Short Approach?

[hotrod180]

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.

KInda depends on where exactly "approaching to land" begins, vs "converging", as far as when the aircraft on final has right-of-way.

In the case cited, if you were down and clear well before the straight-in dude landed,
I don't see why he was even fussing.
Of course, some people are like that--
I once got accused of cutting a guy off in the pattern,
and I was behind him at the time. :roll:

 

[mvivion]

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

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

The key term being Necessary. So, when is is necessary to descend? Certainly not below 500 feet on downwind.... And, yes, pilots have been violated for flying low over people, boats, houses when landing as in on FINAL or right after takeoff. FAA made the point that the pilot could have chosen to landtakeoff in a different direction.

MTV

 

[Nark]

Bob:
I used to tow banners out of SEE (in a PA18.. not for the other guy... left in 2010)
Tower loved us, as we'd drop the banner, and execute a quick 270, and land on 17. Never getting to pattern altitude, and exiting B5 (? First exit East after the parallel)

I certainly noticed the difference when doing patterns with students in the cherokee's. Different tone, and less leeway.

From there I went to Alaska flying PA30's out of Juneau, and I'd never land, short of a long landing. If 26 was in use.
Those were the days... more bravado than brains. Special VFR meant something, and used often!

 

[kase]

To me a short approach is you keep it in as close as you can without killing yourself. About the only tool atc has anymore to expedite traffic. Use to do it with airliners back in the day before stabilized approaches became the norm. Really useful for super cubs, they get on a 3 mile final they shut down the airport for 10min and back traffic up 20 miles.

In 33 years of atc have never questioned the 1000 ft vfr pattern stuff with a 1000 ft ceiling, nor have I heard anybody else. Had a super cub depart few weeks ago, 300 ft ceiling and a mile. Nobody thought anything of it.

Last spring a guy in a 182 asked for svfr when it was vfr, first time I had seen that.

 

[Cub Special Ed]

Well, i was in Rapid today to pick up a comm radio and i stopped in at the fsdo to talk to an inspector ive know for years. Asked him about my scenarios and all he said was lower aircraft have right away. He wouldnt offer anymore than that. So i guess everything we do is legal until someone makes a stink about something?

 

[bob turner]

FAA folks do not answer stuff like this. I try to coordinate all the time - if I e-mail the tower chief I am usually ignored. Even writing the administrator gets no results - we paved a runway to a full 150' width, testing it for 20,000 lb aircraft, then striped it down to 75' "to save money." I wrote somebody high up, hoping for a coherent answer. I did get an answer, but it was not coherent.

I did ask our tower about this short approach business. They answered, but said they preferred not to comment.

 

[kase]

Bob, far as I know no change to short approach definition. If Cherokees are asking for it they may me be practicing power off 180s? You should probably talk to them.

 

[hotrod180]

Well, i was in Rapid today to pick up a comm radio and i stopped in at the fsdo to talk to an inspector ive know for years. Asked him about my scenarios and all he said was lower aircraft have right away. He wouldnt offer anymore than that. So i guess everything we do is legal until someone makes a stink about something?

Just because someone's an FAA employee doesn't mean they have a handle on the legality of things.
I'm sure that plenty of FAA inspectors would come up with another interpretation.

FAR 91.113 seems pretty clear to me that aircraft on final have right of way *while landing*.
Lower aircraft has right of way *when two or more aircraft are approaching the airport for landing*.
The question to me is just when does "approaching to land" turn into "on final approach"?

 

[bob turner]

Kase - you are the key. I am actually looking for a definition of "short approach" that I can apply to actual operation.

I agree - the Cherokees are probably asking for an idle descent. Very few aircraft come down fast enough to turn final inside the AIM-specified 1/4 mile point if power is reduced at the abeam point at 1000' agl. The Cherokees roll on to final outside a half mile.

 

[Gordon Misch]

Kase wrote:

a short approach is you keep it in as close as you can without killing yourself

I like this definition; makes perfect sense and is applicable to any aircraft.

 

[bob turner]

As a scientist I would have thought that a slightly more precise definition would satisfy you. My concern is that when a Cherokee asks for a short approach, then executes one half of a 737 approach, it leaves an implicit definition imprinted on the controllers' minds. I want the controllers to not think my normal approaches are somehow out of line and need a special clearance.

 

[mvivion]

I’d take the opposite attitude.....Bob, show em what a Cub can do, they may be impressed, and thus disgusted with the Cherokee pilots performance.

As far as I’m concerned the tower’s clearing me for a short approach is generally my cue to turn base.

