Flying straight in at uncontrolled field?

[dtuuri]

Why are the two base legs connected?

It's depicted that way? It doesn't make sense to me either, which is the first thing I noticed when I opened the chapter.

Think about it like this:

1. Left-hand traffic is not to be depicted with pattern indicators at all.
2. Right-hand traffic on each end of the same runway would serve no purpose, since the pattern would overfly the very same tracks on each side of the airport as a left-hand pattern, just going in the opposite direction. The hazard(s) would not be avoided.
3. Consequently, only runways with a left-hand pattern on one end and a right-hand pattern for the other would accomplish a purpose and need traffic pattern indicators. In that case, the direction pointers apply to both landing and departing turns and are connected in a rectangular way.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

...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.

Here's a few cases. The first is Boardman's appeal of a decision against him. The second is an appeal of the appeal that went against him. The footnotes and references to earlier cases are interesting, but complicated. There are confusing things, like "30° cone" and whether an approach is a straight-in or not depends on distance. Or does it depend on type of aircraft? Or was it the types of other aircraft that may be using the airport?

https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/3523.pdf
https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/3671.pdf​

The third is more cut and dry, a pilot penalizing straight-in approaches by cutting in front of them on final. But, other than the deliberate safety hazard from that, the decision seems to contradict the rationale in Boardman, i.e., straight-in approaches must not interfere with local traffic. Go figure.

https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/OnODocuments/Aviation/4236.pdf​

You can search for others here, good luck. Not very user friendly:

https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/_layouts/ntsb.common.onoweb/query.aspx​

dtuuri

 

[Sac Arrow]

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

If the runway is not coincident with the final approach, you don't have a choice. But minimums in non-precision approaches aren't often much lower than TPA. Either way, if you have to do a circle at lower than TPA altitude, then you -shouldn't- encounter VFR traffic to begin with.

 

[spiderweb]

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?

Fly a standard pattern, in general; fly straight in, if you're quite sure it creates no conflicts; but always ALWAYS err on the side of safety, whatever you choose.

 

[tspear]

If the runway is not coincident with the final approach, you don't have a choice. But minimums in non-precision approaches aren't often much lower than TPA. Either way, if you have to do a circle at lower than TPA altitude, then you -shouldn't- encounter VFR traffic to begin with.

Maybe we fly into different locations. For example:
2G4, RNAV 9. TPA = 4000, Circle 3340 to 3500 depending on category.
KBWI, ILS 10, TPA = 1200, Circle 640-740 depending on category.

Every place I checked circle to land is generally between 400-600 ft lower then TPA. I would think 400 ft is is significant, but that is my judgement call, this represents 40-60% decrease.
In terms of hazard, more of a question mark for me.

Tim

 

[Clip4]

"Under the established interpretation noted in Dibble, any
turn into a straight-in approach must be made sufficiently far
from the runway that it does not interfere with the normal
traffic pattern"

 

[Palmpilot]

...You can search for others here, good luck. Not very user friendly:

https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/alj/_layouts/ntsb.common.onoweb/query.aspx​

I already tried that. It turned up a few cases, but not the one that claimed it was a violation for a straight-in aircraft to interfere with traffic in the pattern.

 

[danhagan]

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.

And there are bunch that don't update databases or the old sectionals. I could hear pilots transmitting on our "old CTAF" 3 years after the frequency change occurred at our field.

Most fields aren't going to care how you approach, especially if they're low volume. If the field has ANY noise abatement, then all the Barney Fife's in the area will be watching with binoculars trying to get N numbers. That'll be the only way you ever get a complaint.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Maybe we fly into different locations. For example:
2G4, RNAV 9. TPA = 4000, Circle 3340 to 3500 depending on category.
KBWI, ILS 10, TPA = 1200, Circle 640-740 depending on category.

Every place I checked circle to land is generally between 400-600 ft lower then TPA. I would think 400 ft is is significant, but that is my judgement call, this represents 40-60% decrease.
In terms of hazard, more of a question mark for me.

Tim

Again, I was referring to non towered airports with non precision approaches as I believe this was pertinent to the discussion. Yes ILS and RNAV circling minimums are generally quite a bit lower than TPA.

