Jump to content

Right downwind 27, 14,000'


Ed Cesnalis

Recommended Posts

We only have one TPA and its 8,000' yet one of the most common calls I hear on the local CTAF is "... right downwind 27, 14,000'"

 

I've been dealing with this for decades and I still don't know what to do.  Often I will hide out in the high terrain 1 mile south until they finish their pattern's where they are descending 3,000FPM.

 

post-6-0-43502700-1464664407_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could politely state on the radio that the published TPA is 8000 and other traffic can't safely sequence in if they are going to use some other altitude.  I imagine that there are only a few offenders that do this; word should get around quickly.  

 

If that doesn't work the other, more aggressive alternative is to sequence in as normal making a lot of position calls.  You can probably turn inside of their pattern and a time or two having to go around burning 100gph in a jet will probably make them want to do something differently.  FAR 91.113(g) states:

 

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.

 

I think you'd be on safe legal ground here as long as you didn't cut off the other airplane on final.  After all, YOU are the airplane at the proper altitude.  If they are higher, they are voluntarily forfeiting right of way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy,

 

Actually it's not just a few aircraft it's more common than not.  I recently saw a large aircraft fly the published pattern here, it's pretty tight and I think it takes a good pilot.

 

Perhaps I'll invest in a rear view mirror before I stand on my right of way  :)  I find if I exercise my right of way with radio calls that the aircraft above will generally report that he has me on his fish finder and then begins to play ATC and suggests plans for everyone that permits his 14,000' pattern.  I guess this is fine but it leaves me blind and slow and feeling vulnerable.

 

The carriers seem to fly various instrument approaches. They as well as others flying these approaches often report intersection names as their positions and with all of the GPS approaches there are now a million of them so 90% of the time it doesn't help. In fact it hurts because I don't know the position and the reporting pilot figures everyone must know where crowli is.  (the major land mark on approach and less than 1 mile from the airport is Crowley Lake but crowli is elsewhere)

 

I think I'll continue to whine and complain but not try and change everyone else.  Years / decades ago there were a lot of small planes here, now its mostly turbines and jets routinely but nice weather weekends, good powder and holidays still gets a lot of small pistons up here on occasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand, you *are* vulnerable.  We have a couple of PC-12s at my field that play fast and loose with the pattern (and courtesy).  It's usually not an issue, but sometimes it creates hassles and high blood pressure for others.

 

Just remember that you have just as much right to the airspace as they do.  If they want to play ATC, they can try, but you are also free to ignore their "suggestions".

 

Continuing to complain and keeping the status quo is a valid strategy, I have engaged in it myself often!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that the FAA has made it a priority to look at safety reports?  I would consider this to be a safety concern which might result in a collision should someone who doesn't have your patience and cool headedness decide to prove a point with one of the jets or props that isn't following the rules.  Granted, it costs a lot for fuel and takes time to make longer patterns, do a missed approach or to do a 360 once in a while to give way to a slower aircraft but this must be expected at your airport due to it's altitude and location in the mountains.  FWIW, if it were me, I'd have a discussion with the local FSDO to get their thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ones that annoy me around here are those who are "on a five (or more) mile final for 31." If you are that far out, you are not on a final for anything. You may be planning straight in, but you are not on final until you are in the pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that the FAA has made it a priority to look at safety reports?  I would consider this to be a safety concern which might result in a collision should someone who doesn't have your patience and cool headedness decide to prove a point with one of the jets or props that isn't following the rules.  Granted, it costs a lot for fuel and takes time to make longer patterns, do a missed approach or to do a 360 once in a while to give way to a slower aircraft but this must be expected at your airport due to it's altitude and location in the mountains.  FWIW, if it were me, I'd have a discussion with the local FSDO to get their thoughts.

 

Good point, An ASRS (NASA) form might have some small effect, especially if you submit one every time you see the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ones that annoy me around here are those who are "on a five (or more) mile final for 31." If you are that far out, you are not on a final for anything. You may be planning straight in, but you are not on final until you are in the pattern.

 

A turbine or jet can be on a 180kt 5 mi final to your 60kt mid-downwind entry and be in your face when you turn base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not legally, a lower plane in the pattern has the right of way.

I also don't know how that applies to my point - there is no such thing as a 5 mile final. "Final" is a term that applies to the pattern just like downwind, cross wind, and base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not legally, a lower plane in the pattern has the right of way.

I also don't know how that applies to my point - there is no such thing as a 5 mile final. "Final" is a term that applies to the pattern just like downwind, cross wind, and base.

 

Here is the rule you refer to:

 

(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.

 

The lower altitude aircraft only applies of both aircraft are approaching from the same direction and are converging, not one entering on a downwind and the other coming on final.  

 

A final approach is simply the last leg in an aircraft's approach to landing, when the aircraft is lined up with the runway and descending for landing - distance varies.  In the Cirrus I often get a clearance from ATC for a given runway 20 miles out...the approach is up to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Final is also a term that applies to the last leg of an instrument approach.  Once you are inside of the FAF (Final Approach Fix) you are on final. 

