"Extend downwind, I'll call your base."

John Baker

John Baker

Final Approach
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
7,471
Location
San Diego, California
Display Name
Display name:
John Baker
Here is a dilemma I have encountered with my flight instructor. My airplane is based at Montgomery Field (KMYF) in San Diego, a very busy GA airport.

KMYF is located in a very densely populated area of the city. The only open space is Bravo airspace a couple of miles to the north, Miramar, a military base.

TPA for 28R is 1,200', airport elevation is 427'. I have had, on more than a few occasions, the tower instruct me to extend my downwind, they will call my base, even after I have powered back to 1800rpm and set my first notch of flaps. I have had my base called more than 4 miles from the airport and after I had left Delta airspace. This extended downwind leg is over densely populated suburbs of San Diego.

When given this instruction, I have always put my flaps back to the up position and powered up enough to start a slow climb. My thinking is that if I lost my engine, I would want to be at an altitude that I could make the runway.

I have been told that I should remain at pattern altitude, and not climb above it, even though at times, that would put me within five hundred feet of some rooftops, and no way able to glide to any safe landing area.

Any thoughts on this issue?

John
 
You are PIC. Maintain safe altitude at all times.

If you need to climb on downwind to remain at a safe altitude, take a second and advise tower of doing so: "Tower, Cessna 1234, we'll be climbing a few hundred feet for ground clearance."

Just my two cents... Worth every penny you paid for it. ;)
 
CJones said:
You are PIC. Maintain safe altitude at all times.

If you need to climb on downwind to remain at a safe altitude, take a second and advise tower of doing so: "Tower, Cessna 1234, we'll be climbing a few hundred feet for ground clearance."
Click to expand...

I would disagree - Climbing out of pattern altitude is a great way to cause a mid-air collision.

I would suggest a call to tower, "Tower, Nxxxx is unable to extend base further, request revised instructions." If it's a consistent problem, maybe do your pattern work up at Oceanside or something.

That sure is some messy airspace! :eek:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I would disagree - Climbing out of pattern altitude is a great way to cause a mid-air collision.

I would suggest a call to tower, "Tower, Nxxxx is unable to extend base further, request revised instructions." If it's a consistent problem, maybe do your pattern work up at Oceanside or something.

That sure is some messy airspace! :eek:
Click to expand...
If you're going to do that, tell them why you're unable. "Tower, Nxxxx is unable to extend base further while maintaining adequate ground clearance. We can climb to xxxx. Request revised instructions."
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I would disagree - Climbing out of pattern altitude is a great way to cause a mid-air collision.

I would suggest a call to tower, "Tower, Nxxxx is unable to extend base further, request revised instructions." If it's a consistent problem, maybe do your pattern work up at Oceanside or something.
Click to expand...

That's why I would let ATC know what I'm doing and why, preferably with a bit of warning for them to adjust traffic accordingly.

Again, it's my butt on the line if I lose an engine and end up in Aunt Myrtle's kitchen because I was too low to be able to choose a more appropriate landing spot - not ATC's.
 
At a few miles out, you're not in the pattern anymore anyways. When this happens to me, I climb as soon as I leave the pattern so that I can get back to the runway and I might or might not advise tower. They don't care about your altitude outside the pattern...
 
There are not a lot of choices where to land anywhere around Montgomery field. You probably have a better chance at an off field on an extended downwind once you are over I-15. I have flown into the field a few times and treat it just like any other field. I don't see the engine being any less reliable at 1000AGL than it would be at 1500AGL. But if you do decide to climb I would let tower know. There is enough happening in that airspace that it is best ot not surprise the controllers.
 
First, while the issue of conflicting traffic at different altitudes in the pattern is a concern, I'd maintain 1000 AGL until it was necessary to descend for landing and just because ATC sends you out on a cross country pattern doesn't give you immunity from 91.119. Second, the tower should never ever extend your downwind that far especially beyond the boundaries of the Class D. If this is a regular occurrence I think a serious discussion with the tower supervisor is in order. And if you are directed to an extended downwind in the future, I'd query the tower about the time I was two miles past the runway, it's possible they just forgot about you.

Finally, unless you're flying a high performance motorglider you're not going to make the runway from 1000 AGL on any extended downwind that takes you much more than a mile beyond the runway so I recommend you look for alternative emergency landing sites under the pattern.
 
Last edited:
sba55 said:
At a few miles out, you're not in the pattern anymore anyways. When this happens to me, I climb as soon as I leave the pattern so that I can get back to the runway and I might or might not advise tower. They don't care about your altitude outside the pattern...
Click to expand...
AFaIK, tower doesn't control altitudes at all and I've never read a FAR that said the recommended pattern altitude was mandatory at a controlled or uncontrolled field.
 
