3 mile final RWY 35<airport>, and clearly saw two planes waiting at the 17 end. They NEVER said a word until I report 3 miles, then one of them transmits '<Name> what does the wind sock show?' And the reply was 'uh, nothing, I don't have <airport> AWOS'.

My final call was '<airport> Bonanza xxx short final RWY 35' and STILL they wouldn't report holding, or taking off, or anything regarding me! Since the runway is crowned, the 17 end can't see the 35 end while on the ground and vice versa. I landed and reported clear of the runway after turning off. I knew they could hear me.

The two planes finally reported a formation takeoff, and after take off reported a STANDARD TRAFFIC PATTERN DEPARTURE in very enunciated words, that I'm sure was aimed at me. Now, I figure if I was making a standard entry, and pattern, they possibly could have taken off in advance of me, but also, I was blistering along on the descent as I usually do, and would have arrived downwind earlier than my arrival on short final, thus blocking them potentially longer.

Sometimes, I can't win. There's been a lot of discussion about whether it's good practice or not. Obviously I think it's fine, as long as I report adequately. It rather galls me that they didn't speak up while sitting at 17. If I'd heard anything during my approach, I would likely have done a std pattern. I thought it was rather petty that they chose to chastise after I'd already set down and got out of the way. The wind wasn't a factor in either direction.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Meh... Some people are jerks. Were I one of those guys on the ground, I'd have at least told you what my intentions were, especially if I was on the runway! And if you were 5 miles out (probably at least 2 minutes) I'd have probably just departed, again reporting everything and making sure that you heard it.

 

[roncachamp]

There is no AWOS but the AWOS nearby had winds at 265@5.

Odd, wind is normally reported in tens of degrees.

 

[Geico266]

A straight in approach is not the correct way to enter a pattern, especially when there is a no wind / direct crosswind situation. Yes, the planes on the ground should have been communicating with you, but there is no requirement to have a radio in a GA plane. Had you entered the pattern on down wind you could have seen the planes using 17 and you could have corrected your pattern to use the same runway as the traffic on the ground is using.

JMHO, you were the "aggressor" in grabbing a runway 10 miles out without knowing what who was in the area or on the ground.

I'm not trying to be "holier that thou", I have done the same exact thing. After sitting back and looking at the situation, and talking with the other pilots, I could see where I could have done better to avoid the "situation". I learned along time ago that I can only control the way I fly, and not the way other pilots fly. The extra 2 mins it takes to "do it right" has helped me avoid similar situations after I "learned my lesson".

 

[roncachamp]

A straight in approach is not the correct way to enter a pattern, especially when there is a no wind situation.

There's nothing inherently incorrect in a straight in approach.

 

[CT Arrow]

Doc, I see no issues with what you did as I have done the same. You reported your position & communicated your intentions.

Yes, the "straight in" approach is kinda like high and low wing debate sometimes

 

[Greebo]

A straight in approach is not the correct way to enter a pattern, especially when there is a no wind / direct crosswind situation.

Back that up with a FAR/AIM reference, please.

 

[gprellwitz]

Doc, the problem is that you didn't use the magic phrase ATITAPA!

I agree, they never gave you a chance to work it out with you. 2-way communications would have helped here.

 

[ron22]

Why didnt you ask the two planes at the 17 end their intentions?

 

[Dean]

One thing you have to remember is that you are not required to even have a radio when flying from an uncontrolled airport. If you fly a standard pattern it gives the pilots without radio's a better chance of seeing you.(they are searching the PATTERN)
It is very hard to see an airplane on a straight in approach, so I always fly a standard pattern.

 

[roncachamp]

One thing you have to remember is that you are not required to even have a radio when flying from an uncontrolled airport. If you fly a standard pattern it gives the pilots without radio's a better chance of seeing you.(they are searching the PATTERN)

They should search the final as well.

It is very hard to see an airplane on a straight in approach, so I always fly a standard pattern.

I've never had any difficulty seeing an airplane on a straight in approach.

 

[poadeleted20]

Doc, you did fine. You announced your position and intentions, and played by the rules. They did pretty much fine, too, giving way to the aircraft on final as required by 91.119(g). I suppose it would have been nice for them to say something like "We're holding short of 17 waiting for the Bonanza to land," but that's gravy, not meat -- the important part is that they heard you and waited.

