Let's refine the straight-in debate with an example & poll

[Palmpilot]

I would fly to the left of the runway in this case as well. Reasons:

1. You avoid crossing the final approach course, where you KNOW an aircraft is heading to the touchdown area at a speed you are just estimating.
2. The landing aircraft should be able to see you traveling in the same direction and off to the left as he continues the approach, and he will be descending as you are climbing.
3. Closure rate is low since both aircraft are flying in the same direction at approach and departure speeds.
4. If the aircraft on final has to go around, he has clear airspace on the upwind.
5. As you continue to climb in the space between the runway and the normal downwind area you can look all around, where the highest risk would be an aircraft approaching for a midfield crosswind, but that aircraft should hopefully recognize that there's already a conflict evolving and should turn to the upwind and do a normal pattern from there.
6. You avoid potential certificate action by not cutting off an aircraft on final approach (91.113). (Intentionally listed last. First priorities are avoiding the conflict.)

That's all reasonable enough, but when there is an imminent danger of collision, 91.3(b) comes into play, and I don't think it pays to nit-pick a PIC's split-second assessment of which escape maneuver will have the greatest likelihood of success. I'm also not sure that it's possible to decide on a strategy in advance, because very small differences from one fact-pattern to the next can have a large effect on the relative chances for success of different courses of action.

 

[dbahn]

Agree with that as well, but I do think there are routine steps to take in certain situations, and recognizing that the geography we're discussing (the approach end of the runway close to the airport) is a historically dangerous place. Two hazards in particular come to mind. The first is the one we've been discussing, i.e. mid-air collision on the approach. So that's where I think the prudent pilot, well before turning base to final and on every landing, should look at the final approach course to make sure no one is close by on final and should always have an immediate plan on what to do if there is. Ideally the scrutiny should also occur before turning from downwind to base, where the additional option of extending downwind exists.

The other is the base-to-final turn when the aircraft overshoots the final approach course. I always taught students to go around in that situation, not because it isn't possible in most cases to turn back to the final but to punish them for overshooting it in the first place.

 

[francisco collazos]

I'm a low time pilot and nothing scares me more than untowered airports. Yesterday my friend and I flew around and into CGC (Crystal river) winds were light and variable and CGC has runway 9/27. We were coming in from the south. Initally, I am seeing airplanes departing from 9 and as we get closer i'm not seeing any more airports so he decides to do a left entry into 27. He makes his 10 mi call, someone behind us is also flying in so he decided to follow us in about 5 mi behind. My friend calls is 3 mi left downwind for 27. Just at that time what do I see?? plane taking off from 9. No calls, no acknowledgment and now we are looking to see which way this plane is going to turn. He turns to left towards the north.. No problems but still..I mean, no calls at all and that plane wasn't a cub so I assume he has a radio.

 

[Palmpilot]

One time I landed with my radio set to the wrong frequency, and I didn't find out about it until I was taxiing to parking!

 

[kaiser]

Hello everyone. I know this is an old thread but I am glad I participated when I did because today this discussion saved my life and the life of another pilot. I want to add here that I never thought I would ever find myself in this situation, but here I was right in the middle of it!

I have been very busy at work lately and haven't been able fly as much as I'd like. Today I found some free time near the airport so I decided to take to the air and practice my short field technique in anticipation of some grass work soon to come. The rain was expected between noon and 12:30 and I was in the pattern about 10:30. The wind was light favoring RWY-4, the sky overcast at 11000 with some variable haze in the air. There was one other airplane in the pattern about 1/3 pattern distance apart from me. He was also doing full stop landings. As he left the runway and called clear I would depart. As I called clear after landing he was on base and turning final, so I would hold short and wait for him to clear before departing.

On my 4th takeoff I called "departing RWY-4 and remaining in the pattern". I called "left crosswind RWY-4 Full Stop" then "left downwind RWY-4 Full Stop". After that the other airplane called left crosswind as I am setting Gear-Flaps-Trim. I began descending and I hear a call for "Straight in approach" from a 3rd aircraft. I looked in that direction and did not see him, and did not see him on the fish finder. I make my base turn and called
"left base RWY-4 Full Stop" when I was at 700 feet AGL. Still descending in the base leg and I hear "straight in 2 mi final" in my ear. I look and still don't see him but he is on the fish finder, 1 mile to my right and 300 feet above me, with the runway about 1 mile on my left. I am in position to think about my turn to final and I THOUGHT OF THIS THREAD.

