Flying straight in at uncontrolled field?

Clip4 said:
Not sure how one can argue an aircraft having an ATC clearance on final approach, which requires the pilot to follow the procedure, is not on final approach. Heck in some cases the MDA is still in Class E with minimum visibility of 1 SM.
Click to expand...
So I'll show my ignorance of IFR again here, but if ATC clears you into a non-controlled airport, the VFR traffic doesn't know this. They're not clearing you to land, right? Just clearing you to make the approach I think. So if you switch over to the local frequency and you're 8 miles out (or closer), would you feel like you needed to break off the approach if someone was turning downwind to base?

Some people like to fight about everything here. Please don't take this as an argument. I'm really wondering what the answer is.
 
CC268 said:
Haha I knew someone was gonna get me for saying that
Click to expand...
Not trying to "get" anyone; it was just a convenient place to insert what I consider to be a relevant observation.
 
CC268 said:
It was an honest question...wasn't trying to start a war..but I guess that is inevitable on PoA :( sad face
Click to expand...
No worries, it was not an attack on you, merely a joke at the MO here on PoA.
Any innocent question (such as yours) can easily break out into a holy war.

Watch ...

Now, guys, back to topic, what if I am coming in on a 35-mile final in a Cirrus, do I do an overhead break or 45 into downwind? :D
 
Lowflynjack said:
So, based on 91.126 (1) and 90-66A, I would interpret the rules to be as I stated above. If flying a standard pattern, you must fly the direction the airport has marked. If flying straight-in, you can't interfere with someone on a standard approach.
Click to expand...

That conclusion ignores the fact that an "advisory" circular is advisory, not regulatory. That's why it says "should" instead of "must." An AC can't override the regulation that gives aircraft on final the right-of-way.

Also, bear in mind that an instrument approach is a "standard approach." (See the definition of "SIAP" in FAR 97.3.) Many instrument approaches require the pilot to fly straight-in. And it is a requirement unless the pilot cancels IFR, is flying an approach that has circling minimums, or encounters an emergency. (Instrument approaches are regulatory in nature because they're incorporated by reference in Part 97.)

On the other hand, Yodice's article quotes one of the case decisions as saying "Aircraft making valid straight-in approaches at uncontrolled airports would, nevertheless, be deemed in violation of FAR 91.89(a) [now 91.126 and 91.127] if they interfered with other aircraft operating in the standard left-hand pattern." I wish I knew where to look up that case, because I'd like to know what they were basing that on.
 
Last edited:
Lowflynjack said:
So I'll show my ignorance of IFR again here, but if ATC clears you into a non-controlled airport, the VFR traffic doesn't know this. They're not clearing you to land, right? Just clearing you to make the approach I think. So if you switch over to the local frequency and you're 8 miles out (or closer), would you feel like you needed to break off the approach if someone was turning downwind to base?
Click to expand...
If you have to break off an approach to avoid a dangerous situation, 91.3(b) gives you the authority to do so.
 
BigBadLou said:
No worries, it was not an attack on you, merely a joke at the MO here on PoA.
Any innocent question (such as yours) can easily break out into a holy war.

Watch ...

Now, guys, back to topic, what if I am coming in on a 35-mile final in a Cirrus, do I do an overhead break or 45 into downwind? :D
Click to expand...
I had a guy do an overhead break right towards me just as I was entering downwind from the 45 the other day. I announced and flew a 360 to avoid him. After I reentered the downwind, another guy passed overhead in the opposite direction a couple hundred feet above me. The creative pattern entries seem to be getting a little out of hand lately. :eek2:
 
Lowflynjack said:
Yep, really. I've posted this before.

AOPA published a story about two pilots who had their licenses suspended for not following the correct pattern. One got a 25 day suspension just for flying an unauthorized right-hand pattern. The second got a 20 day suspension, but he claimed he made a straight-in approach as he turned right into a long final. They determined it wasn't a straight-in approach and it caused another airplane who was flying the correct pattern to have to deviate. "The NTSB held that even if this was a valid straight-in approach, it would still be a violation of the regulation because the approach interfered with the other aircraft approaching the airport. “Aircraft making valid straight-in approaches at uncontrolled airports would, nevertheless, be deemed in violation of FAR 91.89(a) [now 91.126 and 91.127] if they interfered with other aircraft operating in the standard left-hand pattern." Interesting story you can read here.
Click to expand...
I wonder if that applies to aircraft doing an ILS approach, as well?
 
