What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Check the runway, then check it again!

"They told me to squawk VFR and that no traffic was in the area because I mentioned having trouble seeing because I was flying into the setting sun"

I normally don't post here. But when I read your first post it really got me fired up. You assumed the other person was in error. I would propose you were in error.

You mentioned you could not see because of the sun yet were flying a VFR approach. In my world, if you can't see, it doesn't matter if the obstruction is fog, clouds, heavy rain, or the sun... on your approach you did not meet the minimum visual requirements for VFR flight.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the other pilot selected the opposite runway because it was the safer runway to depart. I would not want to Depart on a runway knowing that someone could be overtaking me and blinded by the sun. Also if he was VFR a departure into the blinding sun would be illegal as you cannot see.

Now add to this you took an unsafe approach and made it even unsafer by not flying a standard traffic pattern. If you would have flowing the FAA approved traffic pattern you would have had ample opportunities to see the traffic.

I am glad it turned out well for you.
 
Last edited:
Do gliders do straight in approaches?

Generally with a glider you want to arrive at an airport with enough energy to fly a pattern. After all you can't add power and only have one shot so some extra energy is a good thing. So there are two reasons why a glider might do a straight in approach:

1. The final glide planing didn't quite work out as planed (e.g. large sink etc..) and you are running low. Then straight in might be the best option. This is rather rare but happens.

2. You come in to fly fast and low over the runway. Then pull up and fly a pattern. I have seen glider do that close to VNE down to 2-3 feet then pulling up quite dramatically. This was actually the optimal approach for competition flying when I was still doing it. After all you had used all the available energy for speed and that is what the score is based on. Now during a competition that wasn't really a problem as there were generally radios in use and lots of eyes on the ground watching out, however, you see that occasionally even outside of competitions.

Oliver
 
"They told me to squawk VFR and that no traffic was in the area because I mentioned having trouble seeing because I was flying into the setting sun"

I normally don't post here. But when I read your first post it really got me fired up. You assumed the other person was in error. I would propose you were in error.

You mentioned you could not see because of the sun yet were flying a VFR approach. In my world, if you can't see, it doesn't matter if the obstruction is fog, clouds, heavy rain, or the sun... on your approach you did not meet the minimum visual requirements for VFR flight.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the other pilot selected the opposite runway because it was the safer runway to depart. I would not want to Depart on a runway knowing that someone could be overtaking me and blinded by the sun. Also if he was VFR a departure into the blinding sun would be illegal as you cannot see.

Now add to this you took an unsafe approach and made it even unsafer by not flying a standard traffic pattern. If you would have flowing the FAA approved traffic pattern you would have had ample opportunities to see the traffic.

I am glad it turned out well for you.

Your comments offer nothing new to this discussion and amount to basically a personal flogging, for which the OP has already endured and accepted gracefully. Let's keep this civil and educational. I would add, after you get a few hundred hours, or a few thousand PIC, you might hesitate to throw that stone. If there is anyone here that has not made a dangerous mistake flying, you haven't been flying much, or worse, the most dangerous pilot that never thinks they are wrong.
 
Last edited:
Your comments offer nothing new to this discussion and amount to basically a personal flogging, for which the OP has already endured and accepted gracefully. Let's keep this civil and educational. I would add, after you get a few hundred hours, or a few thousand PIC, you might hesitate to throw that stone. If there is anyone here that has not made a dangerous mistake flying, you haven't been flying much, or worse, the most dangerous pilot that never thinks they are wrong.

<Slow golf clap>
 
"They told me to squawk VFR and that no traffic was in the area because I mentioned having trouble seeing because I was flying into the setting sun"

I normally don't post here. But when I read your first post it really got me fired up. You assumed the other person was in error. I would propose you were in error.

You mentioned you could not see because of the sun yet were flying a VFR approach. In my world, if you can't see, it doesn't matter if the obstruction is fog, clouds, heavy rain, or the sun... on your approach you did not meet the minimum visual requirements for VFR flight.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the other pilot selected the opposite runway because it was the safer runway to depart. I would not want to Depart on a runway knowing that someone could be overtaking me and blinded by the sun. Also if he was VFR a departure into the blinding sun would be illegal as you cannot see.

