Pattern Entry

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

You're imagining more problems with it than there actually are. There are airports where the crossswind entry is an unpublished standard - it was for one of the runways at the airport where I did my primary training. In your four converging aircraft scenario, the crosswind entry at TPA gives you as much of a view of the activity and options to avoid problems as the 45° one.

This is about the #1 midfield crosswind, not the common crosswind entry at 3/4 or a mile past the end of the runway #2. I am not a fan of that one either, but the issues are much less with the #2 crosswind entry than the mid-field crosswind entry that was originally identified as #1. Are you saying your airport had a midfield crosswind entry #1 as an unpublished standard entry, or the usual crosswind entry #2?

You and the guy on the 45 easily see each other (especially since his 45 ,means you're not head on) The converging guy on downwind will have hit the guy on the 45 (you said they were converging on the same spot, not I) before you get anywhere near them. And the airplane on the go-around will pass harmlessly beneath you.

Here you seem to have misunderstood my point. I am talking about the route of flight of potential aircraft, not actual aircraft. At mid-field you are converging on the same point the downwind route of flight and the 45 route of flight would also cross. It just adds to the potential for a problem. The 45 ROF should have joined the downwind before mid-field, but then will head for the mid-field point you would be joining the downwind.


The only danger is the same one as any other pattern entry - if you're not looking you will cause a problem.

Besides, unlike the 45, the crosswind entry complies with the regulatory requirement for left turns in the pattern.

My entire point, as indicated in the prior post, is that the "standard" pattern is intended to provide for a pattern entry that does not require you to cross the possible flight path of anyone else. Join, but not cross. You always have to pay attention, more attention in the pattern because of the traffic. But a pattern is to minimize the potential conflicts. The crossing mid-field TPA entry has you crossing the upwind at TPA (and dispite a comment to the contrary a go-around decision early and a steep climb out could get someone to TPA at that point), and converging on the point the downwind and 45 traffic will also cross. In addition, a point I did not mention, is that you are also crossing the downwind for the opposite direction runway at TPA. No one ought to be on that downwind, but at an uncontrolled airport they could be and be legal to land. In some cases one end is the preferred runway in calm wind conditions for noise abatement or because of power lines or trees, and in light and variable conditions that could still be the one in use by locals even if the sock indicates the other end when you approach. My point was only that ANY non-standard pattern entry adds some potential points of collision that would be reduced or eliminated if everyone would fly the standard pattern.

If everyone flys the "standard" pattern, the 45 entry has just the traffic on downwind to join. Downwind traffic has just the traffic on the 45 to merge with. Whenever you add another traffic pattern entry, you add another possible point of collision if someone is not paying enough attention. So, my approach has been to use the standard pattern entry unless it seems quite clear the pattern is empty. And even then, I try to not cross any of the standard pattern route of flight on my way to join the pattern - just in case I missed someone. One turn into the pattern, and from then on I follow the standard pattern. Someone may not have a radio so is not making position calls, and be flying a sky blue or cloud white aircraft that I just did not see.

 

[GaryO]

For a different angle on this disscussion. How about if you're approaching a field along the extended centerline but on the departure end of the runway? Is it OK to just join the downwind or should you swing wide to enter on the 45?

To give some perspective. For the runway where I run into this, on crosswind you will be heading out over the Gulf so swinging wide to enter on the 45 will put you even further out to sea.

 

[inav8r]

First, to Option 3. What if the airport has a traffic pattern approx 500' higher for turboprop / very small jet AC? I'd much rather cross over mid field with the piston AC than the bigger, heaver, faster AC overhead...

And of course you may run into "podunk traffic, bugsmasher 123 making right base for runway 36 podunk". Now I *KNOW* that's a bust in and of itself, but I *still* see a lot of it... Someone mentioned the "fly south and then make for a straight in" - and I see some of that too.

/sigh

 

[jesse]

For a different angle on this disscussion. How about if you're approaching a field along the extended centerline but on the departure end of the runway? Is it OK to just join the downwind or should you swing wide to enter on the 45?

I enter straight into the downwind. Making radio calls the whole time

"Podunk Traffic, Cessna 1234, is 5 miles north entering the left downwind for 36, Podunk"

 

[Bill]

I enter straight into the downwind. Making radio calls the whole time

"Podunk Traffic, Cessna 1234, is 5 miles north entering the left downwind for 36, Podunk"

Ditto.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

Ditto.

Yup.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

First, to Option 3. What if the airport has a traffic pattern approx 500' higher for turboprop / very small jet AC? I'd much rather cross over mid field with the piston AC than the bigger, heaver, faster AC overhead...

And of course you may run into "podunk traffic, bugsmasher 123 making right base for runway 36 podunk". Now I *KNOW* that's a bust in and of itself, but I *still* see a lot of it... Someone mentioned the "fly south and then make for a straight in" - and I see some of that too.

/sigh

Another "it all depends" situation. Same if you have an overcast layer at 1500 - 2000 feet AGL so at TPA +500 you are into the clouds or at least closer than legal. So that is why you have options. In those cases I would elect not to do the TPA + 500 crossover, and instead, when coming from the east, most likely plan to arrive 5 miles south of the airport and turn right for a long final to 36 (assuming no one in the pattern). But I would not make a "right base" call on the radio. Make a position call with "intend straight-in runway 36, traffic permitting". If you say "right base" when it is a left pattern runway, you seem to be saying you are using a right pattern when that would be a violation. You could also confuse someone into making an unnecessary change of their pattern who did not know exactly where you are, and they only catch the "right base" part of your transmission.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Option 2
You enter the pattern on the crosswind at traffic pattern altitude just north of the runway. This seems like a pretty good method because you have an out. You can always turn away from the pattern.

This is what I'd choose.

Option 3
You fly over the pattern 500 ft (or more) above TPA. This gives you a good look at the pattern and the windsock. After you are a little ways from the airport you pull the power and start a descending right hand turn. This sets you up for a perfect 45 degree entry at TPA for the downwind. You can see the entire downwind and if there is a conflict you can simply turn away from the pattern.

There are several problems with the traditional 45 to midfield downwind entry:

1) How many other planes are overflying the field at TPA+500 to get a look at the windsock too? The problem is the assumption that traffic exists only in the pattern.

2) Your back is to the pattern for a significant length of time.

3) In a high wing, the 225-degree turn blocks your view of everything for a minute or more, leaving the traffic in the pattern in a vastly different condition than when you last saw it, because that turn followed the time you had your back to the pattern.

I can't turn away from the pattern if there is a traffic conflict.

The pattern is not a piece of solid steel... If there's a conflict, do what you'd do if there was a conflict anywhere else. In this case, with pattern traffic on the right, if you're converging, you should turn right and pass behind the other plane.

The problem I saw with this is that a plane can climb up into me. I'd like to avoid an airplane cutting me in half.

They'll be climbing from your left, though - AKA pilot's side. Look out the window, and they should be relatively easy to see. In a low wing, dip the wing if you need to.

After thinking about how option 1 and option 2 sucked I started to think back to the way my instructor taught me. It appears to be a good deal because I can overfly and look at the windsock along with any planes that may be in the pattern. I can then turn back and enter the pattern on the 45 which gives great visibility.

And put you in a potential conflict situation with everyone else who uses the same technique, and leave the pattern behind you so you can't see it very well.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

However I am usually 2-300 ft above TPA on the corsswind and drop to TPA as I turn left to downwind.

Ack! DO NOT descend into the pattern! (Especially if you're in a low wing...) The entire reason that a traffic pattern altitude exists is so that all traffic will be at the same altitude, making it much easier to see and avoid. You're defeating that entire concept if you descend into the pattern.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

Kent! And I thought you were a "by the book" kind of pilot.

 

[jesse]

Kent! And I thought you were a "by the book" kind of pilot.

Nothing he said was against the book. Nor does the book apply to every situation. The reason I posted this thread was because I wanted to get an aviation thread going where people actually thought about flying. We don't have them very often and it's always good to brainstorm.

What will I do? It depends.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Kent! And I thought you were a "by the book" kind of pilot.

No, I'm more of a "by the brain" kind of pilot.

 

[jesse]

No, I'm more of a "by the brain" kind of pilot.

You're not going to live long with that attitude--it kinda requires a brain

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

Nothing he said was against the book. Nor does the book apply to every situation. The reason I posted this thread was because I wanted to get an aviation thread going where people actually thought about flying. We don't have them very often and it's always good to brainstorm.

What will I do? It depends.

Just funin'. "By the book" meaning what is commonly taught by the CFI's - which means also what a lot of low-time pilots will do, and what a lot of low time pilots will be expecting to happen. Whatever the faults with the +500 flyover, it is very common. And it is included as approved for getting over an airport to set up for the 45. The fact is that "everyone else who uses the same technique" includes a lot of pilots.

