Flying straight in at uncontrolled field?

[dtuuri]

From the Airplane Flying Handbook:
"There are several ways to enter the pattern if you are coming from the upwind legs side of the airport. One method of entry from the opposite side of the pattern is to announce your intentions and cross over midfield at least 500 feet above pattern altitude (normally 1,500 feet AGL.) However, if large or turbine aircraft operate at your airport, it is best to remain 2,000 feet AGL so you’re not in conflict with their traffic pattern. When well clear of the pattern—approximately 2 miles—scan carefully for traffic, descend to pattern altitude, then turn right to enter at 45° to the downwind leg at midfield. [Figure 7-4A]

An alternate method is to enter on a midfield crosswind at pattern altitude, carefully scan for traffic, announce your intentions and then turned down downwind. [Figure 7-4B] This technique should not be used if the pattern is busy."

Ill use either one. My preference is based on airspace/weather/time limitations and the number of knuckleheads I anticipate being in the pattern. Look at KBVS, the class C around KNUW, and know that the San Juan islands are a big draw on a sunny day. You can see why I don't like doing the tear drop to the 45. Its like turning your back on a charging bear.

Thank you for quoting that, wilkersk. I hadn't seen the new version of AFH. It's a sad day. Your quoted text just shows how much the inmates have taken over the asylum. This is, of course, the long-time controversial method espoused by the so-called "Air Safety Institute" arm of the AOPA. No empirical evidence underlies the method taking into account closing rates, restricted vision, reaction time, etc. It's merely the opinion of, probably, one individual that sounded good and made its way into print. Following it, in my view, is a reckless travesty.

Let's examine the chapter a bit closer. I first noticed the drawing of a segmented circle. As a CFI, I'm looking at that trying to figure out how I'm going to make closed traffic with my student. Is there simply no editing going on here or does the author not recognize the conundrum posed? Are you supposed to make right traffic for both runways? What could be the advantage in that? Depart with a right turn, but land on the same runway with a left turn? Or is this simply the result of a student intern employed for the summer to rewrite this document?

Next, the description of a crosswind leg is not in compliance with the AIM:

Crosswind Leg− A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its upwind end.​

Looks like the "student-author" is mistaken about where a crosswind leg is located because s/he writes, "An alternate method is to enter on a midfield crosswind at pattern altitude..." Of course, there is no such thing.

As far as the "alternate method" goes, I surmise it was simply lifted from the ASI document so the little darling could quit work at five o'clock and make happy hour.

At least in Canada, they realize the midfield entry (their preferred) is not compatible with a 45° entry from the opposite side unless done at airports which require mandatory two-way radio communications. If the FAA wants to stand by the recent version of the AFH, then they should mandate the same requirement here. One or the other, midfield crossings at pattern altitude or no radio required, but not both at the same airport.

dtuuri

 

[wilkersk]

​

Thank you for quoting that, wilkersk. I hadn't seen the new version of AFH. It's a sad day. Your quoted text just shows how much the inmates have taken over the asylum. This is, of course, the long-time controversial method espoused by the so-called "Air Safety Institute" arm of the AOPA. No empirical evidence underlies the method taking into account closing rates, restricted vision, reaction time, etc. It's merely the opinion of, probably, one individual that sounded good and made its way into print. Following it, in my view, is a reckless travesty.

Let's examine the chapter a bit closer. I first noticed the drawing of a segmented circle. As a CFI, I'm looking at that trying to figure out how I'm going to make closed traffic with my student. Is there simply no editing going on here or does the author not recognize the conundrum posed? Are you supposed to make right traffic for both runways? What could be the advantage in that? Depart with a right turn, but land on the same runway with a left turn? Or is this simply the result of a student intern employed for the summer to rewrite this document?

Next, the description of a crosswind leg is not in compliance with the AIM:

Crosswind Leg− A flight path at right angles to the landing runway off its upwind end.​

Looks like the "student-author" is mistaken about where a crosswind leg is located because s/he writes, "An alternate method is to enter on a midfield crosswind at pattern altitude..." Of course, there is no such thing.

As far as the "alternate method" goes, I surmise it was simply lifted from the ASI document so the little darling could quit work at five o'clock and make happy hour.

At least in Canada, they realize the midfield entry (their preferred) is not compatible with a 45° entry from the opposite side unless done at airports which require mandatory two-way radio communications. If the FAA wants to stand by the recent version of the AFH, then they should mandate the same requirement here. One or the other, midfield crossings at pattern altitude or no radio required, but not both at the same airport.

dtuuri

ROFLMAO! I hadn't even looked at that. But, you're right on both counts! Still, as far as teardrop to the 45 vs midfield turn to downwind, I think the point is a little over-labored.

