How to enter pattern

stingray said:
I will try and look it up but I think the FAR states that you cannot start less than a 4 mile final if you want to come straight in.
Click to expand...
You can try, but I don't think you'll succeed in finding such a rule in the FAR's. Read Boardman and Fekete, above, for the real law on this issue.
 
Ron Levy said:
Only in Canada, not the USA.
Click to expand...

If you look at Dan's other post you will see that the ruling says you have to be at least 2000' above the airport, Dan mentions you cannot be over 2000' over the airport. Just backwards. Not sure if he wrote it wrong or understood it wrong.

Dan
 
Ron Levy said:
Probably because there isn't one. Read Boardman (above) carefully -- it's all situations. In some situations, six miles might be too close; in others, two miles might be fine.
Click to expand...

I see it now, you have to be so far out it did not give a specific distance. The one I read was probably refering to a particular aircraft. Could have been in an AOPA article.

Dan
 
Ron Levy said:
Couple of legal points...

Second, if you are going to maneuver from the OP's position to get to the 45-downwind entry, make sure you stay at least 3 miles from the airport while doing it. Any closer, and you could be found to be going the wrong way in the pattern. See Administrator v. Boardman for why you want to stay clear.
Click to expand...

One thing that's always seemed contradictory about the "preferred" 45 degree entry is that it requires pilots to violate 91.126b (direction of turns). I have to wonder why 91.126b doesn't include a specific exclusion for the turn to downwind from outside the pattern or alternatively language that limits the rule to turns of more than 45 degrees.

Also there's no exception for instrument approach procedures and more specifically circle to land operations. How can a rule like 126b survive all these years with so many contradictory SOPs?
 
Last edited:
Gramma' always layed it out on the kitchen table with a buncha' straight pins....
 
stingray said:
If you look at Dan's other post you will see that the ruling says you have to be at least 2000' above the airport, Dan mentions you cannot be over 2000' over the airport. Just backwards. Not sure if he wrote it wrong or understood it wrong.

Dan
Click to expand...

That was a typo. Gotta be over 2000' unless landing. Thanks for catching that.

Dan
 
Ron Levy said:
And from a safety rather than legal perspective...

The mid-field crossover at TPA may be "suggested" by AOPA and required in Canada, but I think it's a bloody dangerous maneuver. It puts you belly up to traffic entering on the 45 or turning downwind from the "real" crosswind in the closed pattern.
Click to expand...

Entering at the crosswind puts you right over traffic climbing out from the runway in the circuit. The idea with crossing at midfield is to get a good scan across the horizon to find all the traffic on downwind, which should all be at the same altitude you are. Crossing over at 1000' AGL is the idea here.

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
Entering at the crosswind puts you right over traffic climbing out from the runway in the circuit.
Click to expand...

Not if you do it right. As you approach the field lined up with the crosswind path (or on upwind) you can easily see any traffic departing the runway, it sticks out like a sore thumb because it's moving, has to be in a relatively small area (the runway) and the background (runway) doesn't have buildings, trees, etc. to "hide" a plane in. Any airplane that's already departed the runway before you are in a position to view it will be well ahead of you even if you're going twice as fast.

The idea with crossing at midfield is to get a good scan across the horizon to find all the traffic on downwind, which should all be at the same altitude you are. Crossing over at 1000' AGL is the idea here.

Dan
Click to expand...

Conflicting traffic that departed the runway a bit before you got close is likely to be climbing on crosswind or early downwind about the time you cross the field so it won't necessarily be on the horizon. And given the wide variation in pattern widths plus the potential for conflicting traffic to be on upwind, crosswind, or downwind gives you a much larger area for airplanes to hide in.

I'm not saying this can't work, just that it's at least as bad as many other "standard" arrival paths and there is something to be said for all traffic to be appearing at the same point. One thing I'm not sure of is what Canadian pilots expect you to do when approaching from the downwind side of the pattern where us US pilots would normally enter on a 45.
 
brcase said:
The AOPA Safety Adviser http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa08.pdf calls this the Alternate Midfield Entry from Upwind. This document is also referenced by AC90-66. And this is my perfered method to enter in the OP scenerio.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...

I was taught the "Preferred Method" in that article with two exceptions - head out on the 45 and make a descending LEFT turn instead of heading out on a 90 and making a descending RIGHT turn as shown. So, I guess it really is different from the "Preferred Method" after all.

