On a beautiful morning in the summer of 1968 the nine-year old version of me was enjoying the fresh breeze on my face as I rode my bike with my best friend, Mike.
We blasted through Gorman Park and passed by Lord Pool. We planned to swim there later in the day. We zipped along May Road, traversed the short extension to Burke Street, and turned onto O’Connell Drive at the Sangiovani’s house. Our destination was just one house away.
It was a truly great day in the life of a nine-year old boy.
It is at that exact moment, which I can still picture in my mind with great clarity, that my memory fails. The next image that comes to mind is when I opened my eyes in the hospital. A doctor was sewing shut a large gash over my right eye. I was concussed and not at all aware of how I got from the seat of my bicycle to an examination table in the hospital across the river from my home.
It seems there was a car involved in this somehow, but I have no idea what happened. Not really. The day had taken a dark turn.
Yet, as impactful as the experience was, I honestly have no knowledge of the specific chain of events that occurred after turning onto O’Connell Drive. Nobody else ever came forward to flesh out the details either.
I was making a right turn onto the shoulder of a public roadway. Maybe I had the right of way. Maybe I didn’t. Either way I was the one losing blood, with ringing ears, while watching a nice young doctor put stitch after stitch into my face. The car had no more than a scuffed bumper, I’m sure.
I never met the driver. I’m told he knocked on the front door of my house and asked my mother if she had a little blonde son. When she replied in the affirmative, he pointed to my crumpled form in the street and asked, “Is that him?”
True story.
I share this epic event from my childhood to illustrate a point. There is a hard-core belief among the general population that if we have the right of way we can proceed with whatever it is we’re doing. Everyone else will make way for us.
This is not true. Right of way is a legal or regulatory concept. Two tons of metal crashing into you unexpectedly is reality. Fortunately for me, it just hurt a lot. Two of my childhood friends shared a similar experience but had a worse result.
Ricky and Paul never did get old enough to drive, or marry, or get old as I’ve been fortunate enough to do. Mike didn’t make it in the long run either. Which makes me the lucky one. Go figure.
In the aeronautical world this belief in the sanctity of the right of way rules has even more dire circumstances than I suffered. Too many of us that ply the skies convince ourselves that we can do whatever we want to do, because we have the right of way.
Maybe we do. Maybe we don’t. Is it really worth the risk of injury or death as we endeavor to make our point? I don’t think so.
Take the all too common straight-in approach to a runway in VMC at a non-towered airport.
It really makes no difference if you’re flying VFR or IFR, or practicing an instrument approach for currency or proficiency. It’s not illegal to perform a straight-in approach in VMC. But it is a bad idea. In fact, it’s risky enough that the FAA recommends you don’t do it. Yet pilots do it all the time. Because they can.
“The FAA does not recommend that the pilot execute a straight-in approach for landing when there are other aircraft in the traffic pattern.” There isn’t a lot of wiggle room in that sentence. It’s clear. But are we taking heed of the recommendation? No, not really.
“The straight-in approach may cause a conflict with aircraft in the traffic pattern and on base to final and increase the risk of a mid-air collision,” says the FAA.
That’s a logical argument against the straight-in approach. But somehow it hasn’t dissuaded pilots from coast to coast from continuing to fly straight-in on a whim.
A young pilot who was prepping for a CFII check ride with an examiner at my home airport once asked me for advice. What would be my recommendation if they’re flying an instrument approach to the runway and have VFR traffic in the pattern?
“Well,” I answered in my most supportive tone of voice. “What would you do if you were flying the approach in IMC, broke out at 1,500 feet, and realized there was VFR traffic in the pattern that might conflict with your approach?”
“I’d break off the approach,” the young hopeful answered.
“Yeah,” I agreed. “That’s what you should do on the check ride, too.”