In my experience, even with students in the pattern and local old-bold types bombing into mix for the "5-mile-straight-in-final", someone approaching from the upwind side of the field can, with a little common-sense make a safe entry with either method. Sometimes conditions favor one over the other.

As far as the "closed-pattern" thats something the tower controller gives you at his/her discretion, it doesn't happen at an uncontrolled field, despite all the pronouncements on CTAF to the contrary.

 

[Palmpilot]

ROFLMAO! I hadn't even looked at that. But, you're right on both counts! Still, as far as teardrop to the 45 vs midfield turn to downwind, I think the point is a little over-labored.

The thing I have never liked about the teardrop to the 45 is that I lose sight of the airport, and sometimes I have trouble spotting it again if it's an unfamiliar area or a forested area.

In my experience, even with students in the pattern and local old-bold types bombing into mix for the "5-mile-straight-in-final", someone approaching from the upwind side of the field can, with a little common-sense make a safe entry with either method.

I don't make midfield "crosswind" entries because I would be concerned about the closure rate between myself and traffic on the 45. I prefer either an upwind entry or a crosswind entry off the departure end, because those methods would greatly reduce my closure rate with traffic in the pattern. (I think I got the idea for this from Dtuuri.)

As far as the "closed-pattern" thats something the tower controller gives you at his/her discretion, it doesn't happen at an uncontrolled field, despite all the pronouncements on CTAF to the contrary.

I don't understand this; can you explain? What prevents a pilot from staying in the pattern at an uncontrolled field?

 

[Timbeck2]

Wow, I had no idea there were that many definitions for the overhead pattern and NOW I know why you former squids and jarheads screw it up for the Air Force towers. The reason the pattern is higher is because it is normally reserved for jets but piston aircraft will commonly fly the overhead as well. At my patch of airport, the overhead is flown AT pattern altitude which is 4,200' for jets and 3,700' for piston aircraft directly over the runway in use and not "opposite direction" as someone else said earlier. It is flown just like a straight in but at pattern altitude. "Initial" is called 3-5 miles out and the controller will tell you pattern altitude and direction of turns (hopefully on initial contact which is further out than 3-5 miles) and sequence your break point with traffic that may be already in the pattern. Ex: "break midfield, following a T-38 downwind, approach end." The break is simply a 180 degree turn into the downwind (still at pattern altitude) and the perch is where they start their descent into the base leg.

 

[hindsight2020]

Wow, I had no idea there were that many definitions for the overhead pattern and NOW I know why you former squids and jarheads screw it up for the Air Force towers. The reason the pattern is higher is because it is normally reserved for jets but piston aircraft will commonly fly the overhead as well. At my patch of airport, the overhead is flown AT pattern altitude which is 4,200' for jets and 3,700' for piston aircraft directly over the runway in use and not "opposite direction" as someone else said earlier. It is flown just like a straight in but at pattern altitude. "Initial" is called 3-5 miles out and the controller will tell you pattern altitude and direction of turns (hopefully on initial contact which is further out than 3-5 miles) and sequence your break point with traffic that may be already in the pattern. Ex: "break midfield, following a T-38 downwind, approach end." The break is simply a 180 degree turn into the downwind (still at pattern altitude) and the perch is where they start their descent into the base leg.

Correct. @Velocity173 has made references his experience with Carswell (NAVY-controlled USN/USAF joint field, used to be an AFB) and Cherry point (an MCAS, which in aviation parlance is NAVY). I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest descending on the closed downwind leg of an overhead/initial break is a Navy thing.

The question then is, what does the civilian source document say regarding how civilian fields expect an initial overhead break pattern to be flown? This is semi-rhetorical, as I fly these things daily all over towered civil fields in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Louisiana, and everybody expects me and clears me to fly the way you've described, which is USAF standard. I am genuinely curious what their literature says; I still learn something new about this gig every now and then.

 

[CC268]

Wow this thread is still going? Congrats on a job well done PoA!

 

[Timbeck2]

I wouldn't know, I'm a DoD controller at a military airfield.

