Fly In - day after reflection on idiots in pattern

That diagram of the teardrop above says, "Fly clear of pattern (approx 2 miles)." Unfortunately some people seem to think 2 miles is a good distance for a downwind...
 
Dana said:
That diagram of the teardrop above says, "Fly clear of pattern (approx 2 miles)." Unfortunately some people seem to think 2 miles is a good distance for a downwind...
Click to expand...
Good point, but IMO nobody has the patience to go out the proper distance for that maneuver to be done correctly, which includes not descending until AFTER flying the two miles and then not turning until AFTER descending to pattern altitude. Think about it. The two miles is measured from the runway (according to the diagram) so at 90 (1.5 miles/min) you need to fly one minute and twenty seconds before starting a descent. At 500 fpm, you add another minute outbound. Then, add another minute and 15 seconds for a standard rate 225° turn onto the inbound entry leg. That's roughly four and a half minutes of maneuvering just to get aimed at the downwind leg, say, more than three miles from the airport. Unless you're a procedure-compulsive Canadian, that's too much messin' around for our "got to have it all now" society.
 
The problem with overflying the field 500 over pattern altitude, is that puts you squarely into the pattern altitude for turbine aircraft (typically 1500 AGL). Who makes this crap up?
 
midwestpa24 said:
The problem with overflying the field 500 over pattern altitude, is that puts you squarely into the pattern altitude for turbine aircraft (typically 1500 AGL). Who makes this crap up?
Click to expand...
Frankly, that recommendation has been in the AIM since before there were turbine "patterns". Since it's a relatively safe place to be vs. IN the pattern with all the traffic, they told turbines to fly up there too, rather than mix it up with slower traffic down low. The "teardrop" stuff, that's new. The 500' above was always for reading the sock, etc.
 
OK, it's only been 7 pages ... is it safe to roll another grenade down the center aisle?:confused::eek::D

Are you guys flying the recommended 800 AGL TPA that a ton of fields still have out there? Are you even checking beforehand? KELP Class C in my area has multiple TPAs including GA, kerosene burners and overhead.
 
Back when there were three active aircraft factories and an Air Force Base with overlapping patters in Wichita, you had to fly left and right patterns at four different altitudes to avoid the constant flow of test flights and inbound/outbound traffic. There were overlapping tower/unicom frequencies and transitioning through the area was best done ten miles away, or play vector pinball with approach.

It was not for the timid or weak of spirit, that's for sure...
 
Palmpilot said:
The teardrop procedure is similar (but not identical) to what I was taught when I learned to fly in 1991.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I was shown a similar entry trick 28 years before you were. Still, it's a "new" thing in an FAA handbook (which may have been outsourced to non-FAA people, AFAIK).
 
If saying that "make all turns to the left" means you shall not not turn right from the 45 onto the downwind leg, that is just plain silly.

Sure, the reg was written in the stone age, and following the prescribed procedure does not comply with that mandate. A legal interpretation used to enforce a poorly written regulation is the consequence of not doing whatever is needed to change the reg...

I like the idea of entering each leg straight in. The weekend warrior knucklheads will screw that up anyway, so whatcha gonna do?
 
Has this already been posted?

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/what-new-traffic-pattern-rules-mean/

So it seems like if you're doing option B; you are crossing over at pattern altitude (not above), and turning directly downwind. Seems OK if nobody is around.

I think their option A; they are claiming the "turning the wrong way" is a necessary part of the course reversal in order to enter mid-field. I think that's what makes it OK.
 
StevieTimes said:
Has this already been posted?

https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/what-new-traffic-pattern-rules-mean/

So it seems like if you're doing option B; you are crossing over at pattern altitude (not above), and turning directly downwind. Seems OK if nobody is around.

I think their option A; they are claiming the "turning the wrong way" is a necessary part of the course reversal in order to enter mid-field. I think that's what makes it OK.
Click to expand...
What makes it OK is that the FAA Chief Counsel's office "considers" it to be OK. :rolleyes1:
 

Attachments

  • Gossman - (2011) 45 degree entries.pdf
    36 KB · Views: 10
All turns to the left while in pattern, left turn to base, left turn to final, left turn to crosswind, left turn to downwind. The 45 into the downwind you are only at that point entering the pattern, so turning right is not a violation.
 
