91.126(b)(1) - Yes, Virginia, it is regulatory.

flyingcheesehead said:
There was a Southwest pilot violated for making a right dog-leg onto a 3 mile final, so the best information we have is that the FAA considers 3 miles out to be "in the vicinity of the airport"
Click to expand...
I’m not disputing that happened yet it feels like there’s a “rest of the story”. To my knowledge SWA only flies into towered fields and while the tower is operating, in which case Tower can clear them for whatever and the reg cited here doesn’t apply. But maybe they fly somewhere/sometime non-towered that I’m not aware of.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
I’m not disputing that happened yet it feels like there’s a “rest of the story”. To my knowledge SWA only flies into towered fields and while the tower is operating, in which case Tower can clear them for whatever and the reg cited here doesn’t apply. But maybe they fly somewhere/sometime non-towered that I’m not aware of.
Click to expand...
It's generally at a towered-airport before, or after, the hours that the tower is closed.
 
wanttaja said:
Actually, I'd rather get a "minutes" callout than one based on distances. One can look at slant range, trying to figure out where "five miles" is, or get an actual estimate of the time when a conflict may occur.
Click to expand...
I agree time makes a lot of sense with a turboprop or turbine where light pistons flying patterns might not have a good handle on how fast those are. For light pistons, not a bad idea either but it should be less necessary.

Either way, unless the pilot is using something to read out either distance or time, we tend to be pretty bad on our estimates, and probably a little better with distance.
 
wanttaja said:
Went to an FAA SAFE program last fall. Said that straight-ins were allowed if the pattern wasn't busy. And that the pattern was considered "busy" if there was ONE other plane in the pattern.
Click to expand...
Too bad they haven't put that in the regulations.
 
The not making right traffic when the runway is left traffic rule makes sense to me. However not making a straight-in when your on-course heading puts you close to a straight-in is kinda silly. What do you want me to fly the whole circuit once just because?

Not to mention a lot of these ideas fall apart when you start thinking about IFR operations.

I know I don’t have as much time/experience as a lot of people on here but in over 800 hours I’ve never approached an airport where the pilots in the area weren’t courteous and happy to make adjustments to give everyone plenty of room and stay safe. Usually that means holding short, extending a downwind, or doing a 360 for spacing. Maybe this is more of an issue at especially busy uncontrolled fields? Admittedly most of my destinations are either minimal traffic or towered.
 
cowman said:
I know I don’t have as much time/experience as a lot of people on here but in over 800 hours I’ve never approached an airport where the pilots in the area weren’t courteous and happy to make adjustments to give everyone plenty of room and stay safe. Usually that means holding short, extending a downwind, or doing a 360 for spacing. Maybe this is more of an issue at especially busy uncontrolled fields? Admittedly most of my destinations are either minimal traffic or towered.
Click to expand...

I've had very little that has been an issue over the years. If there is a plane on final and I hear the call (or see them) it's no problem for me to extend my downwind or get out of the way. As long as we have communication we can work out whatever needs to be done to keep everyone safe. That's what I meant earlier when I referred to the airspace being "pilot controlled."

If someone wants to be a jerk we can discuss that at the picnic table after everyone is safely on the ground ... :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
At non-towered fields it's always ultimately see and avoid. The radio can be helpful, but not everyone has one, and those that do are often mis-using them - wrong frequency, wrong runway, over-announcing, under announcing, etc. They're also relying on their radio to be heard by everyone else, and there's always the possibility that someone is experiencing an emergency that keeps them from using the radio.

The regulations were designed to facilitate see and avoid by standardizing where you can expect other aircraft to be, but ironically a large number of mid-airs occur at towered fields, where communications are mandatory.
 
cowman said:
However not making a straight-in when your on-course heading puts you close to a straight-in is kinda silly. What do you want me to fly the whole circuit once just because?
Click to expand...
“Just because” there are 5 airplanes already doing circuits in the pattern?

Personally, when coming from an appropriate direction, I always consider whether to come straight in or do a base or straight downwind entry. Since my little home base tends to get busy with training operations, the answer I give myself is more often “no” than “yes,” and I maneuver for a 45. The pilots at my home base tend to be very good about extending for straight-ins, whether an arriving jet or pilots doing practice approaches, but no, I don’t take advantage of that on a basic return home in a VFR day.