 

[dtuuri]

The question then is, what does the civilian source document say regarding how civilian fields expect an initial overhead break pattern to be flown?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say, since unless it's a joint civil/military base, there is no established overhead pattern so they have no expectations for anything other than an impromptu airshow.

dtuuri

 

[Velocity173]

Correct. @Velocity173 has made references his experience with Carswell (NAVY-controlled USN/USAF joint field, used to be an AFB) and Cherry point (an MCAS, which in aviation parlance is NAVY). I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest descending on the closed downwind leg of an overhead/initial break is a Navy thing.

The question then is, what does the civilian source document say regarding how civilian fields expect an initial overhead break pattern to be flown? This is semi-rhetorical, as I fly these things daily all over towered civil fields in Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Louisiana, and everybody expects me and clears me to fly the way you've described, which is USAF standard. I am genuinely curious what their literature says; I still learn something new about this gig every now and then.

The definition in the AIM states 500 ft above conventional TPA. Just looked at a few random AFBs. MMT, SSC, GSB, SPS and BLV. All had the overhead 500 ft above the rectangular pattern. Even BLV states to remain at or below 2000 within the airfield boundary to remain clear of the overhead pattern at 2500.

 

[hindsight2020]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say, since unless it's a joint civil/military base, there is no established overhead pattern so they have no expectations for anything other than an impromptu airshow.

dtuuri

And one we're honored to provide.

 

[wilkersk]

I don't understand this; can you explain? What prevents a pilot from staying in the pattern at an uncontrolled field?

If you're gonna remain in the pattern, say that(JMHO). "Closed Traffic" is the tower controller's clearance to make continuous circuits in the pattern without having to get specific clearance for each segment at a towered airport.

http://atccommunication.com/make-closed-traffic-at-a-towered-airport

 

[tspear]

Wow, I had no idea there were that many definitions for the overhead pattern and NOW I know why you former squids and jarheads screw it up for the Air Force towers. The reason the pattern is higher is because it is normally reserved for jets but piston aircraft will commonly fly the overhead as well. At my patch of airport, the overhead is flown AT pattern altitude which is 4,200' for jets and 3,700' for piston aircraft directly over the runway in use and not "opposite direction" as someone else said earlier. It is flown just like a straight in but at pattern altitude. "Initial" is called 3-5 miles out and the controller will tell you pattern altitude and direction of turns (hopefully on initial contact which is further out than 3-5 miles) and sequence your break point with traffic that may be already in the pattern. Ex: "break midfield, following a T-38 downwind, approach end." The break is simply a 180 degree turn into the downwind (still at pattern altitude) and the perch is where they start their descent into the base leg.

Likely me on the opposite. I stated it incorrectly... What you describe is exactly what I was taught.

Tim

 

[Timbeck2]

The definition in the AIM states 500 ft above conventional TPA. Just looked at a few random AFBs. MMT, SSC, GSB, SPS and BLV. All had the overhead 500 ft above the rectangular pattern. Even BLV states to remain at or below 2000 within the airfield boundary to remain clear of the overhead pattern at 2500.

You can include DMA in that list as well. Conventional TPA is for the props. If you're flying a jet its 500' above just like I described above.

 

[Ronbonjovi]

Based out of an uncontrolled field that receives quite a bit of traffic. From my observations it seems almost all aircraft carrying passengers will fly straight in final approaches. With good communication and broadcasting positions it has never been a problem for me while shooting touch n gos. There was one time someone did not make any announcements and that made for a butt puckering experience as he came out of the clouds.

 

[Velocity173]

You can include DMA in that list as well. Conventional TPA is for the props. If you're flying a jet its 500' above just like I described above.

Yeah, if you have a separate prop pattern vs fighter, that makes sense. The references I gave make no distinction between prop vs jet. They just have a rectangular pattern altitude and an overhead altitude which is 500 ft above it. TIK is another good one with a rectangular / closed pattern of 3000 and an overhead altitude of 3500. LSF, F/W 1800, overhead 2300, R/W 1000.

Not saying 500 ft ABV TPA break is standard everywhere, but there are plenty of places where it is. That's why using the IFR sup or a course rules brief is a good idea.

 

[dmspilot]

I noticed a couple months back that the new AFH had added information on traffic pattern entries other than the normally advised 45° entry. Was wondering when somebody would bring it up.

On another but related note, the new Aviation Weather book is horrifying. What's the standard lapse rate in degrees C per thousand feet? I wouldn't know it from reading that book because it's only given in meters. And did you know that all life on Earth requires oxygen to survive?

