The Pattern Police

[Don Jones]

It's not unusual for me to use a different runway than the rest of the traffic although this is more likely on takeoff than landing and I generally don't have much trouble working things out. A little cooperation goes a long way. IMO if someone wants to use a different runway than the rest of the traffic that should be his perrogative and everyone should try to work it out. He might have a very valid reason or he might just have a preference, but at an uncontrolled airport there is no "active" runway.

I for one don't have a problem with this provided it is not a huge conflict such as the Grumman guy was creating. If he had come straight in on 30 it would have been cool with me. There were several who landed on 8 on Saturday, even though the wind was favoring 30. We have freight guys come in all the time and use a different runway, they do however pick one which will not conflict with traffic in the pattern. During this particular day there were many which departed on 26 which causes no heartburn for anyone.

I have spent so much time in the pattern here at LRU I have seen a pattern developing from a particular group of pilots who have done things like the grumman guy just to avoid spending a couple of extra minutes taxiing. (their hangars are all near the end of 8) They will take off with 10 kt tailwinds, make radical turns in the pattern at low altitude, you name it, just to avoid a little taxi time. I even had one land less than 100 yards behind me while I was still on the runway during a T&G.(didn't find out about it until later when my flight school boss told me about it)

I just don't understand why some will push a really bad position, hell bent on doing it the way they want no matter what. It is just a matter of time before we have a major accident here.

 

[SteveW]

AEG has a RWY 22R????

He didn't say 22R. He said 22, correct?
Altho', since you bring it up, it IS in the long range plan to add another 4/22 (to be named 4L/22R west of the access road on Paseo del Norte). They also plan on putting in a dirt 9/27.

 

[SkyHog]

He didn't say 22R. He said 22, correct?
Altho', since you bring it up, it IS in the long range plan to add another 4/22 (to be named 4L/22R west of the access road on Paseo del Norte). They also plan on putting in a dirt 9/27.

That master plan is insane, I've been reading it for years, and still can't believe the plans!

 

[mikea]

So by not "fitting in" a pilot is being discourteous? Does that mean that anyone flying a very slow airplane should just stay away from an airport where the rest of the traffic is flying 40 mph faster on final? If I feel that I need a longer runway for safety than the ones being used by airplanes that touch down at half my stall speed, should I just suck it up and go with the flow? Or maybe I have a light taildragger and want to use the turf cross runway because it's more aligned with a light wind and/or I can handle more crosswind on a slippery surface than on asphalt. Maybe I want some crosswind practice and choose the runway that no one else is using that's mis-aligned with the wind, is this only allowed when no one else is nearby?

The point I was trying to make is that there's no reason to assume that another pilot is being dumb or discourteous just because he choses to use a different runway than the rest of the traffic at an uncontrolled field. IMO it's at least as discourteous to insist that everyone uses the runway that happens to be the favorite of the majority. And from your description it sounded like the other pilot tried to communicate his intent and attempted to fit in with the flow as best as he could while using a different runway. Now maybe there was more that I read in your OP, and perhaps the other pilot was being obnoxious in more ways than his runway selection, but even then, I see no reason why a smart, courteous pilot wouldn't try to accommodate the "intruder" unless the guy was putting others in danger by flying too close etc.

Like when I got some dual for short/soft grass field practice pre-Gastons by using the turf runway 19 at Burlington. We were aware of and watching for traffic using the intersecting asphalt 29 at the same time. The funny thing was there was a Saratoga(?) going out who eventually decided to join us using the turf runway.

 

[steingar]

If someone really needs an intersecting runway I have no beef whatsoever. I would not want anyone to endanger themselves on my behalf. However, if everyone is using one runway, and the wind shifts a little bit, I'll still use the "active" runway while there are still aircraft in the pattern. I can land a crosswind just fine.

My thanks for posting the Fekete decision, it is quite eye opening. I still think its unwise to land straight-in when there are aircraft in the pattern, as not everyone has a radio and you may not see them. A pattern gives you more time to spot other airplanes. Still, I have learned something new an valuable reading this thread, which is truly a wonderful thing.