Pattern altitude at Montgomery is 1,200" msl. That puts you at 772' agl while at the field. The only landing areas are pretty much city streets, congested city streets, cars parked on both sides. There is lake Murray six miles out. There is a golf course two miles out. There are a couple of small mountains that start about three or four miles out. They are boulder covered piles of dirt, not a good choice if you are planing to walk away from it.

When you receive long extensions to your downwind, the airport is usually pretty darn busy. It is not an easy or fast process getting your radio time with the controller.

I never start any climb until I have flown past the normal base leg of the pattern.
I have never had a controller mention my climbing higher, but I have sure heard it from my instructor. Four miles out at 1,200 msl is downright spooky over all those houses and apartments, especially when you can count the pigeons on the wires.

John
 
Last edited:
If you Google Earth KMYF and look at the downwind for 28R (Right Pattern) you will see what I mean. There are also a lot of canyons that have about the same survivability as the boulder covered mountains.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but if you set google earth to 1,200' you will see your choices are few. Myself, I would like a few more choices.

John
 
You should move. Plenty of places where you can extend your downwind and be over fields.
 
steingar said:
You should move. Plenty of places where you can extend your downwind and be over fields.
Click to expand...


KMYF is only fifteen minutes from my house, everything else, Gillespie, (not much better anyway) Brown, (not too bad, except for the auto junk yard just beyond the exit end of the runway) Palomar,(same as KMYF & KSEE), even Oceanside is surrounded by built up real estate, is more than half an hour from my house.

The only airport that has vacant land in most directions is Ramona, that and Brown are over an hour from my house. Long drive to do a few T&Gs There are just not many options unless you are willing to negate the purpose of having an airplane, spending more time on the highway than in the air.

There are a lot of pluses for training in San Diego, you get really good with airspace considerations, and you overcome any apprehension about talking on the radio to the various agencies really fast.

John
 
I was thinking more about Wisconsin or Iowa. Lots of airstrips surrounded by naught but fields.
 
John Baker said:
KMYF is only fifteen minutes from my house, everything else, Gillespie, (not much better anyway) Brown, (not too bad, except for the auto junk yard just beyond the exit end of the runway) Palomar,(same as KMYF & KSEE), even Oceanside is surrounded by built up real estate, is more than half an hour from my house.
Click to expand...

I think steingar meant "get out of California."

To clarify, I didn't mean to move your plane, just that if you want to do pattern work it might be worth the short flight up to Oceanside to do your T&G's with nobody telling you to extend your downwind over inhospitable areas.
 
gismo said:
AFaIK, tower doesn't control altitudes at all and I've never read a FAR that said the recommended pattern altitude was mandatory at a controlled or uncontrolled field.
Click to expand...
Cause a mid-air or near mid-air by climbing above published TPA in a tower-controlled pattern without tower coordination and I'll bet the FAA writes it up as a 91.13 violation if nothing else (91.123, 91.113, etc, are all possible). Remember, there are often faster heavy/jet aircraft at their own published altitude 500 above the light plane TPA (see 91.129(e)(1)). If you feel the need to depart from the pubished TPA at a tower-controlled airport, work it out with tower before you deviate from the published pattern, vertically or horizontally.
 
Last edited:
gismo said:
AFaIK, tower doesn't control altitudes at all and I've never read a FAR that said the recommended pattern altitude was mandatory at a controlled or uncontrolled field.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I thought so, but I wasn't 100% sure. To be honest, I'm much more worried about engine outs than mid-airs (well, if I have a mid-air, the FAA is going to be my last concern). Also agree with your point about them having forgotten about the OP....

-Felix
 
I guess my next question would be just where is the pattern? If you are told to extend downwind, even if it takes you out of the control towers airspace before base is called, are you still considered to be "in the pattern"? OK now that I've typed it out, I guess it does not matter. You are under ATC control, and unless it is an emergency, you can not deviate from tower instructions without clearance to do so.

I'm glad I started this thread, I'm learning a lot. Thanks,

John
 
If this is an airport you fly patterns at regularly, why not go visit the tower and express your concerns to them in an environment where you're sitting at someone's desk and in no hurry to work it out.

But it brings up another point: if you're concerned about this scenario, do you otherwise always fly within gliding range of a safe landing spot? You never fly over mountainous terrain or cities? Even when on approach to busy airports? The practical matter is that sometimes you're going to end up for a few minutes in a place you might not rather be but considering the odds of an in-flight engine failure this is probably not much more than an academic discussion. If it's a choice between flying over a town for a couple of minutes or mucking up the works by demanding higher approach altitudes - is it really worth the improvement in risk?
 