 

[tspear]

Again, I was referring to non towered airports with non precision approaches as I believe this was pertinent to the discussion. Yes ILS and RNAV circling minimums are generally quite a bit lower than TPA.

2G4 is non-towered. Every variation of GPS I have seen are lower then TPA for circling altitude; in fact all GPS approaches are considered non-precision. Even an old VOR approach is normally 600ft AGL which is 40% less then TPA.

Your second point on the hazard aspect is the most critical part. Unless the airport has Class E to the surface, you have the legal possibility that some yahoo is flying around at 699 or 1199 ft AGL in Class G, and you can fly right into them. Hence why it is hazardous. Therefore, if flying into an airport with ardent but risky pilots, you want to either have the ceiling so low they cannot scud run in pattern or high enough that you can see and avoid...

Tim

 

[Timbeck2]

Hey OP! Yes,...the answer is yes you can, just be careful, head on a swivel, ears perked for other traffic, watch the runway, etc, etc.

 

[Harold Rutila]

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

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

Very interesting. I see what you're saying now.

The reason I never thought the traffic pattern indicators could indicate the direction to turn crosswind is because of this very part of the AFH. Thanks for the link to the AC.

 

[ircphoenix]

And there are bunch that don't update databases or the old sectionals. I could hear pilots transmitting on our "old CTAF" 3 years after the frequency change occurred at our field.

Most fields aren't going to care how you approach, especially if they're low volume. If the field has ANY noise abatement, then all the Barney Fife's in the area will be watching with binoculars trying to get N numbers. That'll be the only way you ever get a complaint.

Noise abatement... PITA. Like an HOA for planes.

Got a violation notice from the home drome because one of the student pilots flew out and "made an early left turn." What happened was he appeared to drift 3 or 4 degrees to the left over the course of 2-3 miles. Such nonsense.

The other violation I got was another early left turn... At 93 feet MSL. Field elevation is 107. That was a new one.

 

[danhagan]

Noise abatement... PITA. Like an HOA for planes.

Got a violation notice from the home drome because one of the student pilots flew out and "made an early left turn." What happened was he appeared to drift 3 or 4 degrees to the left over the course of 2-3 miles. Such nonsense.

I don't fly into these types of airports much ... usually the locals near these fields are looking for any excuse to start something up Never had anything happen to me, but hear the stories ...

 

[tspear]

Noise abatement... PITA. Like an HOA for planes.

Got a violation notice from the home drome because one of the student pilots flew out and "made an early left turn." What happened was he appeared to drift 3 or 4 degrees to the left over the course of 2-3 miles. Such nonsense.

The other violation I got was another early left turn... At 93 feet MSL. Field elevation is 107. That was a new one.

An acquaintance of mine likes to take his straight pipe Harley through neighborhoods that complain about aircraft noise. He then drives around at 25 in first gear, you can hear his bike over a mile away.

Tim

 

[SkyHog]

It's so easy to just do it the recommended way.

To do it otherwise, because the law may not mandate it, smacks of one of the 5 hazardous attitudes we're warned to look out for.

Want to guess which one?

Is "Economical" one of the 5 hazardous behaviors?

 

[AU_James]

Having not yet started my IFR training, I have always wondered if pilots swap to the CTAF to make any announcements when doing approaches to a pilot-controlled field (whether practice approaches or the real thing)?

Also agree that you should do what feels safe and right for the environment in which you're flying. If I am 100% unfamiliar with the airport, I'll do the overhead into the teardrop for a 45 degree all day. But if I'm very familiar and being vigilant (looking, listening constantly), I'll mix up the entry from a crosswind to downwind or straight in. I'll emphasize my non-standard radio calls.


WAIT NO, I'VE SOLVED IT!! What if we just make all airports with circular runways?!? That completely solves the question as to pattern entry AND means that at the very moment the wheels touch the runway you won't ever have any crosswinds. Done.

My goodness, 5 pages of posts and finally some common sense...

 

[dtuuri]

Having not yet started my IFR training, I have always wondered if pilots swap to the CTAF to make any announcements when doing approaches to a pilot-controlled field (whether practice approaches or the real thing)?

Yes, of course. Usually ATC tells you to change to advisory frequency when they clear you to make an approach.