 

[Richard]

He didn't say 22R. He said 22, correct?
Altho', since you bring it up, it IS in the long range plan to add another 4/22 (to be named 4L/22R west of the access road on Paseo del Norte). They also plan on putting in a dirt 9/27.

I was pulling Nick's chain. You could also say I was prescient since I had no knowledge of the plan at AEG.

 

[ejensen]

If a plane is doing something that might be an error like left traffic when map/AFD says right, I might simply announce 'Rwy 27 is right traffic'. If they continue left, I say nothing more. Most of the time I get a 'thanks'. The same goes for a closed runway. Someone annouces 5 miles out for 27, I assume they missed the NOTAM and will let them know.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Eric-

I'd be one of those giving the thanks

 

[flyingron]

Ron, would the case you cited apply to an entry on the 45 as well? There is a thread about patterns on the red board in which I (injudiciously?) said that entering on the 45 does not give one priority over those already in the pattern. Heaven forfend that I should be wrong.

Bob Gardner

For left traffic, strict reading of the regulations gives the right of way to the guy on the 45.

Of course there is also regulations giving all pilots the responsibility to avoid collisions. There's no stand-on vessel in the aviation navigation rules. It would be prudent for both to make efforts to get in sequence.

 

[Troska]

Which seems less courteous? A pilot flying straight in who has come from a direction that leads to a straight in easier and safer than flying around the airport area to maneuver for the 45, or a pilot on downwind being ****y because someone dared enter the pattern when HE was there first?

I am one of those discourteous and sloppy pilots I guess, because I value my own safety and time enough that a straight in, when appropriate, is a perfectly valid approach. If you cut me off, I'll go around, but you can be damn sure your tailnumber is getting reported.

I'm trying to keep an open mind about this, both because I'm lowtime, and I realize I need to continually learn. However, I have difficulty with the "straight in is fine" argument. The airport I fly out of is uncontrolled, has glider, ultralight, and plenty of NORDO traffic.

I just don't understand why someone can't take a lap around the pattern with everyone else to raise their, AND everyone else's situational awareness. Sure, you don't HAVE to, but there are a lot of things that pilots don't HAVE to do that we do in the name of safety.

I could list off 5 scenarios where a straight-in causes an issue. I can't think of a problem caused by joining the pattern.

And _certainly_ the NORDO glider or NORDO cub has the onus upon them to have their head on a swivel to see and avoid. BUT, why not make it easier on everyone by putting yourself in a place where it is easier to be seen?

Tim

 

[poadeleted20]

I just don't understand why someone can't take a lap around the pattern with everyone else to raise their, AND everyone else's situational awareness.

"Can't"? No reason anyone "can't." "Wouldn't"? I can think of about 500 rea$on$ why a LearJet wouldn't want to. And with a pattern full of light planes, I think that LearJet will mess things up worse by flying the pattern than coming straight in. Fact is that many times it is safer and more efficient to make that straight-in than to join the pattern, and if everyone keeps their heads on a swivel and their eyes open, it's not a problem.

 

[Troska]

"Can't"? No reason anyone "can't." "Wouldn't"? I can think of about 500 rea$on$ why a LearJet wouldn't want to. And with a pattern full of light planes, I think that LearJet will mess things up worse by flying the pattern than coming straight in.

Well, I really wasn't thinking LearJet. That is easily understandable, and possible more easily seen.

Fact is that many times it is safer and more efficient to make that straight-in than to join the pattern, and if everyone keeps their heads on a swivel and their eyes open, it's not a problem.

I'm still looking for a "how" or a "why". Not a "Fact is". No disrespect intended.

I've witnessed, and read other's accounts, how a straight-in can be a problem. I've yet to see how J.Q Pilot in a 182/Mooney/Bonanza doesn't improve the safety of everyone by joining the pattern.