MTV

 

[Gordon Misch]

I hear you. Have controllers been giving you any grief for your short (near vertical�&#56883 approaches? If not is this a solution looking for a problem? How's this for a definition? Shortest practical path from present position to touchdown, descent pilots discretion. That could be one of your big J3 slips, or it could be that timid student in the Cherokee, who pretty much needs a half mile final now, but does better and better with practice.

In my opinion not everything about flying need be reduced to formulas and exact prescriptions.

Keep educating observers by example of your own short approaches, and you'll have as much influence, maybe more, as the half-mile type pilots.

 

[aviator53z]

Interesting thread. Have been in and out of BOI for 40 years and because of the difference in speed between my airplanes and the commercial traffic I usually do a short approach on my own without the tower asking for or me announcing. Never had anyone say a thing about it!

 

[bob turner]

Only one time. They cleared my Super Cub student, then released an aircraft. Nothing bad happened, but the controller said she did not realize we were going to do a short approach. The approach wasn't inside the AIM standard; few are.

Today, empty J-3, 800' pattern, idle from abeam point, and I was on final 3/8 mile from threshold. Well inside any Cherokee approach I have seen lately.

Gary sort of got dinged, but whatever happened, the tower shut down all conversation immediately, indicating to me that they do not quite know what a short approach is either. MTV's definition is succinct and easy to understand.

Aviation has very little room for clearances that are this nebulous. I can go along with a tower request to "make a short approach" - that indeed has meaning. But teaching a Cherokee student that any approach that is not on final 3/4 of a mile from the threshold is doing that student, and by extension all of us, a disservice.

 

[hotrod180]

....I agree - the Cherokees are probably asking for an idle descent. Very few aircraft come down fast enough to turn final inside the AIM-specified 1/4 mile point if power is reduced at the abeam point at 1000' agl. The Cherokees roll on to final outside a half mile.

"If power is reduced at the abeam point at 1000' AGL".

AIM says that's the earliest you should start your descent.​

That's not the same as saying that's where you should reduce power.

I agree that if a Cherokee stays at cruise speed until downwind abeam,
he's gonna have a tough time with a short or even normal final approach.
​

Personally I've got the power pulled back to a pretty low setting on the 45,
and I like to be down to at least flap speed in the 180 (100 mph) by midfield downwind where I pull the first notch.
I'm generally down to at least 80 by downwind abeam where I start the descent, usually a second notch goes out there.
No problem landing close to the threshold utilizing a 1/4 to 3/8 mile final.

I tried to coach a friend of mine who flies an Ercoupe about flying a tighter pattern,
and using a nose-high, low-airspeed approach to increase descent rate
(using power to control sink as required), but she just didn't get it.
She usually flies final at 70, if not more-- I tried to get her to slow down
but she was worried about falling out of the sky if she got below about 68 mph.
(she used to fly final at 80, and rarely made the 1500' turnoff, until I suggested slowing it down some.
At 70 she can usually hit the turnoff, so at least she's showing some improvement.)

 

[txpacer]

Ercoupes are different. Bring one in at 60 with two people in it and you'll hit the elevator stop in the flare and get a carrier landing. I have experienced this.

 

[bob turner]

A lot of folks don't know how short a quarter mile really is. I have little landmarks at GPS distances from the threshold. Our runup pavement is almost exactly 1/4 mile from the threshold. Try it some day - most GPS units will create a waypoint for you on the threshold. I have the Mooney fully configured at 800' agl abeam, 70 mph, full flaps. Power all the way to idle at that point and I am established on final well east of the 1/4 mile point.

I know the Cherokee comes down like a little brick, but even the Stearman doesn't come down fast enough to be inside the quarter mile mark.

 

[RaisedByWolves]

A lot of folks don't know how short a quarter mile really is. I have little landmarks at GPS distances from the threshold. Our runup pavement is almost exactly 1/4 mile from the threshold. Try it some day - most GPS units will create a waypoint for you on the threshold. I have the Mooney fully configured at 800' agl abeam, 70 mph, full flaps. Power all the way to idle at that point and I am established on final well east of the 1/4 mile point.

I know the Cherokee comes down like a little brick, but even the Stearman doesn't come down fast enough to be inside the quarter mile mark.

When I’m at home in the stearman and abeam the end of the runway if I put full aileron and rudder and hold the stick back, I can land and stop in the first 700 ft of the runway. I’ve never seen anything come down so fast


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bob turner]

A Cub will do as good. I am not big on holding the stick all the way back, although I have done it to prove it will not stall. I just get the rudder to the firewall, adjust my track with ailerons, and lower the nose toward the ground. Extremely high drag, and remember, drag is related to the square of speed.

