You’re inbound on an IFR clearance in visual conditions and are cleared for a visual approach. Do you continue straight in to land? You’ve canceled IFR or flying VFR, and your direction of flight and the runway alignment are about the same. Do you need to fly the full traffic pattern? Is a straight-in landing even legal? Is it in some way safer? What are the risks and rewards, and how do you manage one and benefit from the others? Let’s talk about straight-in landings.
Stabilized approach
A long straight-in supports the concept of flying a stabilized approach. Being stabilized increases safety and precision as you descend to the touchdown zone. Being unstabilized is often cited as a contributing factor to landing accidents.
But there is no industry-wide consensus on exactly what flying “stabilized” means. Is it a constant-speed descent from five miles out or 1500 feet AGL? 2000 AGL? 1000 AGL? 500 AGL? Is it putting the airplane in the landing configuration, including full flaps, and flying a constant power glide path all the way until the tires touch? Is it about glide path management? None or all of the above?
Often, it’s left to a commercial operator to define a stabilized approach for its pilots. What works for one type of aircraft may not work for another. But what if you’re a business or personal pilot flying outside of an environment requiring FAA-approved operations specifications?
The preamble to FAA’s Stabilized
Approach and Landing Fact Sheet tells us: “A stabilized approach is one in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant angle glidepath towards a predetermined point on the landing runway. It is based on the pilot’s judgment of certain visual clues and depends on the maintenance of a constant final descent airspeed and configuration.” The body of the two-page fact sheet does not mention constant airspeed or configuration again, while it reiterates: “A pilot is flying a stabilized approach when he/she established and maintains a constant angle glidepath toward a predetermined point on the landing runway,” with the bold font emphasis being the FAA’s. It goes mainly into the need for a three-degree glidepath and the way to determine vertical speed for that angle of descent and others. The FAA does not suggest when it is appropriate to enter this stabilized condition, but does say, “the approach is more at risk of being unstable when closer to the runway (i.e. 500 feet to 1000 feet height above touchdown (HAT)).”
NBAA’s guidance on flying a stabilized approach is exclusively about glide angle (figure 1). NBAA says “the aircraft should meet stabilized approach criteria no lower than 1000’ (IMC) or 500’ (VMC). It notes that “final flap configuration may be delayed at pilot’s discretion” even below that height, and that this is done not for landing accuracy or control but to “enhance noise abatement.”
In the slot
Coming in on a long straight-in, on that stabilized glide angle, it may be more important to be on a trend to a runway threshold speed and configuration. To do this, I self-evaluate whether I am “in the slot.” By this, I mean I continually ask myself, from about 500 AGL to the beginning of the landing flare, if I am:
- On speed, or more likely on a trend toward the airplane’s recommended 50-foot short final speed (on a three-degree glidepath toward a point 1000 feet from the runway threshold, I’ll be at about 50 HAT as you cross the runway threshold);
- On glidepath to the touchdown zone;
- In configuration, perhaps with full flaps to go, and;
- In alignment with the runway centerline, with zero sideways drift.
The further out you begin the final approach, the sooner you can make that evaluation and the more time you have to make corrections. Below 500 AGL (about the height where you’d turn final flying a standard traffic pattern), if you’re not in the slot, it’s time to go around. Don’t wait until you’re in the flare to go around.
Meeting the “in the slot” criteria also helps you alight at the proper place without excessive energy. That makes it far less likely you’ll go off the far end of the runway. Runway overruns are usually the outcome when an unstabilized airplane (i.e., one not in the slot crossing the threshold) touches down long beyond the touchdown zone with too much speed (energy) to stop on the remaining surface. A corollary is a pilot who waits too long to make a go-around decision and cannot clear obstacles when he/she finally powers up to climb.
Glidepath guidance
If the runway is served by an approach with vertical guidance, program it in and use it. Look on the approach chart for a notation that the electronic glideslope or glide path does not coincide with a visual glide path. This usually means there are hard-to-see trees or wires below the missed approach altitude and the airport. When there’s a discrepancy between visual and electronic glide path guidance, go with the visual.
If you have neither electronic nor visual glide path information, on your visual straight-in, descend to traffic pattern altitude (obstacles permitting) and fly until the point you’re just outside where you would have turned final if you had flown a full traffic pattern. From there, fly a constant angle descent toward the touchdown point. Actually, your aim point should be a runway stripe or so before your intended touchdown point (200 feet on an IFR-marked runway, one stripe and the space between stripes), allowing for a little extra distance you’ll cover while flaring.
