Three killed in Idaho 172 - 172 crash

Re: Straight Ins

Not only does it not violate the standards in the AIM, straight-ins are encouraged by the regulations. Read Deakin's AvWeb column which discusses the regulations: http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182100-1.html

Personally I have found in my 44 years of flying that straight-ins generally offer an increased level of safety to everyone in the pattern. First, exposure time for you and potentially conflicting traffic is absolutely minimized. Second, turns and turning descents are eliminated, and you can concentrate your traffic scan primarily in one area. Third, potentially conflicting aircraft will be oriented in a maximum visibility fashion for you, turning downwind to base and in profile, probably above or at worst at your altitude. Fourth, exposure to traffic departing the pattern in any direction is virtually eliminated.

Courtesy and common sense should always be used. The straight-in should begin more than 3 miles from the runway, with appropriate radio calls. There are traffic conditions which make the use of a straight-in inadvisable, but I find them the exception rather than the rule.
Come on down to Conroe, TX and fly in the pattern for a week with our Indian students from down the end of the field. Let's see if you don't push for a standard?

Folks, you're not gonna sell me on this one. Also, you shouldn't be doing turning descents before entering the pattern. Last, there are only two suggested directions to leave the pattern. Down wind isn't one of them.
 
Oh boy, here we go again.

There is NOTHING WRONG and NOTHING UNSAFE about a straight-in approach. And it doesn't "violate" anything in the AIM - The AIM shows the pieces of a standard traffic pattern and even has a note saying "This diagram is intended only to illustrate terminology used in identifying various components of a traffic pattern. It should not be used as a reference or guide on how to enter a traffic pattern." And underneath the next figure where it shows the pattern with a 45-degree entry, it says "EXAMPLE."

There are lots of times where a straight-in would be safer. For example, last night I was over at C29 practicing landings on runway 10. An airplane called in 10 miles west and said they were going to enter the downwind. How? I'd rather have had them make a straight-in approach where I could see them the entire time and work around them rather than having them do a bunch of maneuvering right near the airport. They ended up going opposite direction less than 1/2 mile off my right wing while I was on downwind and then turned back around to join the downwind behind me, where if they'd have simply made a straight-in approach they'd have been on the ground instead. I felt much less safe with them doing what they did than if they'd have just gone straight in and gotten on the ground and out of my way.

Frankly, airplanes can collide on final just as easily having made a full pattern as they can on a straight in... So I don't think that is the issue here.
I was thinking you meant something before Tuesday night. Sorry, I had read it but as I said, I'd been reading a ton of other stuff dealing with the FBO and school.

I'll have to disagree. I'm gonna stick with AC 90-66A as should every pilot. Airport operators are also encouraged to establish patterns consistent with the AC. The problem is getting pilots to also follow it.

It's an established standard for good reason. Like I said, come on down here and join us for a week or just about any non-towered field with a school like we have to deal with. My boss was opposed to a tower being built here... until the school down at the end set up shop with international students.
 
So, having a standard that EVERYONE follows is worthless? Yeah, ok.
Not everyone. Not even most. When I'm coming down final at 120 knots, and I announce at 10, 5, 3, and 1 mile, I'm a) perfectly legal b) have the right of way and c) will not tolerate folks who think that they're somehow above the regulations and who subsequently cut me off at 60 knots. And my approaches are straight in more often than not, even though there occasionally is some guy in the pattern who will turn base right in front of me to play power games. Speaking of judgement....I wish this completely irrelevant discussion of this topic would go away already.

-Felix
 
Not everyone. Not even most. When I'm coming down final at 120 knots, and I announce at 10, 5, 3, and 1 mile, I'm a) perfectly legal b) have the right of way and c) will not tolerate folks who think that they're somehow above the regulations and who subsequently cut me off at 60 knots. And my approaches are straight in more often than not, even though there occasionally is some guy in the pattern who will turn base right in front of me to play power games. Speaking of judgement....I wish this completely irrelevant discussion of this topic would go away already.

-Felix
I've never said it was illegal. It's very legal but I sense the power trip is more on those doing so just because they can and to hell with those who may already be in the pattern. I said it before on another issue and I'll say it again here... Just because you can does not mean you should.

AC 90-66A

One of these days there will be a NORDO aircraft in the pattern, not having heard one of your calls. He's just as legal and also following the established standard.