The only rule I’ve been able to glean from the FAA‘s various discussions on the subject is that (aside from the direction of turns regulation) they give priority to the aircraft already in the traffic pattern. YMMV, but to me that just means that I can go straight in, make a base to final or crosswind entry, do an overhead break, spiral down from 4000 AGL to practice a simulated emergency, choose a midfield to downwind entry, etc, but only if it doesn’t interfere with pattern operations taking place. And I have exactly zero problems with adding a few minutes to a flight “just because…”
 
Why not do an upwind entry when approaching from straight in? I do that all the time in the Cub. Reasoning:
1. It's where other traffic is least likely to be.
2. It provides a much better look at the airport environment, i.e. the windsock, the runway and taxiways, and other traffic in the pattern.
3. There are more "outs" if a conflict arises - continue upwind, make a left turn over the field, exit the pattern completely and re-enter when safe, etc.
4. At least in a yellow Cub you are more likely to be seen by an aircraft that you didn't see, and some pilots will quickly recognize you as a NORDO plane in the pattern.
5. ALL of your turns are to the left "in the vicinity of the airport".
 
dbahn said:
Why not do an upwind entry when approaching from straight in?
Click to expand...
Because some idiot has decided a right downwind is ok. That would put you head to head converging. Though to be fair, 2 cubs would just wave as they passed.

Another option might be an overhead break. Fly the runway center line and do a 180 at midfield into the downwind. I think you need an RV with invasion stripes to do this legally.

IMO a straight in is the most sensible, and perfectly safe.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Because some idiot has decided a right downwind is ok. That would put you head to head converging. Though to be fair, 2 cubs would just wave as they passed.
Click to expand...
But the upwind is parallel and just offset from the runway, and you have the runway clearly in sight. Even the idiot on the downwind going in the other direction is predictably further away, unless he's both an idiot and clueless to his pattern position for the wrong way. :eek:
 
Funny thing... Through the years I've seen more issues arise with early crosswind turns on departure than arrivals to the pattern.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Funny thing... Through the years I've seen more issues arise with early crosswind turns on departure than arrivals to the pattern.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's especially true with a low-wing aircraft in a left hand pattern. You're blocking your view as you climb up to the pattern and can't see traffic approaching on the downwind.
 
dbahn said:
Yeah, that's especially true with a low-wing aircraft in a left hand pattern. You're blocking your view as you climb up to the pattern and can't see traffic approaching on the downwind.
Click to expand...

But only an issue if someone else is doing an extended downwind pattern entry, which is why it is better to enter on 45 at midfield like the book says.

That's the thing about all these clever variations of entries. If everyone flew a standard pattern and entered on 45 midfield downwind, there would almost NEVER be a midair.
 
dbahn said:
Yeah, that's especially true with a low-wing aircraft in a left hand pattern. You're blocking your view as you climb up to the pattern and can't see traffic approaching on the downwind.
Click to expand...
I'm not even thinking about the downwind traffic. People are looking and extending the departure leg for that. Where I see it is pointing directly at traffic inbound on the 45.
 
Ed Haywood said:
But only an issue if someone else is doing an extended downwind pattern entry
Click to expand...

I had one of those a couple weeks ago. I came up right under him on my crosswind. He seemed to have no clue. A 45 entry would have put him were a plane is "expected too be". Our pilot controlled airport gets tons of traffic from towered airfields. So a regular patten entry may not be a normal thing.

Flying by the book, or AIM, really is safer.
 
cowman said:
The not making right traffic when the runway is left traffic rule makes sense to me. However not making a straight-in when your on-course heading puts you close to a straight-in is kinda silly. What do you want me to fly the whole circuit once just because?
Click to expand...
My airplane cruises about 80 knots, and my usual pleasure flight brings me back to the airport on a perfect setup for a straight-in. Yet I swing out to the side, attain the 45 point, and enter from there. As I'm approaching the airport from outside the pattern, I can scan the pattern to put eyeballs on the planes reporting their positions, and attempt to spot those which aren't transmitting. I can thus figure out the smoothest and safest point to enter. I don't consider that a silly activity.
cowman said:
I know I don’t have as much time/experience as a lot of people on here but in over 800 hours I’ve never approached an airport where the pilots in the area weren’t courteous and happy to make adjustments to give everyone plenty of room and stay safe.
Click to expand...
I dislike straight-ins, but Mrs. Wanttaja taught me to be courteous and CAP cadet communicator training taught me to be civil on the radio. So if someone wants to set one up, I'm polite and work with him. Doesn't keep me from thinking he's a entitled p***k, though.