Another way to get down in a Stearman or Cub is to go real fast. The speed disappears in a heartbeat in the flare. When I do that in the Decathlon I have to turn sideways in the flare for a while to slow down. A Husky never slows down.

 

[cubdriver2]

When I’m at home in the stearman and abeam the end of the runway if I put full aileron and rudder and hold the stick back, I can land and stop in the first 700 ft of the runway. I’ve never seen anything come down so fast


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's almost impossible to be too high in a Stearman. Full slip at 65 mph is almost vertical

Glenn

 

[windy]

One year at Oshkosh, the controller cleared me to land on the green dot on runway 27. I was on downwind at the time & abeam the green dot. I figured that I “owned” the green dot, having just been cleared to land there. I cut the power & didn’t waste any time heading toward my green dot, knowing that the controllers at Oshkosh like to keep things moving. I saw a twin sitting on the runway with its props spinning while I was on base ready to turn final. I went against Oshkosh protocol & asked the controller if the twin was holding for me to land on my green dot. Hastily, the controller ordered me to go around and get back on downwind. I guess getting cleared to land on the green dot means the controller expected me to go out over Lake Winnebago half way to New Holstein before turning base. So much for keeping traffic expedited at Oshkosh. And no, the controller didn’t yell at me. I just did a 360 on downwind while the twin took off & then landed on the green dot without going out over the lake.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org

 

[OLDCROWE]

This is a really good thread and I’m going to chime in only because of the event that happened at the end of my post.

My primary and continued flight instructor (and a good friend) is a senior controller at one of the bussiest Class C airports around. While I’ve moved to my own strip, these days there are four flight schools (two of which have large volumes of overseas pilot trainees), plus there is a lot of general biz and fun traffic on parallel runways often with split frequencies. Sound fun right, a real cub kind of a place... well there’s probably 15-20 that mix in regularly and it’s where I learned to fly so besides learning to fly in my Super Cub, I learned tower/pattern procedures from day one. So here’s what I learned and to-date I’ve never been scolded by a tower controller, but we won’t talk about Approach Controllers...

“Cleared to Land” = yes you get to land but only AFTER you have finished a standard pattern including whatever entry or modifier instructions you have been given (enter downwind, mid-field, base, straight in, short, extended base, inverted etc.)

“Make Short Approach” = fly a modified pattern with a base turn that will produce a 1/8-1/4 mile final but remember this does not change the standard pattern altitude requirement on downwind which is to maintain pattern altitude until abeam the numbers of the landing runway (I won a BIG airspace obstruction protest by reminding the FAA of this and a couple of other published requirements once).

“Direct Numbers XX” = turn to the numbers.

Now, remember with all of these you are only “CLeared to Land” if those words were specifically included in the instruction given which you duitifully read back in normal instances so if you didn’t hear it or don’t remember it “Tower, NBR549 Confirm Cleared to Land XX” will never get you in trouble.

Then there is the “Go Around” which unless it gets expressly modified by the controller means you’re not landing so immiediately cease your decent and climb upwind, over the runway, on the runway heading to join the standard pattern for that runway. Sorry but any unauthorized departure from a normal go around and pattern like S turns, a 360, slow flight, or flank speed is dangerous at best and would maybe generate a phone number to call.

In training it took me awhile for the Okay, I get it, I gotta do it this way or get growled at but later I had it demonstrated to me by a very near miss in the pattern at night after a long cross country when Approach brought me straight in and Tower Cleared me to Land a couple miles out when a highly skilled pilot (and his instructor) who where maybe midfield on downwind when Tower directed them to Extend his base and follow the idiot (me + family in the 180) who were on a 1-1/2 mile final which he acknowledged “traffic in sight, will follow” and within 30 seconds he appearently turned base and proceeded to cut me off which I didn’t see untill he decended over my illuminated position lights, tail beacon very close ahead (we could smell his exhaust) into the full illumination of my landing lights. I evaded the highly skilled pilot and his 172 by descending and slowing (only place to go with traffic also landing on the parallel runway) I alerted the tower and the highly trained pilot got a tense go around and the idiot (me) was “Confirmed Cleared to land if still able” (I was low and slow by then) quickly followed by a “Caution Wires Ahead” both short of the runway and also downriver from the airport so while the idiot in the 180 was making a LOT of noise gaining altitude to double clear the power lines and landing my hyperventilating family. When the highly trained pilots instructor got on trying to defend his student from the not happy controller and got a little snarky he got a phone number to call. From then on I fully understood in a personalized form that traffic Patterns and procedures aren’t about the FAA or individual controllers being control freaks and that’s it’s all about minimizing the opportunity for us idiots to collide with highly skilled pilots which I think Pierce and the select few members of the mid-air club I think would agree is an important thing.

