Short Approach?

[gdrean]

I guess I will have to come to my own defense! Lightly loaded I tend to fly my 206 like my cub. Asked for a short approach the other day as the controller had a touch and go departure follow me and I was 3 miles out. I wanted to keep it short so the touch and go student wouldn't have to go out too far. To be honest I really didn't hear the controller approve the short approach but I thought he did. I descended at mid field and turned at the numbers. After taxing off the controller asked me to ask for short approach in the future. I said ok. I called the tower later just to let them know I had asked for the approach. The tower boss said they had already talked to the controller about it. Apparently they someone else heard my request or played the tapes for him. Said no foul and no problem.

Bob and I had part of the discussion above. I like MTV's take on it. I don't like to get pass gliding distance to the runway whenever I can.

 

[Cub Special Ed]

I was checking out in a c120 once doing touch and goes with a dpe. A 210 called a 5 mile straight in final. We were dwn wind turning base and landed in front of him. He tried to chew our butts on the ground. That ended very quickly when the dpe got out the far's and said, "show me in the pattern entry procedure it calls for a 5nm final".

 

[Cub Special Ed]

Cherokees/Warriors come down like a brick with full flaps and idle power. Those instructors need to start exploring the capabilities of the aircraft they’re instructing in..... Great Aircraft for short/steep approaches.

MTV

I land my dads cherokee on a 60mph steep final (i havnt use approach lights in years). I arest with a quick shot of pwr and flare. Nice smooth short landings. He is not comfortable with that. Nor are most instructors. They seam to teach 90-80-70 on cessnas and pipers. Too fast in my opinion.

 

[bob turner]

I do the idle/full flap approach in a Cherokee Six. It is semi-exciting, if you are not used to Cubs. As I recall, it cannot do a short approach from abeam at 1000'. I do not believe a C-206 can, either. Unless you land long, of course.

Gary's description matches what MTV said. I would not run a base leg at the abeam point without a clearance. I do not deviate from pattern altitude without a clearance (I get such a clearance daily!).

Many locals ignore the new pattern altitude. Ok with me - I think it ts advisory (not sure).

 

[GeeBee]

And if the #2 to land airplane is an F27,
would they tell you to expedite for the Focker on final behind you?

Well if it is an F-27 you confir it is the "little Focker" but if it is an F-28-1000 you know it is a "big Focker"......get out of the way.

By the way, what to you call two Shorts in the pattern....yep a pair of shorts.

 

[hotrod180]

I was checking out in a c120 once doing touch and goes with a dpe. A 210 called a 5 mile straight in final. We were dwn wind turning base and landed in front of him. He tried to chew our butts on the ground. That ended very quickly when the dpe got out the far's and said, "show me in the pattern entry procedure it calls for a 5nm final".

Depends on if you impeded him.
While I'm not a big fan of straight-ins, and rarely do them myself,
aircraft on final approach has right-of-way.

Read the regs, in particular FAR 91.113(g).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.113

(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.

BTW that DPE might wanna bone up on the regs.
While it is not the preferred pattern entry per AIM
(which is advisory in nature, NOT regulatory),
as far as I know straight-ins are not prohibited.
FWIW I do (mid-field) crosswind entries all the time--
again, not recommended per AIM, but NOT prohibited.
​

 

[mvivion]

Hotrod,

Thats correct, but the original post would beg the question Is 5 miles out “on final?”. Look at the diagram of traffic patterns in the AIM.

But, of course, as always, it depends. If that 5 mile traffic is a Boeing, or Gulfstream, probably better stay out of its way. If it’s a Cub, turn in, land, taxi to parking and have a cup of coffee.

As usual, it is hoped that we will all use a good helping of common sense.

MTV

 

[Cub Special Ed]

Id have to find my far's, but last it knew was the traffic established in the pattern at a non-towered airport that have the right away.

 

[Cub Special Ed]

Depends on if you impeded him.
While I'm not a big fan of straight-ins, and rarely do them myself,
aircraft on final approach has right-of-way.

