The Pattern Police

[Don Jones]

Well today I had a first. I usually never make comments to other pilots on the radio, today I couldn't stand it. Here is the situation: Three Navy t-34's flying right traffic to rwy 30 here at LRU doing touch & goes, I had a student with me flying left traffic, also using 30 doing touch and goes. There is also a Skylane 3 miles out on final for 30. So here comes this guy in a Grumman from south of the airport announces he is going to enter left traffic for 26. (attached the airport diagram) We make the downwind turn and I announce left downwind for 30 and inquire as to the position of the 26 traffic. He says he is still 4 miles south of the airport. Thinking he might take the hint we continue on, do another t&g. When we turn downwind, he is jabbering on the radio trying to fit in with the 30 traffic talking about how he is going to extend downwind, bla bla bla. I don't know what came over me, I keyed up the mike and said " Ya know if you would use the same runway everyone else was using you wouldn't be having these problems" Next call he makes he announces he is going to overfly the airport at 6500 and enter downwind for 30. Hooray, he got the message.
So was I wrong to comment on the frequency? Do you guys ever? I considered finding him and talking to him in person, but knew he would be long gone by the time my lesson was done.

 

[poadeleted20]

So was I wrong to comment on the frequency?

Based on the result, no.

Do you guys ever?

Rarely -- I try to let it ride until we're all on the ground.

I considered finding him and talking to him in person, but knew he would be long gone by the time my lesson was done.

Leave that for someone with the experience and training to do it, like an FAA Inspector or Safety Team Representative. It is unlikely you have the status to do that yourself without risking a confrontation. If you feel someone needs talking to, find out who the local FAASTeam Rep is, relate the story, and let him/her handle it.

BTW, is Rwy 30 at LRU left or right traffic? Since this is a nontowered airport, either the Navy folks or the other traffic were operating in violation of 14 CFR 91.126(b)(1), and that ain't good.

 

[Don Jones]

Based on the result, no.
Rarely -- I try to let it ride until we're all on the ground.
find out who the local FAASTeam Rep is

That would be me, well one of them anyway. Still awaiting for my ID from the FAA and was supposed to have another sesson of training, which hasn't happened yet. I plan on finding out who it is and having a chat. He wasn't using the full tail #, but I know someone who does know him.

BTW, is Rwy 30 at LRU left or right traffic? Since this is a nontowered airport, either the Navy folks or the other traffic were operating in violation of 14 CFR 91.126(b)(1), and that ain't good.

All traffic at LRU is left hand, each year the Navy comes in from NAS Corpus for training. They always fly right traffic while civilians fly normal left hand.
It actually works out great, if there is ever a conflict, they "wave off" for the civilian. The problem comes from the civilians who don't want to mix it up with the navy and like this guy, try to use another runway. I have done 9 t&g's in a 1 hour lesson with 6 t-34's in the pattern with me, it all works fine until someone goes against the flow.

 

[TMetzinger]

Yeah, I'm a FAASTeam rep too (recently appointed), and they seem to be having some teething troubles getting the program going - I wouldn't be surprised if it's due to the fact that, as usual, none of the spending bills for the fiscal year that's already 45 days old have been passed.

On this topic, I've seen folks using both runways at FDK simultaneously, with the folks using the runway aligned with the wind being given priority by the folks doing crosswind practice (nearly always with a local CFI on board). As long as everyone cooperates and communicates it can work well.

I don't like the idea of the navy guys flying an opposite pattern unless they're in helos - there's no good reason to put two planes on collision course on the base leg.

 

[SkyHog]

Don, for what its worth, I have only done it once, and I felt odd afterwards. I was incoming to runway 22 from the west, hearing about 4 or 5 others in the pattern. Someone came from the east, handed off directly from Albuquerque Approach so he tuned in very late (happens), and immediately reported entering base for runway 17. Anyone who's been to KAEG knows that left base for 17 and right base for 22 overlap in a nasty way, and when he made his call, it was followed by 2 successive calls from a person on downwind on 22, and another on base for 22.

I'm on the 45, waiting for him to rectify the situation, he then reports a 2 mile base leg, and I about lost it. "You trying to kill someone? You realize that you are on a collision course with about 3 others in the pattern for 22, right?"

He wound up doing about 3 360s and came in to land on 17 anyways. Moron. The other pilots eventually just extended their downwinds for a few miles to let him in. Doing 360s on base is almost never smart, IMHO.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don't like the idea of the navy guys flying an opposite pattern unless they're in helos - there's no good reason to put two planes on collision course on the base leg.

Beats the hell out of getting a T-34 prop in your tail feathers tho...

 

[gismo]

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.