John Baker said:
I guess my next question would be just where is the pattern? If you are told to extend downwind, even if it takes you out of the control towers airspace before base is called, are you still considered to be "in the pattern"? OK now that I've typed it out, I guess it does not matter. You are under ATC control, and unless it is an emergency, you can not deviate from tower instructions without clearance to do so.

I'm glad I started this thread, I'm learning a lot. Thanks,

John
Click to expand...
Good question.

Last week I was coming into KPWK I was #2, right traffic for runway 34, a biz jet was left traffic and #1 for R34. The tower had told him he would call the base. The jet started to get very close to overflying O'Hare IAP and told the tower he was about to enter the SFC area around KORD. Tower cleared him into the surface area, called his turn, asked my to slow down and it all worked out perfectly. The key was that the jet let the tower know what was about to happen. I think this is one of those times when if the tower tells you they are calling your base and you aaccept, your only allowed to deviate from your clearence in an emergancy or imminent rules violation but you should still be telling ATC what it is you are about to do. The jet did not have much airspace to move about in at all.
 
Question to the group: When flying a pattern, even when tower says "I will call your base turn", are you actually on an 'assigned' altitude?

If yes, then I can see how deviating from altitude would be a legality (and safety) problem.

If no, then you are basically on VFR altitude clearance and are able to climb/descend as appropriate, though for safety-sake, advising the tower prior to deviations would be prudent.

What's the verdict?
 
John Baker said:
I guess my next question would be just where is the pattern? If you are told to extend downwind, even if it takes you out of the control towers airspace before base is called, are you still considered to be "in the pattern"? OK now that I've typed it out, I guess it does not matter. You are under ATC control, and unless it is an emergency, you can not deviate from tower instructions without clearance to do so.

I'm glad I started this thread, I'm learning a lot. Thanks,

John
Click to expand...

Technically, AFaIK a Class D tower controller has no authority to issue instructions to a plane outside of their airspace other than to clear them into same and/or provide a full or partial landing clearance. And in 30 years of flying from a towered field I can't ever recall the tower giving any VFR arrivals an altitude to fly in the pattern. Anybody else here gotten a "maintain 1900, enter left downwind" or similar from a Class D tower controller when arriving VFR?
 
CJones said:
Question to the group: When flying a pattern, even when tower says "I will call your base turn", are you actually on an 'assigned' altitude?
Click to expand...

Only if an altitude restriction has been assigned.
 
I have been told, "Maintain at or below 2000' until out of Class D."
 
I think there may be another important thing to consider here...

Most class "D" towers (those around here anyway) don't have radar so they're working in the blind.

This being the case, even if it is legal to deviate altitude without telling them, I don't think I would do so because they're simply visualizing your location and if you're not where they think you are then you're safety is significantly compromised.
 
If you are in a controlled airports traffic pattern, wouldn't the published TPA for that airport be your "assigned altitude"?

I guess what I found confusing was the concept of the controller, by extending my downwind, was enlarging the traffic pattern.

Until I brought this subject up to you guys, in my mind, an airport traffic pattern was about half a mile away from the runway in all directions. Therefore, when I fly beyond the point where I would normally turn base, I have a feeling of no longer being in the pattern. So I thought it to be OK to start a slow climb. I have never had the tower call me on that.

I am going up to do some T&Gs today, I'll notify the tower of my intentions.

KMYF is too busy of an airport for tower tours, they do not allow them.

John
 
In a Delta, can the tower assign altitude or heading to VFR traffic?
 
timwinters said:
I think there may be another important thing to consider here...

Most class "D" towers (those around here anyway) don't have radar so they're working in the blind.

This being the case, even if it is legal to deviate altitude without telling them, I don't think I would do so because they're simply visualizing your location and if you're not where they think you are then you're safety is significantly compromised.
Click to expand...

The only controlled delta airport around San Diego that does not have radar is at Ramona. Most all of the others are under, or near, or both, Bravo airspace, they all have radar. I guess Ramona falls into that category as well, It is probably based on traffic volume if they have radar or not.

John
 
John Baker said:
If you are in a controlled airports traffic pattern, wouldn't the published TPA for that airport be your "assigned altitude"?
Click to expand...

No. The traffic pattern at a towered airport is whatever the tower says it is.
 
John Baker said:
The only controlled delta airport around San Diego that does not have radar is at Ramona. Most all of the others are under, or near, or both, Bravo airspace, they all have radar. I guess Ramona falls into that category as well, It is probably based on traffic volume if they have radar or not.

