Nearly Cutoff in the Pattern

[Everskyward]

I dunno about the Hawker drivers, but I wouldn't doubt that their first time in type (airplane, not sim) is with paying pax. Mari or Brent could probably provide a better answer. To me, even if it is their first time, if they've got paying pax aboard I wouldn't exactly call it a "training flight."

I can only speak for myself, but in our world the first flight in type is sometimes with pax, sometimes not, but the new pilot is almost always acting as the non-flying pilot. The first few times they actually fly the plane is on empty legs unless the person has a lot of previous jet time. The first few landings can be kind of "interesting", especially in the Lear and we don't want to subject passengers to that. Luckily we do a fair amount of empty legs. When someone comes out of sim training they are trained enough to pass the checkride but there's still a pretty steep learning curve dealing with how to operate the plane in the real world. You don't do very many visual approaches in the sim, certainly not with a lot of simulated traffic in the pattern.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

I should point out that the FAA and NTSB have made their position on this very clear in past enforcement actions. Regardless of whether or not there is other traffic in the pattern, turns in the pattern at nontowered airports other than in the published direction (i.e., only left unless otherwise stated, and only right if so stated) are illegal, and can cost you time on the ground. The only time you can bypass this is on a straight-in approach, and "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." Based on the discussion in those cases, "sufficiently far from the runway " is a minimum of two miles out, and I'd say three to be safe.

For the legal details on turning the wrong way, see Administrator v. Boardman and Administrator v. Dibble (5 NTSB 352 (1985) - not on the internet but quoted in Boardman).

Non-standard meaning not on the 45, downwind, base to final; which is what this is about. That still leaves some options, like a base entry 4 miles out as the Hawker did. And from this case the base entry could have been a left or a right at that distance. I wonder if any of you have any other options for what you would have done, in each plane. I'm still feeling the #2 plane is the most questionable as far as failing to avoid a safey hazard.

 

[poadeleted20]

Non-standard meaning not on the 45, which is what this is about. That still leaves some options, like a base entry 4 miles out as the Hawker did. And from this case the base entry could have been a left or a right at that distance.

Non-standard entries into the standard pattern? Fine, as long as you join tangentially (i.e., not cutting across other legs) but if you're four miles out on the pattern side, you're outside the traffic pattern. What you should not do from four miles abeam the pattern is drive straight in towards final such that you join the final at a normal (i.e., 1 mile or so) distance from the runway, cutting in front of aircraft on the downwind. That is almost guaranteed to cause a conflict with traffic actually in the pattern, creates serious safety concerns vis a vis aircraft without radios on downwind who have no reason to expect anyone to cut across in front of them from outside the pattern, and is contrary to the ruling in Administrator v. Boardman.

Thus, if you're going to land from several miles abeam the runway on the pattern side without joining the downwind, stay well clear of the pattern, join the final 3 or 4 miles out (i.e., "sufficiently far from the runway that it does not interfere with the normal traffic pattern"), and make your announcements saying you're making a straight-in approach from that distance and direction.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

Thus, if you're going to land from several miles abeam the runway on the pattern side without joining the downwind, stay well clear of the pattern, join the final 3 or 4 miles out (i.e., "sufficiently far from the runway that it does not interfere with the normal traffic pattern"), and make your announcements saying you're making a straight-in approach from that distance and direction.

Ok, so from what you just wrote what was the right way for the Hawker to do what he did? Apparently he announced a base entry 4 or 5 miles out from the end of the runway. It seems like you are saying he did not make a base entry, should have just given position reports and announced his intent to do a straight-in, and reported on final instead of on base. Is that it? Same path of flight for the Hawker, but do not call it a base entry?

Different but related. Perhaps the CFI's on this forum can address this. Hypothetical situation? Early in training the instructor pulls the power back to idle for a simulated engine failure a few miles from the airport on the non-pattern side. With enough altitude the student goes direct for the approach end of the runway making the calls for a simulated engine failure and non-standard right pattern entry. This is a low activity airport with no one in the pattern or in run-up. Student makes the right base-final turn for a very short final. Student could not have made the landing without the non-standard right pattern entry. So my question: Was the CFI and/or the student in violation?