For Geico, there's nothing in the FAR/AIM/AC's that says you have to "enter the pattern" in order to land. Both 91.119(g) and numerous enforcement cases on record show that the FAA and NTSB feel that a straight-in approach is a perfectly acceptable way to arrive. The only things they explicitly prohibit are flying the pattern in the opposite direction and cutting off or forcing to go around an airplane on final. Also, Doc knew what the surface winds in the area were, so there was no need to visually check the wind sock to select a runway. The fact that another pilot for whatever reason chooses a different runway at the same nontowered airport is not in and of itself a reason for you to change your choice.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Doc: I'll add to what Ron said; you said and did everything I would have.

Can't stop people from being rude. A straight is fine, but it doesn't give one time to peruse the airport as well as a pattern does.

Don't know if you followed the thread I started sometime back about me doing a straight in behind a G IV; a Westwind jet took off opposite direction with no calls in between us. Keep your head on a swivel; make the calls and don't let rude folks bother you.

As you know, the other folks don't have to be on the radio, but if they are, they should coordinate with you and blend with other traffic. Flying is supposed to be fun; don't know why some folks get all worked up about stuff like this. If someone is on the radio and responds, I always just try to be nice and to work with them as it sounds like you did.

Best,

Dave

 

[mikea]

Forget it. I would go with the Steve Dahl principle, "We'll never see these people again." At least one thought you had no business doing a straight in. At least one is wrong. He may have thought you had no business making him wait and his own airport, too.

Consider if you had done a pattern entry. What changes? Either they delay departure to wait for you to land or they judge they have time to clear and don't. The time you're on approach doesn't change.

My CFI hates plane-to-plane conversation on the CTAF but he's nuts. That guy could have had the same attitude.

 

[Teller1900]

One thing you have to remember is that you are not required to even have a radio when flying from an uncontrolled airport. If you fly a standard pattern it gives the pilots without radio's a better chance of seeing you.(they are searching the PATTERN)
It is very hard to see an airplane on a straight in approach, so I always fly a standard pattern.

To play devils advocate...what if the pattern is on the same side of the runway as the runup block? They wouldn't be able to see you unless they do a 360 at the hold short line. What if they don't know which side the pattern is on and look in the wrong direction? There are plenty of ways to be missed while flying a standard pattern, no worse or better than a straight in. As the doc said, he was still going pretty fast (as Bonanzas tend to do), so the straight in probably let him get better established without having to worry about running over slower traffic flying the full pattern while he was trying to slow down.

Ya did good, doc, no worries. You were on the radio and obviously willing to work with them to resolve the situation (and didn't say ATITAPA), which is all anyone can really ask of you. Skin, tin, and ticket all survive to fly another day!

 

[jmaynard]

They wouldn't be able to see you unless they do a 360 at the hold short line.

I was taught to do exactly that at uncontrolled airports, for that exact reason. I don't do it in the Zodiac because I can see all directions just by turning my head, but I do do it in other airplanes that aren't as good to see out of.

FWIW, I see no problems with Doc's approach, either. I might have done differently, but that's just me.

 

[docmirror]

I guess I'd do it the same way again. Maybe a landing light on final would have helped some. As I was 5 out, there were two planes visible, and my concern is that they were nordo. After they asked about the wind, I knew they both had 2 way comm, and were on CTAF. At that point, they were just being buttheads.

 

[John Baker]

I'm not really qualified to give advise to all you well seasoned experts, It just seems to me that if you are approaching an uncontrolled airport, shouldn't you overfly the field at about five hundred feet above pattern? Actually look at the runways and the windsock before selecting your active?

I know that is not something you would want to be doing in a Citation or some such thing, but in little hamburger chasers, it just seems to make sense.

John

 

[docmirror]

John, That's not a bad idea for an airport that you are unfamiliar with, or where you don't know the winds. It sure won't hurt at every uncontrolled field. I was conflicted when I got further in and saw two planes holding - should I change my plans, or just stay the course? Because I'd been to this field a few times before, and had a good idea of the wind situation, I chose the more direct method purely for my convenience.

 

[John Baker]

I had a flight instructor who absolutely demanded that if the field is uncontrolled, that I do an overfly, no matter how many times I had been there. The only time he had me join the pattern at a 45 on the downwind was when a glider operations strip was right beside the active runway. (KHMT).

John

 

[rpadula]

They should search the final as well.

I've never had any difficulty seeing an airplane on a straight in approach.

That made me think of something -- checking the final on "your end" (rwy 17 in this case) before taking off is pretty easy, but how often do we look at the far end for someone approaching from the other direction?

