Straight in finals..is that a good idea?

luvflyin said:
I got it. Airplane owners net worth will be encoded into transponders and displayed on ADSB. Whoever has the most buck$ has the ROW
Click to expand...

No, just those from Virginia will be given absolute ROW. **** everyone else.
 
EdFred said:
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.

Also show me the regulation that says traffic in the pattern has the right of way, oh wait..
Click to expand...


you make my point. If the straight-in avoids flying in the pattern, where can he claim final begins? For aircraft in the pattern, it's like a ballet. We're constantly adjusting distance, spacing, and altitude to make the published system work for every one. There is no confusion. Then the straight-in shows up and tries to bully his way onto final, both the straight-in and the base to final aircraft have an unnecessary conflict of ROW interpretation since this situation isn't anticipated by the FAR.

when the straight-in calls a 2-mile or even a 1-mile final and there is an airplane on base, nobody knows exactly what to do. That was the crux of the CA midair problem. The c-152 apparently thought he had time to turn and make the landing, because he couldn't visualize the speed or location of the approaching twin (or any plane travelling at 150 kts).
 
rhkennerly said:
you make my point. If the straight-in avoids flying in the pattern, where can he claim final begins? For aircraft in the pattern, it's like a ballet. We're constantly adjusting distance, spacing, and altitude to make the published system work for every one. There is no confusion. Then the straight-in shows up and tries to bully his way onto final, both the straight-in and the base to final aircraft have an unnecessary conflict of ROW interpretation since this situation isn't anticipated by the FAR.

when the straight-in calls a 2-mile or even a 1-mile final and there is an airplane on base, nobody knows exactly what to do. That was the crux of the CA midair problem. The c-152 apparently thought he had time to turn and make the landing, because he couldn't visualize the speed or location of the approaching twin (or any plane travelling at 150 kts).
Click to expand...

3 miles (it may even be 5, but I'm too lazy to find the ruling) is considered in the pattern according to case law. You're on left base, you have to give way by regulation. Sorry you don't like the regulation.

You can't figure out what to do? Maybe flying isn't for you.
(Hint: You give way)
Yes, I've been the airplane on base. I didn't whine and crab about it. I avoided and rejoined on upwind.
 
EdFred said:
I'll send you the bill for the upholstery because YOU feel that planes in the pattern have the absolute ROW.

Address please?
Click to expand...
cute. I'm saying that when a plane calls 1 or 2-mile straight-in final and there is a plane on base, nobody knows what to do because the situation isn't addressed in the FAR.

That was the root of the CA Midair. The C-152 seemed to think he had enough time to land ahead of the twin, not knowing the twin was smoking along at 160 kts. If the twin had been flying a standard 70-80 kt final speed, it would have all worked out.
 
If you are the one not allowing the straight in traffic to work their way into the flow, aren’t you the bully?
 
rhkennerly said:
cute. I'm saying that when a plane calls 1 or 2-mile straight-in final and there is a plane on base, nobody knows what to do because the situation isn't addressed in the FAR.

That was the root of the CA Midair. The C-152 seemed to think he had enough time to land ahead of the twin, not knowing the twin was smoking along at 160 kts. If the twin had been flying a standard 70-80 kt final speed, it would have all worked out.
Click to expand...

Yes it IS addressed in the FAR.
91.113
(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way.

I wish I could make the above bigger for the blind people on the forum.
70-80kts is not a standard final speed for many GA twin aircraft. Man, talk about making stuff up to fit your viewpoint.
 
rhkennerly said:
If the twin had been flying a standard 70-80 kt final speed, it would have all worked out.
Click to expand...
If the twin had made visual contact with the Cessna, it would have all worked out.

if the Cessna had made visual contact with the twin, it would have all worked out.

Basically, if either of them had been doing what they’re supposed to do, regardless of straight-in or full pattern, it would have all worked out.
 
EdFred said:
Now show me the regulation that says traffic in the pattern has the right of way.
Click to expand...

Advisory Circular AC 90-66B. I call particular attention to:

"
  1. Straight-In Landings. The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern when arriving or departing a non-towered airport or a part-time-towered airport when the control tower is not operating, particularly when other traffic is observed or when operating from an unfamiliar airport. However, there are occasions where a pilot can choose to execute a straight-in approach for landing when not intending to enter the traffic pattern, such as a visual approach executed as part of the termination of a instrument approach. Pilots should clearly communicate on the CTAF and coordinate maneuvering for and execution of the landing with other traffic so as not to disrupt the flow of other aircraft. Therefore, pilots operating in the traffic pattern should be alert at all times to aircraft executing straight-in landings, particularly when flying a base leg prior to turning final."Advisory Circular AC 90-66B "

    ..."
    1. Determination of Traffic Pattern. Prior to entering the traffic pattern at an airport without an operating control tower, aircraft should avoid the flow of traffic until established on the entry leg. For example, the pilot can check wind and landing direction indicators while at an altitude above the traffic pattern, or by monitoring the communications of other traffic that communicate the runway in use, especially at airports with more than one runway. When the runway in use and proper traffic pattern direction have been determined, the pilot should then proceed to a point well clear of the pattern before descending to and entering at pattern altitude.