I'm willing to be educated, as there are people whose opinions I respect who think that straight-ins are fine and dandy. I'm waiting for those opinions to be backed up with reasoning.

Tim

 

[Everskyward]

I'm still looking for a "how" or a "why". Not a "Fact is".

You say you have ultralight traffic in the pattern going, say, 40 or 50 knots (I really have no idea). Can you imagine trying to squeeze yourself into the pattern in an airplane doing 100 knots, or 150 or more knots if you're going to use the Learjet example? Faster airplanes fly the patter wider, and, in the case of turbine airplanes, higher. However, faster airplanes also need a longer final so they end up turning base outside the slower airplanes and you end up with the same problem as if they entered straight in. There is not an easy answer to all of this except to keep your eyes open and be aware that some airplanes are unable to fly any slower, even if they wanted to. As far as NORDO airplanes go. I know it is absolutely legal to be NORDO but it doesn't seem like such a good idea to me at busy uncontrolled airports.

 

[Troska]

Faster airplanes fly the patter wider, and, in the case of turbine airplanes, higher. However, faster airplanes also need a longer final so they end up turning base outside the slower airplanes and you end up with the same problem as if they entered straight in.

Hmmm, this makes some sense to me. And I can see that it places the straight-in aircraft in harms way for a smaller amount of time. But I still have this nagging voice in my head saying "but if they took a lap around the pattern (higher/wider even) it would give more people time to see them". But you've planted a seed of doubt in my mind (thank you), I'll keep thinking/listening about it.

I know it is absolutely legal to be NORDO but it doesn't seem like such a good idea to me at busy uncontrolled airports.

Now see, that is EXACTLY how I feel about straight-ins.



Tim

 

[ghogue]

"Can't"? No reason anyone "can't." "Wouldn't"? I can think of about 500 rea$on$ why a LearJet wouldn't want to. And with a pattern full of light planes, I think that LearJet will mess things up worse by flying the pattern than coming straight in. Fact is that many times it is safer and more efficient to make that straight-in than to join the pattern, and if everyone keeps their heads on a swivel and their eyes open, it's not a problem.

Ron,

Well said. We often do straight-ins, and yes cost can be a factor. However, for us, cost never trumps safety. As you said, operationally, straight-ins may minimize disruptions to the traffic pattern and make it simpler and safer for everyone. I'm not saying this is always the case, but when it works out, it usually helps everyone in the pattern.

Recently we were returning home and planned to do a straight-in to one runway as a lightplane was doing T&G's to the cross runway. We maintained contact with him throughout the approach. Eventually, it became apparent that our timing just wasn't working and we broke off the straight-in and entered the downwind to the cross runway. We had no problem with that and did not expect the lightplane to adjust for us since he was there first. I know there are some pilots of faster aircraft that have an attitude of "self-importance", but not all of us.

Some folks seem to have a built-in objection to straight-ins and are unable/unwilling to see that at times, when done properly, are a good idea.

gary

 

[Everskyward]

We often do straight-ins, and yes cost can be a factor. However, for us, cost never trumps safety.

I've gotta say that I don't think about cost at all in relation to what kind of pattern I am going to fly although it always seems to come up in message board discussions of straight-in approaches in jets. The cost of flying a full pattern has never been mentioned even once by my employer as far as I can remember, and I would probably remember that. Sure it costs a little more, but not in proportion to the cost of the whole trip.

 

[KennyFlys]

I see nothing wrong with a straight in as long as you provide sufficient calls from about 10, 6 and 3 miles out. Even if you enter on a 45-downwind, you're still likely to cause a change in flow for the one or two folks who may be in the pattern, whether they are full-stops or doing touch-n-goes.

If you're on an instrument approach you have little choice but for a straight. If you were to circle, there would likely be no one else up. Even in that case, it's the non-IR pilots who get into a hissy fit.

At GVL, we have a number of biz jets to mix with on occasion. They are pretty considerate to provide the calls whether on an instrument approach or if they will join the pattern, simply stating position in reference to the normal light aircraft pattern.