Actually, the thread was/is very interesting in that it gets you thinking about options, and why, and when you need to do something a little unusual. It also lets people point out where what you think you should do has some problems. Very useful stuff. Thanks for this thread.

 

[ScottM]

No, I'm more of a "by the brain" kind of pilot.

"Check out the big brain on 'Kent' "

He's one smart M_________!
​

 

[ScottM]

Ack! DO NOT descend into the pattern! (Especially if you're in a low wing...) The entire reason that a traffic pattern altitude exists is so that all traffic will be at the same altitude, making it much easier to see and avoid. You're defeating that entire concept if you descend into the pattern.

Agree but I gotta ask because I am a smart a___, if one is flying a high wing should they never climb to pattern altitude then for the same reason?? I am ok with all Cessna's staying on the ground.

 

[Henning]

I would not make a "right base" call on the radio. Make a position call with "intend straight-in runway 36, traffic permitting". If you say "right base" when it is a left pattern runway, you seem to be saying you are using a right pattern when that would be a violation.

You say "Violation"... could you tell me what would be the cite? I like the rt traffic base entry because all the traffic is in front of me to see.

 

[tdager]

Ack! DO NOT descend into the pattern! (Especially if you're in a low wing...) The entire reason that a traffic pattern altitude exists is so that all traffic will be at the same altitude, making it much easier to see and avoid. You're defeating that entire concept if you descend into the pattern.

Huh???? So I have crossed over the departing end of the runway at 3-500' above TPA and after surveying the layout, and listening to radio calls, I turn left (lets assume standard pattern) to enter the downwind and drop into TPA...what have I goofed here? I am flying a C182, I can SEE the pattern, no one there, no one on the radio, all is clear....what else am I supposed to do? Fly out a mile and come back at a 45-degree entry into the pattern? Why? What I did in this case was safe and sound....though it is not something that is done at all times, again it all depends.

 

[ScottM]

You say "Violation"... could you tell me what would be the cite? I like the rt traffic base entry because all the traffic is in front of me to see.

91.126(b)(1) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in class G airspace -- Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right , in which case the pilot must make all to the right...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I am flying a C182, I can SEE the pattern, no one there, no one on the radio, all is clear....what else am I supposed to do? Fly out a mile and come back at a 45-degree entry into the pattern?

No, make the same entry from traffic pattern altitude. What's the purpose of starting above TPA?

I fly a 182 as well, and trust me, there is plenty you can't see from a 182, even below you. The other thing is, you want to try to SEE and to BE SEEN. Not a single one of us is going to see every conflicting aircraft. But, if we put ourselves in a position where other aircraft are more likely to see us, we dramatically increase safety.

So... That is the purpose for doing the entry at TPA. Again, what is the purpose of doing the entry above TPA?

 

[Henning]

91.126(b)(1) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in class G airspace -- Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right , in which case the pilot must make all to the right...

Well then...."I've been a baaaad boy....."...
In my defense though, this rule typically applies to me in these situations:

[b]§ 137.45   Nonobservance of airport traffic pattern.[/b]
 
Notwithstanding part 91 of this chapter, the pilot in command
 of an aircraft may deviate from an airport traffic pattern 
when authorized by the control tower concerned. At an airport
 without a functioning control tower, the pilot in command may 
deviate from the traffic pattern if—
 
(d) The aircraft at all times remains clear of, 
and gives way to, aircraft conforming to 
the traffic pattern for the airport.

 

[CJones]

I enter straight into the downwind. Making radio calls the whole time

"Podunk Traffic, Cessna 1234, is 5 miles north entering the left downwind for 36, Podunk"

"...any traffic in the area, please advise."

 

[ScottM]

Well then...."I've been a baaaad boy....."...
In my defense though, this rule typically applies to me in these situations:

HTML Code:
§ 137.45 Nonobservance of airport traffic pattern.

Notwithstanding part 91 of this chapter, the pilot in command
of an aircraft may deviate from an airport traffic pattern
when authorized by the control tower concerned. At an airport
without a functioning control tower, the pilot in command may
deviate from the traffic pattern if—

(d) The aircraft at all times remains clear of,
and gives way to, aircraft conforming to
the traffic pattern for the airport.

Ah but part 137 is for agriculture ops. So I believe that would apply during ag air ops. Section (b) of that part of the reg so states as well.