I first noticed the drawing of a segmented circle. As a CFI, I'm looking at that trying to figure out how I'm going to make closed traffic with my student. Is there simply no editing going on here or does the author not recognize the conundrum posed? Are you supposed to make right traffic for both runways? What could be the advantage in that? Depart with a right turn, but land on the same runway with a left turn? Or is this simply the result of a student intern employed for the summer to rewrite this document?

I'm actually not having a problem with that drawing, can you clarify what the issue is?

 

[Timbeck2]

Velocity, I think we're saying the same thing here. It was just explained earlier that Marines and Navy were trained to fly 500' above TPA and Air Force guys are too. I think where we got off in the weeds is that the overhead pattern is always 500' above the conventional pattern. Some took that meaning to be 500' above the overhead pattern and I've seen Marine and Navy pilots come up initial 500' above the overhead pattern many times before, which is why I mentioned that I know NOW why they screw it up.

If a Jarhead or Squid hears, "pattern altitude four thousand two hundred" and decides to fly 500' above that altitude, they're wrong. Controllers don't differentiate between conventional or overhead. They know what altitude pattern altitude is for your particular airplane/approach.

 

[dtuuri]

I'm actually not having a problem with that drawing, can you clarify what the issue is?

Those traffic pattern indicators apply to both landing and departure turns not just landing. See the arrows showing the "Application of Traffic Pattern Indicators" in the AIM, FIG 4-3-2:

EDIT: Also note the incorrect drawing, as an aside, of the entry leg placement. The whole purpose for entering "midfield" is to create space with closed traffic that may be climbing and turning to downwind near the departure end of the runway. As it's drawn, the plane is shown entering a high-impact area. You don't "Aim at the midpoint of the runway," you "Aim to turn downwind abeam the midpoint of the runway." Why aren't CFIs catching this stuff and telling the FAA to fix it?

dtuuri

 

[Palmpilot]

If you're gonna remain in the pattern, say that(JMHO). "Closed Traffic" is the tower controller's clearance to make continuous circuits in the pattern without having to get specific clearance for each segment at a towered airport.

http://atccommunication.com/make-closed-traffic-at-a-towered-airport

I don't see anything at that reference that indicates the term is improper at an uncontrolled field. The P/CG certainly doesn't:

CLOSED TRAFFIC− Successive operations involving
takeoffs and landings or low approaches where
the aircraft does not exit the traffic pattern.​

 

[dmspilot]

Those traffic pattern indicators apply to both landing and departure turns not just landing. See the arrows showing the "Application of Traffic Pattern Indicators" in the AIM, FIG 4-3-2:View attachment 54266

EDIT: Also note the incorrect drawing, as an aside, of the entry leg placement. The whole purpose for entering "midfield" is to create space with closed traffic that may be climbing and turning to downwind near the departure end of the runway. As it's drawn, the plane is shown entering a high-impact area. You don't "Aim at the midpoint of the runway," you "Aim to turn downwind abeam the midpoint of the runway." Why aren't CFIs catching this stuff and telling the FAA to fix it?

dtuuri

I disagree. The L shape at the 12:00 position on the segmented circle is there NOT to depict a left departure to crosswind turn when taking off to the north, but a right base to final turn when landing to the south. Using your method of interpreting the L indicators would yield the wrong answer for departure if the traffic patterns are not on the same side of the airport; e.g. if the runway is left traffic in both directions or right traffic in both directions. The new AFH is better and explains this nuance correctly.

 

[Palmpilot]

I disagree. The L shape at the 12:00 position on the segmented circle is there NOT to depict a left departure to crosswind turn when taking off to the north, but a right base to final turn when landing to the south. Using your method of interpreting the L indicators would yield the wrong answer for departure if the traffic patterns are not on the same side of the airport; e.g. if the runway is left traffic in both directions or right traffic in both directions. The new AFH is better and explains this nuance correctly.

The AIM figure he posted shows that the each direction-of-turn symbol applies to both landing and takeoff. So if you were in the pattern at an airport that had a traffic pattern indicator like the one in the AFH, you would have to cross over the runway to get to the downwind in order to make the downwind-to-base and base-to-final turns in the specified direction.

A traffic pattern indicator is unnecessary if left turns are specified for landings on both ends of the same runway, because that's the default procedure specified in the regulations. Have you ever seen a runway where right traffic was specified for landings on both ends of the same runway?

 

[dmspilot]

The AIM figure he posted shows that the each direction of turn symbol applies to both landing and takeoff.

A segmented circle is unnecessary if left turns are specified for landings on both ends of the same runway. Have you ever seen a runway where right traffic was specified for landings on both ends of the same runway?