Read the regs, in particular FAR 91.113(g).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.113

(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.

BTW that DPE might wanna bone up on the regs.
While it is not the preferred pattern entry per AIM
(which is advisory in nature, NOT regulatory),
as far as I know straight-ins are not prohibited.
FWIW I do (mid-field) crosswind entries all the time--
again, not recommended per AIM, but NOT prohibited.
​

My uncle's already won this one when a twin flying straight in dang near landed on him in his no-radio pa11. My uncle did a standard pattern. The twin came straight in. The twins only defense was he started calling final from 15 miles out, in 5 mile increments. Imagine that? My uncle never heard it. There for, 2 things happened: 1: he over ran my uncle 2: he did not fallow proper pattern entry procedures. This was determined by an faa inspector who just happened to be there. Needless to say, that guys rant ended rather quickly.
As far as my case goes, we were in the lobby by time he taxied up, and he landed behind us without going around.

 

[bob turner]

I hate folks who do straight in approaches to uncontrolled airports. I did my share in Durango and Grand Junction in 737s, but always felt guilty. For me, the safest entry is an upwind entry. Second safest is a crosswind entry, followed by a mid-field 45. A straight-in is impolite and dangerous.

Back to the short approach: I checked with the AOPA. They seem to think "short approach" has no distance associated with it.

I am glad I asked. I feel better knowing that I am not the only pilot who is a bit fuzzy on all this. I think the answers here are as definitive as any we are likely to get. Thanks!

 

[GeeBee]

A pattern is recommended, not required. The only requirement is to make all turns to the left unless right hand is indicated. After that it is general right of way rules. It is unlikely that someone on a 5 mile final is at or below pattern altitude, so until the straight in guy is below other approaching aircraft, he has no right of way over another aircraft in the pattern. Further if they meet up in a left pattern at the same altitudes, the straight in guy is going to have the right of way since he is to the right of the aircraft on base.

 

[mvivion]

A pattern is recommended, not required. The only requirement is to make all turns to the left unless right hand is indicated. After that it is general right of way rules. It is unlikely that someone on a 5 mile final is at or below pattern altitude, so until the straight in guy is below other approaching aircraft, he has no right of way over another aircraft in the pattern. Further if they meet up in a left pattern at the same altitudes, the straight in guy is going to have the right of way since he is to the right of the aircraft on base.

Very true, and "recommended" means nothing until there's an accident or incident, at which point, the Inspector is going to be asking why you didn't follow the "recommended" procedures.

MTV

 

[GeeBee]

You can simply say, "not required".

The reality is, especially in mountainous terrain there are a lot of straight in approaches with minimums well above pattern altitude and 3 miles vis that prohibit circling. So the FAA has in effect, sanctioned straight in approaches even in VFR weather.

 

[mvivion]

Many locals ignore the new pattern altitude. Ok with me - I think it ts advisory (not sure).

Bob, Here's a quiz for your next flight review applicant:

You approach an airport in Delta airspace, with a 700 foot pattern altitude assigned. The current weather is 1100 overcast, visibility 10 miles. How do you proceed, and why?

MTV

 

[bob turner]

Good one. You get a special VFR clearance - and listen to everybody giggle about how dumb you are and that it is VFR.

Here is a really useful one when IFR in VFR weather: try a contact approach.

 

[bob turner]

By the way, Mike - we have given that some thought. Most of us just fake it, but someday some fed will ask questions. Same with our harbor tour, where ATC gives clearances to proceed 800' above a congested area. Some day . . .

 

[mvivion]

Good one. You get a special VFR clearance - and listen to everybody giggle about how dumb you are and that it is VFR.

Here is a really useful one when IFR in VFR weather: try a contact approach.

Oops....sorry....you request a Special VFR Clearance, and ATC will deny your request, since the field is, in fact Basic VFR. Remember the VFR requirements: 1000 ft ceiling and 3 miles visibility.

