Commanders will obfuscate when ever possible?
Let us all assume our Zen positions and contemplate 14CFR Part 91.113, “Right of Way Rules: Except Water Operations”
…“(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…”
Now: Consider WHEN that rule was written. Probably in the '30s, or even the '20s.
BEFORE airplanes had radios.
So punching the mike button and declaring yourself on final approach (ten miles out) is NOT like shouting “Shotgun!” when climbing into your friend’s '57 Chevy. Too many folks assume if they make that call on the radio, that everyone has to yield to them…
Making radio calls is immaterial as far as 91.113 is concerned. What matters is your proximity to the airport, your position relative to the touchdown point, and the potentially conflicting traffic. Use the radio to maintain clearance from other airplanes, not to should “dibs” on the runway.
Don’t do what I did by writing letters, NASA report etc. It will only stop if enough of us report directly to the FAA Safety Hotline: https://faa-aae.my.site.com/s/hotline
I like ““negotiations are not over” just because you’re called “straight-in.””, Dave. Nice turn of phrase.
I think it’s generally practical if there’s only one airplane that could be a conflict, and there’s no one close behind him. Normally when doing a practice approach, I advise the other pilot of that and ask him if he could follow (it would be a very short downwind extension). Have been accommodated every time (I would of course do the same thing) and give him my thanks. If he were unable or unwilling, no problem. I would reduce speed or start over.
Amen! A corollary to that; Actually get close to the correct distance. Far too often I’ve set up my pattern to allow plenty of time for that Jet who just called a 10 mile final - only to have to turn out of the pattern and fly away from the airport waiting for them to get there. If you’re 10 miles, that’s cool. If you’re 30 miles away just say so. It’s OK. I won’t think less of you. More to the point I know I will have plenty of time to land and get out of your way. I have to believe that the pilots who claim to be closer than they are , are doing so just to keep the flight path down final clear. They can’t be stupid enough to not know the effect. I want to work with you but I’d sure appreciate it if you’d help me out when I’m trying to do so. If you’re not going to give me the RIGHT information, please don’t give me any at all!
You folks who are screaming for mandatory radios need to remember that not everyone flies out of the airports that you do. There are many many airports out here that see precious few operations in the average day. At those places a requirement to have and use a radio is pointless and only serves to further limit the pool of folks who actually fly. My take is we need more Controlled fields - because that’s what you’ve been saying. If you think everyone ought to have to talk - that airport needs a control tower. Perhaps a third category of semi controlled - would be in order. A semi controlled airport would require radios and their use, but other airfields could remain uncontrolled as they currently exist. This would be consistent with the recent airspace management program of placing additional requirements for entry into certain airspace (Mode C, ADSB etc) while still maintaining freedom. Just an idea. I just think calling for more regulation is always a bad idea.
Love these pattern “ discussions”! I use whatever entry is appropriate for my arrival angle, modified as needed to accommodate other traffic, if any. And in that connection, if I don’t hear anything when inbound, on my initial call I preface my statement of intent with “Traffic permitting”. My theory is that phrase will prompt anyone concerned about what I intend to speak up, and simultaneously assures them I am prepared to negotiate.
This is where I got my comment that includes “execute a descending teardrop” admittedly in conflict with FAA-H-8083-3C, Chapter 8: Airport Traffic Patterns, Note #3 “Descend to pattern altitude then turn”.
AOPA TRAINING TIP: TRAFFIC PATTERN ENTRY
By William E. Dubois
November 15, 2022
“If you’re arriving from the other side, there are two different entry methods. The preferred method is to cross the airport midfield, 500 feet above the highest pattern. Then fly two miles beyond the airport traffic pattern, execute a descending teardrop—which is always good fun—and join the standard 45-degree entry.” (”.)