TommyG said:
All turns to the left while in pattern, left turn to base, left turn to final, left turn to crosswind, left turn to downwind. The 45 into the downwind you are only at that point entering the pattern, so turning right is not a violation.
Click to expand...
The regulation does not say "in the pattern" or "after entering the pattern" it says
91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.
Click to expand...
(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.

(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace—

(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right...
Click to expand...

So, the turn from the 45 (and the 270 at the end of the so called tear drop) are "in the vicinity of an airport" while you are "approaching to land" and, thus, per the written regulation, you "must make all turns of that airplane to the left". Assuming, of course, that one is attempting to comply with the actual written FAA regulations. But, whoever wrote the AIM didn't think the regulations as written were important and wrote something else. And, the chief counsel has ruled that the regulations do not acutally apply where they say they apply, sort of, except when they want to violate a pilot for not following the written regulations. But, none the less, those right turns violate the regulation as written.
 
True, but I would think that the FAA would be unlikely to issue a violation for doing what the FAA recommends in print, and if they did, my non-expert guess is that they would have trouble making it stick on appeal.
 
Palmpilot said:
What makes it OK is that the FAA Chief Counsel's office "considers" it to be OK. :rolleyes1:
Click to expand...

What I saw written is that it's OK to turn right for the 45 because it's necessary/required. The start of the regulation says "Unless otherwise authorized or required".

One could surmise that a right turn would also be a necessary part of the course reversal (after over flying) in order to enter mid-field. Is there a Chief Counsel ruling on that actual situation?
 
StevieTimes said:
What I saw written is that it's OK to turn right for the 45 because it's necessary/required. The start of the regulation says "Unless otherwise authorized or required".

One could surmise that a right turn would also be a necessary part of the course reversal (after over flying) in order to enter mid-field. Is there a Chief Counsel ruling on that actual situation?
Click to expand...

I don't know.
 
Weekend Warrior said:
To summarize:

Idiots in the pattern,

Idiots commenting on this thread,

Idiots at the FAA.

At least we're consistent.


View attachment 78495

Oh wait.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that many threads started to criticize pilot behavior in the traffic pattern and/or flying NORDO eventually devolve into the poster judged to be at fault and labeled a poor pilot.
 
This whole parsing business is getting out of hand. You can’t parse one sentence and ignore the rest of the paragraph / other text.

One could argue that until the 45 entry is made you aren’t in the pattern / officially approaching to land and therefore not subject to the left hand turns restriction... the left hand turns business is conditional. It also doesn’t preclude other rules about right of way and such.
 
I think it's been mentioned... but what's wrong with entering on the crosswind at pattern altitude? You're not mixing with the turbines; and you have time as you're approaching to see who's on the upwind, and adjust accordingly.

Like if we had to re-write this rule today; we were at FAA headquarters, and they threw up their hands and said "FINE. You guys write it, then."

I'd propose there are three ways to enter a pattern:
  1. Entering at a 45 from the downwind side at pattern altitude
  2. Entering crosswind if approaching from the upwind side at pattern altitude
  3. Straight in
The way it is now; if crossing midfield to join the downwind, you had to cross the upwind side already (so you had to contend with that traffic). Now you have people in the pattern already, people coming in from the 45, and people coming midfield to join the downwind. If we just joined at the crosswind; now we're just looking for people coming in at a 45 on downwind.

I'm totally writing a strongly worded letter. (OK, I'm not; I just like saying "strongly worded letter")
 
RyanShort1 said:
One could argue that until the 45 entry is made you aren’t in the pattern / officially approaching to land and therefore not subject to the left hand turns restriction...
Click to expand...
Don't you think it would be better if all aircraft went in the same rotation around an airport, like water around a drain, merging slowly with each other as they draw near the airport from, say, five miles out?
 