The issue won't go away. As long as someone insist on ignoring what is really happening and just flying in, they'll be another accident. Guaranteed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not everyone. Not even most. When I'm coming down final at 120 knots, and I announce at 10, 5, 3, and 1 mile, I'm a) perfectly legal b) have the right of way and c) will not tolerate folks who think that they're somehow above the regulations and who subsequently cut me off at 60 knots. Speaking of judgement....I wish this completely irrelevant discussion of this topic would go away already.

-Felix
What chya gunna do ? Beat her up?
 
And there is case law that states that a slower airplane who cuts you off while you're at 3 miles HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY. Inside a mile, you're on final. somewhere outside that area you're not entitled to the right of way.
 
Re: Straight Ins

Folks, you're not gonna sell me on this one.

Like any of us were delusional enough to think that. :rofl:

Though, I do find it a tad bit of a contradiction that you believe that the AIM recommended pattern entry is a hard and fast rule from which you should never stray, yet you believe that you can just make up rules of thumb as to when you can log for night currency.
 
Re: Straight Ins

Like any of us were delusional enough to think that. :rofl:

Though, I do find it a tad bit of a contradiction that you believe that the AIM recommended pattern entry is a hard and fast rule from which you should never stray, yet you believe that you can just make up rules of thumb as to when you can log for night currency.
Huh?

And, I never said the AIM was a "hard and fast rule." I said it was an established standard, also stated in the AC, which should be adhered to for the sake of safety.
 
Re: Straight Ins

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=275534&postcount=16
And, I never said the AIM was a "hard and fast rule." I said it was an established standard, also stated in the AC, which should be adhered to for the sake of safety.

You're right, you didn't specifically say that it was a "hard and fast rule". You did, however, say that "there's no reason for a straight-in" and you've defended that statement. I'm just saying that it IS possible to do it safely and that there ARE reasons to use them. Even if sparingly.
 
Re: Straight Ins

And, when that was addressed later on, I responded accordingly:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=275587&postcount=20

You're right, you didn't specifically say that it was a "hard and fast rule". You did, however, say that "there's no reason for a straight-in" and you've defended that statement. I'm just saying that it IS possible to do it safely and that there ARE reasons to use them. Even if sparingly.
Sparingly, yes. But, if the pattern is busy and you're not making an instrument approach, there's no reason why you can't break the approach early and join the pattern. And, if it's VMC in the pattern, particularly at a non-towered field... 91.113 would certainly apply.

If no one responds to your advisory while on the approach, are you going to continue to land? What about the potential aircraft operating NORDO? How about the aircraft using the wrong frequency? How about a pilot landing the wrong airport and not using the local frequency or even the same one and landing at your airport rather than his intended airport? Sure, these scenarios aren't common but they have happen before and they will again.

Is it that you made your call and you're good to go? Not likely. You should either join the pattern normally or over-fly the airport 500' above TPA and observe traffic, obstructions, etc. Then exit the area and return, entering the pattern appropriately. Likewise, NORDO aircraft should never make a straight-in approach.

Standard right-of-way rules apply if someone is already in the pattern. To interpret 91.113(g):

... 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.
The aircraft at lower altitude whether it be on downwind, base or final does have right-of-way over an aircraft on final. Obviously, aircraft on downwind or base may not intentionally cut off other traffic. But, their lower altitude does give them right-of-way.

The aircraft on even a one-mile final would not have priority over someone on base unless you're below somewhere around 600' AGL, about the altitude an aircraft turning base to final. I hope you're not that low a mile out. Common sense applies... be a good sport and join the pattern with the rest of us peons.
 
Re: Straight Ins

The aircraft on even a one-mile final would not have priority over someone on base unless you're below somewhere around 600' AGL, about the altitude an aircraft turning base to final. I hope you're not that low a mile out. Common sense applies... be a good sport and join the pattern with the rest of us peons.

If I'm on an ILS, at 1 Mile I'm at about 315 AGL - if anybody on base is lower than that, there's a problem.

3 degree glideslope is about 5.25 feet vertically for 100 feet horizontally.
 
Re: Straight Ins

If I'm on an ILS, at 1 Mile I'm at about 315 AGL - if anybody on base is lower than that, there's a problem.

3 degree glideslope is about 5.25 feet vertically for 100 feet horizontally.
Agreed, but this is with regard to operating in VMC. My apologies for not clarifying that earlier.

Also, did you add in DH?
 