Lowflynjack said:
So I'll show my ignorance of IFR again here, but if ATC clears you into a non-controlled airport, the VFR traffic doesn't know this. They're not clearing you to land, right? Just clearing you to make the approach I think. So if you switch over to the local frequency and you're 8 miles out (or closer), would you feel like you needed to break off the approach if someone was turning downwind to base?

Some people like to fight about everything here. Please don't take this as an argument. I'm really wondering what the answer is.
Click to expand...

What is the pattern altitude and traffic pattern size for a jet?

If 3 C172s are in the pattern doing touch and go, how does the jet get into a pattern to land?
 
Last edited:
BigBadLou said:
Now, guys, back to topic, what if I am coming in on a 35-mile final in a Cirrus, do I do an overhead break or 45 into downwind? :D
Click to expand...
Depends on the winds. If they are roughly 20-30 kts straight down the runway, enter a 1500' initial, slow to 130 or less, at the mid-field break point pop the chute, wind should land you on the numbers.
 
CC268 said:
I have always flown the "book" pattern even if it wasn't the most convenient and required me to overfly midfield to enter the downwind. However, many times it seems like it would be easiest to just fly straight in (and it seems like many do it). I flew straight into Payson a few times with my instructor, but I haven't flown straight into an uncontrolled field since I got my PPL.

What do you guys do? Thoughts? Opinions?
Click to expand...
I don't have as much experience as a lot of people on here. I am approaching almost 20 years flying and have over 1500 hours (took several years off in the middle), self proclaimed "mid-time" pilot.

I have/will enter 45 to the downwind, over the top direct to the downwind, straight in, direct base entry, even initial (once in an F16 that I was way behind so the real pilot took over as I was over-shooting).

As long as you have S.A. and are respectful of others, I've never had an issue.
 
Lowflynjack said:
§ 91.126 (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...

What about an airport (there is one local to me) where the A/FD says right traffic for one runway but there are no visual markings indicating that?

If approaching from the side opposite the pattern I will sometimes enter an extended crosswind leg and then turn left into the downwind.
 
As long as you play nice and get along well with others - no big deal.

I never do the 45 entry to downwind for any runway at the home drome (ONZ) because it would violate any number of regulations and/or be unsafe.
 
Dana said:
What about an airport (there is one local to me) where the A/FD says right traffic for one runway but there are no visual markings indicating that?

If approaching from the side opposite the pattern I will sometimes enter an extended crosswind leg and then turn left into the downwind.
Click to expand...
I've heard that debated as well. Apparently you can fly whatever pattern you want at that airport, at least according to 91.126. As we all know though, there's probably another FAR that says different!
 
Clip4 said:
What is the pattern altitude and traffic pattern size for a jet?

If 3 C172s are in the pattern doing touch and go, how does the jet get into a pattern to land?
Click to expand...

Normally the pattern altitude for turbines is 1500" AGL, or 500' above the pattern altitude for small planes, and because of the speeds a wider pattern too.

Lowflynjack said:
So I'll show my ignorance of IFR again here, but if ATC clears you into a non-controlled airport, the VFR traffic doesn't know this. They're not clearing you to land, right? Just clearing you to make the approach I think. So if you switch over to the local frequency and you're 8 miles out (or closer), would you feel like you needed to break off the approach if someone was turning downwind to base?
Click to expand...

ATC, or anyone else cannot "clear" you to land at any uncontrolled airport. They can only clear you for an approach, or, if you have called the field in sight, you'll get, "cleared for the visual". At that point all responsibility is on your shoulders to fit into the pattern with other traffic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tai
Clip4 said:
Just about all IFR traffic arrives from a straight in approach. In fact any approach where the final course is with 30 degrees of the runway heading is straight in.
Click to expand...
First off, that's NOT a true statement. An approach that has more than a 30 degree final approach course can't be a straight in, but that doesn't make all approaches that are aligned with the runway a straight in approach. There are descent gradients that must be met as well.

A plane on final has the right of way.
Click to expand...
Yes, but "on final" and on a "straight in approach" are not synonyms.
 