I immediately called "aborting base leg and returning to downwind" and I executed a flat left 180 degree turn, exactly as discussed in this thread! There was no hesitation on my part. I could have done my radio call better. I should have called " aborting base leg, left 180 degree turn towards downwind " but other than that everything went as planned. I next called "entering extended left downwind RWY-4 Full Stop" but I entered at about 700 AGL. The third aircraft called "we'll do a quick touch and go and be out of your way" acknowledging that they had disrupted the pattern.

I landed without incident and so did the second aircraft in the pattern behind me. I decided to call it a day. I shutoff my bird at 11:10 am in front of my hangar. After putting the bird away I got on my EUC and took a spin around the airport. I met some nice people in the warbirds hangar. It was a good day.

I know that some people on web pages are sometimes a PITA, but not everyone and sometimes a thread like this can help you to think about your flying habits and help you avoid a bad situation if one arises. I just want to thank everyone involved in this thread for their caring and diligence. I know that before I read this thread I may not have made the same decision I made today. Thinking about what to do and why to do it beforehand is absolutely beneficial to good piloting skills. Thank you all very much.

Glad you made it well. Personally, I'm split between the left 90 and the left 180, but it seemed to work well for you.

I would certainly have a talk with the straight-in bro, who was not NORDO and interrupted the smooth flow of traffic - but that's just me and I'm a bit of a tool.

I was on a straight in to runway 11 at KHPN, White Plains, NY - a towered airport. Due to faster jet traffic landing on 16, the tower asked me to do a right 360, while I was at 400 feet! I successfully executed a two minute 360 at 400 feet agl. But I was upset enough at the call that close to the ground, that I filed an ASRS report.

Comments? I really think the controller lost the bubble for a while, and my maneuver - almost in extremis - bailed him out.

ps: this was a long time ago.

-Skip

Once I'm fully configured for landing in a high performance aircraft, something like this seems low. Any lower and it'd be an "unable" or a "go-around". In a J3 Cub, I'll do 360s all day at 75' AGL. Good on you for filing an ASRS report. Depending on the scenario, I may have also called the tower.

 

[4RNB]

Did not answer the poll.

My answer would be talk to the other traffic and communicate. Absent that, stay safe.

 

[Ed Haywood]

The problem with turning inside the pattern is you create blind spots for yourself with your wings, making it harder to see and avoid. The steeper the turn, the bigger the blind spot. You also behave in a way that other aircraft do not expect.

I would continue on base and initiate a climb back to pattern altitude, then transition to upwind on the far side of the runway. Yes you are crossing final, but you are doing it with wings level and the best chance of spotting the aircraft on final. Unless you are flying a B52 pattern and the aircraft on approach is going to dive bomb the numbers, he should pass well underneath you. The aircraft on final will understand your call and know exactly where to look for you.

I'm not a big fan of using the fish finder for traffic avoidance in the pattern. Besides the fact that not all aircraft are outputting ADS-B, there are potential issues with lag and accuracy. I think ADS-B only updates every 30 seconds? So that ping could be off 500 feet vertically and one mile laterally. IMO in the pattern your head should be up and on a swivel, not down in your displays.

 

[PaulS]

For the 360 at 400 agl, I would have said unable. You probably would have been told to go around, never do something you are uncomfortable with for a controller. HPN is sometimes a **** show. I was with a guy on a visual for one runway and they had a guy in the pattern for the other runway that they didn't tell us about. The guy I was with went to the numbers, I saw the plane in the other pattern and we turned a little to stay out of his way and proceeded to land. The controller flipped out saying he should have turned to a 4 mile final. Tough to read minds out there.

 

[Half Fast]

Initally, I am seeing airplanes departing from 9 and as we get closer i'm not seeing any more airports so he decides to do a left entry into 27.

Since winds were light, it might have been wiser to stay with the apparent consensus and use rwy 9, rather than switching to 27. Maybe the departing plane had an INOP radio, maybe he was on the wrong frequency, whatever, but he was using the runway he had observed other departing traffic using so to him it was the correct choice.