Ron Wanttaja
 
dbahn said:
Why not do an upwind entry when approaching from straight in? I do that all the time in the Cub. Reasoning:
1. It's where other traffic is least likely to be.
2. It provides a much better look at the airport environment, i.e. the windsock, the runway and taxiways, and other traffic in the pattern.
3. There are more "outs" if a conflict arises - continue upwind, make a left turn over the field, exit the pattern completely and re-enter when safe, etc.
4. At least in a yellow Cub you are more likely to be seen by an aircraft that you didn't see, and some pilots will quickly recognize you as a NORDO plane in the pattern.
5. ALL of your turns are to the left "in the vicinity of the airport".
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

I’ve come to prefer the upwind entry when approaching from the non-pattern side of the airport, using a 45deg approach similar to a downwind entry. The upwind leg affords good visibility of the airport and the pattern traffic, it’s easy to merge with traffic, and it’s simple to abort if things aren’t working.
 
wanttaja said:
My airplane cruises about 80 knots I dislike straight-ins, but if someone wants to set one up, I'm polite and work with him. Doesn't keep me from thinking he's a entitled p***k, though.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
Ron
Put yourself in a plane that crosses numbers on landing at 80 kts. Now put yourself in the pattern with guys flying multiple patterns at sub-80 kts. Are you going to place yourself at risk of trying to maintain their speed and turn radius? Are you going to fly a pattern wider, faster, higher? Are you going to simply try and coordinate a straight in that will mesh with existing traffic?
 
wanttaja said:
My airplane cruises about 80 knots, and my usual pleasure flight brings me back to the airport on a perfect setup for a straight-in. Yet I swing out to the side, attain the 45 point, and enter from there. As I'm approaching the airport from outside the pattern, I can scan the pattern to put eyeballs on the planes reporting their positions, and attempt to spot those which aren't transmitting. I can thus figure out the smoothest and safest point to enter. I don't consider that a silly activity.

I dislike straight-ins, but Mrs. Wanttaja taught me to be courteous and CAP cadet communicator training taught me to be civil on the radio. So if someone wants to set one up, I'm polite and work with him. Doesn't keep me from thinking he's a entitled p***k, though.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

I guess a lot of this comes down to what you're used to. My home field has a a flight school that's frequently got IFR training going on with students under the hood doing straight-ins. We've also got corporate jet and commuter traffic and those guys usually are doing straight-ins. Sometimes VFR traffic doing pattern work or transient guys coming in for the restaurant. The upshot is more than 1 other aircraft actively in the pattern is rare and maybe only 2-3 making calls on the way in. We just talk to each other and work it out, sometimes the straight-in guy does a 360 or sometimes the downwind guy extends. It's no big deal, I've got no problems adjusting to give someone else more room.

I would really rather other pilots just make a straight-in and get on the ground faster. Less traffic in the air, less confusion, less trying to figure out spacing for the light sport guy running wide-open and doing 80kts vs the fast twin/Citation/whatever.

But we're all talking in generalties here, I think 99% of the time pilots are cooperating with each other. You can't just say this is the right way to do it every time. Sometimes an upwind pattern entry makes sense, sometimes that's not the safest thing to do depending on where the traffic is and your relative speeds. That's where judgement comes in.
 
Flyxaos said:
Flying by the book, or AIM, really is safer.
Click to expand...

My personal opinion is there are two acceptable points to enter the pattern: midfield downwind, and straight-in final. Both methods put you where other aircraft expect traffic and know where to look, and you know where to look for them.

Clever pattern hacks will work if you have your head on a swivel. But if two aircraft are both doing their own special personal patterns, a non-zero percentage of those convergences are going to end badly.

Flame suit on! :devil:
 
Ed Haywood said:
My personal opinion is there are two acceptable points to enter the pattern: midfield downwind, and straight-in final. Both methods put you where other aircraft expect traffic and know where to look, and you know where to look for them.

Clever pattern hacks will work if you have your head on a swivel. But if two aircraft are both doing their own special personal patterns, a non-zero percentage of those convergences are going to end badly.

Flame suit on! :devil:
Click to expand...

Personally, I would add midfield upwind as another acceptable entry point.

1723399664452.png
 
FORANE said:
Ron
Put yourself in a plane that crosses numbers on landing at 80 kts. Now put yourself in the pattern with guys flying multiple patterns at sub-80 kts. Are you going to place yourself at risk of trying to maintain their speed and turn radius? Are you going to fly a pattern wider, faster, higher? Are you going to simply try and coordinate a straight in that will mesh with existing traffic?
Click to expand...
No reason you can't fly the pattern a bit wider, turn final a mile or a mile and a half out. I'm at about 70 knots crossing the numbers. Mind you, my plane sheds excess airspeed a lot faster than yours.