Even in VMC, if I'm flying an ILS approach, to land, or even practicing a stabilized approach, I'll be well under 600 feet at 1 NM. And you don't "Add in" DH - it's usually at 200 AGL, or about 2/3rds of a mile from the threshold.

Bottom line is that inside a mile, an aircraft on a normal final will be lower than an aircraft on a normal base leg, particularly if that aircraft is going fast.
 
Even in VMC, if I'm flying an ILS approach, to land, or even practicing a stabilized approach, I'll be well under 600 feet at 1 NM. And you don't "Add in" DH - it's usually at 200 AGL, or about 2/3rds of a mile from the threshold.

Bottom line is that inside a mile, an aircraft on a normal final will be lower than an aircraft on a normal base leg, particularly if that aircraft is going fast.
An aircraft going into a non-towered airport is not required to have a radio. Hence, there may be an aircraft who does not hear your advisories.

ATC may give you an advisory before descent and authorization to change frequencies but if they don't see a target, there's nothing to report (Assuming outside of Class B Mode C Veil).

That NORDO aircraft is on base and appropriately looks up final but does not see you at all despite his best efforts and in VMC; better than marginal conditions.

According to AIM 4-4-10, it's still up to you to maintain separation.

I will concede that it's not the wisest thing to operate NORDO in a busy non-towered airport. But if it's a busy airport, a wise pilot would consider the traffic in the area and join the pattern for the sake of safety. This considering piston twins and smaller. A turbine aircraft can still fly an appropriate pattern.

There's really no excuse for Mr. IFR Pilot to simply skip normal standards and practices just because he doesn't have to per the FARs. It's called being a considerate user of the airspace.
 
Ok, obviously we're not getting anywhere here. The regs are clear, the AIM is clear - oh well.

I've never said it was illegal. It's very legal but I sense the power trip is more on those doing so just because they can and to hell with those who may already be in the pattern. I said it before on another issue and I'll say it again here... Just because you can does not mean you should.
You'd be right, if the other folks in the pattern weren't aware of me. They are if they're not NORDO, so there's nothing inconsiderate going on.

One of these days there will be a NORDO aircraft in the pattern, not having heard one of your calls. He's just as legal and also following the established standard.

The issue won't go away. As long as someone insist on ignoring what is really happening and just flying in, they'll be another accident. Guaranteed.
So if there's a NORDO aircraft, what makes you think I'll be less likely to see him on a straight in? If anything, I have a better view of the pattern on final than anywhere else.

What chya gunna do ? Beat her up?
No, why would I care to do that? I politely remind them that they're on a collision course. That usually does it.


And there is case law that states that a slower airplane who cuts you off while you're at 3 miles HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY. Inside a mile, you're on final. somewhere outside that area you're not entitled to the right of way.
Sure. 3NM isn't really a final yet, and I could care less if someone landed in front of me.

Sparingly, yes. But, if the pattern is busy and you're not making an instrument approach, there's no reason why you can't break the approach early and join the pattern. And, if it's VMC in the pattern, particularly at a non-towered field... 91.113 would certainly apply.
Yes, there is a reason. I don't feel like maneuvering unnecessarily, nor do I feel like wasting time.

If no one responds to your advisory while on the approach, are you going to continue to land? What about the potential aircraft operating NORDO? How about the aircraft using the wrong frequency? How about a pilot landing the wrong airport and not using the local frequency or even the same one and landing at your airport rather than his intended airport? Sure, these scenarios aren't common but they have happen before and they will again.
Yes I'm going to continue the approach if nobody responds. If someone is NORDO or using the wrong frequency, they'll need to see and avoid, and I need to do the same anyway.

Is it that you made your call and you're good to go? Not likely. You should either join the pattern normally or over-fly the airport 500' above TPA and observe traffic, obstructions, etc. Then exit the area and return, entering the pattern appropriately. Likewise, NORDO aircraft should never make a straight-in approach.
Again, that doesn't make sense. I _am_ joining the pattern normally, namely by joining final on a straight in.

Standard right-of-way rules apply if someone is already in the pattern. To interpret 91.113(g):

The aircraft at lower altitude whether it be on downwind, base or final does have right-of-way over an aircraft on final. Obviously, aircraft on downwind or base may not intentionally cut off other traffic. But, their lower altitude does give them right-of-way.
No, it doesn't, and that's not at all what 91.113 says. It specifically gives aircraft on final approach the right of way, and it specifically prohibits aircraft on downwind to turn base in front of the aircraft on final.