I suspect when winds are calm rwy 9 is preferred because it's a much shorter taxi from the ramp and FBO, but I don't know of any official guidance.

I like KCGC, though. There's a nice little diner a short walk north where I've eaten a few times.

 

[Daleandee]

The problem with turning inside the pattern is you create blind spots for yourself with your wings, making it harder to see and avoid. The steeper the turn, the bigger the blind spot. You also behave in a way that other aircraft do not expect.

I would continue on base and initiate a climb back to pattern altitude, then transition to upwind on the far side of the runway. Yes you are crossing final, but you are doing it with wings level and the best chance of spotting the aircraft on final.

This makes the sense if I have completed the turn to base when alerted that there is a plane on final. Full power climb while looking outside for the traffic and then turn upwind. As Ed points out it is crossing final, but your eyes should be looking for for the traffic and making a radio call as to your intentions. Turning my back to an approaching aircraft while turning towards possible traffic on downwind seems unwise to me. I hope to never put myself in such a scenario.

As for the ADSB data ... advances have made readouts quite accurate and very near real time so not as much latency these days. But if I'm in the pattern and looking for traffic, I am not looking at the "fish finder" or anything else inside the plane.

 

[Vance Breese]

A twin comes blazing over the hill at a speed too fast to land and announces he is on a three mile final.

A low time pilot who has been taught that he has the right of way turns in front of the twin

Together they killed three people.

I feel this is not a committee decision.

In my opinion there is enough poor airmanship to go around.

 

[Pinecone]

The problem with turning inside the pattern is you create blind spots for yourself with your wings, making it harder to see and avoid. The steeper the turn, the bigger the blind spot. You also behave in a way that other aircraft do not expect.

I would continue on base and initiate a climb back to pattern altitude, then transition to upwind on the far side of the runway. Yes you are crossing final, but you are doing it with wings level and the best chance of spotting the aircraft on final. Unless you are flying a B52 pattern and the aircraft on approach is going to dive bomb the numbers, he should pass well underneath you. The aircraft on final will understand your call and know exactly where to look for you.

I'm not a big fan of using the fish finder for traffic avoidance in the pattern. Besides the fact that not all aircraft are outputting ADS-B, there are potential issues with lag and accuracy. I think ADS-B only updates every 30 seconds? So that ping could be off 500 feet vertically and one mile laterally. IMO in the pattern your head should be up and on a swivel, not down in your displays.

Except, in the scenario presented, the straight in aircraft was higher. So by climbing on base you are potentially making it more likely to be a collision.

If the aircraft on straight in was lower, I agree that your way would also work.

By turning early, you deconflict by being offset from the runway and the straight in final.

 

[dbahn]

By turning early, you deconflict by being offset from the runway and the straight in final.

And for all you know for sure, there may be another plane trailing in on final who might need to go-around (to the right) if the first plane slowed or S turned as he was assessing the situation with the plane on base. To keep it simple, you just go to a place where no one else would "typically" be in normal traffic flow, then reassess things as you approach that spot.

 

[Ed Haywood]

To keep it simple, you just go to a place where no one else would "typically" be in normal traffic flow

IMO that is the exact opposite of what you should do in the pattern. The whole point of the pattern is to behave in a predictable manner so that other aircraft have the best chance to see and avoid you.

 

[dbahn]

But you are behaving in a manner that was a response to unpredicted behavior in the first place. If you knew there would be a conflict before turning base, you stay on the downwind. You turned base thinking a prediction was correct, which it turns out it wasn't. Now you've started a series of adjustments that may involve multiple aircraft, and the best way to avoid all of those is to get out of the way of ALL of them, whether actual or just possible.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Except, in the scenario presented, the straight in aircraft was higher. So by climbing on base you are potentially making it more likely to be a collision.

The straight in aircraft is descending to land. Assuming a stabilized descent, when their paths cross the straight in aircraft will be at 500 feet, well below the aircraft on base which is climbing from 700 feet. Both aircraft are acting normally and predictably, are aware of each other, and are looking and talking. No reason to panic and maneuver aggressively.