Now add to this you took an unsafe approach and made it even unsafer by not flying a standard traffic pattern. If you would have flowing the FAA approved traffic pattern you would have had ample opportunities to see the traffic.

I am glad it turned out well for you.

Says the student pilot.
 
You guys are ALL wrong...

The way to do it is a 3 mile initial to the overhead...


Sorry, needed to lighten it up a bit. ;)
 
...
The second part of the equation still baffles me. For two hundred bucks, we can purchase a small radio that will plug into a headset.
Why we can still fly without radios is a mystery to me. Seatbelts are ubiquitous, ADS-B costs far more than a handheld... yet NORDO is legal.
With medical reform behind us, I would hope the EAA and AOPA might look at some safety issues long overlooked. They have the time and they have the interest.
The cost of doing this is more than a two hundred bucks.

These old airplanes do not have shielded ignition harnesses or magnetos. When you try using a handheld radio in one of them, you can listen just fine but when you transmit the ignition makes you sound like Donald Duck.

For someone to change out their ignitions is rather expensive and in the case of my 1941 T-Craft it required modifications to the top cowl to clear the longer plugs.

Not to mention that if they dial in the wrong frequency or the batteries run out, they aren't going to be transmitting.

To make things even more complicated, my next project will not have an engine driven electrical system so I won't have to put a transponder or ADS-B in it. However, it will have a radio so I can fly under Class B & C and within D airspace.
 
I don't even have my license yet, but taking lessons. I read this entire thread trying to learn how to stay alive when I am flying.

The airport I am finishing my plane at is KEUL. Everyday I work, I have my handheld radio on listening to traffic so I don't screw up when I am flying. We have a helicopter school here so there is tons of air chatter and the 122.7 is shared with another airport a couple miles away.

Quite often corporate jets or turboprops land here and the majority of them announce they are doing a straight in approach. I had always understood that you enter at a 45 and then do the suggested pattern and that is what most do. Well, the helicopters are a whole other ballgame since they land on the taxi way.

There have been several times that I have heard or seen close calls from straight ins and the jets having to do a go-around. Im not saying it is always or ever the fault of the straight in pilot, but there are conflicts and one day there will be an accident.

I understand the desire of the jets to do a straight in - our company has a Citation X. A go around costs more than a full tank of RV fuel. I started lessons at KBOI, a controlled field and I did my share of straight ins. I really prefer the 45 and pattern especially as I am learning. That way I do everything the same each time and I am at a higher altitude closer to the airport in case of trouble!

Any discussion or thread I can learn from is helpful. Thanks
 
There have been several times that I have heard or seen close calls from straight ins and the jets having to do a go-around. Im not saying it is always or ever the fault of the straight in pilot, but there are conflicts and one day there will be an accident.

91.113(g) gives straight in pilots the right of way:
"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
."

I really prefer the 45 and pattern especially as I am learning. ..... I am at a higher altitude closer to the airport in case of trouble!

You also have to fly to the airport and spend time in the pattern. If you fly straight in, you spend less time in the air. Not saying that means you should fly straight in approaches, but just pointing out that patterns take more time and your engine could blow up while maneuvering to enter on a 45*.... It is as likely as your engine throwing craps on final.

Also, when flying instrument approaches, they tend to be straight in.... And many if not most jets are flying instrument even in day VFR conditions.

There is no "right" answer. The FAA says the guy on final has the right of way and I could be on final almost 10 miles out on the RNAV 10L at KBOI for example. And I can fly that approach in day VFR if I want.
 
You can have the right of way and still wake up dead.

Good point about being in the air longer on a pattern approach - but you are in the air over the airport for that time, mostly in gliding distance.

I have known too many really good pilots that had thousands of hours and were better pilots than I will ever be that are gone. My only hope is to not let my guard down and do everything I can to protect myself and passenger.

I knew a guy who was riding a bike and was hit by a car that didn't see him. The car driver was wrong, but the guy I knew was dead.

My plan is to fly a standard pattern, announce my position, listen carefully, and keep my eyes out of the canopy. One of the reasons I chose the RV is the good visibility.

We have several ultralights and cub type planes at KEUL and most have no radio. I never understood why they wouldn't just bring a hand held with them. I learned in this thread that the engine would probably make their transmission garbled. I could not put myself in the position of flying with no communication. I am not judging others - just what is acceptable to me.