The aircraft on even a one-mile final would not have priority over someone on base unless you're below somewhere around 600' AGL, about the altitude an aircraft turning base to final. I hope you're not that low a mile out. Common sense applies... be a good sport and join the pattern with the rest of us peons.
Yes, the aircraft on final does have priority and right of way. 91.113 leaves no doubt about it, and neither does common sense. It's easy enough to extend downwind.

-Felix
 
Ok, obviously we're not getting anywhere here. The regs are clear, the AIM is clear - oh well.


You'd be right, if the other folks in the pattern weren't aware of me. They are if they're not NORDO, so there's nothing inconsiderate going on.


So if there's a NORDO aircraft, what makes you think I'll be less likely to see him on a straight in? If anything, I have a better view of the pattern on final than anywhere else.


No, why would I care to do that? I politely remind them that they're on a collision course. That usually does it.



Sure. 3NM isn't really a final yet, and I could care less if someone landed in front of me.


Yes, there is a reason. I don't feel like maneuvering unnecessarily, nor do I feel like wasting time.


Yes I'm going to continue the approach if nobody responds. If someone is NORDO or using the wrong frequency, they'll need to see and avoid, and I need to do the same anyway.


Again, that doesn't make sense. I _am_ joining the pattern normally, namely by joining final on a straight in.


No, it doesn't, and that's not at all what 91.113 says. It specifically gives aircraft on final approach the right of way, and it specifically prohibits aircraft on downwind to turn base in front of the aircraft on final.


Yes, the aircraft on final does have priority and right of way. 91.113 leaves no doubt about it, and neither does common sense. It's easy enough to extend downwind.

-Felix
Your attitude is quite uplifting... to a new level of sad.
 
An aircraft going into a non-towered airport is not required to have a radio. Hence, there may be an aircraft who does not hear your advisories.

ATC may give you an advisory before descent and authorization to change frequencies but if they don't see a target, there's nothing to report (Assuming outside of Class B Mode C Veil).

That NORDO aircraft is on base and appropriately looks up final but does not see you at all despite his best efforts and in VMC; better than marginal conditions.

According to AIM 4-4-10, it's still up to you to maintain separation.

I will concede that it's not the wisest thing to operate NORDO in a busy non-towered airport. But if it's a busy airport, a wise pilot would consider the traffic in the area and join the pattern for the sake of safety. This considering piston twins and smaller. A turbine aircraft can still fly an appropriate pattern.

There's really no excuse for Mr. IFR Pilot to simply skip normal standards and practices just because he doesn't have to per the FARs. It's called being a considerate user of the airspace.

Ken, what makes you think my situation is IFR - VFR pilots can use the ILS too. My point is that an airplane making a straight-in approach (and yes he does have the duty to see and avoid other airplanes in the pattern) has the right-of-way when he is on final, and a pilot on downwind who makes an early base because he's annoyed by the straight-in approach is the one in the wrong.

If the pattern is busy, then the pilot making the straight-in may not be able to sequence himself safely, and then absolutely should join another leg of the pattern - I usually enter the upwind or downwind leg depending on where I am in relation to the field.

A courteous pilot will insert himself into the flow of traffic at a non-towered field in such a way that the other pilots don't have to change anything. That can be done with a straight in approach if the pattern is not busy.

A jackass is someone who thinks they have "priority" over other traffic at a non-towered field, when they don't have an emergency or lifeguard situation. Flying a straight-in does not automatically make someone a jackass.
 
Straight in is not a problem. Situational awareness is.

For example the part 121 C90 shooting the ILS 4 while the pattern is using 22. First CTAF call is XXX three mile final runway four.

Or one five miles on final straight in and someone else downwind ready to turn base. As the student in the pattern I could not see him but turned base, I should be three to four miles ahead of him right?

Wrong he crossed my nose right there.
 
Your attitude is quite uplifting... to a new level of sad.

Ah, the same old Kenny tactic - Don't answer your critics, belittle them!

Frankly, a lot of us see YOUR attitude as sad. There is nothing wrong or unsafe about a straight in. Felix made some points that I was going to (such as how EASY it is to see traffic in the pattern from a straight-in final) but there's no need to repeat them.

I sincerely hope you're not teaching the next generation of "pattern police."
 