Control glide path angle while flying in the slot, and you can be safe, accurate and stable on a long, straight-in approach. But what other considerations apply?
Tower-controlled airports
Straight-ins are normal practice at tower-controlled airports. Since the tower is sequencing airplanes for use of the runway, much of the collision risk is removed. Tower is not technically providing separation of airplanes in the air, only on the runway, so continue to aggressively scan for traffic flying straight-in to a towered field. It’s wise to keep the runway, empty taxiways, and crossing runways under a close eye since runway incursions are a constant hazard.
Nontowered airports
Pilot-controlled (i.e., nontowered) airports are where the risks of straight-in approaches have the potential to outweigh their advantages. There are ways to mitigate the risk and safely mix with the normal pattern traffic—as long as you fly predictably, see and be seen, and follow the rules for right-of-way. How do you do that?
First, flying a straight-in approach at a non-towered airport is not illegal. The FAA “discourages” it but then provides suggestions on how it should be done. What does the FAA say?
Advisory Circular 90-66C, Non-Towered Airport Flight Operations, was updated in June 2023 (figure 2). In that update, the FAA specifically added recommendations about straight-in approaches. First, the AC notes that “The FAA does not regulate traffic pattern entry, only traffic pattern flow.” Except in 14 CFR 91.126, where regulations require complying with the direction of marked traffic patterns when a traffic pattern is flown, it’s up to the pilot-in-command to decide how to approach a runway.
The AC continues to say, “To mitigate the risk of a midair collision at a non-towered airport in other than instrument conditions, the FAA does not recommend that the pilot execute a straight-in approach for landing, when there are other aircraft in the traffic pattern. 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 midair collision.” But it then states, “However, if a pilot chooses to execute a straight-in approach for landing without entering the airport traffic pattern, the pilot should self-announce their position on the designated CTAF between 8 and approximately 10 miles from the airport, and coordinate their straight-in approach and landing with other airport traffic.” Importantly, the AC notes: “Pilots choosing to execute a straight-in approach do not have a particular priority over other aircraft in the traffic pattern and must comply with the provisions of § 91.113(g),” those being the rules for aircraft right-of-way.
So, a straight-in approach is not “illegal” it just may not be advisable. That brings us to techniques to mitigate the risks if you choose to fly a straight-in approach.
Fly predictably
If you elect to approach straight in, do so predictably. Fly the expected altitudes—not too high, not too low—while you make the suggested radio calls beginning about 10 miles out. If you’re still IFR talking to Center or Approach, monitor CTAF so you can hear other traffic, and switch over to make radio calls every few miles. Slow to a normal approach speed several miles out as well, so if others hear or see you, they can predict how long it might take you to conflict with the normal traffic pattern.
See and be seen
Run all your lights, even in daylight.Anything that gives you a chance to improve your visibility is worth it. Realize that you are the anomaly in the pattern, flying a straight-in, so aggressively scan for traffic on downwind and on base. AOPA tells us that the majority of traffic pattern collisions occur at 400 feet AGL or lower on final approach, precisely where you on a straight-in become a conflict hazard with an aircraft on base turning final. ADS-B and other onboard traffic advisory systems greatly boost collision avoidance. However, most nontowered airports are in locations where ADS-B is not required. A surprising number of airplanes flown away from Class B and C airspace still do not have ADS-B on board, so keep up your visual scan.
Right of Way
14 CFR 91.113 codifies the rules of right-of-way for aircraft. An airplane on a long straight-in does not automatically have right-of-way over other aircraft. 91.113 specifically states that airplanes on an instrument clearance in visual conditions (that includes marginal VFR) are not prioritized over VFR airplanes in the traffic pattern. If you are faster than an airplane ahead of you on final approach, that aircraft has the right of way, and you need to go around…even if you’re in a large turboprop or a jet. The faster your approach speed, the more likely you’re the one the regulations say must break off when there’s a conflict.
Practical, but…
Sometimes, a long straight-in approach is your best option. The FAA discourages it, but it is not against regulations, and the FAA confirms that by making suggestions for when you choose not to fly the full pattern. It really comes down to you to determine how safe a given straight-in approach will be.
Personally, if I’m flying a visual approach, even on an instrument flight, I’ll maneuver to fly the standard traffic pattern almost all of the time. If I do decide it makes more sense to proceed straight in, I’ll master the straight-in approach by flying predictably, making an extra effort to see and be seen, hear and be heard; and ready to break it off at any time per the right-of-way rules and good-sense survival skills if a conflict occurs.