And to the original question, I have "advised" a fellow pilot in the pattern only once that I can recall. He was flying right downwind and I was on left downwind at an airport with left traffic. I didn't chew him out or anything, but I did tell him that we were both supposed to be flying left. IIRC he continued on the "wrong" downwind and I extended an extra mile or two to make room. I later learned that the guy was a CFI with a student and that he did this kind of thing fairly often. Made me especially mad that he was teaching such nonsense to students that deserved better but I didn't feel that there was much I could do about it at the time.

 

[TMetzinger]

Beats the hell out of getting a T-34 prop in your tail feathers tho...

The T-34 is quite comfortable at pattern speeds, and they always have the option of flying a little higher in the same way that fast twins might.

Again, it's very difficult to see someone coming right at you, it's the worst possible situation for collisions.

 

[maddog52]

I don't like the idea of the navy guys flying an opposite pattern unless they're in helos - there's no good reason to put two planes on collision course on the base leg.

Tim, I think it's a better idea than it may sound at first. The T-34s are going to fly much more consistent patterns than the mix of CIV GA aircraft. The T-34C is a little faster than most of them and the base/final tend to be a little tighter also (at least when I was flying them).

The Class D field I fly out of uses simultaneous Left and Right traffic to sequence the pattern all the time and it seems to work well. As long as everybody is consistent and predictable it's safe.

Fly Safe,

Mitch

 

[TMetzinger]

Class D means a tower, so you have active sequencing - a whole different story. Everyone is communicating, and there's a ringmaster.

 

[Don Jones]

Tim, I think it's a better idea than it may sound at first. The T-34s are going to fly much more consistent patterns than the mix of CIV GA aircraft. The T-34C is a little faster than most of them and the base/final tend to be a little tighter also (at least when I was flying them).

Mitch

That is the situation exactly, they fly a tight right base while we are farther out, it is never a head to head situation. They are also extremely professional and courteous in the way they conduct themselves. The hardest part of dealing with them is trying to take off. It is pretty difficult to find a hole, but I found if I announce ready to depart, one of them will go around to make a hole. If we are leaving the pattern I will often depart on a different runway, one which won't conflict with their ops though. The first year they came here, they also flew left traffic trying to mix it up with the civilians. That was horrible! This is a much better and safer solution IMHO.

 

[nddons]

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.

That may be your right, but it just doesn't seem smart, or courteous, and I believe it raises the tension for everyone in or near the airport. There should be no reason why the "special" person can't work in with everyone else, not the other way around. I don't consider saving taxiing time to be a valid reason to throw a wrench in the works, especially at a multiple runway uncontrolled airport. Throw in a nervous student, poor radio calls, or just another sloppy pilot, and the results can be tragic.

Ask yourself where most mid-airs happen. Clue: it's not at cruise flight.

 

[skyflyer8]

I usually never make comments to other pilots on the radio, today I couldn't stand it.

I felt that way a couple months ago. My safety was jeopardized when someone made up their own rules in the traffic pattern. I said something starting with "be advised...", to which the pilot responded "I don't need the advice, get out of my way," etc. and I was forced off a runway.

I'm glad I refrained from saying any more, because I was very angry and it wouldn't have been pretty. Plus the guy obviously wasn't going to care anyway. So later I looked up his N-number, which showed as "in question," and then called the FSDO. I had a good conversation with an inspector and felt much better after learning of some things the FAA could do. I had never called the FSDO for a reason like this before, and was glad I did.

 

[bbchien]

Kate, I've got hot on the mic just once. I said to my student, with the mic deliberately keyed, "Jesus he turned INSIDE OF US". Last year. I was teaching landings and my student was flying 1 mile finals. We're at wing up left base 36, and this guy in a C150 turns inside of us. Now where to go? We went around to the opposite side (to avoid infringing on Class C) and when I got down I did give him more than a piece of my mind, face to face. I ended up pasting, in a plastic ziploc, the FAA circular on the pattern- which shows an up to 1 mile final.

I have not heard from the a__hole since.

 

[sba55]

I haven't yet, but I've gotten some "advice" from people who felt that they had more of a right to land than me because they weren't on a straight in. It can be very annoying if the one giving advice is wrong, and I don't really know what good it does anyway. So I generally don't, unless the other person is endangering me.

There seems to be a bit of a pattern with the advice-givers, though, which is that they're generally wrong. I got yelled at by ATC in IMC the other day because I reminded him that we couldn't go direct SUNOL since we were /A. His advice was to tell ground next time that we cannot accept radar vectors to SUNOL since we don't have GPS

-Felix

 

[Teller1900]

That may be your right, but it just doesn't seem smart, or courteous, and I believe it raises the tension for everyone in or near the airport. There should be no reason why the "special" person can't work in with everyone else, not the other way around. I don't consider saving taxiing time to be a valid reason to throw a wrench in the works, especially at a multiple runway uncontrolled airport. Throw in a nervous student, poor radio calls, or just another sloppy pilot, and the results can be tragic.