Kirby

 

[bob turner]

Most of the time when I am the highly skilled pilot making a mistake the tower picks it up. The most insidious version is following the wrong Cessna, with parallel approaches.

I am sure there are pilots who have never, ever made a mistake - I have a good friend who has never even left a master switch on. I am not one of them, and I have a pile of NASA reports to prove it.

 

[cubdriver2]

I find that if I stay away from places that requires talking that I don't get yelled at as much

Glenn

 

[Gordon Misch]

A scary one for me - Waiting for midfield takeoff at the hold-short line at a VERY busy airport. The controller could hardly take a breath. I heard "cleared for immediate takeoff", looked and saw an aircraft on short final, but the threshold was quite a ways away so I read back "cleared immediate takeoff", taxied out and accelerated smartly. Well, the landing aircraft got a go-around, and I got a number to call. The go-around probably created a greater hazard than continued landing because I was off the ground in Cub distance.

I made the phone call, and the person I talked with told me the controller had said "prepare for immediate takeoff". Well, that's not what either I or my passenger, who is a licensed pilot, heard. The tower lady on the phone was very polite, as was I, and I asked her to check the tapes. She said she would. I never heard any more about it.

Point being, the controller messed up - no big surprise given how busy he was. Whether he said "prepare for" or "cleared for", they sound alike, especially with expectation bias. I checked the ICAO standard phraseology, and it explicitly stated that the word "takeoff" is ONLY to be used as part of a clearance. In light of that event, the reason is certainly obvious. Furthermore, standard phraseology would be for the controller to tell me "negative" on my readback and to tell me "stop".


You can bet I filed a NASA report!

 

[hotrod180]

Similarly I've seen a few go-arounds initiated by pilots "getting cut off",
when just going ahead and landing woulda been the better and safer option.
It used to bother me, but nowadays I have no problem landing at the start of a runway when someone who missed a turnoff (or whatever)
is still rolling out on the far end of it.

 

[mam90]

Ok, so here’s mine. In a Gulfstream landing at a busy airport with one runway that has a 1,000 foot displaced threshold on approach end. Numerous aircraft in the pattern utilizing downwinds on both sides of the runway, and a helo working low level patterns to the taxiway on one side. Tower clears a 172 for takeoff when we are a mile or more out on final, then clears us to land. 172 is slow to get on runway and start takeoff from the end of the runway. We are on final to land past the displaced threshold 1,000 feet down and we’re doing about 130 knots. Doesn’t take long to realize it’s not going to work, can’t get a word in on the frequency and wasn’t happy with go around options due to traffic. 172 gets airborne but we’re still gaining on him. Decided to plant the airplane right on the end and get on the brakes, as a normal rollout likely would have us underneath the 172 which was only a couple hundred feet above the runway. Well, I asked for the tower number and no one wanted to discuss this with me but said the tower chief would call me back. He called the next morning and said they had reviewed everything and filed a report for a controller caused runway incursion. They relieved the controller until he could be retrained. Tower chief thanked me for not making it worse by going around opposite traffic in the pattern.

 

[bob turner]

Got a little one-on-one with one of my favorite controllers today. I tried to phrase the question this way:

When a pilot asks for a short approach and you clear him for one, what, exactly, can he/she now do legally that could not have been done with the ordinary clearance?

Nobody knows. Here is apparently what happens: they clear the pilot for a short approach, observe what he does, and then expect that the next time he asks.

Some instructors are asking for short approaches when they are #2 or 3 for that runway. Then the tower simply says "unable."

My opinion: asking for a short approach, then going a mile downwind before turning base at best is wasting everybody's time on a crowded frequency.

They agree that standard engine idle approaches in Cubs and Stearmans do not need a special clearance.

 

[Barnstormer]

Since we are talking Stearmans here is one of my favorite. Okay so it’s a land long story but still somewhat relevant. San Marcos airport has just been assigned controllers. Wind is 30 down 17 which is about 5300+ feet long. At the south end is a CAF Squadron putting on a warbird fly in. That’s where I’m headed. I request to land long but the controller denies my request. I land just on the runway and proceed to taxi 5300 feet against a 30kt head wind. Needless to say it took forever and the tower had to keep traffic going around. They kept asking me if I could taxi faster and I told them “only if you want me flying”. [emoji16]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk