Teardrop Entry

[cowtowner]

Is there a real reason for this?

Coming into my home drone, which is a busy little airport with a 3,500 ft runway.

Bunch of trainers in the pattern, I'm trying to make an overhead to left downwind. A 150 in front of me decides to do a teardrop entry.....one that takes about 3 minutes.

I ended up cutting in front of her and just entered my downwind. She wasn't happy with me but.....why would you make a teardrop entry into a full pattern with three others coming in behind you?

Maybe I was in the wrong...let me know.

BTW, my downwind I usually fly higher and wider than a normal pattern and much faster than a typical trainer. I can't do a 70mph downwind.

 

[Pinecone]

And your justification for flying higher pattern?

 

[cowtowner]

And your justification for flying higher pattern?

Because we have a lot of nordo planes flying 70mph patterns in their cubs. I am higher and wider so I don’t run over them in case I don’t see them.

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

Is there a real reason for this?

Coming into my home drone, which is a busy little airport with a 3,500 ft runway.

Bunch of trainers in the pattern, I'm trying to make an overhead to left downwind. A 150 in front of me decides to do a teardrop entry.....one that takes about 3 minutes.

I ended up cutting in front of her and just entered my downwind. She wasn't happy with me but.....why would you make a teardrop entry into a full pattern with three others coming in behind you?

Maybe I was in the wrong...let me know.

BTW, my downwind I usually fly higher and wider than a normal pattern and much faster than a typical trainer. I can't do a 70mph downwind.

In cases like this I'd probably just setup to do a straight in (and of course people will come out of the wood work to complain about that, too).
But I see nothing wrong with what you did. And if I was in a 150 I would not want a Columbia 400 trailing me in the pattern (IIRC that's your bird?). They'd be hot on my tail the entire time. The speed that you'd comfortably do a teardrop at is probably a 150's Vno speed lol.

EDIT: Also, I do teardrop entries just for fun. Nothing against them. I think they're helpful for spotting other traffic. But I never have the expectation other people will do them just b/c I'm doing them.

 

[keen9]

Because we have a lot of nordo planes flying 70mph patterns in their cubs. I am higher and wider so I don’t run over them in case I don’t see them.

Higher means it will be harder to see them. There is a reason we have one pattern altitude.

 

[MauleSkinner]

A 150 in front of me decides to do a teardrop entry.....one that takes about 3 minutes.

If the pilot of a 150 is able to make it go fast enough to complete the entry as proscribed in the AIM in about 3 minutes, I wouldn’t argue, either.

 

[TCABM]

I’ll just leave this here.

AC90-66C: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...fm/go/document.information/documentID/1032988

Off to make some popcorn

 

[Clip4]

Is there a real reason for this?

Coming into my home drone, which is a busy little airport with a 3,500 ft runway.

Bunch of trainers in the pattern, I'm trying to make an overhead to left downwind. A 150 in front of me decides to do a teardrop entry.....one that takes about 3 minutes.

I ended up cutting in front of her and just entered my downwind. She wasn't happy with me but.....why would you make a teardrop entry into a full pattern with three others coming in behind you?

Maybe I was in the wrong...let me know.

BTW, my downwind I usually fly higher and wider than a normal pattern and much faster than a typical trainer. I can't do a 70mph downwind.

I am going out on a limb here, but I think you mean you entered the pattern on a mid field crosswind with aircraft in the pattern - not an overhead into the downwind.. The FAA’s guidance today is not to do that and the student was likely correct following an FAA recommended pattern entry into a busy airport and you executed an entry the FAA discourages.

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/09_afh_ch8.pdf

People make this a lot more complicated than it is. Fly over the pattern at least 500 over the TPA, then descend when clear of the pattern, then turn and enter the pattern on the 45° entry.

When done correctly, everyone entering the pattern is on the 45° entry.

 

[Sierra_Hotel]

Also: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/teardrop-pattern-entry.137056/

 

[midlifeflyer]

Sadly the so-called "teardrop" entry is a bastardization of the FAA's preferred entry from the upwind side. It's supposed to be a shorthand for crossing midfield above the pattern, flying 2-3 miles out and returning on the 45.

But that said, I hear two things which may be contradictory in the post. 2-3 minutes sounds like it may have been done correctly, but getting mad about an airplane already on downwind when coming in on a 45 is not.

 

[mark.staggs]

Yeah, I stopped doing the teardrop method soon after getting my private. I really don't like it for a variety of reasons.

I'll instead enter nearly any other way (a) mid-field crosswind, (b) crosswind, or (c) fly a full upwind, crosswind, then downwind if the pattern is really busy so I can work in with the existing flow. I'd rather be in a position to see everything that's going on rather than turn tail towards the pattern.

 

[AV8R_87]

Mid-field crosswind (aka "direct entry") is my prefered method.
Best all-around visibility, especially if flown right. For example, in a low wing, fly a bit below published pattern altitude. In a high wing, fly a bit above. Gives you the best chance to spot traffic and adjust accordingly.

 

[Sierra_Hotel]

And this is why there are guidelines....

 

[luvflyin]

Is there a real reason for this?

Coming into my home drone, which is a busy little airport with a 3,500 ft runway.

Bunch of trainers in the pattern, I'm trying to make an overhead to left downwind. A 150 in front of me decides to do a teardrop entry.....one that takes about 3 minutes.

I ended up cutting in front of her and just entered my downwind. She wasn't happy with me but.....why would you make a teardrop entry into a full pattern with three others coming in behind you?

Maybe I was in the wrong...let me know.

BTW, my downwind I usually fly higher and wider than a normal pattern and much faster than a typical trainer. I can't do a 70mph downwind.

What airplane do you fly?

 

[Clip4]

Yeah, I stopped doing the teardrop method soon after getting my private. I really don't like it for a variety of reasons.

I'll instead enter nearly any other way (a) mid-field crosswind, (b) crosswind, or (c) fly a full upwind, crosswind, then downwind if the pattern is really busy so I can work in with the existing flow. I'd rather be in a position to see everything that's going on rather than turn tail towards the pattern.

Until you can’t, cut someone off and make them breakout of the pattern. If the pattern is really busy, the 45° entry is your best option for you and the rest of the pilots to see what is going on, not the rest of that junk.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm trying to make an overhead to left downwind.

What's an "overhead to downwind?"

BTW, my downwind I usually fly higher and wider than a normal pattern and much faster than a typical trainer. I can't do a 70mph downwind.

Same question as @Clip4. What are you flying that's unable to merge with trainers in the traffic pattern? And I don't see many flying downwind at 70. A 152 at 80 maybe, but more typical downwind speed is about 90.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

If some folks would quit trying to outsmart AC90-66C, things would be a lot easier for everyone. It’s not that hard and not unclear. If it is, read until understood.

 

[Clip4]

What's an "overhead to downwind?"

Same question as @Clip4. What are you flying that's unable to merge with trainers in the traffic pattern? And I don't see many flying downwind at 70. A 152 at 80 maybe, but more typical downwind speed is about 90.

When you have trainers (students) mixed with higher performance aircraft, entering where ever you like is not a good plan.

 

[dmspilot]

If some folks would quit trying to outsmart AC90-66C, things would be a lot easier for everyone. It’s not that hard and not unclear. If it is, read until understood.

Neither entry works at my field with parachute jumpers. Crossing over 500 above doesn't work when there is an airspace shelf above or if there are large multiengine or turbine aircraft flying a 1500 pattern. The midfield entry poses a head-on collision risk when the wind is calm. Oh, the AC and AIM can't even show a correct drawing of a 45 degree entry. When the FAA gets its head out of its a$$ and recommends techniques that work for everyone, people will make up their own procedures.

 

[Clip4]

Neither entry works at my field with parachute jumpers. Crossing over 500 above doesn't work when there is an airspace shelf above or if there are large multiengine or turbine aircraft flying a 1500 pattern. The midfield entry poses a head-on collision risk when the wind is calm. Oh, the AC and AIM can't even show a correct drawing of a 45 degree entry. When the FAA gets its head out of its a$$ and recommends techniques that work for everyone, people will make up their own procedures.

Doesn’t work well at airports with lots of gliders either.

 

[francisco collazos]

You call it a tear -drop and I call it a steep turn into the down wind. who doesn't like to practice steep turns?

 

[Salty]

I'll fly 5 miles off course to my destination and turn in a way that I can enter on a 45 for the downwind before I'd ever fly over, then past the field 2-3 miles and turn into the downwind. It's nonsense. Why the hell would I fly over the airport, then leave the airport area and fly back to the airport again? Not me. That's not safer. Again, nonsense.

 

[Sierra_Hotel]

That's an interesting take...

 

[Palmpilot]

I'm trying to make an overhead to left downwind.

One time when I was on the 45-degree entry to Half Moon Bay (HAF), I had to take evasive action when I found myself head-to-head with a plane that was doing an overhead-to-downwind entry. Since I had not encountered this situation before, I was not prepared for it and the avoidance maneuver I chose on the spur of the moment was not very safe. Consequently, I am not fond of the overhead entry to downwind.

For the same reason, I don't like the midfield-crossover-to-downwind procedure. The AC says to yield to traffic on the "preferred" 45-degree entry, but when planes are head-to-head or nearly so, the closure rate is high and it can be hard to spot the oncoming traffic.

 

[Clip4]

You call it a tear -drop and I call it a steep turn into the down wind. who doesn't like to practice steep turns?