Thanks to the OP for bringing this up.
 
No, this does not give straight-in pilots the right of way. From the FAA's website, "Operations at Non-Towered Airports", on Page 10:

https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway...ation/safety advisor non-towered airports.pdf

"Occasionally you might be inbound to a nontowered airport on a heading that will allow a straight-in approach. Though permissible, a straight-in approach should only be used when you are certain there will be no conflict. Straight-ins should yield to other aircraft in the pattern. If another aircraft is ahead of you on base and the spacing will not be sufficient, go around by altering course to the right (on a standard left pattern), enter the upwind leg, and turn crosswind when it’s safe."​

Also, the same document on Page 2 defines "Final Approach" as:

"The final approach is a flight path in the direction of landing along the extended runway centerline from the base leg to the runway"​

Great document! I think a very relevant section would be the one titled "Common Courtesy" stating:

It helps to keep in mind that traffic procedures at nontowered airports are advisory in nature, not regulatory. There frequently is more than one way to fly a safe pattern, final approach, and landing. You’ll see a lot of different interpretations of the traffic pattern.

Taking other pilots to task because they don’t exactly follow your interpretation of the local procedures is asking for trouble, especially if you lecture the miscreant, using the CTAF as your bully pulpit. If you feel the need to discuss a situation, do it on the ground—politely.

Use the courtesy and respect you expect from others. There can be honest differences of opinion, and we should be far more courteous to one
another than most automobile drivers.

Give the other pilot the benefit of the doubt to compensate for the time when you are the one who may have made an inadvertent error.

I think the second paragraph sums it up pretty well. These are all interpretations and techniques, not procedure.
 
Last edited:
Thanks

Not sure if everyone is always civil on some of these posts but I do want to thank everyone. As a relatively new pilot I learn from these posts. I have never done a straight in approach but I have been with other pilots that have. I now know the dangers if I wanted to do straight ins. Just want to let you know that these posts do help new pilots learn!
 
To risk being labelled a heretic, I'll mention that, even though the regulations which govern aviation allow for legal operation of aircraft without 2-way communications equipment, and even though you may be legally right to operate NORDO, I often wonder why on earth anybody would.

...

I understand this attitude and I know a lot of pilots share it. However, I operated for several years at a small airport with a bunch of nordo airplanes and it was fine. It made you look. We all (well, most of us) understood it and accepted it. I recall once evening doing circuits on the cross runway while a buddy did circuits on the main runway and we just stayed synchronized. Great fun. Nordo makes you look harder. I go back to what I stated earlier - the radio won't keep you safe. In fact it can give you the illusion of safety which can bring complacency. BTW the Antique Aircraft ***. flyin in Blakesburn operates Nordo. I think perhaps the Sentimental Journey piper flyin at Lockhaven does as well. If everybody follows the procedure it is a non-issue.

Also, if there is an "event", whoever said that it should be discussed on the ground, politely, with the goal of learning rather than blaming, was right on. Gentlemen and Ladies can work these things out.

There are a lot of interpretations of rules and opinions here and I don't expect everyone to ever agree on them. But I say it again - following the rules alone won't keep you alive, and if you die and it is not your fault you are still dead. So fly defensively, count on other people making honest mistakes, don't flip out when they do and keep your head on a swivel. And if you do screw up (we all do) and talk to the other guy and say you are sorry a handshake should end it 99% of the time.

My current airport is even more interesting because it operates in English and French! That can be real entertaining:D
 
Don't we fly because we like flying?

Most of us flying RVs are doing so because we like to fly...duh. So, why not perform the "preferred" 45 approach? It's arguable safer and we get to do what we like to do for a few minutes longer. Why increase your risk for no obvious benefit?

Last weekend, I was approaching a local non-towered airport. Winds were calm and the published calm wind runway was 20. Although a straight in for 20 was the shortest route from where I was located, I did the usual and set up for a left 45 to 20. Sometime during my approach to the 45 another RV made a radio call and departed on runway 2. No harm. We both got to fly another day. Now, had I set up for the straight in approach, it would have been an awkward, if not worse, situation.