137.45(b) Deviation are limited to agricultural air operations.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

Well then...."I've been a baaaad boy....."...
In my defense though, this rule typically applies to me in these situations:

[b]§ 137.45   Nonobservance of airport traffic pattern.[/b]
 
Notwithstanding part 91 of this chapter, the pilot in command
 of an aircraft may deviate from an airport traffic pattern 
when authorized by the control tower concerned. At an airport
 without a functioning control tower, the pilot in command may 
deviate from the traffic pattern if—
 
(d) The aircraft at all times remains clear of, 
and gives way to, aircraft conforming to 
the traffic pattern for the airport.

This is from the thread about being nearly cut off in the pattern. Similar issues. The Boardman case is what I got the information from about how they COULD react if someone reported, or an FAA guy saw, a right base to final turn at a left pattern runway. Don't know if 137.45 was considered important or not here, but it did not save Boardman:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Levy
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.

 

[jesse]

Ah but part 137 is for agriculture ops. So I beleive that would apply during ag air ops. Section (b) of that pazrt of the reg so states as well.

137.45(b) Deviation are limited to agricultural air operations.

Correct. He has a fair amount of ag time.

 

[poadeleted20]

For a different angle on this disscussion. How about if you're approaching a field along the extended centerline but on the departure end of the runway? Is it OK to just join the downwind or should you swing wide to enter on the 45?

There is no regulation prohibiting entry on the extended downwind, and I do it all the time. I'm off the departure line, and I've got a great view of traffic both in the pattern and entering on the 45. I see no advantage to doing what amounts to a "jink right/jink left" maneuver.

 

[poadeleted20]

DBVZ seems to miss the point, so I'll say it again. If you cross the extended centerline beyond the normal crosswind distance, you can get T-boned by someone climbing out. If you cross at the normal crosswind distance, you'll be above the departing aircraft, which will not yet have reached TPA. Further, if you go that far out, you will no longer be in the traffic pattern, and if you're not in the pattern, you're not making a crosswind entry -- you're doing one of those "all around Robinson's barn" maneuvers where you go several miles around the airport to enter on the 45 from the back side, which can take you out of sight of the airport you've already found, which is when Student Pilots tend to get lost.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

This is the relevant paragraph from the final decision:

'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. This naturally requires consideration of the
aircraft using that airport. Respondent complains that the
approach distances required by the Board are too great,​

3 yet he
fails to prove the critical point he identifies -- that righthand
turns into final at the 1-2 miles found here would not
interfere with the normal traffic pattern.4 In fact, in
Administrator v. Davis, supra, at 222, the law judge found that
1½ miles was within the normal traffic pattern at Kotzebue."​

 

[poadeleted20]

Just funin'. "By the book" meaning what is commonly taught by the CFI's - which means also what a lot of low-time pilots will do, and what a lot of low time pilots will be expecting to happen.

Sigh. The fact that a lot of people do it does make it either smart or safe. There's a lot out there that gets badly taught by CFI's without a lick of practical experience, who've been trained by other equally inexperienced CFI's. Stick around here a while, and you'll see any number of bad ideas expressed by folks victimized by such CFI's. It's an unfortunate fact of life driven by the realities of aviation, but it is the way it is.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

DBVZ seems to miss the point, so I'll say it again. If you cross the extended centerline beyond the normal crosswind distance, you can get T-boned by someone climbing out. If you cross at the normal crosswind distance, you'll be above the departing aircraft, which will not yet have reached TPA. Further, if you go that far out, you will no longer be in the traffic pattern, and if you're not in the pattern, you're not making a crosswind entry -- you're doing one of those "all around Robinson's barn" maneuvers where you go several miles around the airport to enter on the 45 from the back side, which can take you out of sight of the airport you've already found, which is when Student Pilots tend to get lost.

Oh I got your point all right. I just disagree with your point.

You only get T-boned flying 5 miles from the end of the runway if you are flying in conditions you could get T-boned anywhere by not seeing and being seen.

And just like you THINK someone will be below you as they climb out at crosswind distance, I also THINK anyone who continues to climb 5 miles out will be above me by that point in the very unlikely event we do not see and avoid each other.

And I am still convinced that a lot of aircraft can and will get to TPA by the end of the runway, and certainly by a mile beyond the runway; so if anyone is going to get T-boned it is someone crossing at TPA a mile or so past the end of the runway, when ANYONE on departure is certainly at full power with the nose up, and almost all will have an engine and panel in their straight-ahead line-of-sight.