 

[roncachamp]

That made me think of something -- checking the final on "your end" (rwy 17 in this case) before taking off is pretty easy, but how often do we look at the far end for someone approaching from the other direction?

Always. Also intersecting runways.

 

[ScottPA]

Just because the FAR/AIM does not explicitly state that you cannot fly a straight in approach at an airport without an operating control tower does not mean that you should.

According to AIM Section 3: Airport Operations:

This section defines some rules, practices, and procedures that pilots should be familiar with and adhere to for safe airport operations.

I will refrain from posting everything that 4-3-3 Traffic Patterns states but it is clear that this is the current recommended procedure.

Many of you have a very valid argument that straight in approaches are not illegal. They do, however, go against the current recommended traffic pattern operations at an airport without an operating control tower. It seems to me that we should try to do what is recommended to ensure a safe flight for not only ourselves and our passengers but also for other pilots as well.

I know people will continue to fly straight in approaches and constantly expect to find someone on a 5 mile final when I am turning base. I also fully expect to find a helicopter flying opposing patterns or a dark green Taylorcraft L-2 without electric in the pattern.

There are many unexpected things that come up in flying. I, personally, try to adhere to AIM recommended practices to provide as safe an environment as possible for myself and those around me.

 

[timwinters]

I was taught to do exactly that at uncontrolled airports, for that exact reason. I don't do it in the Zodiac because I can see all directions just by turning my head, but I do do it in other airplanes that aren't as good to see out of.

Me too, Jay. And since I fly a 182, I still do a 360 before taking the runway at most uncontrolled fields if there is room to do so.

Regarding Doc's situation. I fly a fair amount of x/c each year (somewhere between 100 to 200 hours depending on workload), and I do my fair share of straight in approaches when the wind is in my face upon arrival and no one seems to be around.

However, in a no wind situation, I always fly the pattern just to get a look at the airport (familiar or not) and to check the runway for animals, potential traffic, disabled aircraft, babes sunbathing at the apartments across the street, etc. It's only takes an extra minute or two.

As to the specifics of this event; had I spotted aircraft queued up for departure at the opposite end of the runway when I was on a five mile final I would have changed my game plan and flown the pattern out of consideration for others. And, I would have announced this change of gamplan and let them know that they had time to depart before my landing if they were ready to go. Or, at minimum, I would have asked them if they were ready to go and offered to fly the pattern if they were.

But that's just me and Doc did nothing wrong, especially if they weren't talking.

 

[sba55]

Just because the FAR/AIM does not explicitly state that you cannot fly a straight in approach at an airport without an operating control tower does not mean that you should.

Scott, it also doesn't mean that you should not. What best in one situation isn't always best. Flying a straight-in isn't always ideal, but neither is flying a pattern. It all depends. For me, in the plane I fly, I almost always end up doing a straight-in. It's safer than trying to fit in with much slower traffic in the pattern. In this particular instance, the airport wasn't busy. Those planes could have taken off before the traffic landed. A straight-in was ideal in that situation since it minimized delays.

I know that is not something you would want to be doing in a Citation or some such thing, but in little hamburger chasers, it just seems to make sense.

John, in a Citation, it would be much more important to know the winds than in a 172. In a Bonanza, which is what we're talking about here, it's also more important than in a 172. If you're reasonably sure what the winds are doing, maybe because you've listened to a nearby ASOS, landing without overflying doesn't strike me as problematic.

It all comes down to preference.

-Felix

 

[poadeleted20]

I had a flight instructor who absolutely demanded that if the field is uncontrolled, that I do an overfly, no matter how many times I had been there.

Did you ever ask him why he demanded that? There are times when that simply isn't possible, such as MVFR ceilings, overlying B-space, etc.

 

[ScottPA]

Scott, it also doesn't mean that you should not. What best in one situation isn't always best. Flying a straight-in isn't always ideal, but neither is flying a pattern. It all depends. For me, in the plane I fly, I almost always end up doing a straight-in. It's safer than trying to fit in with much slower traffic in the pattern. In this particular instance, the airport wasn't busy. Those planes could have taken off before the traffic landed. A straight-in was ideal in that situation since it minimized delays.

-Felix

Felix, we have a couple of Citations that fly out of our airport and I completely agree with you that they should not fly the pattern and know full well they will fly straight in. For the faster singles and twins, I also expect this. I did not write that to chastise or tell anyone they are wrong. My main point is that I try to fly the recommended procedures and hope that others, that are able, would as well.