Ken, what makes you think my situation is IFR - VFR pilots can use the ILS too. My point is that an airplane making a straight-in approach (and yes he does have the duty to see and avoid other airplanes in the pattern) has the right-of-way when he is on final, and a pilot on downwind who makes an early base because he's annoyed by the straight-in approach is the one in the wrong.

If the pattern is busy, then the pilot making the straight-in may not be able to sequence himself safely, and then absolutely should join another leg of the pattern - I usually enter the upwind or downwind leg depending on where I am in relation to the field.

A courteous pilot will insert himself into the flow of traffic at a non-towered field in such a way that the other pilots don't have to change anything. That can be done with a straight in approach if the pattern is not busy.
Yes, IFR can be flown in VMC. But, it's still the responsibility of the pilot to provide his own separation. This will be much more difficult in a busy pattern such as CXO trying to maintain a straight-in approach.

I agree no aircraft should intentionally alter their position to cut in front of another aircraft. I'm not saying there's priority or not for final. We do agree, a safe and reasonable pilot will sequence himself in the pattern. That's all I've been saying.

A jackass is someone who thinks they have "priority" over other traffic at a non-towered field, when they don't have an emergency or lifeguard situation. Flying a straight-in does not automatically make someone a jackass.
That's exactly the attitude from a few I've seen post here. They come across as "I'm on final and damnit to hell, I have the right-of-way!!!" That's the attitude that scares me.

At THIS airport, it's not a wise move to make a straight-in approach unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary for the safety of flight. Try it in a smaller aircraft and you will get cut off. It's just a sad fact because of some of the training taking place down the field. For this reason, we're anxious as ever to have this tower in operation.
 
Ah, the same old Kenny tactic - Don't answer your critics, belittle them!

Frankly, a lot of us see YOUR attitude as sad. There is nothing wrong or unsafe about a straight in. Felix made some points that I was going to (such as how EASY it is to see traffic in the pattern from a straight-in final) but there's no need to repeat them.

I sincerely hope you're not teaching the next generation of "pattern police."
My answer was to a post containing this:
Yes, there is a reason. I don't feel like maneuvering unnecessarily, nor do I feel like wasting time.
If you're not happy with my desire to push for safer tactics in a pattern with a BUNCH of students who are not safe, don't read my posts. No one is twisting your arm.

But, I'll not sit by while someone thinks it's their right to be on final and to hell with whatever else is going on. If other traffic is in thier way, it's up to them to move. Forget they have been flying the established practice for the airport the whole time.

Sometimes, I don't like wasting time, either. But, there have been more than a few accidents by someone forcing the situation because they don't want to pay for a little more fuel or stay in the air a little longer. Everyone loses with that attitude.

Can you always see aircraft from being on final? Nope. If you can't determine a situation where this is possible, you're in trouble. I'll leave you with the wind information just an hour ago while returning to land on Runway 1... it was 270 at 9 knots. What if someone with a Bird Dog in Army colors was landing from the opposite direction, NORDO? If you saw the north end off our airport, you'd understand why this would be possible.

No, I'm not teaching "pattern police." But, I am teaching a proper way to enter the pattern given the circumstances at THIS airport.
 
Yes, IFR can be flown in VMC. But, it's still the responsibility of the pilot to provide his own separation. This will be much more difficult in a busy pattern such as CXO trying to maintain a straight-in approach.

<snip>

At THIS airport, it's not a wise move to make a straight-in approach unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary for the safety of flight. Try it in a smaller aircraft and you will get cut off. It's just a sad fact because of some of the training taking place down the field. For this reason, we're anxious as ever to have this tower in operation.

That's the thing, Kenny. The thing that I'm debating is whether or not it is EVER safe to do a straight-in. You said that there is NEVER a reason. In my original response I stated at least five criteria that had to be met before I would consider it, and among them was no other traffic in the pattern and a clear view of the pattern to allow for spotting of NORDO traffic.

The basis of the debate is changing...
 
My answer was to a post containing this:

Yes, but your post contained nothing of substance:

Your attitude is quite uplifting... to a new level of sad.

If you disagree and have something to contribute to the several excellent points Felix made, then contribute to the discussion. The post you made, on the other hand, contains no worthwhile (or otherwise!) information. (I know, I know, you have to keep your post count up. :rolleyes:)

If you're not happy with my desire to push for safer tactics in a pattern with a BUNCH of students who are not safe, don't read my posts. No one is twisting your arm.

Frankly, from reading your posts, I am *more* likely to make a straight in approach if I ever come to your airport - I don't want to spend any more time than absolutely necessary flying around an airport with anyone who is unsafe! Frankly, if the students are really so unsafe, why has their school not been reported to the FSDO?

But, I'll not sit by while someone thinks it's their right to be on final and to hell with whatever else is going on. If other traffic is in thier way, it's up to them to move. Forget they have been flying the established practice for the airport the whole time.

Can you point out where ANYONE said "to hell with whatever else is going on" or any of the other things you say in the above paragraph?

Sometimes, I don't like wasting time, either. But, there have been more than a few accidents by someone forcing the situation because they don't want to pay for a little more fuel or stay in the air a little longer. Everyone loses with that attitude.

Nobody here is saying anything about forcing any situation.

Can you always see aircraft from being on final? Nope. If you can't determine a situation where this is possible, you're in trouble. I'll leave you with the wind information just an hour ago while returning to land on Runway 1... it was 270 at 9 knots. What if someone with a Bird Dog in Army colors was landing from the opposite direction, NORDO? If you saw the north end off our airport, you'd understand why this would be possible.

I don't see how turning your tail to him is going to help you see him any better. :dunno: On a straight-in, you spend less time maneuvering and thus you can focus more attention on what's going on because it's always all in front of you until you're inside the base leg.
 
We do agree, a safe and reasonable pilot will sequence himself in the pattern.

Actually, you don't agree. Read what was written:

A courteous pilot will insert himself into the flow of traffic at a non-towered field in such a way that the other pilots don't have to change anything. That can be done with a straight in approach if the pattern is not busy.

To clarify my position, I'm not saying that a straight-in is the ONLY approach - Far from it. But, if I'm in position for a straight-in, I'll do a straight in. In the event I decide to fly a pattern from a position where I could do a straight-in, I'll be joining on the upwind leg and flying the entire pattern, not joining on the 45. I will NOT fly over the airport at TPA+500 unless the winds are squirrelly and nobody's already calling on the radio in the pattern and nobody is answering unicom.
 
My post contained nothing of substance because I was giving up at that point. Did anyone say "to hell with it"? No. But, that was the impression on a couple posts.

My point had some agreement in a couple others:
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=296965&postcount=25
There was another comment somewhere but I give up looking for it.

I did notice where Jason made a comparison of some 14 operations a day at his airport. We are exceeding over 100,000 a year at CXO. Between a fourth and a third are Army Cobras and a few more are PHI Aeromed. That's pretty dang busy for a non-towered field.

I'm not saying it's a hard and fast rule for EVERY airport. But, it needs to be at some and at least at CXO.

Sorry, I'm tired of arguing it. I flew 5.7 hours today and a few more in ground time.
 
I did notice where Jason made a comparison of some 14 operations a day at his airport. We are exceeding over 100,000 a year at CXO. Between a fourth and a third are Army Cobras and a few more are PHI Aeromed.

So I've gotta ask... What do the Cobras and PHI's do? Do they overfly at TPA+500 and make a 45 degree left downwind entry?
 
So I've gotta ask... What do the Cobras and PHI's do? Do they overfly at TPA+500 and make a 45 degree left downwind entry?
The airport's established plan has the helos flying a right-hand pattern. Yes, they usually do enter on a 45 but have a shorter pattern do to their maveuverability. Depending on traffic volume at the time, they will overfly to enter a right-downwind. The Army guys are pretty good and they make the calls often. The biggest concern is when they cross Alpha on Foxtrot and RWY 1 between their base and the right pattern when RWY 1 is in use. They also have the luxury of sharing Foxtrot with a certain school.
 
No, have no clue what your point is. Nor will I speculate.

The point is, you've been trying to say that everyone has to do the same thing to be safe, yet here are some folks who are doing something different, yet clearly safe.
 
The point is, you've been trying to say that everyone has to do the same thing to be safe, yet here are some folks who are doing something different, yet clearly safe.
No.... you missed a key part of that post...

The airport's established plan has the helos flying a right-hand pattern.
This plan is indeed established by airport management in compliance with recommendations by Section 9 in AC 90-66A and should be adhered to in every effort possible. It's not something the helo operators came up with on their own as you might suspect.
 
What bugged me about your post in the other thread was the impression of your attitude to make a straight-in approach.

<moving to the correct thread>

Kenny, please point out for me exactly what I wrote in this thread that indicates an unsafe attitude toward straight-in approaches.

