This is an excerpt from a report made to the Aviation Safety Reporting System. The narrative is written by the pilot, rather than FAA or NTSB officials. To maintain anonymity, many details, such as aircraft model or airport, are often scrubbed from the reports.
I was flying Aircraft X, had flown locally for slightly over an hour. Set up for the GPS 5 into Moore County Airport (KSOP) in North Carolina on the Garmin, with the ILS/DME 5 in the #2 and KSOP in the #2 GPS.
There was Aircraft Y, doing touch and go landings flying extremely, extremely tight traffic, landing about once every one and a half minutes. There was no other traffic in the pattern.
I intercepted the GPS 5 about 11 miles from the airport, called a “Moore County traffic, Aircraft X on a 10 mile final GPS 5, full stop landing, Moore County.”
I repeated this call at five miles. Aircraft Y called turning downwind. Momentarily thereafter I repeated my position report at two miles. Aircraft Y immediately called turning base.
I immediately transmitted “Aircraft X on less than a 2 mile final.” Aircraft Y responded “lots of room” and cut me off, maybe 1,500 feet in front of me.
I was flying my approach profile at 120 mph, 105 knots, so I pulled the throttle to idle, applied full flaps. The distance decreased to about 1,000 feet. I was about to initiate a go-around but Aircraft Y landed and immediately took off again and I was so low and slow that I thought it safer to continue with the landing.
I have no idea who was flying Aircraft Y or riding as a passenger.
Dangerous non-towered operations are common at KSOP and I have so previously reported. Something needs to be done before someone gets killed.
The airport manager could care less about this kind of behavior and the airport authority is clueless.
Primary Problem: Ambiguous
ACN: 1856418
Seems as if both pilots need a refresher on the right of way rules, as spelled out in 91.113 g—and several of the commentators here need that same refresher. Operations at non-towered airports are not difficult, but they require a certain amount of courtesy and concern for others as well as oneself. In addition to the regulations, following the Golden Rule makes things work a lot more smoothly.
A pilot can log an instrument approach without going all the way to DH or MDA.
JUST FLYING SOLELY BY INSTRUMENTS. FROM INITIAL TO ISNSIDE THE FAF.
I see reports of this problem time and time again. The problem is systemic and starts with FAA. We have massive ACs on non-towered traffic pattern conventions. The typical RNAV approach is long and straight-in. These FAA-sanctioned approaches squarely contradict the ACs which recommend 45 degree downwind or overfly, teardrop to downwind. Add a nordo or two to the mix (and I’ve even seen skydivers to make things even more “exciting”), and you’ve got a serious catastrophe waiting to happen. I think we pilots should stop blaming one another, and make FAA aware of this problem through NASA reports and the like. Either bring these RNAV-equipped non-towered under towered control, or revise the RNAV procedures so as to make them meld more naturally with the VFR traffic pattern.
The traffic using that, or any non-tower-controlled facility need to learn to talk to each other even if only for recognizing the other is in the area. It’s basic see and be seen when it comes to flying at these types of airports
I have had similar issues while ferrying aircraft to unfamiliar airports in the past. The local cowboys think they own the field, and they lack the courteousness to operate with anyone else..
I do not understand the need to do repeated, round and round and round touch and goes. At my busy airport I see pilots doing 10 or more T&G’s and nothing more, and all other traffic has to work around them. Do they really need to practice landings that much? This is not flying to me.
Yes. People practice landings not only as students but as seasoned pilots. Multiple landings may consist of a normal landing and approach with flaps, a normal landing with no flaps, a short field landing, a soft field landing, multiple landings during a crosswind to practice crosswind landing techniques etc etc. If there are people in the pattern doing multiple landings, that typically means it’s a VFR situation. That means ALL approaching aircraft should follow courtesy by adjusting speed for spacing and including going around if necessary. Think of the bright side. If you are on an instrument approach, that doesn’t mean the airport is all yours. Take the opportunity to practice a missed approach should it happen again.
luckily, you don’t make the rules.
Repeated T&G can build skill, judgement and familiarity with ones airplane.
Obviously, this is flying to them.
An instrument straight in approach at 1.3Vso might have been one option to give more spacing.
Most airports have pos traffic pattern rules.
Mike says,
Only a fool would try a straight in approach to any airport with traffic in the pattern. Guess he had a poor instructor.