Doesn't matter whether I've seen one or not.

The AFH has the same kind of drawing and description in the 2004 edition, albeit not in fancy 3D graphics. So dturri's criticism, whether legitimate or not, is at least 13 years overdue.

 

[flyingron]

I'll agree with PalmPilot with the exception of his misuse of "segmented circle." The segmented circle is the circle around the windsock, it's got nothing to do with the traffic pattern. What he is referring to is the "traffic pattern indicators" used when a runway has right traffic (the part that makes the landing strip indicator and L).

 

[Palmpilot]

I'll agree with PalmPilot with the exception of his misuse of "segmented circle." The segmented circle is the circle around the windsock, it's got nothing to do with the traffic pattern. What he is referring to is the "traffic pattern indicators" used when a runway has right traffic (the part that makes the landing strip indicator and L).

Thanks for setting me straight! Corrected.

 

[Palmpilot]

Doesn't matter whether I've seen one or not.

I don't think they exist outside of the AFH, but I haven't been to every airport, so I guess there's at least a theoretical possibility that one might exist somewhere.

I think Dtuuri's point was that the usual reason for having a nonstandard direction of turns is to put the pattern on the same side of the runway regardless of which direction planes are landing and taking off. Specifying right traffic for both ends of the runway would not accomplish that purpose.

The AFH has the same kind of drawing and description in the 2004 edition, albeit not in fancy 3D graphics. So dturri's criticism, whether legitimate or not, is at least 13 years overdue.

Apparently so.

 

[dtuuri]

I disagree. The L shape at the 12:00 position on the segmented circle is there NOT to depict a left departure to crosswind turn when taking off to the north, but a right base to final turn when landing to the south. Using your method of interpreting the L indicators would yield the wrong answer for departure if the traffic patterns are not on the same side of the airport; e.g. if the runway is left traffic in both directions or right traffic in both directions. The new AFH is better and explains this nuance correctly.

It would be foolish to place traffic pattern indicators showing right hand turns for both runways--airplanes would still fly on each side of the airport depending on the wind. Even more foolish to put them showing left traffic, because that's standard. I've never seen an FAA publication before that stated the base leg is the reference for the "L" indicator. If it was in an earlier version it just proves today's CFIs and students are asleep. The last printed version I have in my archives is the Flight Training Handbook and it doesn't say that. In 50+ years I've never seen a depiction (swastika?) like shown:

​

EDIT: Btw, it isn't "my" method of interpreting, it's the AIM's way. Didn't you see the red circles in my earlier post?

dtuuri

 

[ejensen]

Not sure when we last had a traffic pattern indicator. Maybe because we're standard.

 

[Harold Rutila]

I've never seen an FAA publication before that stated the base leg is the reference for the "L" indicator. If it was in an earlier version it just proves today's CFIs and students are asleep.

It says this right inside the image you posted.

"Traffic pattern indicators (indicates the location of base leg)."

I agree it's nonsensical to have these when the pattern is standard, but the point of the diagram is to explain the purpose of the traffic pattern indicators, which it appears to be doing.

 

[Harold Rutila]

If you're gonna remain in the pattern, say that(JMHO). "Closed Traffic" is the tower controller's clearance to make continuous circuits in the pattern without having to get specific clearance for each segment at a towered airport.

http://atccommunication.com/make-closed-traffic-at-a-towered-airport

Wow, I can tell you that this is not being taught at the FAA. They require use of "closed traffic" phraseology and then deduct points from trainees when each of those pattern aircraft are not explicitly cleared for the option each pass.

 

[dtuuri]

It says this right inside the image you posted.

"Traffic pattern indicators (indicates the location of base leg)."

Right, that's what I'm saying--it's the first place I've seen it and is incorrect or only half the truth. It points in the direction departure traffic turns as well.

I agree it's nonsensical to have these when the pattern is standard, but the point of the diagram is to explain the purpose of the traffic pattern indicators, which it appears to be doing.

That diagram is not the way indicators are to be set. It shows a figure-eight pattern not rectangular. It shows a right-hand turnout followed by a left-hand approach to the same runway.

dtuuri

 

[TheGolfPilot]

Lots of Far and aim talk, but nobody has mentioned Advisor Circular 90-66a. Straight in approaches are permitted and are legal as long as they to not interfere with other aircraft operating in the appropriate left or right traffic pattern...
Or an approach, it is generally considered a straight in if it is aligned within 30 degrees of the centerline at least 5 miles out. "Generally" is used because 5 miles out is super close for a 747 or something while it's like forever and some more for a 152.