 

'5-mile strait in' and '5-mile final' are often used to mean the same thing

 

Yes, I didn't want to get into the instrument plates...but they vary also.  Dependent on precision versus non-precision they can be up to a full 10 miles or more out...IAF to FAF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't that I don't get what they mean, but I defy you to find that as a legitimate definition. The lower plane on final has the right of way no matter how small that plane is, VFR or IFR. 91.114(g)

Having said that I believe in courtesy and will give way to faster planes. (I am talking non-towered airports.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't that I don't get what they mean, but I defy you to find that as a legitimate definition. The lower plane on final has the right of way no matter how small that plane is, VFR or IFR. 91.114(g)

Having said that I believe in courtesy and will give way to faster planes. (I am talking non-towered airports.)

 

Non towered airports are a zoo...and most of the 'rules' that attempt to make order around them are in the AIM.  The AIM is not regulatory so people pretty much do what they want and often to the detriment and danger of others.   I had experienced the 'rude' guys too flying a business jet or turboprop on a straight in while I am approaching a base turn in the CT on downwind and are then forced to go long and turn back for an extra long approach too.  But there is nothing in the FAR that stops straight in landings at non-towereds.

 

There are also non-precision instrument approaches at most non-towered airports.  So  there will occasionally be a guy on an IFP flying that approach - it may look like a "rude" straight in, but he is following the rules on the instrument plate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Who said anything about the AIM?

2) The reference I cited is a FAR. (I thought you could figure it out by the number.)

3) I did not say a straight in approach was not legitimate.

4) Please read before commenting!

 

Why so defensive?  Your FAR reference does not apply to long finals at non-towered airports (as I said the rule you cited applies to aircraft at any airport converging on final or on any other entry into the pattern).  You did complain that a 5 mile final is "not a final" which sounds like you don't agree they are legit.

 

I read these things just fine, I just apparently answer in more detail than some would like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fly most of the time from non-towered airports, and I do not find them to be "zoos".  People make mistakes or do the wrong thing sometimes, sure.  But if you keep talking on the radio, everybody can fix in without any problem.  I've been given wrong turns and confused instructions by controllers at towered airports, those environments are not always orderly either.

 

Here's my opinion, I'm sure that others will disagree, but:

 

In general, straight-in approaches are bad idea at non-towered airports.  The only real reason to do them is that they are convenient to the pilot.  They are very inconvenient to everybody else.  I can't count the number of times where I've been in the pattern with two, three, or even four other airplanes, and out of the blue heard "Bugsmasher 12345, on a five mile final for 31".  It disrupts the entire pattern as everybody is now trying to visually locate this little speck of an airplane and wondering how it will sequence in with other traffic.  And the reason is because the pilot of Bugsmasher 12345 can't be bothered to spend an extra three minutes in the air and has to land RFN and screw the rest of you dumbasses that follow the rules and are in my way. 

 

I admit, I have done straight-ins.  But if I do one, the following criteria are met:

 

1)  There are no other airplanes on the radio in the pattern.  (still watch for NORDO!)

 

2)  There is an actual reason other than "I'm lazy", such as encroaching darkness or weather.

 

3)  I'm going to call at *least* three times within the last five miles so anybody listening knows exactly where I am and my intentions.

 

4)  If anybody else comes on the radio in the pattern, unless they are *really* no factor (such as turning crosswind while I'm on short final), I will break off the straight-in and sequence in with that traffic in a normal pattern entry.

 

Again, just my opinion, but I think 95% of the time it's hard to justify a VFR straight-in approach at an untowered airport with any reasoning other than ""it's just easier"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy,

 

All your points are good ones...we have had this discussion before and other sites have too...

 

Non-towered airports are by far the most hazardous and even the most frustrating to fly into and out of because there is no authority or set of rules for them...just 'suggestions' in the AIM and the attitude of those flying that day.   So there will always be a good example and a good reason to complain about the conduct of some around them.

 

Some of the things other than attitude that contribute to making non-towereds tougher are:

 

Usually they are in E or G and no radio is required.

The range of aircraft types is infinite using them, from mid-sized business jets, turborprops to LSA and powered kites, glider towing, and helos.

Most training is done around them so there is also a mix of students and higher skilled pilots operating aircraft.

 

Before I got into the Cirrus I did not fully appreciate the needs of the higher performance aircrafts flying into these airports.  Having to enter a pattern and land in the same way most of us in the CT do it is a real pain and much more expensive for the jets and turboprops.  So more often or almost always these guys will fly straight in...esp the big planes like Pilatus, TBM, Lears, Gulfs, and even the Lancairs and the plane I am flying now, the Cirrus turbo.

 

At Carson Muni (KCXP) things got so bad the airport applied for and got FAA permission to make a three level pattern and set of rules that distinguish between aircraft types and performance profiles.  The airport should be towered but the money is not there, so they are attempting to solve the problem with in the AF/D.   It will still depend on pilots so it probably won't work the way they need, but it's an attempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Cecil, I understand what you are saying...non-towered airports are a bit "looser" in practice, but to say that there are no rules and only suggestions is not true.  The FARs have many regulations applying specifically to non-towered airports.  