I call what you are doing stupid. (Hazardous).

 

[PaulS]

I'll fly 5 miles off course to my destination and turn in a way that I can enter on a 45 for the downwind before I'd ever fly over, then past the field 2-3 miles and turn into the downwind. It's nonsense. Why the hell would I fly over the airport, then leave the airport area and fly back to the airport again? Not me. That's not safer. Again, nonsense.

I kind of agree with this, I do fly cross field entries if the situation is right, but I’ll just do it at pa and turn into the downwind. Quick and easy, but I don’t do it if there’s a potential conflict.

I think people slamming out touch and goes need to make room when traffic comes in, most do, some don’t. Not sure I’ve ever done a teardrop pattern entry vfr.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'll fly 5 miles off course to my destination and turn in a way that I can enter on a 45 for the downwind before I'd ever fly over, then past the field 2-3 miles and turn into the downwind. It's nonsense. Why the hell would I fly over the airport, then leave the airport area and fly back to the airport again? Not me. That's not safer. Again, nonsense.

It’s not a turn to the downwind. That’s the problem with the term “teardrop” - it’s leading people to think that’s what it is. It’s “past the field 2-3 miles and turn into” a 45.

Runway is 9/27. 27 in use. Left traffic. You are coming from due north. I think it might be more than 5 miles to avoid the shortest distance to the other side of the airport, descend, turn, and enter in a 45.

 

[Salty]

It’s not a turn to the downwind. That’s the problem with the term “teardrop” - it’s leading people to think that’s what it is. It’s “past the field 2-3 miles and turn into” a 45.

It’s clear what I meant.

Runway is 9/27. 27 in use. Left traffic. You are coming from due north. I think it might be more than 5 miles to avoid the shortest distance to the other side of the airport, descend, turn, and enter in a 45.

Ok, I’d go “more” then. I’m not going to fly into the airport area twice to be “safer”.

More likely if I had to go “more” to stay safe, I’d do an entry direct into the downwind. But certainly not leave and come back to make it “safe”

 

[AV8R_87]

I've had close calls* doing a crosswind entry. I've had close calls on the 45, because pilots call a "45" any intercept angle between 0 and 135.
I've had a guy decide to do a 360 on final, with me following him a couple miles behind, not announcing his intentions. Imagine my surprise seeing him rejoin final pretty much on a right base at a left pattern field.
Some cowboy instructor from a neighboring field flight school decided he wasn't going to sequence behind me on an upwind entry, he proceeded instead to overtake me on the inside (between the runway and the upwind) while in complete radio silence. Same cowboy bent a wing on that plane a couple months later.
Local idiot with a carbon cub. Thinks radios are for female cats and proper patterns are for losers. Takes off (with three other aircraft in the pattern), flies a tight pattern, cuts off two of the three planes, causing the one already on final to go around.
Only time I've had a surprise on a midfield crosswind was with a nordo cub flying the pattern at 700agl. I was expecting (and looking for) aircraft around pattern altitude, not something popping up from under my nose.
Moral of the story: you'll have issues no matter which way you enter the pattern. Best way to mitigate them is by not flying precisely at 1000' agl, and by approaching in a manner that gives you the best visibility and situational awareness. In my opinion, approaching midfield from the opposite side gives the best visibility, with plenty of exit strategies. I can turn on the upwind if the downwind is a mess and I catch it early. I can turn over the runway, if I realize a bit later that I can't make the downwind turn. I can climb 500' above and fly a proper teardrop into a 45. I can do a 180, get out of there and reassess the situation.

*close calls in this means any time some sort of evasive maneuver was needed to ensure planes didn't get too close. It does't mean it was a brown trouser moment.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Ok, I’d go “more” then. I’m not going to fly into the airport area twice to be “safer”.

More likely if I had to go “more” to stay safe, I’d do an entry direct into the downwind. But certainly not leave and come back to make it “safe”

Not to make it”safe”. To set up a normal entry when traffic doesn’t permit a cross direct to downwind entry (which I don’t know until I get close).

then again, I don’t avoid crossing above the pattern over airports enroute either, so it’s probably one of those “different strokes” things.

 

[morleyz]

I call what you are doing stupid.

It's crazy that you have 10,035 posts of bitching, moaning and calling other people names. I don't get it and you must really be a miserable. It's an accepted and recommended entry. You can go ahead and call the FAA stupid for recommending it if you'd like, but why another pilot and member?

As far as the maneuver is concerned, there are really no pattern entries that work for every single situation. Listen to what is going on as you approach the field, use an accepted entry (and if it's really busy, make a radio call so everyone knows what you're doing) that makes sense for getting into the flow of the patter and then execute it. If there's nordo traffic, you're more likely to spot it if you and they are executing accepted entries. That's how you maintain separation and safety. Not flying non-standard patterns, conflicting entries, etc. Go ahead and shake your fists at the clouds if you wish, but it will be safer if you adapt to the recommendations being taught.

 

[TCABM]

…recommend[ed] techniques that work for everyone….

Root meet cause. Aviation is dynamic and there is no globally applicable universal technique. Not even at a controlled airfield.

Pattern entry, to me, is one of the riskiest things we do because it’s a converging, maneuvering environment at altitudes and speeds that are less than optimum for those activities.

Now that my homedrome delta has an ATP location with scheduled push/recovery times, I intentionally use time offsets from those pushes to build a little margin. Unfortunately, that technique wouldn’t work at a place like APA, where even an instrument approach doesn’t guarantee some yahoo from ruining your day.

 

[Clip4]

It's crazy that you have 10,035 posts of bitching, moaning and calling other people names. I don't get it and you must really be a miserable. It's an accepted and recommended entry. You can go ahead and call the FAA stupid for recommending it if you'd like, but why another pilot and member?

As far as the maneuver is concerned, there are really no pattern entries that work for every single situation. Listen to what is going on as you approach the field, use an accepted entry (and if it's really busy, make a radio call so everyone knows what you're doing) that makes sense for getting into the flow of the patter and then execute it. If there's nordo traffic, you're more likely to spot it if you and they are executing accepted entries. That's how you maintain separation and safety. Not flying non-standard patterns, conflicting entries, etc. Go ahead and shake your fists at the clouds if you wish, but it will be safer if you adapt to the recommendations being taught.

Got it, a steep turn onto the downwind isn’t stupid, I am just a bitter name caller with several thousand likes received. But if it makes you feel better I amended the post to indicate stupid means hazardous.

 

[morleyz]

Got it, a steep turn onto the downwind isn’t stupid, I am just a bitter name caller with several thousand likes received. But if it makes you feel better I amended the post to read hazardous.

He was saying that the turn into the 45 for the downwind was a chance to do a steep turn. Why is that stupid? That's literally the FAA recommended entry when approaching from the opposite side of the pattern.

 

[Clip4]

He was saying that the turn into the 45 for the downwind was a chance to do a steep turn. Why is that stupid? That's literally the FAA recommended entry when approaching from the opposite side of the pattern.

Actually be said, “You call it a tear -drop and I call it a steep turn into the down wind. who doesn't like to practice steep turns?”

This maneuver doesn’t require a steep turn and making a steep turn into the pattern is hazardous. Where this can occur is when the pilot does not fly far enough away from the airport before beginning the turn.

 

[idahoflier]

I ended up cutting in front of her and just entered my downwind. She wasn't happy with me but.....why would you make a teardrop entry into a full pattern with three others coming in behind you?

If she didn't have to modify her pattern based on what you did, then no, I don't see anything wrong with your actions...

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Not following expected pattern entries should be the exception rather than the rule. Some airplanes, airspaces, and situations may occasionally call for it. If everyone is doing something different at a given field, then something’s wrong and conflicts are bound to happen. I’m not saying anything that’s not obvious, right?

 

[cowman]

 

[Half Fast]

He was saying that the turn into the 45 for the downwind was a chance to do a steep turn. Why is that stupid? That's literally the FAA recommended entry when approaching from the opposite side of the pattern.

No it isn't.

The FAA recommended entry is to fly 2 miles away from the pattern, THEN descend, THEN turn onto a 45. A 500'/minute descent to lose 500' will take (surprise) 1 minute, in which a plane doing (for example) 120 knots will fly 2 more miles. If you're several miles from the airport when you begin your turn, turning onto the 45 won't require a steep turn.

 

[Clip4]

No it isn't.

The FAA recommended entry is to fly 2 miles away from the pattern, THEN descend, THEN turn onto a 45. A 500'/minute descent to lose 500' will take (surprise) 1 minute, in which a plane doing (for example) 120 knots will fly 2 more miles. If you're several miles from the airport when you begin your turn, turning onto the 45 won't require a steep turn.

View attachment 132969

Adding to your post…. The FAA strongly advocates a 45° entry. The “teardrop” completed correctly allows the pilot to complete a course reversal and enter 45° to a midfield downwind.


The sentences that accompanies the diagram that no one bothers reading.

“When well clear of the pattern -approximately 2 miles- the pilot should scan the area carefully for traffic, descend to the pattern altitude, then turn right to enter at 45°to the downwind leg at midfield.”

“Why is it advantageous to use the 45° entry? If it is not possible to enter the pattern due to conflicting traffic, the pilot on the 45° can continue to turn away from the downwind, fly a safe distance away, and return for another attempt to join on the 45° entry - all while scanning for traffic.

I wish the FAA would modify their diagram more to scale because no one reads these days.