However - the airport near me that is a popular breakfast-run that would put me in this situation also has a whole lot of traffic coming in from the same direction that would put them right on the natural 45- entry to downwind. I would be going against inbound traffic and making a descending turn to get onto that 45 entry. For that airport and those circumstances, I would prefer to use the "Alternate Entry" and do an upwind to crosswind pattern enty instead. Probably at the end of the runway, though, instead of midfield.
 
gismo said:
Conflicting traffic that departed the runway a bit before you got close is likely to be climbing on crosswind or early downwind about the time you cross the field so it won't necessarily be on the horizon. And given the wide variation in pattern widths plus the potential for conflicting traffic to be on upwind, crosswind, or downwind gives you a much larger area for airplanes to hide in.
Click to expand...

In Canada we cannot climb or descend on downwind, so we learn to watch that leg on the horizon.

But you're right, there are no perfect entries and a pilot has to keep his eyes peeled all the time, even well to the side and to the rear a little for converging or overtaking traffic. My little airplane isn't too fast and when I hear a call from someone behind me I get pretty antsy and want to know that he has me in sight.

Dan
 
gismo said:
One thing that's always seemed contradictory about the "preferred" 45 degree entry is that it requires pilots to violate 91.126b (direction of turns).
Click to expand...
Since you're not in the pattern until you're established on downwind, you're not violating 91.126(b). The "wrong" direction turn is being made while entering, not in, the pattern.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Entering at the crosswind puts you right over traffic climbing out from the runway in the circuit.
Click to expand...
Since the crosswind turn is supposed to be made 300 below TPA, that's not true. You should be above all traffic on departure unless they're flying a rocket ship, in which case they could be that high at midfield, too.
 
stingray said:
I will try and look it up but I think the FAR states that you cannot start less than a 4 mile final if you want to come straight in. Stops from having someone start a short straight in to get ahead of someone.

Dan
Click to expand...
You won't find that in the FARs.
 
Ron Levy said:
Since you're not in the pattern until you're established on downwind, you're not violating 91.126(b). The "wrong" direction turn is being made while entering, not in, the pattern.
Click to expand...

I thought they had violated pilots for making wrong direction turns maneuvering to enter the patter from other directions (ie - maneuvering for straight in, maneuvering for base, etc.)?
 
Dan Thomas said:
RAC4-5-2.gif
Click to expand...

In theory, that looks good

In pratice, announce your straight-in approach 20 miles from airfield followed by "Short Final" around the 3 miles mark. don't worry about who's in the pattern, they'll scater....:devil::mad2:
 
Last edited:
Flyfishingpilot said:
In theory, that looks good

In pratice, announce your straight-in approach 20 miles from airfield followed by "Short Final" around the 3 miles mark. don't worry about who's in the pattern, they'll scater....:devil::mad2:
Click to expand...

Call "three mile final." Call "short final" to me and I'll be looking at about half mile out.
 
Last Tuesday night I heard a guy call 29 miles out in a Seneca...didn't pay any attention to whether or not he was straight in since he was headed to an airport more than 50 miles away. It was a quiet night so no big deal.

On the other hand, I was out at SYF and watched two crop dusters call short final when they were in the flare...at least they were consistent.
 
Last edited:
I once called a 45 mile straight in to runway 22 at KAEG. it was night time, and I could literally see all the way in from KSAF. Was a boring flight.
 
Clark1961 said:
Last Tuesday night I heard a guy call 29 miles out in a Seneca...didn't pay any attention to whether or not he was straight in since he was headed to an airport more than 50 miles away. It was a quiet night so no big deal.

On the other hand, I was out at SYF and watched two crop dusters call short final when they were in the flare...at least they were consistent.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that a call at 30 miles, at least for most folks, isn't a declaration that everyone else in the pattern should get out of the way. More likely it was intended to generate replies from other traffic converging on the same airport from the same direction. In a descent that Seneca could be covering 4 miles per minute so he could be getting close enough to matter in less than 7 minutes. That's equivalent time wise to me calling from 7-8 miles out in my Porterfield.
 
I'm thinkin' you're givin' the Seneca way too much credit for speed. They're at least 10 minutes out at 30 miles. That or they're over Vne and not planing to slow much for landing.
 
Clark1961 said:
I'm thinkin' you're givin' the Seneca way too much credit for speed. They're at least 10 minutes out at 30 miles. That or they're over Vne and not planing to slow much for landing.
Click to expand...

Coming downhill a Seneca can easily do 190 KTAS for at least a large portion of that descent and I was assuming that they would become a traffic issue at 3-5 miles from the airport center.
 
Exdeeding Vno while downhill over the plains on a windy evening sounds like a good way to break an airplane...I'm not buying the story. Maybe the guy was doing it but it doesn't sound prudent.
 