Last edited:
StevieTimes said:
...what's wrong with entering on the crosswind at pattern altitude?
Click to expand...
Altitude, that's what. Aircraft should be at the same height to see each other. Entering on crosswind you're overrunning aircraft climbing up to the downwind on the crosswind leg, up to 300' below you under current policy. I'd prefer to enter an upwind leg which gives more time to observe aircraft on climbout and merge with them. So, my solution would be only enter midfield on either downwind or upwind. I would also prefer aircraft remaining in the pattern to climb runway heading to pattern altitude before making a level turn to crosswind and then to downwind. That way, they're at the same altitude as any other traffic on crosswind or downwind. Under-powered aircraft pilots won't like that idea, though.
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
Don't you think it would be better if all aircraft went in the same rotation around an airport, like water around a drain, merging slowly with each other as they draw near the airport from, say, five miles out?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Sometimes it's actually easier to spot someone that isn't head-on or tail-towards you. An aircraft in a turn is generally going to be more visible. Remember, aircraft that are on converging courses don't show up as easily because of relative motion, and in my experience that's doubly true when you are on similar headings. In a turn, you are much less likely to be on a converging course the whole time and often a surface will bounce some sunlight in the direction of other pilots. The turn to the 45 actually allows you to "sweep" the whole pattern visually if you take advantage of it properly.
 
Last edited:
RyanShort1 said:
One could argue that until the 45 entry is made you aren’t in the pattern / officially approaching to land and therefore not subject to the left hand turns restriction
Click to expand...
Except that the FAA has busted pilots who made a right turn to final. So the FAA obviously doesn't buy the "you aren't in the pattern" argument for the direction of turns in the vicinity (at least when they want to violate someone for whatever reason).
 
StevieTimes said:
I think it's been mentioned... but what's wrong with entering on the crosswind at pattern altitude? You're not mixing with the turbines; and you have time as you're approaching to see who's on the upwind, and adjust accordingly.

Like if we had to re-write this rule today; we were at FAA headquarters, and they threw up their hands and said "FINE. You guys write it, then."

I'd propose there are three ways to enter a pattern:
  1. Entering at a 45 from the downwind side at pattern altitude
  2. Entering crosswind if approaching from the upwind side at pattern altitude
  3. Straight in
The way it is now; if crossing midfield to join the downwind, you had to cross the upwind side already (so you had to contend with that traffic). Now you have people in the pattern already, people coming in from the 45, and people coming midfield to join the downwind. If we just joined at the crosswind; now we're just looking for people coming in at a 45 on downwind.

I'm totally writing a strongly worded letter. (OK, I'm not; I just like saying "strongly worded letter")
Click to expand...
I'm uncertain as to the FAA's reasoning, but it's much easier to spot a plane moving across your field of view. When entering midfield on a 45, any plane already in the pattern will be moving across at an angle, not directly towards or away. Plus, regardless of how far out from the airport their pattern is, any other plane on downwind will be "in front" of you requiring you to scan a determined amount of sky.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Not necessarily. Sometimes it's actually easier to spot someone that isn't head-on or tail-towards you. An aircraft in a turn is generally going to be more visible. Remember, aircraft that are on converging courses don't show up as easily because of relative motion, and in my experience that's doubly true when you are on similar headings. In a turn, you are much less likely to be on a converging course the whole time and often a surface will bounce some sunlight in the direction of other pilots. The turn to the 45 actually allows you to "sweep" the whole pattern visually if you take advantage of it properly.
Click to expand...
This sounds like you're making my argument for me. What am I missing? This is why all planes in the vicinity that are heading for the airport should flow in the same direction, ie., slower closing speed, increased visible surface area. I don't see how your comment here jibes with your comment here:

RyanShort1 said:
One could argue that until the 45 entry is made you aren’t in the pattern / officially approaching to land and therefore not subject to the left hand turns restriction...
Click to expand...

There, you're saying airplanes can mill around the airport at their discretion in whatever random direction they please as long as they wind up on a 45.
 
NOE 10 mile straight in...

No turns and you’ll always have right away because you’re the lowest.

This way you are only breaking one rule...

The other ways you really have no idea wtf is going on. It’s just so crazy out there...
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Except that the FAA has busted pilots who made a right turn to final. So the FAA obviously doesn't buy the "you aren't in the pattern" argument for the direction of turns in the vicinity (at least when they want to violate someone for whatever reason).
Click to expand...

The FAA busted pilots of two different commercial flights for making the right turn from a right base in the vicinity of an no towered airport. Both aircraft were 737s and the judge was decided the distance for "vicinity" is relative. Also, both pilots lied about their distance away, which probably made the situation worse. You're misrepresenting the incidents, it had nothing to do with entering the pattern, which the FAA does not regulate.