If you were not referring to an unsafe attitude, please point out for me what, in my posts, shows an attitude of willful disregard for the safety OR even the convenience of any other pilot in the sky with regards to straight-in approaches.
 
At THIS airport, it's not a wise move to make a straight-in approach unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary for the safety of flight. Try it in a smaller aircraft and you will get cut off. It's just a sad fact because of some of the training taking place down the field. For this reason, we're anxious as ever to have this tower in operation.

What do you think is the best approach in this situation:

- A non-towered GA airport
- Runway orientation 9-27
- Airport uses right hand pattern for rwy 9 and left hand pattern for rwy 27 because of a noise sensitive area north of the runway.
- I'm approaching the airport from the east or southeast and the winds favor 27, other traffic in the area is using 27.

It looks to me that there are 4 options (maybe there are more):
1. Land straight in (making appropriate calls)
2. Overfly the rwy at pattern altitude or higher, make a 225 degree left turn to make a standard 45 entry to the pattern.
3. Overfly the rwy, turn crosswind then downwind.
4. Stay south of the pattern and make a 135 degree right turn to make a standard 45 entry to the pattern.

I'm just curious what you think is best. To me, having to make the 135 or or 225 turn near airport traffic isn't so good since it's hard to see other traffic during these turns...


Trapper John
 
<moving to the correct thread>

Kenny, please point out for me exactly what I wrote in this thread that indicates an unsafe attitude toward straight-in approaches.

If you were not referring to an unsafe attitude, please point out for me what, in my posts, shows an attitude of willful disregard for the safety OR even the convenience of any other pilot in the sky with regards to straight-in approaches.
Jason, my apologies. It wasn't your post. It was Felix who gave the impression of that attitude. This thing has been drawn out so far, I've lost track of who said what.

Either way, it's time to drop it.
 
I have no issue with straight-in's so long as those doing it realize that if there are people established in the pattern that are forced to extend their downwind's or bases to accommodate said straight-in, they are being inconsiderate jerks.

On the other hand, in the air is NOT the place to be getting in a ****ing contest of who is right.

I will still reserve the right to think you are being a jerk though.
 
Straight-In "Jerks"

I have no issue with straight-in's so long as those doing it realize that if there are people established in the pattern that are forced to extend their downwind's or bases to accommodate said straight-in, they are being inconsiderate jerks.

On the other hand, in the air is NOT the place to be getting in a ****ing contest of who is right.

I will still reserve the right to think you are being a jerk though.

First, if you don't agree that a straight-in approach is safest for everyone in the pattern, then we're approaching this topic from very different directions with a strong probability of misunderstanding.

With safety first, courtesy and common sense prevail in my flying. So when I find myself in conditions which warrant a straight-in, I turn on the landing light and communicate. Using the practice of an earlier submitter, I enter the Airport Traffic Area at 120 knots. Over the fence speed: 80 kt. So I contact and positively visually identify any potential conflicting traffic and offer them the decision of going first or following me. Then I make any speed adjustments necessary to accommodate their desires. I have yet to encounter a situation which we could not resolve by communicating and working together. I always present a positive, cooperative attitude on the radio. Note that this practice 'exposes' me to other traffic in the pattern for about 45 sec.

Now with a negative attitude one can proffer all sorts of scenarios such as NORDO, opposite landing/departing aircraft, 12-aircraft pattern, etc. All of these require the application of landing lights, courtesy, and common sense for everyone involved. Straight-ins or any other pattern entry are just one of many factors in these situations.

So lose the paranoia, have a positive attitude, and be safe up there (and tell me how you 'extend' a base leg?<g>).
 
What do you think is the best approach in this situation:

- A non-towered GA airport
- Runway orientation 9-27
- Airport uses right hand pattern for rwy 9 and left hand pattern for rwy 27 because of a noise sensitive area north of the runway.
- I'm approaching the airport from the east or southeast and the winds favor 27, other traffic in the area is using 27.

It looks to me that there are 4 options (maybe there are more):
1. Land straight in (making appropriate calls)
2. Overfly the rwy at pattern altitude or higher, make a 225 degree left turn to make a standard 45 entry to the pattern.
3. Overfly the rwy, turn crosswind then downwind.
4. Stay south of the pattern and make a 135 degree right turn to make a standard 45 entry to the pattern.