As a side note, when I was about to exit the run-up area before my departure from 20, a Cessna was performing a straight-in to 20.
 
No, this does not give straight-in pilots the right of way. From the FAA's website, "Operations at Non-Towered Airports", on Page 10:

https://www.faa.gov/airports/runway...ation/safety advisor non-towered airports.pdf

"Occasionally you might be inbound to a nontowered airport on a heading that will allow a straight-in approach. Though permissible, a straight-in approach should only be used when you are certain there will be no conflict. Straight-ins should yield to other aircraft in the pattern. If another aircraft is ahead of you on base and the spacing will not be sufficient, go around by altering course to the right (on a standard left pattern), enter the upwind leg, and turn crosswind when it?s safe."​

Also, the same document on Page 2 defines "Final Approach" as:

"The final approach is a flight path in the direction of landing along the extended runway centerline from the base leg to the runway"​

I have cited the FARs, you cited something that does not actually back your position.

For example, your "definition" of final.... Is only applicable to when you are flying in a pattern. And it says so right in your own source. Hence it being in a graphic called "Traffic Pattern Diagram".

From the Pilot Controller glossary:
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/pcg.pdf

"Final Approach. A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended runway centerline. The final approach normally extends from the base leg to the runway. An aircraft making a straight-in approach VFR is also considered to be on final approach."

Also from the PCG:
"Final Approach−The segment between the final approach fix or point and the runway, airport, or missed approach point."

So your definition is from a handout, mine is from the PCG. Your Right of Way rules is from a handout, mine is a direct quote from the FAR's

Again Sec. 91.113:
(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
.


Even the AIM 4-3-4-d states: "When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the pilot of the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right−of−way over the pilot of the aircraft at the higher altitude. However, the pilot operating at the lower altitude should not take advantage of another aircraft, which is on final approach to land, by cutting in front of, or overtaking that aircraft"

We all know the FAR's are the final word. I have provided FAR's please bring FAR's if you wish to counter my claim.



 
Last edited:


I have cited the FARs, you cited something that does not actually back your position.

For example, your "definition" of final.... Is only applicable to when you are flying in a pattern. And it says so right in your own source. Hence it being in a graphic called "Traffic Pattern Diagram".

From the Pilot Controller glossary:
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/pcg.pdf

"Final Approach. A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended runway centerline. The final approach normally extends from the base leg to the runway. An aircraft making a straight-in approach VFR is also considered to be on final approach."

Also from the PCG:
"Final Approach−The segment between the final approach fix or point and the runway, airport, or missed approach point."

So your definition is from a handout, mine is from the PCG. Your Right of Way rules is from a handout, mine is a direct quote from the FAR's

Again Sec. 91.113:
(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
.


Even the AIM 4-3-4-d states: "When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the pilot of the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right−of−way over the pilot of the aircraft at the higher altitude. However, the pilot operating at the lower altitude should not take advantage of another aircraft, which is on final approach to land, by cutting in front of, or overtaking that aircraft"

We all know the FAR's are the final word. I have provided FAR's please bring FAR's if you wish to counter my claim.




uh oh - He is using a bigger font. he must be right! :p

This is all well and good but it doesn't address the event being discussed - the other airplane was not landing - it was taking off! And neither airplane knew of the other's presence, so we can't expect either of them to yield right of way if they have no idea that the other one is there. Had the radio communications been heard, I suspect our guy would have overshot. Or the other guy might have held short - but who knows?

"rules are for the blind obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
 
Just last week I made one of the biggest boo boo of my short flying years. After finishing my run up test, I checked for the traffic in the pattern and saw a plane just turning the base, he and another one behind him had made their calls appropriately. I thought I had plenty of time to take off and entered the runway only to notice there was another plane on short final which I turned in the front of him. While it scared the sh1t out of me, It turned out to be of no event as I pulled to the side and he did a go around. Once safe, I profusely apologized and he was most gracious and understanding. A big lesson learned for me to really look and not just glance or rely on the radio calls.
 
uh oh - He is using a bigger font. he must be right! :p

This is all well and good but it doesn't address the event being discussed - the other airplane was not landing - it was taking off! And neither airplane knew of the other's presence, so we can't expect either of them to yield right of way if they have no idea that the other one is there. Had the radio communications been heard, I suspect our guy would have overshot. Or the other guy might have held short - but who knows?