Clip4 said:
Not sure how one can argue an aircraft having an ATC clearance on final approach, which requires the pilot to follow the procedure, is not on final approach. Heck in some cases the MDA is still in Class E with minimum visibility of 1 SM.
Click to expand...
I think minimum vis is 3 miles in class E. Also, there's a distiction between "final" wrt traffic patterns and instrument approaches. A traffic pattern leg dubbed "final" is aligned with the runway and is inside the base leg. A "final" segment of an instrument approach begins outside the base leg and isn't necessarily aligned with the runway.

P/CG:
FINAL− Commonly used to mean that an aircraft is on the final approach course or is aligned with a landing area.

AIM:
The following terminology for the various components of a traffic pattern has been adopted as standard...
Final approach. A flight path in the direction of landing along the extended runway centerline from the base leg to the runway.
Clip4 said:
What is the pattern altitude and traffic pattern size for a jet?

If 3 C172s are in the pattern doing touch and go, how does the jet get into a pattern to land?
Click to expand...
I used to circle the airport at turbine pattern altitude (1500 AGL) and announce my intentions. Once local traffic understood I wasn't trying to barge right in like I owned the place, they were always helpful in giving me the space I needed.

dtuuri
 
CC268 said:
yes like this..

View attachment 54226
Click to expand...
There's a lot of times the mid-field tear-drop to the 45 just has too many moving parts. I like to do the mid field direct to down wind if able. If the pattern is too busy for that, then, I'd rather climb and go a ways past before turning back to find the 45. That blind turn back to enter at pattern altitude just looks like trouble waiting to happen. I've been blind-sided while making that turn back to the 45 more than once.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tai
wilkersk said:
There's a lot of times the mid-field tear-drop to the 45 just has too many moving parts. I like to do the mid field direct to down wind if able. If the pattern is too busy for that, then, I'd rather climb and go a ways past before turning back to find the 45. That blind turn back to enter at pattern altitude just looks like trouble waiting to happen. I've been blind-sided while making that turn back to the 45 more than once.
Click to expand...

Yea I would agree...the one controlled field I fly to somewhat frequently I fly over midfield and directly down into the downwind. I have flown to more controlled airports than uncontrolled so far but I can see that changing as I start doing some more "cross country" flying.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
As long as you play nice and get along well with others - no big deal.

I never do the 45 entry to downwind for any runway at the home drome (ONZ) because it would violate any number of regulations and/or be unsafe.
Click to expand...
Interesting airspace!
 
I sometimes enter on a crosswind over the departure end numbers, then make a left onto downwind - in fact I did that on my private checkride. Gives lots of time to look for traffic.
 
dtuuri said:
Ok, there are two sides to every coin. What do you each think is the best argument opponents of that method can offer and why do you dismiss it?

dtuuri
Click to expand...

The preferred method, when approaching from the upwind side has you 500' above pattern altitude. But, if the airport sees turbine traffic, frequently they'll fly at 1500' AGL for noise abatement procedures. So, you actually need to be higher.

If you go only 2 mi. Beyond the downwind, then descend and turn, at busy airports that see a lot of hurried traffic entering from that side, especially when under or near other airports or airspace, that will put you in a turn with limited visibility in a bad spot.

The mid-field downwind entry is often simpler to deconflict with other traffic. Not always the best way. It's a judgement call.
 
Overheads and continuous turns to final. Safest way to operate in the pattern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tai
Velocity173 said:
Overheads and continuous turns to final. Safest way to operate in the pattern.
Click to expand...
Why is the continuous turn safer? I thought the FAA just started to examine this.
(I actually do this in a low wing aircraft, just curious why you think so).

Tim
 
TylerSC said:
I sometimes enter on a crosswind over the departure end numbers, then make a left onto downwind - in fact I did that on my private checkride. Gives lots of time to look for traffic.
Click to expand...
Paul Sergeant on Beechtalk reported some facts given at a meeting by the NTSB about the crash earlier this year in Mckinney, TX:

"The PA-28-180 came from the WNW over Frisco along 380 descending to 1800 ft just West of the airfield (T31 pattern altitude). He flew west to east over the departure end of 17, slightly north of Virginia Parkway. It appears to me to be a crosswind arrival to downwind entry at pattern altitude. The two aircraft collided over the intersection of Virginia Parkway and Custer Road, right abeam the numbers on the south end of the runway."​

That sounds like what you're doing, so why do you think they didn't see each other?

dtuuri
 
Velocity173 said:
Overheads and continuous turns to final. Safest way to operate in the pattern.
Click to expand...
On my most recent flight, as I was turning from the 45 to downwind, I got a face-full of an airplane that made an overhead entry, so I announced and flew a 360 to avoid an NMAC.