 

[poadeleted20]

Just because the FAR/AIM does not explicitly state that you cannot fly a straight in approach at an airport without an operating control tower does not mean that you should.

There are many situations in which it is not possible to fly that 45-downwind entry, and others in which it creates more problems than it solves (e.g., congesting at the entry point). The point is that there is no "one-size-fits-all" entry procedure, and the FAA recognized that in both the very limited list of prohibited practices (no turns in opposite direction, no cutting anyone off) and the fact that they merely "recommend" those entries as "standard" (which implies there may be times when something other than "standard" is a good idea).

Remember -- "standard" only means it's the default way to do it, not the only way to do it. Since there are many circumstances in which other ways will expedite arrival and reduce congestion at choke points in the pattern, the FAA left it at that and gave the pilot the option to make good choices on non-standard entries when deemed best.

 

[timwinters]

As an aside...

When I lived in Harrison, AR (KHRO) they had airline service. I mean, if you consider Mesa flying Beech 1800s to be an airline anyway.

Mesa flew back and forth from Dallas to Hot Springs to Harrison to Hot Springs to Dallas, rinsed, repeated.

The Mesa boys would always fly straight-in finals (to the north) and they would always take off to the south. It took gale force winds, literally, for them to alter their routine. It also wasn't unusual for them to call a 20 or 30 mile final.

There was one "pattern putter" who took particular pleasure in picking on them. He never got in their way or anything stupid like that but If he was flying when they were taking off, he would simply make a call to them as soon as their wheels lifted off...

"Have you called your straight-in final at Hot Springs yet?"

:smile:

 

[ScottPA]

There are many situations in which it is not possible to fly that 45-downwind entry, and others in which it creates more problems than it solves (e.g., congesting at the entry point). The point is that there is no "one-size-fits-all" entry procedure, and the FAA recognized that in both the very limited list of prohibited practices (no turns in opposite direction, no cutting anyone off) and the fact that they merely "recommend" those entries as "standard" (which implies there may be times when something other than "standard" is a good idea).

Remember -- "standard" only means it's the default way to do it, not the only way to do it. Since there are many circumstances in which other ways will expedite arrival and reduce congestion at choke points in the pattern, the FAA left it at that and gave the pilot the option to make good choices on non-standard entries when deemed best.

That makes a lot of sense and the reason I try to stick to it as much as possible. I agree there are many times that following it to the letter can cause problems. It also emphasizes the fact that we should always be prepared to expect someone to do something out of the ordinary in and around the pattern.

 

[sba55]

Felix, we have a couple of Citations that fly out of our airport and I completely agree with you that they should not fly the pattern and know full well they will fly straight in. For the faster singles and twins, I also expect this. I did not write that to chastise or tell anyone they are wrong. My main point is that I try to fly the recommended procedures and hope that others, that are able, would as well.

Scott, I think we're on the same page. Didn't mean to imply that your post was meant to chastise anyone.

It comes down to PIC decision and preference. As a recommendation, I like the pattern just fine. Sometimes, they make sense and sometimes they don't. But we both knew that already.

Best,

Felix

 

[brcase]

Of course the defacto standard for Standard Pattern Entries at Non-towered airports it AC90-66.
rgl.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/GADVISORYCIRCULAR.NSF/0/.../$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

Unfortunatly many people gloss over part 5g which refers the AOPA document on the same subject.

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa07.pdf


I personally really like the Alternate entry method at two of our local airports. It is an effcient way to enter the pattern and easy to spot other aircraft in the pattern.

As for the straight in, where the departing aircraft have not acknowldged me I would assume the don't know I am there. Perhaps they were transmitting but not recieving. I would have considered changing my straight in into an entry to downwind and flying a normal pattern.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[Ghery]

There are many situations in which it is not possible to fly that 45-downwind entry, and others in which it creates more problems than it solves (e.g., congesting at the entry point). The point is that there is no "one-size-fits-all" entry procedure, and the FAA recognized that in both the very limited list of prohibited practices (no turns in opposite direction, no cutting anyone off) and the fact that they merely "recommend" those entries as "standard" (which implies there may be times when something other than "standard" is a good idea).

Remember -- "standard" only means it's the default way to do it, not the only way to do it. Since there are many circumstances in which other ways will expedite arrival and reduce congestion at choke points in the pattern, the FAA left it at that and gave the pilot the option to make good choices on non-standard entries when deemed best.