"rules are for the blind obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"

All true. But when someone makes a claim, they should be able to back it up with a source and when we are talking aviation THE source is the FARs.

As for the bigger type.... When copy pasting from the FAR's it was different font and size. I just picked new ones at random to make it match... No 'shouting' intended:D
 
As we know, the CFRs pertaining to aviation sometimes can be interpreted in many ways. Only the FAA can interpret their regulations. They do this by issuing guidance in the form of Orders, Advisory Circulars, interpretations from their General Counsel, working with other entities who put out appropriate guidance, etc.

I didn't just "make a claim". I pointed to the guidance in AOPA's Air Safety Institute's document ("Operations at Non-Towered Airports") that is hosted on the FAA's website under "runway safety". The AOPA's Air Safety Institute is a recognized and respected organization.

If you disagree with the interpretation of the aviation related CFRs contained in that document, I suggest you take it up with the FAA and the AOPA.

Got it, you can't point to an FAR.

Only the FAA can interpret their regulations
Yet you did on the first exchange between us....
End of message.
 
Last edited:
And if you live in an air park community, always be vigilant of the drunken neighbor driving a golf cart across the runway. It's happened to me by the same offender on two occasions causing an aborted landing and subsequent go around.

What I've noticed is aircraft coming from neighboring controlled airports is; they'll come in and buzz or land at our strip with no radio use. Obviously, they aren't NORDO. Upon speaking with some of the pilots, I've been asked questions like "what's the frequency and runway numbers?"

There are pilots that continue their aviation education and pilotage after receiving their certificate and that's a good thing. Unfortunately, there are some that once the certificate is acquired, they stop and never look back. Completely forgetting how to read a sectional, communicate with a controlled airport, check notams, flight service, et cetera.
 
Thread resurrection

The latest issue of Flying cites violations, upheld by the NTSB in appeal, of (now) FAR 91.126/127. I reiterate that I hope the OP apologized to the other pilot he wrongly chastised.
 
For the love of God. Some of you sanctimonious blow hards really do need to find a hobby.

If you're asking yourself right now, "does he mean Me?"..... I probably do.

I often wonder if the habitual hot wind'rs in here ever speak to men at the airport the way they dress down strangers in here. Must be a lonely life....

SMFH
 
NORDO..

And if you couldn't see well going into a setting sun and winds were calm ... maybe that's why the others were using the other runway?? Why not choose the one you can see best if the winds are no factor?]
 
Just read this resurrected thread...very interesting.

In Canada there are only 2 approved ways of joining the cct VFR at an uncontrolled field. The preferred approach is from the upwind side, mid-field at cct alt. The other way is straight in on the downwind only if there is no conflict. IFR however, can do a straight in final...so beware! At an MF field you have more options, ie 45 on the downwind, straight in base or final...just have to report your intentions.

At risk of getting blasted...I don't see where the quoted FAR says it is legal to perform a straight in final. It just says when you are on final who has the right of way...unless I am missing something.

Canadian pilots have the CAR's, like the US FAR's, the AIM and the CFS which give the regulations, procedures and recommended practices to follow. While the CAR's do not say it is illegal to perform a straight in final, in an enforcement situation, TC then refers to recommended not regulated cct procedures, which in the case of uncontrolled VFR would not condone a straight in final, as per the AIM TP 11541.

Like many of you I have experienced a close call in the cct. I was on right base about to turn final having been making all my calls as well listening and looking. A 172 came from my left in a left turn to final 200' right in front of me...wakeup call!! I made the turn to final behind him, too tight to land, so did a go around and then landed. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to talk to him about the incident when I landed. I learned then to pay extra attention because not everyone does what they should...especially in a non-standard cct!

As others have said before...keep your eyes outside and stay alert!

Fly safe!
Al
 
Had you approached me on the tarmac in the same way jabbering about the radio calls and an "Are you kidding me", stuff after you did a long straight into the sun without flying the pattern as per the AIM you might end up with a punch in the nose.
Jim

If might turns into did, depending on who calls 911 first, one or both of you will get a back seat ride with loaner bracelets.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top