There seems to be an increase of people doing their own thing in the pattern lately.
 
wilkersk said:
The preferred method, when approaching from the upwind side has you 500' above pattern altitude. But, if the airport sees turbine traffic, frequently they'll fly at 1500' AGL for noise abatement procedures. So, you actually need to be higher.

If you go only 2 mi. Beyond the downwind, then descend and turn, at busy airports that see a lot of hurried traffic entering from that side, especially when under or near other airports or airspace, that will put you in a turn with limited visibility in a bad spot.

The mid-field downwind entry is often simpler to deconflict with other traffic. Not always the best way. It's a judgement call.
Click to expand...
You think going across at pattern altitude is better than the higher crossing method, but some folks argue against both. What are their best arguments and how do you counter. Btw, thanks for playing along. :) I thought it would be more interesting to see how other people weigh the evidence and draw conclusions than simply argue with each other. They ought to do that in jury deliberations, I think.

dtuuri
 
tspear said:
Why is the continuous turn safer? I thought the FAA just started to examine this.
(I actually do this in a low wing aircraft, just curious why you think so).

Tim
Click to expand...

Oh I was joking. The overhead and continuous turn have their place (military) but I don't restrict myself to any canned format. Like James, I've entered the pattern in all types of entries. As long as you don't cut someone off already in the pattern, it's all good. Then again, yielding or getting cut off is subjective depending on how whinny the other pilot is.
 
Palmpilot said:
On my most recent flight, as I was turning from the 45 to downwind, I got a face-full of an airplane that made an overhead entry, so I announced and flew a 360 to avoid an NMAC.

There seems to be an increase of people doing their own thing in the pattern lately.
Click to expand...

If you got a face full at your altitude, then they did the overhead wrong.
 
Velocity173 said:
Oh I was joking. The overhead and continuous turn have their place (military) but I don't restrict myself to any canned format. Like James, I've entered the pattern in all types of entries. As long as you don't cut someone off already in the pattern, it's all good. Then again, yielding or getting cut off is subjective depending on how whinny the other pilot is.
Click to expand...

ok, so you also like to stir up trouble. Nice to see that I will fit in...

Tim
 
wilkersk said:
There's a lot of times the mid-field tear-drop to the 45 just has too many moving parts. I like to do the mid field direct to down wind if able. If the pattern is too busy for that, then, I'd rather climb and go a ways past before turning back to find the 45. That blind turn back to enter at pattern altitude just looks like trouble waiting to happen. I've been blind-sided while making that turn back to the 45 more than once.
Click to expand...
Mid-field crossover to downwind puts you belly up to planes on the 45 entry and possibly downwind traffic. I prefer a crosswind beyond the departure end so I can see the whole pattern or overfly far enough to come in on a 45.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tai
Velocity173 said:
If you got a face full at your altitude, then they did the overhead wrong.
Click to expand...
He might have been a hundred feet higher when I started to turn away. I assume he was descending at the time, but I'm not sure that I saw that.
 
ejensen said:
Mid-field crossover to downwind puts you belly up to planes on the 45 entry and possibly downwind traffic. I prefer a crosswind beyond the departure end so I can see the whole pattern or overfly far enough to come in on a 45.
Click to expand...
That's the solution that I've been trying out lately.
 
My field is left hand pattern on the charts and AF/D. A flight school here was entering right base from the practice areas probably to save a few minutes. Coming head on on base is not the best situation. Have heard it in awhile so maybe the complaints made them rethink things
 
tspear said:
Explain what was incorrect please.

Tim
Click to expand...

Well if they were following the procedure as laid out in the definition in the AIM, they'd be 500 ft above TPA.

Three facilities I worked ATC in the Marines and all had a break altitude 500 ft above the pattern. If they didn't, we'd have midairs all the time.
 
I don't know what an overhead break is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top