If I am 100% unfamiliar with the airport, I'll do the overhead into the teardrop for a 45 degree all day. But if I'm very familiar and being vigilant (looking, listening constantly), I'll mix up the entry from a crosswind to downwind or straight in. I'll emphasize my non-standard radio calls.

If, when you say "crosswind", you mean the midfield variety (which is not really a crosswind according to the AIM), how do your emphasized "non-standard [pattern] radio calls" avoid traffic that's unequipped with radios, since they aren't mandatory here in the USA?

When you say, "I'll do the overhead into the teardrop for a 45...", you don't mention a descent. Are you saying you do that during the teardrop turn?

I'll ask you, too, since the OP and wilkersk haven't given me an answer to my question a few pages back, "What do you think is my best argument against the midfield entry to downwind at pattern altitude the AFH now sanctions as an alternative?" I doubt the author of that opinion has even considered it.

dtuuri

 

[AU_James]

Usually ATC tells you to change to advisory frequency when they clear you to make an approach.

Thanks for that response. I didn't know if ATC actually tells you to change or if the pilot took it upon himself to listen to both/broadcast on the CTAF when they had the chance. It makes sense that ATC would tell you, though, so you don't add juggling multiple frequencies to your already busy workload at that point.

By "crosswind" I was mainly referring to crossing over the departure end numbers. That's how I was taught, at least, but several years ago the person I would fly a lot with would almost always cross over midfield if coming from that direction. As for the radio calls to help avoid traffic without radios, obviously they won't know where I am or where I'm coming from regardless (especially based on some people's responses to this topic), unless there were a standard way to doing things. Hence the point of doing what is safe for the environment.

And yes, I didn't say it but I begin the descent to TPA a mile or two (depending on the airport and traffic situation) after passing the airport, typically before I begin the turn, continue the descent through the turn until I'm at TPA and heading in on a 45 to downwind.

I would think that the best argument against the midfield entry (or ANY other entry) is that it's not "standard." Standardization allows anybody at any airport to "know" where to look for traffic whether regardless of if there are radios installed or if the pilot is on the wrong frequency. It's why we learn a standard pre-flight routine and follow standard practices that can transfer between aircraft or cockpits. It reduces the chances of something out of the ordinary from going unnoticed, which could otherwise be devastating.

Another argument against the midfield entry is that it forces the aircraft entering the pattern to perform another 90 degree turn to downwind. No matter where your wing is, 90 degree turns create blind spots and in the pattern that's never comfortable, even if unavoidable.

I didn't quite emphasize it in my post, but if I'm unfamiliar with an airport, meaning I'm not aware of how busy it is or what type of traffic uses it, etc, then I'm going to stick to what I think is standard/best practice which to my knowledge is the 45 degree to downwind entry. If that requires me to overfly the field 1000' above TPA then that's what I'll do. Why? Because I think that's the safest way to approach a pilot-controlled field, period, and it should be the standard and therefore increase safety for all pilots.

 

[FastEddieB]

I didn't quite emphasize it in my post, but if I'm unfamiliar with an airport, meaning I'm not aware of how busy it is or what type of traffic uses it, etc, then I'm going to stick to what I think is standard/best practice which to my knowledge is the 45 degree to downwind entry. If that requires me to overfly the field 1000' above TPA then that's what I'll do. Why? Because I think that's the safest way to approach a pilot-controlled field, period, and it should be the standard and therefore increase safety for all pilots.

Agreed, except "familiarity breeds contempt". Not sure why one would choose the "safest way to approach" most of the time - and kudos for that - but then not do it at familiar fields.

 

[dtuuri]

Trying to take in all this information. I was thinking if I ought to start a separate thread but hoped maybe I could just get a couple of quick answers for a student like me.

Let me just say, in the few flights I've had (11) with some different instructors, at our untowered airport we have only done a pattern on return from practice 2 times, and both times were because the wind was not in the prevailing direction but shifted so we were using runway 12 instead of 31.

I think maybe my airport where I am learning is a bit of a strange situation maybe.

You fly in Norway? Is that why the reciprocal runway from "12" is "31" not "30"? Something to do with being close to the North Pole? I don't know if USA and Norway utilize the same pattern procedures. Canada is quite different from our own. England too.

