Pattern Procedure - Cloquet, Minnesota Chapter 1221

Airport Pattern: When VFR and IFR Meet By Mike Hongisto Assume the following: Two slow (85 MPH) aircraft are in the pattern at Cloquet. One is crosswind, and one is midfield downwind. Both have radios and have announced their intention to land Runway 35. Weather is 1,500 scattered, 6 miles visibility. A third aircraft now calls out “Cirrus 123, 10 miles out, final approach GPS Runway 35”. Given the above, what’s expected of each pilot? What would you do? In a second scenario, all of the above conditions apply except that the weather is now 800 overcast, visibility 2 miles and the two slow aircraft, to operate legally, have reduced their altitude to 500 feet AGL and are remaining clear of clouds. Now what would you do? Do you think you know? Several in our EAA Chapter, three air traffic controllers and at least one flight instructor have discussed the above situations locally. Surprisingly there was no consensus on which airplane had landing priority! So if you’re not sure what to do then you’re not alone! But Not Knowing What to Do Is Not A Good Answer! I turned to the Pilot Information Center at AOPA for a clear and concise answer on how pilots are expected “pilot” in the situations I’ve outlined above. To my surprise, AOPA’s response was neither clear nor concise! Suggestions, yes. “This is how your supposed to do it”, no. I’ve copied AOPA’s response, from two separate e-­‐mails, in its entirety below for your review. The second AOPA e-­‐mail, containing a link to an attorney that AOPA features, is an especially good read. Following that, I’ve offered my own comments, which I suppose, really don’t mean a whole lot but I’ll offer them anyway. But first, here’s what AOPA had to say: Hello Mike,
Thank you for contacting the Pilot Information Center. I
received your e-mail yesterday regarding right-of-way rules.
I’ll try to address your questions individually, and I’ll give you
some reference material to be familiar with to aid with the
explanation. I want to preface this explanation by telling you I
am not a lawyer, not the FAA, not the NTSB, but a pilot.
Your first example has two slow airplanes going around the
pattern, in VFR, at an uncontrolled field. You also have a
Cirrus on a 10-mile final for Runway 35 conducting the GPS
35 approach.
The expectations are very complicated here, because it
really depends on the location of each aircraft. If the Cirrus is
on a 10 mile final and is actually 10 miles out, meanwhile the
pattern traffic is midfield downwind and base-to-final
respectively, or even turning base, it is likely the two slower
aircraft are lower, and therefore have the right of way based
on 91.113(g). The problem here is identifying “final
approach”. Is the Cirrus really on a final approach, or are
they approaching the airport? That’s the problem with this
scenario. If the Cirrus is on “[aircraft on] final approach to
land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other
aircraft in flight…”.
However, 91.126 and 91.127 state traffic pattern procedures
and mandate pilots follow direction of turns and traffic
pattern procedures specific to that airport. If you look in the
AIM, Final Approach is “A flight plath in the direction of
landing along the extended runway centerline from the base
leg to the runway”. While the AIM isn’t regulatory, it paints
the picture that the expectation is to fly a standard pattern.
Then, we can look at Advisory Circular 90-66A. The phrase
“The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic
pattern. However, for those pilots who choose to execute a
straight-in approach, maneuvering for and execution of the
approach should be completed so as not to disrupt the flow
of arriving and departing traffic”. So, while not regulatory, it
outlines expectations for pilots using straight-in approaches.
Arriving and departing traffic, we would have to assume is
traffic within the standard traffic pattern.
So, the short answer is discretion needs to be exercised by
both pilots. If the Cirrus isn’t going to interrupt the flow of
traffic and even if there were a possibility, it would be very
appreciated if the two aircraft in the pattern could extend so
the Cirrus can complete the approach. Otherwise, it might
take another few tries to complete the approach to a landing.
Although, the expectation is to fly a standard pattern as
stated in the regulations. The AC is where it says that a
straight-in approach can be done, but that it can’t interfere
with the pattern traffic. I would sway to the side of the
regulation, as the NTSB has ruled against non-standard
patterns to what the pilot called a “straight in” approach.
There is no numerical definition of “final approach”. That’s
what makes it such a difficult situation to diffuse.