Try again, and you gave yourself a hint in your earlier post.......

MTV

 

[Clyde Barker]

Just request a 600 foot pattern altitude to remain VFR (500' below the ceiling).

 

[RVBottomly]

Oops....sorry....you request a Special VFR Clearance, and ATC will deny your request, since the field is, in fact Basic VFR. Remember the VFR requirements: 1000 ft ceiling and 3 miles visibility.

Try again, and you gave yourself a hint in your earlier post.......

MTV

Wouldn't you just ask ATC for a deviation from cloud clearance requirement for the designated pattern altitude? If he clears you to land, I'd imagine you've been authorized anyway.

Or maybe just advise that you are doing the pattern at 600 feet?

I'm not really sure. I haven't dealt with D airspace in a long time.

 

[Cub Special Ed]

Bob, Here's a quiz for your next flight review applicant:

You approach an airport in Delta airspace, with a 700 foot pattern altitude assigned. The current weather is 1100 overcast, visibility 10 miles. How do you proceed, and why?

MTV

Is it trick question? I dont get out much but have never heard of any pattern alt lower than 800'?

 

[mvivion]

Not a trick question at all. And there are lots of patterns at 700 feet.

The point is two fold:

1. Traffic pattern heights are recommended, not regulatory.

2. Cloud clearance requirements ARE regulatory.

So, yes, the answer is you simply fly your traffic pattern at a height that puts you 500 feet below the lowest cloud layer.

And, by the way, this also explains why the cutoff for VFR in D airspace is 1000 feet. If it were any lower, it would force you to fly lower than 500 agl, and there are usually people, structures, etc close to airports. So, if the ceiling is low, you request SVFR, and with that clearance, you simply have to maintain clear of clouds.

Finally, you don’t need to request clearance to fly a lower pattern height.....it’s not regulated, and ATC really doesn’t care generally. But you cannot legally fly closer than 500 feet to those clouds overhead.

Which explains why we sometimes see planes with their vertical fin in the goo while on downwind.....and tower never saying anything.

I learned this while one of my students was taking a checkride.

MTV

 

[Cub Special Ed]

I learn someting new everyday. Some one should start a sc.org jepordy.

 

[bob turner]

I don't know - I have never used this trick, and have had my fin in the clouds - but I think it would work. A special VFR clearance allows you to be closer than 500' below a cloud, and I am not at all sure you cannot get such a clearance under VFR conditions. After all, you can get an IFR Clearance in CAVU.

Mike is right - almost nobody pays attention to this rule, in class D or otherwise. And it is not clear to me that ATC can authorize deviations from distance to clouds or people absent an emergency.

Around here the tower occasionally gets on folks for being off pattern altitude. I get clearances. They are free.

 

[bob turner]

I hate jeopardy. My mind is not fast enough.

 

[RVBottomly]

And it is not clear to me that ATC can authorize deviations from distance to clouds or people absent an emergency.

Around here the tower occasionally gets on folks for being off pattern altitude. I get clearances. They are free.

It makes sense to just ask for (or advise, since they are not set in stone) a lower pattern altitude.

But I ran across this regarding deviations:

§ 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
...


(b)Deviations. An operator may deviate from any provision of this section under the provisions of an ATC authorization issued by the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the airspace concerned. ATC may authorize a deviation on a continuing basis or for an individual flight, as appropriate.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.129

 

[Willie]

Just got this today, but I'm not familiar enough with the regs to know if anything is being changed. Have to rely on a flight instructor for that info.
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/media/afs/AC_90-66B_Coord_Copy.pdf

I routinely execute short approaches at my home, non - towered airport. In the Cub I land on the grass median between the secondary runway and taxiway after announcing that I'm doing that. Never had a complaint. In the Citation, I occasionally find myself behind a Gulfstream that is still proceeding downwind 2 miles from the abeam position. I will let them know I'm making a short approach, turn base abeam the numbers and roll wings level 30' AGL. I'm at the ramp before they touch down. And, I've never heard a complaint. But this is Texas.