Karen’s bitch & whine
Move your plane to another airport with a tower if you’re so afraid of flying there.
Doesn’t sound like too much of an issue to me. Do you expect all other traffic to clear the area when you want to land?
Flying an instrument approach in VFR conditions gives you zero priority over airplanes in the pattern.
Further, people who insist on flying straight in approaches at non tower airports without a safety-related reason, should F right off.
Sounds like the other aircraft was engaged in STOL competition practice. VFR radios are not required at non-controlled airports, but with his unusual pattern practice, the short circuit pilot made this situation worse by not communicating.
OTOH, I’m pretty annoyed with the increase in aircraft “claiming” straight-in from miles out during VFR conditions with other traffic in the pattern. Aircraft on phony impromptu practice instrument approaches intended to bully the pattern into yielding right of way are particularly annoying (don’t think we don’t know what you’re doing when you casually toss “RNAV” into your demand for ROW. We know that you can break off your approach & enter the pattern just like those of us arriving after long cross-country VFR flights do.
(Having said that, I’m always willing to extend downwind or otherwise accommodate kero-burners & other fast movers just to get rid of them—extreme mismatches in pattern altitudes & speeds is dangerous to everyone. I’m also glad to work with those who announce practice instruments approaches but offer to break off if there is a conflict. It’s the bullying that bothers me, not the practice approach ).
In this case, everyone bears some responsibility for the “problem.”
We call it “the pattern” for a reason. Patterns are predictable. Patterns are a standard. If the STOL aircraft is flying a non-standard pattern, the STOL pilot has a responsibility to other traffic wanting to use the runway, too. Communicating as well as breaking off into a standard pattern now & again would be a reasonable minimum.
If the approaching aircraft had entered the standard pattern instead of burning straight-in, the STOL aircraft might have noticed the company & broken off practice for a bit.
Not to any particular person. Insisting on right of way could make you dead wrong. Todays pilots fly what I call B 52 patterns. Why I was taught not to fly a pattern that you can’t make the runway except on departure leg. That was 54 years and 23,000 hours ago. There is no room for road rage in aviation. When cut out I just assume the other person did not see me, no need to fly formation just to give you my IQ finger.
“I was about to initiate a go-around but Aircraft Y landed and immediately took off again and I was so low and slow that I thought it safer to continue with the landing.”
Sounds to me like this pilot needs some rudimentary training if s/he thinks it is safer to continue than initiate a go around.
Or, despite AC-90-66B, maybe the VFR pilot could have done a kindness and not been a jerk by cutting the instrument approach off. Isn’t there something in the regs somewhere about dangerous maneuvers regarding other aircraft?
Sounds like two pilots that need to learn their manners, not an issue requiring a tower to sort out. No reason to hog the pattern with one airplane that could easily extend their pattern to allow another to land, but also no reason to own the airport while you cruise your way down a 10 mile final. Both of you need to learn some common courtesy rather than ask the taxpayers to spend millions because of your lack of manners.
Maybe the pilot shooting the approach needs to quit flying. It is evident he thinks he’s the only one in the sky and everybody should give way to him. If you can’t get along in the sky find another sport. We don’t need any more towers.
He needs to read AC-90-66B…
‘ 9.6 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Traffic. Pilots conducting instrument approaches should be particularly alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the flow of traffic, and should bear in mind they do not have priority over other VFR traffic.’
We must have always in mind, when flying an instrument approach, the rule insert in AC-90-66B…
‘ 9.6 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Traffic. The autor of the report seems to have forgotten that rule and puted the blame almost exclusively in the factor of that airport is not a towered airport (24 hours a day, seven days a week?)
I feel your pain but aircraft established in the pattern have the right of way over practice IFR long straight in approaches. Read the regs!!
Exactly! An aircraft on a practice instrument approach is NOT ENTITLED to a straight in approach to landing. The traffic pattern rules apply to him as well as the other aircraft occupying the pattern at the time of his approach. If there’s no one else in the pattern at the end of your practice instrument approach go ahead and land straight in while watching out for the LEGAL NORDO aircraft in the uncontrolled airspace. Do you get the idea that I HATE straight in approaches!?
This.
Sounds like a local problem – with a local solution.
It was VFR and aircraft Y was in the Pattern and you were flying a non standard straight in approach so I think it is on you.