 

As an example, I got into a discussion with one of the local flight instructors where I was complaining about pilots using right-hand patterns at our airport.  He laughed and said "well, it's uncontrolled and there no regulation against it."  I said that FAR 91.126(B)(1) actually *does* prohibit it.  He didn't believe me, so we looked it up:

 

(B) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace—

(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and

 

The regulation is clear, pilots *must* make left traffic, unless the published pattern is to the right, in which case we *must* make right traffic.  No opposing traffic is allowed in any case.  This is not a suggestion.  The instructor was surprised, and said he had no idea such a regulation existed.

 

And I think that is the problem.  At uncontrolled fields many pilots think there are no rules, but there *are* clear rules and many simply don't know them or choose to ignore them because there's "nobody watching" -- at least nobody from the FAA.  But if something goes wrong and metal gets bent, they might find that there are clear rules against what they are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Before I got into the Cirrus I did not fully appreciate the needs of the higher performance aircrafts flying into these airports.  Having to enter a pattern and land in the same way most of us in the CT do it is a real pain and much more expensive for the jets and turboprops.  So more often or almost always these guys will fly straight in...esp the big planes like Pilatus, TBM, Lears, Gulfs, and even the Lancairs and the plane I am flying now, the Cirrus turbo.

 

At Carson Muni (KCXP) things got so bad the airport applied for and got FAA permission to make a three level pattern and set of rules that distinguish between aircraft types and performance profiles.  The airport should be towered but the money is not there, so they are attempting to solve the problem with in the AF/D.   It will still depend on pilots so it probably won't work the way they need, but it's an attempt.

 

Having a higher performance airplane is not an excuse for poor airmanship (speaking generally, not pointing a finger at you).  It is expected that if you are flying a hot airplane, that you have the knowledge and experience to do so in the same safe manner expected of all pilots.  "But I burn too much fuel!" is not a reason to skip basic pattern procedures.  If you can't afford the gas to fly a normal pattern, you have bought too much airplane.  

 

The patterns for the faster, heavier airplanes are much larger than for a CT, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't fly one.  That's why multiple TPAs exist at many airports as you mentioned, to get the slow, close-in traffic and the fast, big pattern guys out of each others' way!

 

All of that said, *many* times I have extended a downwind or changed a pattern to let a faster airplane takeoff or land, sometimes many multiple of my usual base turn distance (which is pretty close), and I usually say on the radio "I'll extend, you're burning a lot more fuel than I am".  But that is a courtesy on my part, and not the other pilot just assuming I'll get out of his way because I'm "just" a small, slow airplane.  We little guys have just as much right to the airspace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Cecil, I understand what you are saying...non-towered airports are a bit "looser" in practice, but to say that there are no rules and only suggestions is not true.  The FARs have many regulations applying specifically to non-towered airports.  

 

As an example, I got into a discussion with one of the local flight instructors where I was complaining about pilots using right-hand patterns at our airport.  He laughed and said "well, it's uncontrolled and there no regulation against it."  I said that FAR 91.126( B)(1) actually *does* prohibit it.  He didn't believe me, so we looked it up:

 

( B) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace—

(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and

 

The regulation is clear, pilots *must* make left traffic, unless the published pattern is to the right, in which case we *must* make right traffic.  No opposing traffic is allowed in any case.  This is not a suggestion.  The instructor was surprised, and said he had no idea such a regulation existed.

 

And I think that is the problem.  At uncontrolled fields many pilots think there are no rules, but there *are* clear rules and many simply don't know them or choose to ignore them because there's "nobody watching" -- at least nobody from the FAA.  But if something goes wrong and metal gets bent, they might find that there are clear rules against what they are doing.

 

Andy,

 

Yes that rule applies to Class G airports.  Many of them are in Class E.  But that reg still does not require a plane to enter a pattern to begin with, just the direction of flight rule once in the pattern.  

 

From a pet peeve standpoint the one I dislike are pilots using local landmarks to call out position. 

 

Yesterday I took off from Yolo Muni where I had the Cirrus serviced (KWDA).  I did a runup and flipped to the Unicom frequency and made my call to take the runway.  Just after getting into my roll a plane chirped up and said she was on base to land on the opposite end.  I was on the calm end, she was violating.  She asked if she should go around, since I was on my takeoff roll I gently suggested that yes, that would be a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy,

 

Yes that rule applies to Class G airports.  Many of them are in Class E.  But that reg still does not require a plane to enter a pattern to begin with, just the direction of flight rule once in the pattern.  

 

The AIM gives a lot more direction on radio and pattern use.  It talks about how to taxi, take the runway, depart, enter midfield downwind, cross midfield altitude, account for wind/drift, check the sock, look for the circle that dictates pattern direction, how to make turns, check AF/D for calm wind runway and frequencies, listen before committing on which runway to use (which can't be done unless you have a radio...then you have to fly outside the pattern and watch the traffic), and all the associated radio calls.  But none are regulatory.

 

Which is why I was not talking about the AIM.  I was talking about the FARs, which *do* apply to non-towered airports and *are* regulatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...