I'm not all that concerned where someone enters as long as they are talking and giving position reports. But, nothing ticks me off worse than being on downwind coming up on base and someone suddenly reports on base and turning final. That's happen a few times. I'd be more open to it had I known much earlier and could have extended upwind, done a 360 or something... to keep a safe separation.

At PDK, it's a different animal. Several runways, several pattern and entries and several types of aircraft either into or out of PDK or enroute to or from a nearby airport. Fun, fun!

 

[Teller1900]

I've gotta say that I don't think about cost at all in relation to what kind of pattern I am going to fly although it always seems to come up in message board discussions of straight-in approaches in jets. The cost of flying a full pattern has never been mentioned even once by my employer as far as I can remember, and I would probably remember that. Sure it costs a little more, but not in proportion to the cost of the whole trip.

Exactly. I can promise you we don't concern ourselves much with saving gas period (the company doesn't pay us much, so we're going to get it out of them any way we can), especially not when there's a safety issue.

When it comes to mixing it up in the pattern with a handful of skyhawks (or around here, four Piper Sports), when they're at 75kts and we're at 130 (assuming we fully configure before entering the pattern) and we're 500-700 feet higher AND we're probably a quarter to half mile wider through all of our turns, we're going to opt for whatever entry puts us in conflict for the least amount of time. If we slot in behind a Cherokee/Skyhawk, even if we're both holding our altitude perfectly, we're going to be getting traffic alerts constantly, we're going to have a nightmare time keeping a visual on him as we're both turning through the pattern, and if we start to overtake we have no choice but to depart the pattern and rejoin...and now we're doing some strange and unexpected maneuvers over the airport (remember that NORDO a/c you asked about...what's he going to think is going on now?)

Now what if there's another one behind us? We're going to be descending through his altitude (we have to, we're turbine powered, so we have to fly a higher pattern) as we're turning, and now he has to think about wake turbulence. If we make a straight in, we can adjust our speed, fly S-turns, etc to work out the spacing with anyone else in the pattern. We're going to have the entire traffic pattern in front of us the whole time, with little to no risk of overtaking anyone unexpectedly. And we can try to squeeze ourselves in in such a way that, since we tend to land longer than a single engine, if we miss the last taxiway we'll have time to flip a 180 and get out of the way instead of forcing the guy that was chasing us through the pattern has to go-around.

It may seem strange coming from the light single world, but the faster the plane, the more dangerous it is to try to mix it up with smaller and slower traffic. I've never flown a Bo or a 210, but I know I was nervous in the pattern in a Seminole with a Skyhawk in front of me; it's only a few knots difference if everything else is done perfectly, but even that few knots can make a huge difference.

 

[ghogue]

I've gotta say that I don't think about cost at all in relation to what kind of pattern I am going to fly although it always seems to come up in message board discussions of straight-in approaches in jets. The cost of flying a full pattern has never been mentioned even once by my employer as far as I can remember, and I would probably remember that. Sure it costs a little more, but not in proportion to the cost of the whole trip.

I agree. I do not use cost in determining the pattern I fly and my employer never mentions it. I'm just saying, as Ron mentioned, that longer patterns, if not necessary, do add to the cost of operation. For us, the fuel alone is about $15+/minute. As you said, a small portion of the overall cost, but over a years time, it can still add up to a substantial amount.

Sounds like I am concerned about the cost of pattern work, but just responding to your comment to clarify what I said. When it comes to the pattern I use, the cost does not affect my decision.

gary

 

[Teller1900]

I see nothing wrong with a straight in as long as you provide sufficient calls from about 10, 6 and 3 miles out.

We're required to report at 20nm and 10nm, then whenever we get our frequency change. Most of us start at 20nm, constantly monitor the CTAF on com 2, then make a call every 5nm (or less, if there's actually traffic in the area) with all the normal stuff (Augusta area traffic, Colgan 4972 is type Beechcraft 1900, 20 miles to the South, in bound for a straight in to runway 35; Augusta). We want to make sure everyone knows where we are and where we're going when we're bombing into a fray of four light singles at 130kts.