Ron Levy said:
The mid-field crossover at TPA may be "suggested" by AOPA and required in Canada, but I think it's a bloody dangerous maneuver. It puts you belly up to traffic entering on the 45 or turning downwind from the "real" crosswind in the closed pattern. If you're going to enter upwind or from the side opposite the downwind, you'll get a much better view of the situation and be more visible to the other aircraft in the pattern if you fly upwind to the "real" crosswind or enter on the "real" crosswind out past the departure end.
Click to expand...

In Canada every one enters the pattern by flying to the midfield checking the sock, and turning into the appropriate down wind.

there isn't any one entering from the 45. you will be belly up to no one.
 
Clark1961 said:
Exdeeding Vno while downhill over the plains on a windy evening sounds like a good way to break an airplane...I'm not buying the story. Maybe the guy was doing it but it doesn't sound prudent.
Click to expand...

Vno is an IAS/CAS limit, 170 KCAS equals 190 KTAS with a density altitude of 6000 ft. You can get a 6000 ft DA at about 3000 MSL on a hot summer day.
 
SkyHog said:
I thought they had violated pilots for making wrong direction turns maneuvering to enter the patter from other directions (ie - maneuvering for straight in, maneuvering for base, etc.)?
Click to expand...
Read Boardman again. The issue is whether you're in the pattern or entering the pattern when you make the turn. Once in the pattern, you must turn only in the designated direction, but if you're not yet in the pattern, you can turn either way to enter the pattern; after that, you may only turn in the proper direction. Boardman was busted for making a right base entry to a left-pattern runway. He argued that he was simply turning to a straight-in final. The FAA and NTSB said he was so close in when he made that right turn that he was in the pattern when he turned right.
 
Ron Levy said:
Read Boardman again. The issue is whether you're in the pattern or entering the pattern when you make the turn. Once in the pattern, you must turn only in the designated direction, but if you're not yet in the pattern, you can turn either way to enter the pattern; after that, you may only turn in the proper direction. Boardman was busted for making a right base entry to a left-pattern runway. He argued that he was simply turning to a straight-in final. The FAA and NTSB said he was so close in when he made that right turn that he was in the pattern when he turned right.
Click to expand...

I understood that part but why is a turn to downwind a half mile from the runway not close enough to be in the pattern when a turn to final four miles out is? Seems like nothing but circular definitions to me.
 
Flyfishingpilot said:
In theory, that looks good

In pratice, announce your straight-in approach 20 miles from airfield followed by "Short Final" around the 3 miles mark. don't worry about who's in the pattern, they'll scater....:devil::mad2:
Click to expand...
Why even bother to announce? A good pilot is proficient at low level maneuvering and can work their way around those other planes. And yes I saw it happen, from the safety of the hold short line, but amazing nonetheless. I have met the enemy and it is us!
 
Clark1961 said:
Exdeeding Vno while downhill over the plains on a windy evening sounds like a good way to break an airplane...I'm not buying the story. Maybe the guy was doing it but it doesn't sound prudent.
Click to expand...

Right...one of my simulator customers was doing a long high-speed (my assumption) descent into Boeing Field in a Seneca when the tail disintegrated. Plus, a Seneca that I had flown to Seattle from the factory lost its tail on the way into Wenatchee, WA a year later.

Bob Gardner
 
gismo said:
I understood that part but why is a turn to downwind a half mile from the runway not close enough to be in the pattern when a turn to final four miles out is? Seems like nothing but circular definitions to me.
Click to expand...

I think it may be part of the FAA's duck rule....and a situation where, IMHO, they got it wrong.

But hey - a duck and a goose KIND OF sound the same.
 
gismo said:
I understood that part but why is a turn to downwind a half mile from the runway not close enough to be in the pattern when a turn to final four miles out is?
Click to expand...
Because the turn from 45 to downwind is a pattern entry, but the turn to final is part of the pattern.
 
gismo said:
Vno is an IAS/CAS limit, 170 KCAS equals 190 KTAS with a density altitude of 6000 ft. You can get a 6000 ft DA at about 3000 MSL on a hot summer day.
Click to expand...

And 170 is 5 knots over Vno...
 
Clark1961 said:
And 170 is 5 knots over Vno...
Click to expand...

My bad, I could swear that Vno in some Senecas (IV???) is 170 KIAS. But even 165 KIAS wouldn just mean that you'd need a DA a bit over 9000 ft, less likely but still achievable above 5000 MSL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top