So a plane joining from a 45 deg. on the downwind would have to somehow (how?) adjust where he breaks into the pattern to have the right separation?

Here's how pattern's are perceived by six different individuals entering their respective patterns at the same USA uncontrolled airport--with one red outlier using the midfield method from the opposite side, labeled "You" (this was drawn for someone else):
dtuuri

 

[AU_James]

but then not do it at familiar fields.

100% agree. I never said that I don't do it at familiar fields. But if I've been in the local training area, never leaving the CTAF, I've looked at the schedule and know how busy the airport is (small, small airport), I know there are no aircraft based on the field without radios equipped, I'm still constantly looking for any traffic not on the radio and come to the conclusion that with all my resources available I'm most likely the only person in the air around here, I'll save the extra 4-5 minutes and do a crosswind entry.

I'm sure I'll get flak for saying it, but I would be perfectly fine if a regulation required one specific pattern entry. Though, that may just shift the dangerous area to where that initial fix would be rather than in the pattern itself...

 

[tspear]

When I fly under IFR, and I am approaching an uncontrolled airport, I start listening to CTAF about 5 minutes out on Com 2 while staying with the controller. Usually, if the controller has not released me I will do a call on the CTAF about 3 minutes out, and then switch the mic back to the controller.

Tim

 

[tspear]

I do not often see Nordo traffic, since most of my flying has been on the east coast.
How ever, what I find funny is all the comments about looking for traffic in the standard location, use the pattern! Well, when I lived at an airpark in TN, none of the Ag planes bothered with radio calls, and none of them flew standard patterns. None of the old un-powered Nordo craft flew standard patterns.
So for me at least, the whole point of a "standard pattern" to find the Nordo craft is actually rather pointless. But hey, that is just my rather limited experience.

Tim

 

[dtuuri]

By "crosswind" I was mainly referring to crossing over the departure end numbers.

The farther you fly upwind before turning crosswind, the more time you have to spot other aircraft. Flying over the numbers or nearly so is what caused the midair at McKinney, TX earlier this year. The setting sun behind him blinded the Luscombe climbing on the downwind.

And yes, I didn't say it but I begin the descent to TPA a mile or two (depending on the airport and traffic situation) after passing the airport, typically before I begin the turn, continue the descent through the turn until I'm at TPA and heading in on a 45 to downwind.

That is my observation of how most (all?) pilots do the so-called "teardrop" (I call it an "ampersand" & ). It isn't compliant with the written description. You're supposed to descend before making the turn. The distance/time flying away from the 'drome is too much for the average and above average pilot to take, so they turn while descending. Not good.

I would think that the best argument against the midfield entry (or ANY other entry) is that it's not "standard."

I think the best argument is it points you right straight at somebody doing the very same thing coming from the other side. You each have low frontal area and are closing at maximum speed, no radio required.

dtuuri

 

[LongRoadBob]

You fly in Norway? Is that why the reciprocal runway from "12" is "31" not "30"? Something to do with being close to the North Pole? I don't know if USA and Norway utilize the same pattern procedures. Canada is quite different from our own. England too.


Here's how pattern's are perceived by six different individuals entering their respective patterns at the same USA uncontrolled airport--with one red outlier using the midfield method from the opposite side, labeled "You" (this was drawn for someone else):
dtuuriView attachment 54301

D'oh...yes of course, it is 12 and 31. I meant 31 but wrote 30. No, nothing to do with nearness to thenorthpole

I'm really puzzled by what your drawing is showing. Can you elaborate?

I deleted the post you were replying to because I felt I was derailing this thread which has its own impetus. I'll still keep checking here anyway so I will see any answer you give. Thanks!

 

[Palmpilot]

...I'm really puzzled by what your drawing is showing. Can you elaborate?...

The black rectangles with rounded corners represent the fact that some pilots fly a tighter pattern than others. The heavy black angled lines show what a 45-degree entry to each of those examples would look like. The red flight path represents a midfield "crosswind" entry.

Maybe it was a mistake to piggyback in this thread with related but different questions. Thinking maybe I should start a thread so those inclined to answer can, as this thread has other priorities, and rightly so. Apologies for derailing.

Thread drift is a tradition!