I'm just curious what you think is best. To me, having to make the 135 or or 225 turn near airport traffic isn't so good since it's hard to see other traffic during these turns...


Trapper John
I wouldn't consider overflying the runway at pattern altitude, so (2) as written would be right out.

You don't specify traffic conditions here. Is it a nice sunny day with lotes of fliers around? Is it late at night? (I'm presuming not IMC) If there aren't "many" planes around, especially in the pattern, I'd consider the straight-in in this case, allowing you to avoid the noise-sensitive area and maneuvering near the airport. If the pattern is pretty full, I'd overfly at least 500' above TPA (presuming you aren't right underneath Class B, such as at 06C) and enter the 45 a few miles outside the pattern. In either case, radio calls (if so equipped) and head on a swivel. If you were at 06C and the pattern was busy, for example, I'd head out around the airport and maneuver for the 45 as in (4). Entering on the upwind, as (3) appears to be describing, doesn't seem too practical. If you can fit into the pattern that way for upwind, you could fit in for a straight-in too. If you can't fit in, how are you going to deal with the possibility that the airplane that your near might go missed?

Edit: I just noted in the other thread that Ron would prefer the upwind in many cases to the 45. I'm hoping he'll touch on that here.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't consider overflying the runway at pattern altitude, so (2) as written would be right out.

You don't specify traffic conditions here. Is it a nice sunny day with lotes of fliers around? Is it late at night? (I'm presuming not IMC) If there aren't "many" planes around, especially in the pattern, I'd consider the straight-in in this case, allowing you to avoid the noise-sensitive area and maneuvering near the airport. If the pattern is pretty full, I'd overfly at least 500' above TPA (presuming you aren't right underneath Class B, such as at 06C) and enter the 45 a few miles outside the pattern. In either case, radio calls (if so equipped) and head on a swivel. If you were at 06C and the pattern was busy, for example, I'd head out around the airport and maneuver for the 45 as in (4). Entering on the upwind, as (3) appears to be describing, doesn't seem too practical. If you can fit into the pattern that way for upwind, you could fit in for a straight-in too. If you can't fit in, how are you going to deal with the possibility that the airplane that your near might go missed?

Edit: I just noted in the other thread that Ron would prefer the upwind in many cases to the 45. I'm hoping he'll touch on that here.

Let's say for the sake of discussion, it's a fairly busy Saturday with a couple of known planes in the pattern, a couple of nordo antiques in the area, and a bunch of chatter on CTAF because 4 different airports are on the same freq with people stepping on each other, and the typical bozos hogging the freq with the usual stupid stuff...

Head-on-a-swivel and all that is great, but I can't help but thinking the less time in the pattern, the less chance of a collision. That, and funneling everyone into the pattern at the same place via 45 entry would actually concentrate traffic and could be worse than mixing standard patterns with a few straight-ins here and there.

In fact, at the airport I'm mentioning, there's another GA airport 8 nm SW which makes the 45 entry worse, since arriving and departing traffic at the other airport get close to the 45 entry point.

One thing I'd sure like to see is more CTAF frequencies. On busy weekend days, it can be almost useless...


Trapper John
 
Let's say for the sake of discussion, it's a fairly busy Saturday with a couple of known planes in the pattern, a couple of nordo antiques in the area, and a bunch of chatter on CTAF because 4 different airports are on the same freq with people stepping on each other, and the typical bozos hogging the freq with the usual stupid stuff...

Head-on-a-swivel and all that is great, but I can't help but thinking the less time in the pattern, the less chance of a collision. That, and funneling everyone into the pattern at the same place via 45 entry would actually concentrate traffic and could be worse than mixing standard patterns with a few straight-ins here and there.

In fact, at the airport I'm mentioning, there's another GA airport 8 nm SW which makes the 45 entry worse, since arriving and departing traffic at the other airport get close to the 45 entry point.
There are times when there isn't a "good" answer. This is a situation where you have safety issues no matter how you do it, and I don't know that I could accurately quantify the relative risk. I think that I'd lean toward the straight-in in this case so I'm not clogging up the pattern area any longer than necessary. I'd be ready to convert it at any time, however. If I felt that I needed to change, it would probably be to an upwind entry if I were within about 2 miles of the runway because I wouldn't want to be maneuvering against the traffic flow that close to the pattern.
One thing I'd sure like to see is more CTAF frequencies. On busy weekend days, it can be almost useless...
I fully agree!
 
Back
Top