 

[sbonek]

I dunno about the Hawker drivers, but I wouldn't doubt that their first time in type (airplane, not sim) is with paying pax.

..snip...

and to be fair to the Hawker driver, it's possible he didn't really come in hot, and it just looked so to my low time eyes, given I'm very rarely at the Hold Short line when a Hawker comes in, it's usually 172's.

But there was no mistaking that he did overshoot the runway, as when he turned final, until he got re-linged up on the centerline, he was pointed right at me sitting at the Hold Short line.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ok, so from what you just wrote what was the right way for the Hawker to do what he did? Apparently he announced a base entry 4 or 5 miles out from the end of the runway. It seems like you are saying he did not make a base entry, should have just given position reports and announced his intent to do a straight-in, and reported on final instead of on base. Is that it? Same path of flight for the Hawker, but do not call it a base entry?

I'm not entirely sure what the Hawker actually did, but if he wasn't going to join the normal pattern, I think he should have positioned himself for a straight-in approach and established himself on final "sufficiently far from the runway that it does not interfere with the normal traffic pattern." The appropriate calls would have been "Hawker X miles N/E/S/W for straight-in Runway xx, Whatever Airport," and then "Hawker X mile final, straight-in Runway xx, Whatever Airport."

Early in training the instructor pulls the power back to idle for a simulated engine failure a few miles from the airport on the non-pattern side. With enough altitude the student goes direct for the approach end of the runway making the calls for a simulated engine failure and non-standard right pattern entry. This is a low activity airport with no one in the pattern or in run-up. Student makes the right base-final turn for a very short final. Student could not have made the landing without the non-standard right pattern entry. So my question: Was the CFI and/or the student in violation?

14 CFR 91.3(b) makes no allowance for deviations from the regulations for training purposes, only for real emergencies. In the situation described, there could be a conflict with a no-radio plane flying the normal pattern, as well as noise and other neighborly issues. Therefore, if an instructor wants to make a simulated engine failure from the non-pattern side, I think the place to do that is at a towered airport where someone is controlling the rest of the traffic.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

But there was no mistaking that he did overshoot the runway, as when he turned final, until he got re-linged up on the centerline, he was pointed right at me sitting at the Hold Short line.

To intimidate you into staying out of his way the next time, no doubt.

 

[sbonek]

To intimidate you into staying out of his way the next time, no doubt.

maybe... I definately considered doing a 360 to go back to the taxiway

 

[N7702Y]

I know pilots flying turbine equipment who avoid uncontrolled fields just because of these situations. It can be quite challenging to fit airplanes flying 120 kts or more into VFR patterns with airplanes flying 80 or less.

Some fields call for turbine equipment to fly at a higher pattern altitude. I always hated that, because the little guys don't look for traffic on downwind to be above them.

For the above reasons, I always preferred enter off of an instrument approach to an extended straight in where I had good visibility of the traffic pattern and time to adjust for spacing, with the option to fly an upwind leg if needed.

The prime rule for me (after adhering to the the FARs and the AIM) is to avoid bumping into other airplanes. No matter what I am flying, if I see traffic that could possibly be a conflict my first thought is stay out of his/her way. I will extend downwind or go around or do whatever it takes to stay clear of traffic that I have the right of way over, but that might not see me. I'd rather get in some extra pattern practice and be alive than be cleared of any FAR violations by the NTSB after my death in a mid-air.


Jay

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

No one seems to want to address the question of what each pilot ought to have done in this situation. Here is what I wrote earlier. Any other ideas?

Perhaps a better way to address this is, what would you have done in the pilot seat of each plane? I think #1 was perfectly justified in landing ahead of the Hawker. Turned final before the Hawker with enough room. Sounds like the base entry by the Hawker was announced about the time #1 turned base. If the Hawker heard #2 on downwind or announce a turn to base, knowing #1 was also ahead of him on base, I don't think he should have started a base entry to the pattern. If he heard #1 turn base and did not know about #2, he was fine doing a base entry knowing he was enough behind to be OK. If he heard #2 turn base after he had announced his base entry, they both ought to have worked things out on the radio. The pilot of the #2 is the one I really wonder about. Hearing the #1 and the Hawker on base, what was he doing making a base turn until they were both past him? And hearing both #1 and the Hawker turn final, what was he doing making a turn to final between them?