 

[Salty]

For those that think this problem is solved for towered airports, I wish I had the transcript of my flight into a class D last weekend. The controller was utterly confused and had no idea where anybody was. He had the guy in front of me freaking out looking for me in front of him, even though I corrected him 3 times (when radio quieted enough to do so) that I was the one following the other guy. He flew us 8 miles from the airport before he turned us on base just so he could figure out where the 3 other planes he was talking about were. It was a shambles.

 

[Ed Haywood]

But you are behaving in a manner that was a response to unpredicted behavior in the first place. If you knew there would be a conflict before turning base, you stay on the downwind. You turned base thinking a prediction was correct, which it turns out it wasn't.

Predictions are about the future, not the past. What you thought when you turned downwind is completely irrelevant to the decision you make on base in response to new information.

Aircraft on straight in approach expect converging aircraft from the base leg. The aircraft on final knows you are there and knows where to look for you. The prudent action is to announce your position and look for him while clearing blind spots in that direction, not turn your back and take away your ability to see and avoid.

 

[Half Fast]

For those that think this problem is solved for towered airports, I wish I had the transcript of my flight into a class D last weekend. The controller was utterly confused and had no idea where anybody was. He had the guy in front of me freaking out looking for me in front of him, even though I corrected him 3 times (when radio quieted enough to do so) that I was the one following the other guy. He flew us 8 miles from the airport before he turned us on base just so he could figure out where the 3 other planes he was talking about were. It was a shambles.

Which delta?

 

[Salty]

Bkv

 

[Half Fast]

Bkv

Heck, 8 miles puts you back outside the delta, and if it was rwy 27 you would almost be over the Gulf.

 

[Salty]

Heck, 8 miles puts you back outside the delta, and if it was rwy 27 you would almost be over the Gulf.

we were out of the delta and almost to the coast

 

[Half Fast]

I hope you gave the controller a number to call...

 

[dbahn]

Predictions are about the future, not the past. What you thought when you turned downwind is completely irrelevant to the decision you make on base in response to new information.

How so? Your prediction was that you had a clear pathway to land. That's changed and now (on base) you have to make a new decision, which IS relevant.

Aircraft on straight in approach expect converging aircraft from the base leg. The aircraft on final knows you are there and knows where to look for you. The prudent action is to announce your position and look for him while clearing blind spots in that direction, not turn your back and take away your ability to see and avoid.

How do you announce your position without a radio, or if you're on the wrong frequency? Or why would you announce your position to someone who doesn't have a radio or who is on the wrong frequency? Or what do you do if he just doesn't respond? I'm not saying that communication doesn't help; I'm only saying that you need another plan if it's not working. Look at Salty's post a few lines above about communication at a towered field where two-way radio communication is required and sometimes miscommunicated.

The communication part is only as strong as the weakest link and MUST be two-way, so what you do when you are about to cut off someone on final is to get out of the way (91.113) and it's a very good bet that he isn't going to be flying to the left of the runway, but he may be anywhere else on the final approach or just to its right. Cutting in front of an aircraft on final might work out OK in avoiding a collision, because the guy on final might abort his approach when (an IF) he actually does see you so the collision is avoided, but he might also be contacting the FSDO for the dangerous regulatory violation. At least that only results in a risk of certificate suspension and higher insurance rates. I'd rather not take the chance for either one of those.

 

[Pinecone]

And for all you know for sure, there may be another plane trailing in on final who might need to go-around (to the right) if the first plane slowed or S turned as he was assessing the situation with the plane on base. To keep it simple, you just go to a place where no one else would "typically" be in normal traffic flow, then reassess things as you approach that spot.

Yes. And that is why I said turn early and stay LEFT of the runway and extended centerline. An aircraft overtaking the one on final would likely go to the RIGHT to avoid crossing the base leg.

 

[Salty]

Yes. And that is why I said turn early and stay LEFT of the runway and extended centerline. An aircraft overtaking the one on final would likely go to the RIGHT to avoid crossing the base leg.

so, if it's smart for them to go right to avoid something, why would it be smart for you to go left into that something?

 

[dbahn]

so, if it's smart for them to go right to avoid something, why would it be smart for you to go left into that something?