The alternate method is to enter the pattern from a midfield crosswind at pattern altitude and enter the downwind from the inside of the leg after crossing the field. Such a pattern entry is generally unexpected; if the pattern is busy, this is a hazardous approach, and I mean that literally.
aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/november/15/training-and-safety-tip-coming-and-going
Common sense would seem to indicate that each leg is treated separately, so the lower aircraft on the base leg is ahead of the higher aircraft on the base leg, and both are ahead of aircraft on the downwind. And arriving traffic does their best to fit in to the traffic flow.
It’s spelled “CHAFF,” which could be a fix in the busy pattern you’re talking about. “CHAOS” could be another fix, maybe the VFR entry point. A pilot could call out “Skyhawk 247K, CHAOS.” I was with a buddy, flying in the the airport with three names–“John Wayne / Orange County / Long Beach Airport”–on Thanksgiving day, 1990. We were the only aircraft in the pattern. At all. It was weird, totally dead, like we were the last pilots on earth. The tower got all chatty with us, since they had nothing to do up there, making comments about my “nice pull” when I pulled up hard into a closed pattern. Since the radios were so dead, my buddy helpfully made a bunch of fake radio calls to kind of “brighten up the airwaves.” No, he didn’t, but that would be fun. You know, use different voices, fake a female voice, etc. Then run like scalded cats when the black SUV rolls up to the ramp to our parking spot, shouting over our shoulders to the FAA “LAST CALL!,” always remembering to run away from the SUV at a 45-degree angle and clear.
“Too many folks assume if they make that call on the radio, that everyone has to yield to them”
Is that really the case, though, or is it just that too many pilots decide to yield their right-of-way when they hear someone else calling on the radio?
I have found that a lot of pilots still fly as though the radio is in control. Both from what they hear on the radio, and from what they say on the radio. Part of that may be a result of most of the pilots in my area having trained at towered airports and never really feeling comfortable at non-towered airports.
Where do 737s or a330 land at untowered airports. I don’t know of any, so they must be few.
Considering the potential hazards, is there a real need to practice IFR approaches/procedures at non-towered airports?
The registration number tells me nothing about the characteristics of the airplane which I find more important than a tail number.
The practice of employing indirect or subtle insults instead of direct confrontations while entering or exiting the traffic pattern is now considered a finely honed art.
Gary - well realistically I hope it would never get that crowded with high and low traffic at a non-tower field. I think the low one on the downwind would still have to extend the downwind a good bit to follow the high one on the base. If more than one low and one high, I still see the vertical blind spots as a big hazard.
A lot of times, there are comparisons made with the traffic pattern to automobile traffic, in a bad sense, which is fairly valid. But there’s one part of driving that is pretty good that should be followed in the traffic pattern, and that’s when someone needs to merge into the traffic flow. Nearly all drivers are pretty good with moving over a lane, or slowing to make space, or waving someone to enter. To the extent possible, it would be nice to have that sort of teamwork in the pattern.
Pattern Wars: Part Deux plus un?
See and avoid has some inherent limitations, as anyone who has ever stepped in dogsh!t can attest. Like Paul said, more information about traffic in the pattern is better than less. Make the proper radio calls. And include the last three of your tail number so those with ADS-B “in” can “see” who is where when making that first call 10 miles out.
What I got from AC 90-66 is that it is ok and even encouraged that pilots to talk to each other on the CTAF and coordinate their approaches rather than blindly announcing their intention and expect other pilots to know what they are doing. When I’m in the pattern and I hear another aircraft and I can’t see them and I don’t know exactly what he/she are going to do, I’ll politely ask. Just announcing intentions is not communication. Communication is a back and forth exchange of information.
No one has mentioned mixing it up with ag aircraft yet. An airport that I used to be based at had ag aircraft operations. The name of the game for these folks is turn around as fast as possible. They approach low and from what ever direction gets them to the pumps the quickest. I when first starting flying at that airport I was talking with a couple of pilots and mentioned that the ag aircraft didn’t announce on CTAF. One of the pilots turned to me and said, “that’s because I don’t have a radio. When you are flying as low as I do, those things will kill you”.