If you saw this happening and you were #2, if you heard this while on downwind you just make a long downwind leg. If you figure it out after you turn base you have few good options. With a tight pattern you can't really do 360's on the short base leg waiting for the Hawker to pass. Best option I see is to extend the base and exit the pattern, but you still have to cross in front of the Hawker. At least you are not turning into his path at 80Kts or less. You can cross and be clear in a few seconds rather than a few minute, and you can see if you can cross safely out your right window.

 

[sbonek]

No one seems to want to address the question of what each pilot ought to have done in this situation. Here is what I wrote earlier. Any other ideas?

..snip...

I'll decline since I was the one that was involved and posed the original question.

But the feedback I've received says I was probably ok with how I handled it, but next time I should consider extending my Downwind and allowing the faster a/c to land in front of me.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I pretty much agree with you, Dwight. Minor comments below:

If the Hawker heard #2 on downwind or announce a turn to base, knowing #1 was also ahead of him on base, I don't think he should have started a base entry to the pattern.

I'd bet that by the time he knew, he was already on base.

If you saw this happening and you were #2, if you heard this while on downwind you just make a long downwind leg. If you figure it out after you turn base you have few good options. With a tight pattern you can't really do 360's on the short base leg waiting for the Hawker to pass. Best option I see is to extend the base and exit the pattern, but you still have to cross in front of the Hawker.

I'd simply continue the base turn into a 360 back onto downwind and extend until the Hawker was clear, provided no other traffic in the pattern. With other traffic in the pattern, continue the turn onto an upwind on the pattern side of the runway to let the Hawker pass on the right (and possibly below too). Fly slightly diagonal on the upwind so as to be on the other side of the runway by the departure end so you can see any departing traffic.

I think #2 probably is the one that should have done something different.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'll decline since I was the one that was involved and posed the original question.

But the feedback I've received says I was probably ok with how I handled it, but next time I should consider extending my Downwind and allowing the faster a/c to land in front of me.

Steve,

I don't think you should have done anything different. Even if you extended your downwind, #2 may not have and the problem would still have happened. In fact, in this situation, by the time you get back around to the runway, the Hawker may have been on YOUR tail instead. It doesn't sound like you ever got in the way of the Hawker. (Where was it when you were clear of the runway?)

 

[sbonek]

Steve,

I don't think you should have done anything different. Even if you extended your downwind, #2 may not have and the problem would still have happened. In fact, in this situation, by the time you get back around to the runway, the Hawker may have been on YOUR tail instead. It doesn't sound like you ever got in the way of the Hawker. (Where was it when you were clear of the runway?)

Good point. When I was clear, the Hawker had just called out that he was doing a 360 while the a/c behind me either just turned final or was on short final.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

I pretty much agree with you, Dwight. Minor comments below:



I'd bet that by the time he knew, he was already on base.



I'd simply continue the base turn into a 360 back onto downwind and extend until the Hawker was clear, provided no other traffic in the pattern. With other traffic in the pattern, continue the turn onto an upwind on the pattern side of the runway to let the Hawker pass on the right (and possibly below too). Fly slightly diagonal on the upwind so as to be on the other side of the runway by the departure end so you can see any departing traffic.

I think #2 probably is the one that should have done something different.

I like making the downwind to base turn a 360 back to downwind with no other traffic behind. The one turn would get you close to the Hawker approach path briefly, but get you in position to get in behind properly without starting over.

Not so sure about the upwind and diagonal for if you have traffic behind. Seems like you would get in the way of the Hawker doing a go-around pretty easilly. You are depending on your getting out of the way making the go-around unnecessary, but with aircraft doing unusual routes in front of the Hawker a go-around is still probable. At best it puts you parallel with the Hawker for a longer period.

Good to think these things through a little, so when things happen you have some idea what to do. Otherwise you would have a second, and your gut, to get to a decision. The 360 back to downwind would seem to be best even with other traffic behind. The following traffic should not be so close that we could not work out something during the turn.