 

[Lindberg]

You fly in Norway? Is that why the reciprocal runway from "12" is "31" not "30"? Something to do with being close to the North Pole? I don't know if USA and Norway utilize the same pattern procedures. Canada is quite different from our own. England too.


Here's how pattern's are perceived by six different individuals entering their respective patterns at the same USA uncontrolled airport--with one red outlier using the midfield method from the opposite side, labeled "You" (this was drawn for someone else):
dtuuriView attachment 54301

Based on your drawing, everyone's path crosses everyone else's path.

 

[CC268]

Wow

 

[wayne]

No problem with a straight in approach. Just like any other though, get on the local frequency, listen to see where the other traffic is and announce you position and intentions. Adjust your flight as needed; slow down, speed up, 360, join the pattern, whatever is needed to stay safe.

 

[Palmpilot]

Based on your drawing, everyone's path crosses everyone else's path.

To me, the biggest issue is that the relative speed (i.e., closure rate) between aircraft on a midfield "crosswind" entry and a 45 degree entry is higher than any of the other potential conflicts shown, giving the pilots less time to see and avoid.

 

[Palmpilot]

Why are the two base legs connected?

The way the AFH diagram is drawn, if you were staying in the pattern, you would have to fly a right crosswind and then cross over the field in order to be in a position to fly a left base as depicted.

 

[wilkersk]

Why are the two base legs connected?

Here's my take on this very poor figure 7-2: If the pattern indicator is taken at face value, it ONLY represents the BASE leg for each runway. Therefore, figure 7-2 show the pattern is a left hand pattern for both directions.

However, the AIM says that pattern indicators are used where the pattern is "non-standard". Say, your airport has a housing development on the east side, so all patterns are to be flown to the west. The north runway would require a righthand pattern. So, the segmented circle would have pattern indicators showing a left hand pattern for the south runway, and a right hand pattern for the north runway. So, my conclusion is that fig 7-2 is just stupid; ....next topic, please!

 

[wilkersk]

Oh yeah, what does the traffic indicator look like when they want you to use a right hand pattern for both runways? Those of you posting the figure 8 pattern in response to the afh figure 7-2, check out KFHR. Get the satellite view on google maps to see the segmented circle.

 

[Palmpilot]

I'll be darned - you found one!

 

[dtuuri]

Oh yeah, what does the traffic indicator look like when they want you to use a right hand pattern for both runways? Those of you posting the figure 8 pattern in response to the afh figure 7-2, check out KFHR. Get the satellite view on google maps to see the segmented circle.

You're good, wilkersk.

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.5211301,-123.0240017,495m/data=!3m1!1e3​

Now tell me why a right crosswind is better than a left base leg and a right base leg is better than a left crosswind on both runways. If it makes sense, I guess I must concede the symbol is needed.

dtuuri

 

[dmspilot]

Oh yeah, what does the traffic indicator look like when they want you to use a right hand pattern for both runways? Those of you posting the figure 8 pattern in response to the afh figure 7-2, check out KFHR. Get the satellite view on google maps to see the segmented circle.

I asked that question, and I was told there was a 0% probability of that occuring.

Case closed. The AFH is correct, and the AIM is ambiguous, and needs an example of the above and a clearer explanation of how to interpret the indicators.

 

[Palmpilot]

I asked that question, and I was told there was a 0% probability of that occuring....

Hey, at least I admitted that it was a theoretical possibility!

 

[dtuuri]

I asked that question, and I was told there was a 0% probability of that occuring.

I recall saying it would be foolish.

Case closed. The AFH is correct, and the AIM is ambiguous, and needs an example of the above and a clearer explanation of how to interpret the indicators.

Then they should re-do AC 150/5340-5D too. Gonna look real silly with traffic patterns flying right over the hazards/populated areas. The only way to avoid that is have both indicators point in the same compass direction.

dtuuri

 

[wilkersk]

You're good, wilkersk.

https://www.google.com/maps/@48.5211301,-123.0240017,495m/data=!3m1!1e3​

Now tell me why a right crosswind is better than a left base leg and a right base leg is better than a left crosswind on both runways. If it makes sense, I guess I must concede the symbol is needed.

dtuuri

One word: NOISE. With the right traffic pattern for both runways, you'll have the power back over the expensive homes.