    2. 11.3 Traffic Pattern Entry. Arriving aircraft should be at traffic pattern altitude and allow for sufficient time to view the entire traffic pattern before entering. Entries into traffic
    8

    3/13/18 AC 90-66B

    patterns while descending may create collision hazards and should be avoided. Entry to the downwind leg should be at a 45 degree angle abeam the midpoint of the runway to be used for landing. The pilot may use discretion to choose an alternate type of entry, especially when intending to cross over midfield, based upon the traffic and communication at the time of arrival.

    Note: Aircraft should always enter the pattern at pattern altitude, especially when flying over midfield and entering the downwind directly. A midfield crossing alternate pattern entry should not be used when the pattern is congested. Descending into the traffic pattern can be dangerous, as one aircraft could descend on top of another aircraft already in the pattern. All similar types of aircraft, including those entering on the 45 degree angle to downwind, should be at the same pattern altitude so that it is easier to visually acquire any traffic in the pattern.

    "

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-66B.pdf
 
MauleSkinner said:
If the twin had made visual contact with the Cessna, it would have all worked out.

if the Cessna had made visual contact with the twin, it would have all worked out.

Basically, if either of them had been doing what they’re supposed to do, regardless of straight-in or full pattern, it would have all worked out.
Click to expand...

Uuuh, the single engine pilot (both planes were Cessna's) DID make visual contact with the twin. He commented on the radio that he was going around as the twin was closing fast.
 
Pinecone said:
Uuuh, the single engine pilot (both planes were Cessna's) DID make visual contact with the twin. He commented on the radio that he was going around as the twin was closing fast.
Click to expand...
It appears he didn’t make visual contact with the twin before deciding that he had room to turn base and final in front of him.
 
Pinecone said:
Uuuh, the single engine pilot (both planes were Cessna's) DID make visual contact with the twin. He commented on the radio that he was going around as the twin was closing fast.
Click to expand...

I thought that’s when he was turning final and then said he was going around in a effort to get out of the way.
 
MauleSkinner said:
It appears he didn’t make visual contact with the twin before deciding that he had room to turn base and final in front of him.
Click to expand...
So, if it was a 150 on a 10 mile final, you can't turn base until you have visual contact with him?
 
MauleSkinner said:
Was the twin Cessna on a 10-mile final when the 152 turned base? What kind of bomber pattern was he flying?
Click to expand...
My question is theoretical. The insinuation was that you shouldn't turn base if there is an aircraft on final that you do not have visual contact with.
 
Salty said:
My question is theoretical. The insinuation was that you shouldn't turn base if there is an aircraft on final that you do not have visual contact with.
Click to expand...
No, the insinuation is that they were close enough together that they should have established visual contact to ensure separation.
 
rhkennerly said:
show me in the FAR regarding airfield pattern anticollsion guidance where "straight-in" is even mentioned for VFR concerning ROW. That's the problem.
Click to expand...
the FAR does not regulate or mandate any particular type of approach for uncontrolled airfields.

Under VFR rules we're all responsible for maintaining separation through observation and communication at non nontowered fields..

You don't want a plane with 150kts approach speed trying to hold the same patter with Uncle Bob's Piper Cub.
 
rhkennerly said:
Advisory Circular AC 90-66B. I call particular attention to:

"
  1. Straight-In Landings. The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern when arriving or departing a non-towered airport or a part-time-towered airport when the control tower is not operating, particularly when other traffic is observed or when operating from an unfamiliar airport. However, there are occasions where a pilot can choose to execute a straight-in approach for landing when not intending to enter the traffic pattern, such as a visual approach executed as part of the termination of a instrument approach. Pilots should clearly communicate on the CTAF and coordinate maneuvering for and execution of the landing with other traffic so as not to disrupt the flow of other aircraft. Therefore, pilots operating in the traffic pattern should be alert at all times to aircraft executing straight-in landings, particularly when flying a base leg prior to turning final."Advisory Circular AC 90-66B "

    ..."
    1. Determination of Traffic Pattern. Prior to entering the traffic pattern at an airport without an operating control tower, aircraft should avoid the flow of traffic until established on the entry leg. For example, the pilot can check wind and landing direction indicators while at an altitude above the traffic pattern, or by monitoring the communications of other traffic that communicate the runway in use, especially at airports with more than one runway. When the runway in use and proper traffic pattern direction have been determined, the pilot should then proceed to a point well clear of the pattern before descending to and entering at pattern altitude.

    2. 11.3 Traffic Pattern Entry. Arriving aircraft should be at traffic pattern altitude and allow for sufficient time to view the entire traffic pattern before entering. Entries into traffic
    8

    3/13/18 AC 90-66B

    patterns while descending may create collision hazards and should be avoided. Entry to the downwind leg should be at a 45 degree angle abeam the midpoint of the runway to be used for landing. The pilot may use discretion to choose an alternate type of entry, especially when intending to cross over midfield, based upon the traffic and communication at the time of arrival.