 

[ScottM]

The airport I used to be based at had a few jets based there. There were also a lot of student pilots in the pattern. The jets often flew straight ins for the reasons that Ron mentioned above. It was easier and safer to let them in. On more than one occasion when I was the next one up to land I would here the jet on a 3 mile final, instead of turning base I would tel him I was extending and letting him land. Seemed the right thing to do because if I didn't we would both be on final at about the same point. I have no problem with straight in and at the airport I am no we have lots of NORDO and lots of ultralights. We also have two runways. The NORDOs and ultralights tend to use the grass and bigger planes use the asphalt. We all keep each other in sight and I cannot think of a close call or complaint from anyone.

 

[silver-eagle]

I have little problem with non standard arrivals except when it's clear the other pilot doesn't give a wit who's out there, where they are, or what runway the traffic is using. Often times, these guys are the same ones who tie up CTAF with idle chitchat about where to lunch as they cut off others or barge their way into a pattern. They're either bullies or idiots.
It's best to leave them be. They'll either learn their lesson the easy way or end up a smoking hole, hopefully taking only themselves.
So, expect anything. Keep your head on a swivel and your ears open. Someone IS out to get you.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm still looking for a "how" or a "why". Not a "Fact is".

Everskyward, ghogue, Teller, and smigaldi took the words right out of my mouth -- can't add a thing.

No disrespect intended.

None taken...it's a learning experience here.

 

[Troska]

Everskyward, ghogue, Teller, and smigaldi took the words right out of my mouth -- can't add a thing.
None taken...it's a learning experience here.

Lots of good anecdotes and information here. Obviously larger/faster aircraft have good reasons for making straight-ins. Generally they are talking and looking as well.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the piston single coming VFR straight in to a pattern with aircraft already in it? This is the situation where I struggle with the understanding of it being safe.

I'm not trying to be a PITA. There have been several times where it would have been easier for me to just do a straight-in to an uncontrolled field, but I took a trip around the pattern to take a look for other aircraft, even though there were none announcing on the CTAF. Would you just announce (and scan/look) your way in?

Thanks,
Tim

 

[Teller1900]

None taken...it's a learning experience here.

Amen to that! Just about every day I learn how little I actually know about...well anything.


Don't say anything Kenny, AWACS, Steve or Tony (I know you guys are the smarta$$es around here)!

 

[ScottM]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the piston single coming VFR straight in to a pattern with aircraft already in it? This is the situation where I struggle with the understanding of it being safe.

Sure.

This happened to me at Smith Field (KSMD), Fort Wayne, IN.

I was coming in from the west and it was IMC. I was shooting one of two approaches into the field. There is a GPS13 or a VOR 13 approach, I was on the GPS 12 which of course sets me up for a straight in to 13.

The field itself was MVFR and in the pattern were several airplanes doing a Young Eagles event. I broke out about 3.5 miles away, I made my announcements and all of the traffic was using the runway 23. Now I could have swung out, possibly entered IMC again or just gotten in the way due to the reduced vis of operations using KFWA, or I could have blasted through the pattern and turned around and rejoined or I could just keep using the runway I was lined up for, coordinate with the other traffic and all would be safe and happy. I wanted to go straight in, before I even had to make those intentions clear the EAA coordinator on the ground stated that his traffic would give way for me. All of us kept it timed well, I landed and they kept doing their thing.

I went over and thanked the guy on the ground for doing that and he said it seemed like the best solution for all. He was right.

 

[ScottM]

I'm not trying to be a PITA. There have been several times where it would have been easier for me to just do a straight-in to an uncontrolled field, but I took a trip around the pattern to take a look for other aircraft, even though there were none announcing on the CTAF. Would you just announce (and scan/look) your way in?