If you can see the guy climbing out with just a mile to adjust your route to miss him, I can certainly see the guy climbing out with 5 miles to adjust my route to be sure to miss him. Not everyone has a great view below and to the left when close; but at a greater distance when the aircraft to the left is more level with you, everyone can see in that situation.

And yes, you are outside the pattern doing an end-around. That is what I am suggesting is better than a non-standard crosswind pattern entry. Because when you do a non-standard crosswind pattern entry you cross a path of flight of someone who is flying the standard pattern or on a normal departure. I am suggesting that a crosswind entry is not quite as safe as getting to the other side of the pattern and either going in on the 45 or making a turn toward the downwind at 5 miles out (a downwind entry) if no one is on the 45. On your way in toward the downwind you have a good view of both the 45 for anyone who joins using the standard pattern entry, and you can see the upwind for anyone who may take off and turn crosswind while you are coming toward the pattern area.

None of that means I think you or anyone else should not do it. Just that IMHO it is not quite as safe as a standard pattern entry. Standard is standard, and preferable. Outside the pattern is outside the pattern, and you are free to fly in "see and avoid" mode.

 

[alaskaflyer]

My 2c:

I can easily reach TPA by the end of a 5000 runway here in the winter climbing at either Vx or Vy even in my underpowered aircraft, and I often do.

As do turboprop and turbofan aircraft.

If crossing midfield is so dangerous then why does ATC often use that by default (coming from upwind) at controlled fields

I've never been vectored to cross at crosswind by ATC. Wonder why?

 

[tonycondon]

on test flight of Super Cub after annual last week I was at 1500 AGL by the end of a 5700 foot runway. sustained climb rates of over 2000 FPM where found!

On subject, Ive discussed this with jesse, and I pretty much do whatever works. Like Chris I fly at pretty much not very busy uncontrolled airports mostly. A midfield crossing and turning downwind often works well.

 

[Henning]

My 2c:

If crossing midfield is so dangerous then why does ATC often use that by default (coming from upwind) at controlled fields

I've never been vectored to cross at crosswind by ATC. Wonder why?

Typically when I get vectored across a runway, it's over the departure end numbers....

 

[alaskaflyer]

Typically when I get vectored across a runway, it's over the departure end numbers....

For me sometimes over the approach end numbers...such as at LAS when transitioning or being vectored from the south to land on 19 you're taken over the numbers of 25.

 

[Henning]

For me sometimes over the approach end numbers...such as at LAS when transitioning or being vectored from the south to land on 19 you're taken over the numbers of 25.

Sorry, brain fart, meant approach end.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

For me sometimes over the approach end numbers...such as at LAS when transitioning or being vectored from the south to land on 19 you're taken over the numbers of 25.

And the VFR transition over SEA is also over the approach end. Aproach end, they land on or right after the numbers. Departure end, they lift off when they can based on rotate speed and are 500 - 2000 feet at the departure numbers.

 

[tdager]

My 2c:

I can easily reach TPA by the end of a 5000 runway here in the winter climbing at either Vx or Vy even in my underpowered aircraft, and I often do.

As do turboprop and turbofan aircraft.

If crossing midfield is so dangerous then why does ATC often use that by default (coming from upwind) at controlled fields

I've never been vectored to cross at crosswind by ATC. Wonder why?

Kent...the above is the reason I go above TPA on the crosswind at the departure end. I have seen planes that easily reach TPA by the end of the runway.

Again...I will do my best to be a safe, conscientious, professional pilot that others wish to emulate; however I may also do things that are not so right. I will re-evaluate my pattern entries in the future, though I admit to liking my method.

 

[Pilawt]

And the VFR transition over SEA is also over the approach end. Aproach end, they land on or right after the numbers. Departure end, they lift off when they can based on rotate speed and are 500 - 2000 feet at the departure numbers.

North and southbound transitions over Portland (Oregon) Int'l, e.g., to Pearson Field from the south, are sent midfield over KPDX at 1500-2000 AGL.

-- Pilawt

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

North and southbound transitions over Portland (Oregon) Int'l, e.g., to Pearson Field from the south, are sent midfield over KPDX at 1500-2000 AGL.

-- Pilawt

I should probably clarify the VFR transition at SEA is on the approach side, but not over the numbers. For aircraft that may land long I assume. Some rotate near or even before mid-field, so at about 2000 feet down the runway from the approach end is the point least likely to have anyone even off the runway surface.

 

[poadeleted20]

At towered airports, you do what tower says. The question here is nontowered airports.