The second situation has aircraft operating in Class G. The
documents and regulation above still apply, however the
decision making of the pilots involved would most likely alter
some. However, if the conditions are still VFR, the reference
documents from above all still apply. The difference would
be the aircraft shooting the approach was most likely IFR
and breaking out into VFR. If that’s the case, still, a straightin approach would be legal, but not to interefere with the
pattern traffic per the AC. This certainly adds to the stress
level of the IFR pilot, in the clouds, and trying to figure out
where they fit in with pattern traffic. Hopefully the pattern
traffic would be good neighbors and help out the IFR aircraft
to a certain extent to help avoid any potential conflicts. If the
field is IFR, then the Cirrus is in luck – the field is theirs for
approach and landing.
This is a difficult topic for everyone to wrap their heads
around, and I’m not surprised you’ve experienced multiple
opinions. It requires a lot of patience, compromise, and team
work to make the traffic pattern a safe place for multiple
kinds of simultaneous operations. Having the tools I will
supply in links below, you should be able to form your own
opinions of best practices and good judgement for different
situations. Not everyone will follow these best practices, but
this will help you prepare for all kinds of situations in flight.
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvis
oryCircular.nsf/list/AC%2090-66A/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/3671.PDF
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa08.pdf
Thanks for the question, and should you need any additional
information, please don't hesitate to contact us.
Aaron C. Pifer
Pilot Information Center
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
800-872-2672
Mike,
I also wanted to send this article from our Pilot Magazine. It’s
a Pilot Counsel article written by John Yodice, one of the
attorneys who frequently writes for us. Perhaps you’d want
to take a look though that as well. My apologies for not
including that on the original e-mail message.
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2011/may/counsel.html
Sincerely,
Aaron C. Pifer
Pilot Information Center
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
800-872-2672
The above comments were from AOPA. Here are my own thoughts on the subject: In both of the piloting scenarios I outlined above; 1.) the airport is VFR, and 2.) there is traffic in the pattern. The IFR airplane is, or will be, in VFR conditions prior to landing. The IFR traffic, upon entering VFR, must not interfere with traffic in the pattern if it is to complete it’s straight in approach. If there is a conflict then the straight in approach must be aborted upon reaching VFR conditions and the (IFR) pilot will need to enter the pattern so as not to conflict with other traffic. The above procedure makes even more sense if one considers a more extreme example of traffic in the pattern. Assume instead that there are ten, non-­‐radio aircraft operating in the pattern, all practicing touch and go’s. None of these aircraft are aware of the approaching Cirrus on the GPS runway 35 approach. The Cirrus cannot make a “straight in approach to landing” without interfering with the existing traffic, nor can it communicate its non-­‐standard, straight in to land, intentions in an attempt to persuade traffic to reposition themselves. Perhaps a final example in favor of “traffic in the pattern” is one that’s very different but still illuminating. Assume that there were two planes, both IFR and intending to land at COQ. The first, while making its approach to COQ enters VFR flight conditions, calls up Duluth Approach and states, “Cirrus 123, Airport in sight, cancel IFR”. Cirrus 123, now flying under VFR flight rules, then becomes distracted and cannot make a normal approach to land. It then announces on CTAF that it is making a circling approach to land RWY 17. Meanwhile Duluth Approach cleared Malibu 789 for the GPS RWY 35 approach, since Cirrus 123 reported the airport in sight and cancelled its IFR clearance. The Malibu, hearing Cirrus 123’s intentions over CTAF would be foolish to complete its approach to land. So, in my opinion, if you’re already in the pattern, you’re cued up. Someone else is going to need a darn good excuse to cut in front of you. However, an aircraft in distress has such an excuse so there are instances you must give way. But Wait… Don’t be a Pattern Bully! While I believe that IFR traffic must give way to those in the pattern, this is probably not the best solution at times. When in radio contact it seems reasonable to work out a straight in landing solution between the conflicted pilots. As a professional courtesy it may be possible to extend your downwind leg to let the “IFR in”. This would not be a good solution, however, if your VFR buddy right behind you is “no-­‐
radio”. Here it’s probably best to advise the IFR guy to get in the pattern instead. That way your buddy wont get confused, and perhaps turn base, when you decide to “fly away from the airport” on an extended downwind. The airports that we most often use are technically called “Uncontrolled Airports”, meaning there’s no tower in operation to direct traffic. I’ve heard of a better, and more accurate term that is hopefully gaining a following. That term is “Pilot Controlled Airport”. This implies that the pilots are expected to use their best judgment while in the vicinity of the airport. This pilot judgment becomes especially important when the official “rules” either require a lawyer to interpret or are not well understood by pilots. Finally, if, while you and your buddy are in the pattern and you hear, “Ya, yoo too dare in da pattern at Clokete… get outta the way dare, I’m onna GPS ronway 35 approat…”, then it’s probably best to just get out of the way! Happy Landings!