As yourself where most mid-airs happen. Clue: it's not at cruise flight.

A lot of the time for us it's not that we don't want the taxi time (we're paid by the hour). I've gotten yelled at on the radio and even confronted once by people at the various uncontrolled airports we fly into (including the one that we're based at) because we used something other than the "active" runway (Lance has already pointed out the fallacy in that). The reason we didn't use the prefered runway...we were 3000lbs too heavy for it. In RKD we were only too heavy based on our company's FAA certified performance data (we would have needed a 40kt headwind to land on 21), and in AUG we're over the legal weight limit for the runway itself...we don't even have the legally required performance data for 28. Some times the cross wind runway is more favorable because of performance/operational considerations, available approaches, etc. If we're 9 miles out, straight in on the ILS 13 and hear a VFR a/c 7 out on a modified right base to 31 (say the winds are 120@4), even though we'll probably beat that Skylane down and off the runway, we'll break off the approach when we get a visual and circle to 31 if our numbers will let us, because 31 is the "calm wind runway." If they're on 21, though, our hands are tied...we'll speed up and try to get in first if that's what they want us to do or we'll slow down and configure early to let them in if they ask us to, but even if the winds are 210@18G32 (see last night), we can't switch runways...legally or safely. It's not always cause we're stubborn, stupid, or selfish...sure there are pilots out there who are all of the above all of the time, but that's not ALWAYS the case when someone opts for a different runway.

 

[nddons]

A lot of the time for us it's not that we don't want the taxi time (we're paid by the hour). I've gotten yelled at on the radio and even confronted once by people at the various uncontrolled airports we fly into (including the one that we're based at) because we used something other than the "active" runway (Lance has already pointed out the fallacy in that). The reason we didn't use the prefered runway...we were 3000lbs too heavy for it. In RKD we were only too heavy based on our company's FAA certified performance data (we would have needed a 40kt headwind to land on 21), and in AUG we're over the legal weight limit for the runway itself...we don't even have the legally required performance data for 28. Some times the cross wind runway is more favorable because of performance/operational considerations, available approaches, etc. If we're 9 miles out, straight in on the ILS 13 and hear a VFR a/c 7 out on a modified right base to 31 (say the winds are 120@4), even though we'll probably beat that Skylane down and off the runway, we'll break off the approach when we get a visual and circle to 31 if our numbers will let us, because 31 is the "calm wind runway." If they're on 21, though, our hands are tied...we'll speed up and try to get in first if that's what they want us to do or we'll slow down and configure early to let them in if they ask us to, but even if the winds are 210@18G32 (see last night), we can't switch runways...legally or safely. It's not always cause we're stubborn, stupid, or selfish...sure there are pilots out there who are all of the above all of the time, but that's not ALWAYS the case when someone opts for a different runway.

Teller, you raise good points, and I didn't consider commercial operations in my response to someone who said that it was his perrogative to use a different runway if he wanted to. Nor do I think the OP's post involved a commercial operation. I've experienced more than one maverick wanting to do his own thing just because he can, and that's what I was speaking to.

In your situation, as professionals I would assume you would use the best radio technique, so that everyone in the pattern should have good situational awareness of where you are and where you want to go.

 

[colomtnflyer]

I am not ashamed to judiciously use the radio to prevent a potentially dangerous situation.

One such time, it went like this-

The Beech Bonanza Owners Group was in KCOS, having their annual gathering to experience mtn flying. They team up with an experienced mtn pilot/instructor, and go cruising around in the mtns for a bit. I had a flight scheduled (not associated with the Bonanza Group) which would take me well into the mtns for a few hrs, returning via LXV (Leadville). I was also quite aware that Leadville is a popular destination for the Bo's to visit, and collect the certificate which Daniel and Ursula will sign for any first timers who fly there.

After an uneventful, but gorgeous flight through several passes and into 5 different mtn airports, it was time to head toward Leadville. We tuned in to the LXV freq about 20 miles to the North, to get a handle on what to expect upon our arrival into the traffic pattern. By 10 miles out we were already communicating with the other aircraft. There were 3 aircraft already in the pattern, we would become #4, so we hugged the West side of the valley so as to be able to slot into the conga line on downwind as seamlessly as possible (Rwy 16, RP). After establishing my position in the line, another aircraft joined in behind me. Everything was going just fine...

Remember the Bonanza's????