 

[gismo]

I'll decline since I was the one that was involved and posed the original question.

But the feedback I've received says I was probably ok with how I handled it, but next time I should consider extending my Downwind and allowing the faster a/c to land in front of me.

That's pretty much my take, except that I suggest you consider working this out with the jet pilot on the radio: "Hawker on final, Skyhawk 23Z is about to turn left base, would it help if I extended downwind to let you land first?". Assuming he is on top of the situation, he's probably in a better position than you WRT assessing which would be best for all concerned. It could be that he'd rather not have you crossing his path (the visibility out the side window of most jets isn't all that great) and with just a slight widening to the right, he can add more room between your plane and his. Again, if he's on top of his game he should have already heard your position call and probably has worked out his approach so that there won't be a conflict and when you arbitrarily extend your downwind after calling a turn to base, you could be tossing a spanner into the works of his plan.

 

[gibbons]

I agree with Lance.

When I'm in a piston single and I find myself on downwind with a fast mover on 6 mile final, here's what goes through my mind (YMMV):

1) Approach most likely just dropped him off and he hasn’t had a chance to monitor the advisory frequency until now. I don’t assume he’s heard any previous position calls.

2) It's not the distance, it's the time. The Hawker will cover the last six miles of final in, what, two to three minutes? If I have time to make my pattern and clear the runway before the jet is on a 1/2 mile final, then I do so. For me that means I'll do it in the Extra, but not in a 172. In either case I think it makes sense to talk to the jet and let the crew know what I have planned. "Extra xxxx is turning a tight base to final for one-eight. I'll keep it in tight and be out of your way shortly." This way the crew knows I'm not flying one of those B17 patterns the FAA seems to love and the crew can slow as much as possible as far out as possible.

3) If I miscalculate and don't make it around and clear the runway in time, the jet is going to have to execute a go-around. There is a lot more to this in a Hawker than pushing in the carb heat and throttle, and notching the flaps up. Go arounds are a PITA, and the chances are that the PIC of the jet will explain to the passenger (who may be well connected politically) that she had to go around because of the "little airplane" that got in the way. Bad press for the home team.

4) If I choose to land in front of the jet and have a problem that blocks the runway, the jet will have to go somewhere else. If the jet has a problem and blocks the runway in front of me I can probably still land on a taxiway or maybe on the usable part of the runway. In short, the downside of my blocking the runway seems a lot greater than the downside of the jet blocking the runway.

5) In a 172 I'm burning 7 or 8 GPH and probably haven't practiced extended downwind landings for a while. Why not take the chance to do so? I'll make sure my landing light is on, tell the crew of the jet I'm extending my downwind, and enjoy the view. I can only hope that the number 2 aircraft in the pattern gets the hint and does the same thing, but that’s not my responsibility. Usually I find that the extended downwind isn't that much longer than I would have flown anyway, and that if I'll start my base let as the jet is abeam me it all works out pretty well.

I’ll almost always extend my downwind to let the fast mover land first. The exception is when there are a lot of jets inbound and I just have to wedge myself in somehow – but that’s pretty unusual now that the Wal-Mart hub has a tower.

 

[N7702Y]

The original poster probably did just fine. It's a judgement call, not necessarily black and white.

My default would have been to extend downwind and follow the Hawker, making my call "Twin Comanche 02Y is extending downwind, number two behind the Hawker". He might catch me on final, but I know that I won't catch him.

Jay

 

[gprellwitz]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned explicitly is that if you let the Hawker land first, be sure that you allow for wake turbulence!

 

[sbonek]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned explicitly is that if you let the Hawker land first, be sure that you allow for wake turbulence!

interesting that you say that... that same day, as I was on Final, another Hawker moved into "position and hold on 25" while another Cessna was just leaving the runway... as I was on Short Final with the Hawker still sitting there, I called out Short Final just to remind him I was there..... he departed, and right before touchdown, I got bounced around a good deal and had to act quickly when for whatever reason the a/c darted towards the left side of the runway... not fun at all...

In future instances, I will just go around... that definately got my attention...