The regulation you're referencing is poorly written because it doesn't reflect how things are done. It was written with good intentions to help pilots flow together, but obviously by someone who didn't think it through. The FAA lawyers have explicitly said and confirmed that despite this regulation stating that all turns are to the left, right turns to enter the pattern from the 45 are permitted because that's how we do it.

The argument was made in the other thread and you and Ed failed to convince anyone there.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Except that the FAA has busted pilots who made a right turn to final. So the FAA obviously doesn't buy the "you aren't in the pattern" argument for the direction of turns in the vicinity (at least when they want to violate someone for whatever reason).
Click to expand...
They got busted because the were on a base leg opposite the published base leg, turning final. If the airfield has a standard traffic pattern and you decide to fly the opposite pattern because it happens to be more convenient, you deserve to get busted. It's disengenuous to turn onto a final at a normal base leg distance and call it a straight-in which is what some pilots tried to do who were violated. Yes they were in the vicinity of the pattern only flying the wrong pattern(leg) for that airfield--totally differnent then turning onto a downwind from a 45.
 
Bottom line: I's OK to not fly according to the written regulations because everyone else does the same and the FAA said they didn't actually mean what they wrote.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Bottom line: I's OK to not fly according to the written regulations because everyone else does the same and the FAA said they didn't actually mean what they wrote.
Click to expand...
Ok, you made all left turns to get to final. Now the crosswind picks up and blows you a little to the left of the centerline.

I guess you have to do a go around because you’re not allowed to turn right in the vicinity of an airport.

Or, you could apply common sense and turn right a little to get back on the center line *gasp*.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Bottom line: I's OK to not fly according to the written regulations because everyone else does the same and the FAA said they didn't actually mean what they wrote.
Click to expand...

Bottom line, if you're a commercial pilot flying a commercial flight, it's not OK to turn final from a right base against traffic 3 miles out and then say that you were 6 miles out. If you're actually 6 miles out, you're not in the vicinity and you're fine.

If you're a pilot flying a non-commercial flight, doing what is recommended in the AIM, what has been reinforced by the Chief Counsel and entering the pattern on a 45 to downwind, you're golden even though the regulation says no right turns. And you guys haven't even talked about the right turn for the tear drop.

Trying to equate the first example to the second is wrong in almost every way.
 
bflynn said:
Bottom line, if you're a commercial pilot flying a commercial flight, it's not OK to turn final from a right base against traffic 3 miles out and then say that you were 6 miles out. If you're actually 6 miles out, you're not in the vicinity and you're fine.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go that far. The Law Judge may have said that, but the Appeals Board didn't have to opine on that statement. I have talked with a Flight Standards instructor who explained the Law Judge came to that determination by considering the types of aircraft that habit the airport and the size of the pattern they typically make. Based on that, there's really no limit to a pattern's size. I can see one exceeding the "vicinity" of the airport in theory, but I can't see what aircraft might actually need to do it. Practically, though, at six miles your risk is small for a violation.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So we agree. Ignore the written regulation. Snot a big deal.
Click to expand...

You know, I wonder that since the CC says you're allowed to ignore at least one regulation, how many others we can choose to ignore at our will without being busted.
 
EdFred said:
You know, I wonder that since the CC says you're allowed to ignore at least one regulation, how many others we can choose to ignore at our will without being busted.
Click to expand...
So, if you have to turn right to correct for that crosswind gust, are you busting a regulation, or do you have to declare an emergency? Or do you use common sense? If you're going to be this pedantic, then you can't stop with the right turn from the 45. ANY right turn would be breaking regs.
 
Salty said:
So, if you have to turn right to correct for that crosswind gust, are you busting a regulation, or do you have to declare an emergency? Or do you use common sense? If you're going to be this pedantic, then you can't stop with the right turn from the 45. ANY right turn would be breaking regs.
Click to expand...

A heading correction or crab adjustment isn't a turn and you know you that. Everyone agrees the 45 is a turn. However, if you overshoot final by a long ways that you have make a large correction, yeah, I'd say that's a bust. Go around, fly the upwind.
 
EdFred said:
A heading correction isn't a turn and you know you that.
Click to expand...
Ok, so you're correcting you're heading by 45 degrees. Being pedantic doesn't allow you to make distinctions like this. You cannot "correct your heading" to the right, without making a right turn. You know that.

Either you can't make any distinctions in types of turns or you can. You're the one saying no distinctions are allowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top