John
Click to expand...

I doubt they have low-level radar coverage around Ramona due to terrain.
 
Clark1961 said:
In a Delta, can the tower assign altitude or heading to VFR traffic?
Click to expand...

Yes, if it's in a TRSA. Outside of a TRSA there is no VFR/VFR or IFR/VFR separation provided by ATC in Class D airspace, instructions given to VFR aircraft are for the purpose of providing runway separation.
 
John Baker said:
I gotta say yes to that one. If you are in their airspace, you are in controlled airspace. Seems to me, they should be able to issue control instructions.
Click to expand...

The way the Delta's seem to work around here (Denver) is that the controllers tell you where they want you to go but generally don't give altitude restrictions and never give headings. The one time a controller gave me a heading after my acknowledgment he quickly corrected himself and said the heading was advisory only. The altitude restrictions have generally been when for transitioning through the Delta airspace. Note that Buckley has never given me a heading or an altitude and all I'm ever doing there is transitioning through their airspace.

As I understand it, absent a TRSA and for VFR traffic, the Delta tower has responsibility only for airspace entry and sequencing for the runway. Of course ground control is another issue. For everything else I'm on my own.

Now with all that said, I sure appreciate it when the tower provides traffic advisories and I've always complied with their suggestions when I'm able to do so. That said, I also don't hesitate to act when I perceive a conflict or other problem and I just tell the nice folks what I'm doing.

Where was all this going? Well, if I'm asked to extend the downwind and there is a terrain clearance problem then I'm going to solve the problem and let the tower know about it. The red herrings offered about possible conflicts with other traffic aren't pertinent to the FAR violation for failure to maintain sufficient altitude. Now if there is other traffic which may conflict then I'd better consider that in solving the problem. However, in VMC the other traffic is see-and-avoid just like I am.
 
John Baker said:
I guess my next question would be just where is the pattern?
Click to expand...
In a number of enforcement cases, the NTSB and FAA have said the pattern extends about 2-3 miles around the airport, depending on types of aircraft involved, etc. See Administrator v. Boardman and other cases cited therein. Thus, you can't still be "in the pattern" outside the airspace covered by the Tower.
 
Last edited:
CJones said:
Question to the group: When flying a pattern, even when tower says "I will call your base turn", are you actually on an 'assigned' altitude?
Click to expand...
If that's all they sai, no. But as discussed above, if you deviate from the published TPA, you are exposing yourself to a potential 91.13 violation.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Absolutely. You're in controlled airspace, and they are the ATC facility with jurisdiction over that airspace. 91.123 refers.
Click to expand...

That's not correct. A nonapproach control tower, aka a VFR tower, generally has no authority over controlled airspace. The facility with jurisdiction is the overlying Center or approach control, although it isn't unusual for some limited authority to be delegated to the tower; SVFR clearances, initial separation of successive IFR departures, etc.
 
roncachamp said:
That's not correct. A nonapproach control tower, aka a VFR tower, generally has no authority over controlled airspace. The facility with jurisdiction is the overlying Center or approach control, although it isn't unusual for some limited authority to be delegated to the tower; SVFR clearances, initial separation of successive IFR departures, etc.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that if Tower gives an instruction to an aircraft in its D-space, the aircraft is not required to obey that instruction per 91.123? I don't think so...
 
Ron Levy said:
Are you saying that if Tower gives an instruction to an aircraft in its D-space, the aircraft is not required to obey that instruction per 91.123? I don't think so...
Click to expand...

I'm saying the D-space doesn't belong to the tower. Think about it, nonapproach control towers in Class G airspace issue the same instructions to VFR aircraft as nonapproach control towers in Class D airspace. What facility has jurisdiction over Class G airspace?
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
That's not correct. A nonapproach control tower, aka a VFR tower, generally has no authority over controlled airspace. The facility with jurisdiction is the overlying Center or approach control, although it isn't unusual for some limited authority to be delegated to the tower; SVFR clearances, initial separation of successive IFR departures, etc.
Click to expand...

I was once operating under a bravo clearance receiving vectors for traffic from a Minneapolis Bravo approach controller. The controller vectored me into class D airspace (I was not landing at that airport) and then proceeded to chew my ass for flying into that class D without contacting the class D tower. He demanded that I contacted the tower.

I contacted the tower and said something like "I'm over your airport, minneapolis approach vectored me here under a bravo clearance and now wants me to talk to you"...They handed me back to minneapolis approach and I had a different approach controller.

I'm pretty sure I didn't' do anything wrong -- but it was annoying to get chewed out over the air to say the least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top