I have done both. You are not being a PITA. Asking questions is what we all should do. I know I still learn stuff from time to time.

 

[Everskyward]

Asking questions is what we all should do. I know I still learn stuff from time to time.

No kidding. If there were no questions, what would we talk about? Wait, maybe I don't want to know.

I've learned a lot of stuff from these boards too.

 

[AWACSEng]

Amen to that! Just about every day I learn how little I actually know about...well anything.


Don't say anything Kenny, AWACS, Steve or Tony (I know you guys are the smarta$$es around here)!

The first boss I ever had told me if you don't learn something new every day, you're just wasting your time.

Teller, I know you said don't say anything, but I just had to throw that out there.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Hmmm, this makes some sense to me. And I can see that it places the straight-in aircraft in harms way for a smaller amount of time. But I still have this nagging voice in my head saying "but if they took a lap around the pattern (higher/wider even) it would give more people time to see them".

But that's just it... If they're already on the ground, you don't need to see them. IMO, the less time (and fewer aircraft) in the pattern increases safety. It's also not very hard for the people in the pattern and on a straight in to see each other (two places to be, final or base.) In fact, compare that with entering the pattern where planes are coming in from every which way.

 

[Steve]

Hey!

I resemble that indigestion!



It only gets more so the older you get...I'm at the point now I'm actually unlearning what I thought I knew about everything...I'll have an empty brain before I done at this rate.

A pattern at non-towered airports are like the traffic circle at the entrance to KJAN. Those that understand it are always endangered by those who don't.

Amen to that! Just about every day I learn how little I actually know about...well anything.


Don't say anything Kenny, AWACS, Steve or Tony (I know you guys are the smarta$$es around here)!

 

[KennyFlys]

Amen to that! Just about every day I learn how little I actually know about...well anything.


Don't say anything Kenny, AWACS, Steve or Tony (I know you guys are the smarta$$es around here)!

I'm merely a grasshopper... there are those far more experienced than I!

 

[gismo]

I know there are some pilots of faster aircraft that have an attitude of "self-importance", but not all of us.

And that's the real key to "fitting in". It's not always flying a standard pattern, nor is it complying with another pilot's view on the "only way to enter the pattern" that makes a courteous pilot, it's an attitude of mutual cooperation.

Some folks seem to have a built-in objection to straight-ins and are unable/unwilling to see that at times, when done properly, are a good idea.

Same for any other entry to the pattern that contradicts some pilot's way of thinking. And the most dangerous pattern behavior is the fool who insists that everything be done his way and tries to enforce his nonsensical ideas by cutting in front, refusing to yield the right of way when he should, or even tying up the CTAF with a verbal tirade.

 

[gismo]

Hey!

I resemble that indigestion!



It only gets more so the older you get...I'm at the point now I'm actually unlearning what I thought I knew about everything...I'll have an empty brain before I done at this rate.

You and me both. I seem to have reached the age where I'm learning new stuff almost as fast as I'm forgetting old stuff.

 

[bbchien]

I agree. I do not use cost in determining the pattern I fly and my employer never mentions it. I'm just saying, as Ron mentioned, that longer patterns, if not necessary, do add to the cost of operation. For us, the fuel alone is about $15+/minute. As you said, a small portion of the overall cost, but over a years time, it can still add up to a substantial amount.

Sounds like I am concerned about the cost of pattern work, but just responding to your comment to clarify what I said. When it comes to the pattern I use, the cost does not affect my decision.

gary

Nor I. Problem is, as a light aircraft pilot, many just don't realize that once you get to vref on final, you REALLY don't want to change that speed. Even Vref + 10 on base you REALLY don't want to change that speed.

Straight ins are substantially LESS work (and therefore RISK) in CAR 25 aircraft!

But your average Joe 150 pilot has no idea.

 

[EdFred]

My bladder usually can't take another trip around the pattern. I generally reach my destination at critical mass. Cut me off on a straight in, and I'll make sure to send you a cleaning bill in the mail.