So they both don't end up in the same place at the same time?

The guy going left can't see behind him. The guy behind him will turn right to go around if he thinks there's a collision risk whether he sees the guy in front of him or not, because if he doesn't see him it may mean the plane that turned from base to final is below him and not in sight. That's how you occasionally see one plane land on top of the other. Years ago I saw that about to happen as I was holding short. I radioed to the guy on final that he was about to land on top of a Cub that turned in front of him. He went around right over the Cub, and the Cub pilot never saw him until he passed overhead.

 

[Salty]

So let's all go random directions in the pattern so we're not all in the same place at the same time.

Seriously though, I get it, but I feel like that's making things worse, not better. I would never have predicted you to do that, which makes it more difficult for me to stay away from you.

 

[Pinecone]

so, if it's smart for them to go right to avoid something, why would it be smart for you to go left into that something?

Again, you are on base. So you are to the left of the runway centerline.

If you go straight, you cross the path of the incoming aircraft. In this case, he is higher and descending and you will be climbing. NOT GOOD.

If you turn on a normal final, if he is faster, he will run over you. Again, in this case he is higher coming down. Last year there was a crash just like this.

If you do want the OP said, you are now going in a direction no one expects and no one is looking for. And you will be climbing and entering the downwind where no one expects, or crossing downwind while climbing.

Turning right puts you head on with straight in traffic.

If you turn to parallel the runway early, are you not crossing the incoming aircraft's path. Your turn will wing flash him, so he sees you and can see what you are doing. You are going the correction direction that people would expect of someone lower near the runway. And you left the right side in case someone is overtaking the aircraft you see and decides to go around.

 

[Palmpilot]

Again, you are on base. So you are to the left of the runway centerline.

If you go straight, you cross the path of the incoming aircraft. In this case, he is higher and descending and you will be climbing. NOT GOOD....

Yep. In the Watsonville case, the base traffic reported going around, and in the process started across final, so it appears that he was planning to offset to the right. The final traffic was in a steep right bank at the moment of collision, so he may also have been initiating a go-around offsetting to the right.

From the NTSB preliminary report:





https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws...-105763-9-15-2022-3-57-41-pm-1-1663273167.pdf

 

[dbahn]

Yep. And don't think all this happened just because the twin approached at a ridiculous speed. There are other reasons that can cause this to happen at slow approach speeds as well, typically because pilots thinks they know where the other plane is but doesn't actually see him. I've witnessed it first hand.

I also would never depend on altitude alone for collision avoidance in an area where either or both planes are expected to be descending.

 

[Lance F]

Not that this is relevant to pattern planning, BUT I just attended a session by the Textron safety guy that investigated this accident. Last week he got the tox info from NTSB. Both pilots had marijuana in their blood screen and the 152 pilot also had cocaine.

 

[Palmpilot]

Not that this is relevant to pattern planning, BUT I just attended a session by the Textron safety guy that investigated this accident. Last week he got the tox info from NTSB. Both pilots had marijuana in their blood screen and the 152 pilot also had cocaine.

 

[dbahn]

Both pilots had marijuana in their blood screen and the 152 pilot also had cocaine.

I hope that doesn't allow some people to believe that the only cause of the accident was drugs.

 

[Albany Tom]

Causal? Probably not. Indicative of really poor decision making skills around risk? Yes, I think so. To be fair, lots of pilots make stupid decisions when not on drugs.

 

[kaiser]

Not that this is relevant to pattern planning, BUT I just attended a session by the Textron safety guy that investigated this accident. Last week he got the tox info from NTSB. Both pilots had marijuana in their blood screen and the 152 pilot also had cocaine.

Well the cocaine I suppose should offset the marijuana… /s

 

[dbahn]

Wrong kind of altitude for avoiding this collision.

 

[Half Fast]

I dunno; if I'm going to die in a molten wad of aluminum plummeting to the ground, I might prefer to be drugged out of my mind during the experience....

 

[PaulS]

I hope that doesn't allow some people to believe that the only cause of the accident was drugs.

Pretty damning and would explain the absolute stupid decisions on both pilots' part.

 

[Daleandee]

Can't be legally high if you're illegally high ...