    Note: Aircraft should always enter the pattern at pattern altitude, especially when flying over midfield and entering the downwind directly. A midfield crossing alternate pattern entry should not be used when the pattern is congested. Descending into the traffic pattern can be dangerous, as one aircraft could descend on top of another aircraft already in the pattern. All similar types of aircraft, including those entering on the 45 degree angle to downwind, should be at the same pattern altitude so that it is easier to visually acquire any traffic in the pattern.

    "

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-66B.pdf
Click to expand...
That SAME ADVISORY CIRCULAR also says this:

"11.11 Right-of-Way. Throughout the traffic pattern, right-of-way rules apply as stated in § 91.113;..."
 
I wish all the replays were so constructive and helpful as yours.
 
Pinecone said:
The 340 was doing 180 knots.
Click to expand...
Bottom line, it's never going to be safe to turn in front of a 340 doing 180 knots. You'd never be able to see it in time.

Frankly, if any regulation change is needed, it's a speed limit for entering the pattern based on class size within 3-5 miles of an airport. There's simply never any reason to be going that fast, that close to the runway in a 340. Even when you're leading a heavy on final, you have to slow down before landing. If you can't slow down to a safe pattern speed then somebody should be going around.
 
This Saturday at my local airport, there was a Piper on downwind, one taking off, and one about to take off. I entered downwind behind the first Piper. He did a tng and when I announced final I heard, "Red RV is four to the north, inbound for 17". Four planes were now in the pattern including me and the RV was trying to come straight in. All planes in the pattern were making calls. I turned off the runway and heard, "Red RV is doing a 360 for spacing due to the unexpected Piper on base." The Piper had called base (and all other legs) and told him so. Then I heard "Red RV is on right downwind for 17" followed quickly by "Hey Red RV, did you not see the Piper on downwind? You almost hit us!" and "Red RV is going upwind for 17 and will re-enter on downwind." All of this drama so the Red RV could do a couple of full stop landings.

I'm okay with straight-in approaches, and I do them quite often. I'm pretty much repeating what others have said. Don't do a straight-in to a busy pattern and be ready to go around at all times. Fighting over ROW will get you killed. It doesn't matter who the NTSB finds at fault in the most recent mid-air... they're all dead. Either pilot could have done something different and changed everything.
 
rhkennerly said:
The whole purpose of a pattern at airports is just that: a pattern. Repeatable. Predictable. VFR traffic separation depends on shared knowledge, shared situational awareness, and cooperation.

When the pattern is full with 3 or 4 aircraft in the circuit, distances, speeds, and size of the pattern is constantly adjusting to fit the situation where everyone is working with the same set of information.

"Cessna 340 on a 5-mile straight-in final for 36" gives a cessna 150 pilot on base very little information to make decisions with. What should he do?

1. abort at low altitude flying straight ahead and across the flight path of the straight-in flight?

2. Yield the to the aircraft on his right by adjusting his flight path to the right and turning into the approaching straight-in aircraft and circle back to
a. re-enter base or
b. leave the pattern and fly back to the 45 degree downwind entry?
Click to expand...

A final should never be more than a few seconds. (Even at 180kts which is way too fast to come blasting in the 340 is still 1m40s out) 150 is flying too big of a pattern. Go somewhere else and practice your bomber patterns. Or if you're flying them that big, extending downwind ain't gonna hurt you.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
A final should never be more than a few seconds. (Even at 180kts which is way too fast to come blasting in the 340 is still 1m40s out) 150 is flying too big of a pattern. Go somewhere else and practice your bomber patterns. Or if you're flying them that big, extending downwind ain't gonna hurt you.
Click to expand...

But what do you do if you're on base already? if you have no idea how fast a 340 is on final, how can you make any judgment about what to do? Training fields have pilots at all levels of experience. It's not the student who needs to adjust to the 340, it's the experienced 340 pilot who needs to adjust to how he inserts himself into traffic.

you write that a final should be no more than a few seconds. But straight-in approaches created never-ending finals. Instead of beginning where base leg ends, straight-in finals are indefinite.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many of us would be happy if we we called a 3-mile final and someone suddenly called out they were on base? I think that's a little too close for me.

If I'm not mistaken, 3 miles on Foreflight into an average airport would mean you're about 2.5 miles from the end of the runway. FF measures distance from where you are to the center of the airport. So, I'm now 2.5 miles out, you just announced left base, and you still have to fly the base leg, then turn final at hopefully less than .5 miles out. Just starting to eat away at the margins a little.
 
rhkennerly said:
But what do you do if you're on base already? if you have no idea how fast a 340 is on final, how can you make any judgment about what to do? Training fields have pilots at all levels of experience. It's not the student who needs to adjust to the 340, it's the experienced 340 pilot who needs to adjust to how he inserts himself into traffic.

you write that a final should be no more than a few seconds. But straight-in approaches created never-ending finals. Instead of beginning where base leg ends, straight-in finals are indefinite.
Click to expand...

*sigh* You're just being deliberately obtuse. We are talking a 150 in the pattern turning to final. Going from base to final, that final should only be a few seconds. I can't believe I have to explain that. No, actually, now that I think about it, I can believe it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top