As for "simply try and coordinate a straight in that will mesh with existing traffic"?

Hmmm. What, exactly, are you doing to further this goal?

In truth, nothing. You're telling everyone else to get out of your way. You aren't adjusting your speed to match, you aren't varying your course one whit.
1723399638802.png
As I've mentioned several times when this topic comes up, I have no problem accommodating turboprops and larger aircraft that aren't a good fit to a standard pattern. I accept they may need it. But your run-of-the-mill GA aircraft?

Ron Wanttaja
 
Half Fast said:
Personally, I would add midfield upwind as another acceptable entry point.

View attachment 132342
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm good with that. Basically, anything that puts you in the vicinity of the airport for a period of time helps you spot other traffic, and helps other traffic spot you. With the upwind approach, your most-likely conflicts will be aircraft climbing out after takeoff, and this should give you a good view of them.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Many valid points in this discussion, but many seem to talk past each other due to the variety of situations that exist----amount of traffic, speed mix, etc. One size doesn't fit all. Midfield crosswind, straight-in, teardrop to 45, upwind deg all have their place depending on many factors. Personally, when I announce a straight-in, I add "traffic permitting" and if there's someone in the pattern I wasn't aware of, I'm spring-loaded to break off to upwind.
 
wanttaja said:
No reason you can't fly the pattern a bit wider, turn final a mile or a mile and a half out. I'm at about 70 knots crossing the numbers. Mind you, my plane sheds excess airspeed a lot faster than yours.

As for "simply try and coordinate a straight in that will mesh with existing traffic"?

Hmmm. What, exactly, are you doing to further this goal?

In truth, nothing. You're telling everyone else to get out of your way. You aren't adjusting your speed to match, you aren't varying your course one whit.

As I've mentioned several times when this topic comes up, I have no problem accommodating turboprops and larger aircraft that aren't a good fit to a standard pattern. I accept they may need it. But your run-of-the-mill GA aircraft?

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
I don't have any problem with straight in arrivals. From a safety standpoint, they are equally safe to a midfield downwind entry. Both aircraft know where to look for traffic and how to deconflict.

Whenever an aircraft enters the pattern, it disrupts traffic. If a fast twin enters in front of you at midfield downwind and then flies a B52 pattern, you are still going to have to extend your downwind and be delayed. A well executed straight in might actually disrupt you less.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I'm not even thinking about the downwind traffic. People are looking and extending the departure leg for that. Where I see it is pointing directly at traffic inbound on the 45.
Click to expand...
OK, but the inbound traffic is likely at pattern altitude, and the early turn is probably much, much lower unless it turns quite a bit farther that the plane on the 45 degree entry. Of course, it always depends on the performance of the aircraft.
 
Straight ins annoy me less than infinite pattern work. At least it’s one shot and they are out of your way.
 
Salty said:
Didn’t say nobody should do them, just that it’s more annoying to me than straight ins are.
Click to expand...
It’s annoying when people do extremely repetitive pattern work at towered airports with tons of traffic trying to arrive and depart (for actual transportation).

I mean, go to some quiet field. As it is, we have lots of folks complaining about noise and all the pattern work does not help.
 
Ed Haywood said:
But only an issue if someone else is doing an extended downwind pattern entry, which is why it is better to enter on 45 at midfield like the book says.

That's the thing about all these clever variations of entries. If everyone flew a standard pattern and entered on 45 midfield downwind, there would almost NEVER be a midair.
Click to expand...
No, all the mid-airs would happen on the 45 instead of in the pattern.
 
Something rang a bell here; I remembered that several years ago, I did a study on midairs.

From 2008 through 2021, there were 144 midairs. That's about 0.60% of the total accidents. Keep in mind that 15 of those midairs were aircraft flying in formation.

(144 cases, which means at least 288 aircraft involved).

So it isn't happening often.

Here's the breakdown on *where* the midairs are happening:
1723435593505.png
Only 36 of the midair cases occurred in the pattern.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Something rang a bell here; I remembered that several years ago, I did a study on midairs.

From 2008 through 2021, there were 144 midairs. That's about 0.60% of the total accidents. Keep in mind that 15 of those midairs were aircraft flying in formation.

(144 cases, which means at least 288 aircraft involved).

So it isn't happening often.

Here's the breakdown on *where* the midairs are happening:
View attachment 132357
Only 36 of the midair cases occurred in the pattern.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
And only 3% happened on downwind, despite that being where all the merging is happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top