Back when we had a mine field of TFRs in the Puget Sound area I really hated using the 45 degree entry to the right downwind for runway 1 at PWT. There was a TFR over Bremerton NS that had one feeling claustrophobic setting up for the 45. A straight in from the south was much more comfortable. And I've had a radio cop try and tell me that straight ins were prohibited at PWT. He backed off right quick when I asked where that was written (not in the A/FD or elsewhere that I had in the cockpit).

Jerks. You did fine.

 

[KennyFlys]

Obviously, folks have seen me push the standards written in the AIM. And, I'm still a fan of standards and practices whether it is from the AIM or for a specific airport/runway and published in the AFD. Does that mean they are set in stone? Not at all. A given situation must be adapted to for the sake of safety.

My problem is when someone does an act that compromises safety for everyone in the pattern for no other reason than laziness. This, I've seen too many times such as entering downwind from across the field with other traffic on downwind in front and behind, leaving little distance for safety. Or, entering on a right downwind when the standard for that specific runway is indeed on the left, never mind other traffic arriving or departing that would reasonably expect all traffic to be on the left.

I see a lot of shortcuts out of laziness or simply not caring about the problems it may cause. A pilot who does these will get lucky only so many times before it comes back to bite and in the worst possible way.

 

[TeenDoc]

The two planes finally reported a formation takeoff...

I wouldn't accuse these pilots of being rude yet.

Consider this possibility. The two planes on the ground were not tuned to the CTAF. Frequently, when flying formation the participating planes do not switch to CTAF until ready for takeoff. It is possible that these two guys never heard you. They obviously saw you and waited for you to land and clear the runway.

I would have monitored the CTAF on COM2, but maybe they only had one com or chose not to monitor CTAF until just before takeoff.

 

[sba55]

Brian,

I don't understand why you wouldn't do a straight-in in this situation. If there's planes holding short and not talking on the radio, a straight-in is the safest option because you can keep those guys in sight. I'm not going to turn my back to them just to enter a pattern. That just doesn't make sense in this case.

Kenny, there are no standard procedures. Only recommended ones. Big difference.

Felix

 

[brcase]

Brian,

I don't understand why you wouldn't do a straight-in in this situation. If there's planes holding short and not talking on the radio, a straight-in is the safest option because you can keep those guys in sight. I'm not going to turn my back to them just to enter a pattern. That just doesn't make sense in this case.

Kenny, there are no standard procedures. Only recommended ones. Big difference.

Felix

Honestly it might depend on what I am flying and the airport. But my basic point is that I have no reason to believe they know I am there. If I am flying something slow that will only use a small portion of the runway I would probably go ahead an land and be ready to go around if they pull out onto the runway. If I am flying something faster that is going to use more than 1/2 the runway I would probably consider enter downwind. (Especially on the crowned runway the OP described.) I don't think I would lose site of them at all by shifting from final to downwind. If I did it would only be momentarily as the I raised the nose but as soon as I turn they would be in sight again.

Brian.

 

[poadeleted20]

My problem is when someone does an act that compromises safety for everyone in the pattern for no other reason than laziness. This, I've seen too many times such as entering downwind from across the field

That isn't standard, but it's not illegal.

with other traffic on downwind in front and behind, leaving little distance for safety.

That might be illegal (see 91.113 about right of way and 91.111 about operating too close to another aircraft).

Or, entering on a right downwind when the standard for that specific runway is indeed on the left,

That's not a standards issue, that's a regulatory issue. 91.126(b)(1) (echoed in the regs on airports in E/D/C/B-space) leaves no legal room for flying the pattern in the opposite direction. Flying a right-hand pattern at a nontowered airport when a left-hand pattern is published (or vice versa) is a flat-out violation, with no room to wriggle.

 

[Geico266]

Brian,

I don't understand why you wouldn't do a straight-in in this situation. If there's planes holding short and not talking on the radio, a straight-in is the safest option because you can keep those guys in sight. I'm not going to turn my back to them just to enter a pattern. That just doesn't make sense in this case.

Kenny, there are no standard procedures. Only recommended ones. Big difference.

Felix

As I read the scenario Doc landed on 35, and the two planes took off on 17.

 

[docmirror]

Yeah, I did 35, they left on 17. The runway crown really bothered me, but I landed specifically cause I knew they could hear my last xmit when they inquired about the wind sock.