 

[dmspilot]

Btw, it isn't "my" method of interpreting, it's the AIM's way. Didn't you see the the red circles in my earlier post?

No, I saw them. Unless the AIM decides to depict a runway in which both traffic patterns have the same direction of turns (both left or both right), it is ambiguous and open to interpretation.

 

[dtuuri]

No, I saw them. Unless the AIM decides to depict a runway in which both traffic patterns have the same direction of turns (both left or both right), it is ambiguous and open to interpretation.

I need pictures, please draw me what you mean.

dtuuri

 

[coloradobluesky]

Most pilots just look at their GPS database to tell them right or left traffic. Easy enough to understand and you can read it well in advance of getting to the airport.

 

[dmspilot]

I need pictures, please draw me what you mean.

What are you talking about? The AFH picture is what I am talking about. It un-ambiguously depicts what the traffic pattern indicators would look like for left traffic for both runways. The AIM doesn't have a picture of that scenario. I can't draw one for you as I am not an author of the AIM.

Unless it says somewhere that it is never possible to have right traffic at both ends, and that the indicators will never be used if left traffic is used at both ends. Does it say that somewhere? If not, the AIM is ambiguous.

 

[dtuuri]

What are you talking about? The AFH picture is what I am talking about. It un-ambiguously depicts what the traffic pattern indicators would look like for left traffic for both runways.

What it does is depict a traffic pattern like this:

​

The AIM doesn't have a picture of that scenario. I can't draw one for you as I am not an author of the AIM.

That scenario wouldn't make sense, no doubt why the AIM hasn't got it.

Unless it says somewhere that it is never possible to have right traffic at both ends, and that the indicators will never be used if left traffic is used at both ends. Does it say that somewhere? If not, the AIM is ambiguous.

Right traffic at both ends would result in the same ground tracks (on both sides of the airport) as left traffic, the planes just pointed in the opposite directions. Standard patterns are not to be depicted according to AC No: 150/5340-5D:

Only the “L” shaped indicators, formed by using the landing strip and traffic
pattern indicators referred to above, are required for compliance with Title 14 CFR part 91, General Operating And Flight Rules, AND ARE USED ONLY ON RUNWAYS USING RIGHT-HAND TRAFFIC PATTERNS.​

Those are FAA caps, btw, not mine.

FWIW, the Private Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge used to say, "Similar treatment of the indicator at the departure end of the runway will clearly indicate the direction of turn to join the crosswind leg of the traffic pattern after takeoff." Unfortunately, today's version of PHAK has been corrupted by the same "student-intern" as the AFH, so the language is missing.

dtuuri

 

[Witmo]

I don't see anything at that reference that indicates the term is improper at an uncontrolled field. The P/CG certainly doesn't:

CLOSED TRAFFIC− Successive operations involving
takeoffs and landings or low approaches where
the aircraft does not exit the traffic pattern.​

Exactly. "Closed traffic" just means your staying in the pattern until further notice. If you happen to be at a towered field, you still need a clearance to land or do the option. There is nothing wrong with calling closed traffic at uncontrolled fields.

 

[Lindberg]

What it does is depict a traffic pattern like this:

View attachment 54274​

Why are the two base legs connected?

 

[Sac Arrow]

I'm not an instrument pilot. How long is the final segment typically?

I honestly wonder who has the right-of-way sometimes. For example, my airport is 17-35. The instrument pilots like to fly the approach for 17, even when the winds favor 35. I've seen many pilots take off when a plane was coming toward them saying they were going missed. Sometimes they get closer than I would feel comfortable with.

More often than not at an uncontrolled field, unless it is equipped with a precision approach (e.g. ILS or RNAV WAAS), it will be a circling approach, and once the IFR pilot is dumped in to visual conditions at or above approach minimums, then it becomes a matter of setting up for a pattern entry for the runway appropriate for the winds, including merging with whatever VFR traffic that might be present.

In the case you cite, it is usually much more expedient to fly the approach favoring your direction of travel and circle for landing, vs. setting up for the opposite end approach, which can be a substantial detour.

I don't fly instrument approaches in to uncontrolled airfields in VMC conditions often (insert Dos Equis man meme) but when I do, I treat pattern entry the same way I treat a VFR arrival.

 

[tspear]

How often do you actually do a circling approach? And you know that a circling approach is often at a much lower altitude then TPA?

Tim