Too many CFIIs are teaching their students procedures while ignoring the reality of the world around them. Ideally, an instrument approach will conclude with a safe landing on the runway. But sometimes it results in a go-around because the runway environment isn’t in sight. Sometimes the go-around is required because another aircraft or a service vehicle is on the runway.
It’s equally good judgment to initiate a go-around because the aircraft broke out into VMC at an altitude that allows the pilot to join the VFR traffic pattern. That’s a skill new pilots and old dogs need to have in their toolbox too.
If the goal of flight is to arrive safely at our destination — and I’m almost certain that is the preference of virtually all pilots and passengers — perhaps we should put less effort into our explanation of why we have the right of way and more emphasis on how we can fly in a system populated by others in the safest, most predictable way possible.
Personally, I’ll proactively take steps to avoid a collision rather than try to explain my right of way theory after metal gets bent and people get hurt.
I certainly hope I’m not the only one who has adopted that perspective.
Why complicate things…just fly a standard pattern like you SHOULD have been trained to do so…….now how hard is that
Non-towered airport pattern operations are clearly illustrated in AC-90-66C…
FOLLOW THEM.!!
Aircraft on a straight in are never flying in the traffic pattern and must give way, or break off above pattern altitude and join the pattern per the AC.
We pilots have to work it out ourselves at pilot controlled (aka non-towered) airports. Even at towered airports we do not want to blindly follow ATC with no situational awareness. When the straight-in aircraft is 4-10 miles out you are on approach, not final. When a straight-in pilot announces on final well beyond the traffic pattern, they are claiming that they own the final and have the right-of-way even if someone else is just starting a turn from base to a 1/2 mile final. Why should that pilot break out of the pattern to make way and would it even be safe. The pilot turning final is probably lower anyway. The straight-in pilot knows their ground speed and needs to communicate with others in the pattern. I recommend using the radio to establish the landing order so we can all LIVE in the same airspace without trading metal/fabric. There is room for NORDO aircraft, gliders, ultralights, and everyone. But the straight-in approach at small, pilot controlled airfields is the aeronautical equivalent to a bull in a china shop. If you need a long straight-in approach, go request it at a class C or B. Even at a class D, ATC only has 2.5 miles of airspace.
Time to stop the pattern entry madness:
The safest, easiest, and most efficient VFR pattern entry, by far, is what the USAF has been doing…forever.
You fly to an established “initial” entry point, that’s located on an extended centerline at a reasonable distance from the runway threshold.
(Ideally, this distance should be standardized, let’s say…3 to 5-ish NM, and hopefully it’s over a visually significant geographic reference point. But I’m betting that’ll be ‘contentious’.)
Fly over that point at pattern altitude, and drive straight toward the runway: You’re now on “Initial” and about to enter an ‘Overhead Pattern’…
Maintaining the runway centerline at PA ensures you’re deconflicted from anybody else in the pattern, including anyone underneath you that’s boot-legging a straight-in
When you’re over the threshold, “break” immediately & fly a continuous, 180-degree turn to a point abeam the threshold/your touchdown point….followed by a descending turn through base to final…just like the power-off 180/simulated engine failure patterns we all love. It’s just a ground reference maneuver…adjust the bank as required!!!!
Or delay a bit, and fly a nice, precise, FAA-standard, rectangular pattern w/crisp 90-degree turns to a crosswind, downwind, base, and final approach.
Either way, if someone else is in the pattern…continue straight ahead, at pattern altitude, until you’re sure you are well clear & can either turn behind….or well ahead…of them.
This idea was whispered out loud a few years ago and folks were freaked out by it. I have no idea why.
I think most of us have probably seen fighters, and/or heavies, operate in an overhead traffic pattern, and are familiar with the concept.
It essentially eliminates most of the current VFR pattern entry scenarios where ROW conflicts occur.
If you’re confused…draw it out on a bar napkin & chair fly it.
(FWIW: This is my third attempt at commenting on Jamie’s article…if the other two eventually show up…ignore ‘em.)