 

[BC12D-4-85]

How would ATC be aware your altitude (AGL/MSL) without a transponder? That's assuming the data if being transmitted is correct when so equipped.

Land the airplane.

Edit: I might add that when this has happened to me I subtracted 500' from the reported cloud base at the airport of landing and flew the pattern at that altitude. Without a report of bases it's still best to stay away from them.

Gary

 

[GeeBee]

Cloud clearance is regulated but the determination in flight, like that of visibility is that of the pilot. If the ceiling were below 1000' by an official wx observer you could not legally operate because you could not be 500' below the cloud and 500' above the nearest person, place or thing. So if the official wx is 1100' it is VFR and cloud clearance is 500' below determined by YOU. Yes I have had FAA inspectors in the plane seated next to me and put a wingtip in the cloud. They will tell you the same thing. Ditto visibility. Inflight visibility is the determination of the pilot. Ground visibility is that of the official wx observer for THAT airport other wise it is the pilot's determination. This is the reason why 121 and 135 requires official wx and does not allow pilot determination. It is also correct, pattern altitudes are not regulated EXCEPT for turbojet aircraft. Thus in a turbojet you cannot depart VFR with an official ceiling below 2000' except in Class B airspace.

 

[mvivion]

It makes sense to just ask for (or advise, since they are not set in stone) a lower pattern altitude.

But I ran across this regarding deviations:



https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.129

Ah, but the key that makes this irrelevant in this instance is the phrase “An operator may deviate from any provision of this section...”(emphasis added). Again, traffic pattern heights are not regulatory, therefore they are not included in a “provision of this section”.

In my experience, ATC could pretty generally care less how high you are in the pattern, probably at least largely because, as Gary says, it’s pretty hard to judge height or distance from clouds. ive seen instances where the ceiling is fairly close to VFR minimum, and Plane after Plane is obviously rught up there against the cloud bases....obviously trying to comply with recommended TPA, while clearly violating cloud clearance regulations....and ATC made no comment.

Gee Bee is correct that in this context, cloud clearance is determined by the pilot. But the point is, why violate cloud clearance when there is an easy and legal solution?

As to the suggestion that you simply request a Special VFR Clearance, give that a shot next time you’re in VFR conditions at a Delta airspace......I’ve heard that requested, and ATC simply reminded the pilot that “negative, conditions are Basic VFR.”

My exposure to this was during a practical test for a SES add on for one of my students. Weather conditions were as described: ceiling 1100,visibility 10 miles. During the ground portion of the test, the DPE asked the applicant “Can we legally conduct the flight portion of this test in today’s conditions, specifically, how can we legally operate in the pattern and comply with all the regs?” Applicant said ask for SVFR. DPE said won’t work. DPE looked at me and said “Okay, CFI, you answer the question.” I admitted I couldn’t after some thought, and was wishing I hadn’t opted to sit in on this test.

At which point the DPE turned to me and said “Neither do I, so you go over to the tower and ask them, while we keep going on the ground portion of this test.”

I drove over to the tower and rang the bell, the ATC Chief came down from his office and I posed the question to him. He answered that he didn’t know either, but we’d figure it out. It took him a few minutes, but he came up with the solution: fly at a traffic pattern height that keeps you an appropriate distance below the clouds. I asked about a SVFR, and he stated that ATC cannot issue a SVFR Clearance in Basic VFR conditions, and there would be no point in doing so.

I returned to the ongoing practical test, provided the ATC Chief’s answer, and they went flying.

And, the applicant passed.

MTV

 

[hotrod180]

....I drove over to the tower and rang the bell, the ATC Chief came down from his office and I posed the question to him. He answered that he didn’t know either, but we’d figure it out. It took him a few minutes, but he came up with the solution: fly at a traffic pattern height that keeps you an appropriate distance below the clouds. ...

FAR 91.119 minimum safe altitudes--
"except when necessary for takeoff or landing..."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119