The overhead would be safer if everyone did it. The current downwind, base, etc..would be safer if everyone did it.
The point of the article is exactly that; if we all did the same, predicable thing in the pattern, it’d be safer, regardless of its an Air Force maneuver or a GA maneuver.
The “Overhead Approach Maneuver” is referenced in AC 90-66C (9.12.5 “Other Approaches to Land and Airports with Multiple Runways”), and described in the AIM, (5-4-27 “Overhead Approach Maneuver”).
Unfortunately, it’s described as being “normally flown by aerobatic & high performance aircraft”, or for splitting up a formation….as if it’s not a good option for everyone else, especially at a non-towered airport.
That is just not true.
Yes, the 3 words are mentioned., and the AIM 5-4-27 lists the maneuver per an ATC request at towered airports, usually done after the instrument approach is cancelled , it can be also done at non-towered airports, after canceling in instrument approach..
The overheard break has no place at non-tower airports. 2 or 3 of them absolutely commandeer the pattern. What do the touch and go , crosswind and aircraft turning downwind do when 3 aircraft barge into the downwind.?? make a number if right 360’s ??
They don’t even do the OH break at Beale AFB, with the T-38’s and U-2’s doing left traffic pattern work. [ I see them every day.!!]
So, ‘knock it off’ and fly a standard pattern per AC-90-66C.!
What SIP’s (Straight in Pilots) seem to forget is there are a LOT of aircraft with no radios, transponders, and/or ADS-B out flying the pattern and doing 60 mph (52 knots) on final.
If the the SIP’s are coming down final at 90 knots, say justifying every landing by saying they are practicing an instrument approach, which I have seen, they are going to run over the no radio antique pilot on final. Befor you say, “They should buy a handheld radio, you should know that handheld radios don’t work in aircraft without shielded ignition systems, and shielded ignitions are not availablefor some antiques.
The same issue goes for people who enter the pattern on a 45 at 150+ knots and don’t slow down until abeam the touchdown point. They are at risk of running over no radio traffic, or traffic where the pilot dialed in the wrong frequency.
Flying a standard, slowly, but not slow flight slowly, is a safety maneuver everyone should adhear to.
‘Handheld radios dont’ work in aircraft without shielded ignition systems’
Question – Do receive only ( RONLY ) radios work O.K.in those a/c ? They are cheaper and at least allow the pilot to ‘ see ‘, if not ‘ see and be seen ‘ as they used to say in Canada.
Just curious.
No. If the ignition system is not shielded, then with AM radios you are constantly hearing static, unless you try to “squelch” it out. But then, you may not be able to hear anyone else unless they are pretty much beside you running 5 Watts (or more) output power.
Good article Jamie. I was concerned your comment would be a bit different. The open question is a bit more discussion on where when and how to do the go around is needed between CFI and student.
A 45° entry to the downwind could have a collision hazard with either traffic turning crosswind to downwind, or with a mid-field entry, and possibly the overhead to the teardrop. I get concerned when it is implied that any entry is safe. Jamie – remember when Waterbury-Oxford KOXC was non-towered but had Part 135 operators. I was on the downwind once when one of those jets reported a straight-in to 36. I was glad he didn’t make a 45° entry behind and above me and I wasn’t about to turn in front of a much faster airplane even if it wasn’t in sight yet – just extended the downwind, it passed by in a very short time, and the hazard was completely eliminated.
His is very good to back and bring the eye opener to all that fly.
Yet in 48 years I’ve always found the pattern flyers to be the entanglement issue among themselves. Straight in is easier to adjust to their inconsistent variables. Most comments on the subject are without logical thought and are considering the traffic pattern a local playground.
Good article. I can be “dead right,” but still be dead. You know, taking a dirt nap. All because I INSISTED on flying a straight-in to a busy non-towered airport. “Any traffic in the area please advise..?” Ha! What am I, tower? Doing traffic separation with my radio call?