As our conga line began to work its way around the pattern (#1 and #2 were doing T+G's), #1 announced turning base and its subsequent call turning final, and made it's way to the rwy. A minute or so later, #2 made its call turning base, and the subsequent calls. Here it comes... Right after #2 made its call turning base, a Bo calls in less than 5 miles North, straight in for Rwy 16. Since the Bo seemed to believe it had right of way over the aircraft already in the pattern, despite all the radio chatter as each aircraft reported its relative position to the others, the plane ahead of me announced extending downwind to allow the Bo in. I was not in a big hurry, (though I couldn't help but think some unkind things about the Bo driver's intelligence and parentage...) so I announced that I would be following the aircraft ahead of me. The aircraft behind me also acknowledged the sequence. Within a minute or so, we see the Bo slide by off our right side and land.

If you look at a diagram of Leadville, you will notice there is no full length taxiway. The FBO is located just North of the half way point of the rwy, requiring a back taxi to reach it. At the departure end of Rwy 16 is a small taxiway which allows about 4-6 aircraft to clear the rwy, and wait until there is a break in landing traffic. When the break occurs, any waiting aircraft will move expeditiously to the parking area near the FBO.

When we finally landed and arrived at the turnaround taxiway, as expected, we found the Bo and the aircraft in front of us waiting. As we cleared the rwy, the Bo, without announcing a thing, starts his back taxi. I immediately got on the mike button and informed the Bo that there was another aircraft on very short final!

He quickly did a 180 and now had to get on the taxiway BEHIND me. Once the arriving aircraft was on the ground, the 2 aircraft still in the pattern announced extending their downwind legs to allow us to back taxi. The 4 of us quickly taxied to the parking in front of the FBO.

While shutting down and securing the aircraft, just for reference, I took a look at the pilot who was left seat in the Bo. In the FBO a few minutes later as my people were getting their certificates, I struck up a conversation with the person I had seen in the left seat of the Bo. The "instructor" flying with him was also standing there. It was short and sweet...

ME: "Hi, Doc! Great day to be flying, isn't it?"
Bo Driver: "It sure is! Do I know you?"
ME: "No, we have never met."
Bo Driver: "Then how did you know I was a Doctor?"
ME: "Oh, I have met many Doctors trying to get themselves, or somebody else, really hurt by not following the published procedures when entering an airport environment, or by not paying attention to what is going on around them. It's funny that most of them seem to be flying Bonanzas!"

And I walked away....

Absolutely TRUE story... If I'm lying, I'm dying!

Sometimes a quick comment on the radio can prevent a much more dangerous situation from developing. Don't abuse that fact, but do not be afraid to use it when it's appropriate!

 

[Joe B]

I haven't yet, but I've gotten some "advice" from people who felt that they had more of a right to land than me because they weren't on a straight in.

Perhaps they read Advisory Circular 90-66A: "However, for those pilots who chose to execute a straight-in approach, maneuvering for and execution of the approach should be completed so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and departing traffic." While it's only "advisory", that AC has certainly created the expectation you observe: many feel that aircraft on straight-in don't have any rights in the right-of-way department. I've taken to finding other ways to get in the pattern when it's busy. Not worth the stress wondering if someone's going to cut off my straight-in.

Regards,
Joe

 

[SkyHog]

Perhaps they read Advisory Circular 90-66A: "However, for those pilots who chose to execute a straight-in approach, maneuvering for and execution of the approach should be completed so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and departing traffic." While it's only "advisory", that AC has certainly created the expectation you observe: many feel that aircraft on straight-in don't have any rights in the right-of-way department. I've taken to finding other ways to get in the pattern when it's busy. Not worth the stress wondering if someone's going to cut off my straight-in.

Regards,
Joe

There was an NTSB case that I believe Ron quoted a while back that shows that those that are of that opinion are flat wrong (it resulted in emergency revocation IIRC). You should try to plan your arrival without disrupting the pattern, but there's nothing wrong with a straight in. FWIW, you should plan your arrival to the 45 degree entry to the downwind without disrupting the pattern too. Its the same idea, but people get uppity about straight ins, most likely because they had a CFI drill it into them that they're bad.

Like flaps/slips in a 172.

 

[TMetzinger]

There's nothing wrong with a straight-in, but it's courteous (and an expected courtesy a la 90-66A) that a pilot making a straight in approach will make the necessary adjustments to fit in the sequence. Sometimes that adjustment is to join the upwind.

 

[poadeleted20]

There was an NTSB case that I believe Ron quoted a while back that shows that those that are of that opinion are flat wrong (it resulted in emergency revocation IIRC).

Administrator v. Fekete. Fekete, who was in the pattern, deliberately turned in front of a Citation on a straight-in, forcing the Citation to go around. And yes, it was an emergency revocation. There is enough case law to show that if you establish yourself on final well outside the traffic pattern (based on the case law, 3 miles or more will do well, 2-3 miles is arguable, and less than 2 miles won't cut it), you have the right of way over aircraft in the pattern. Now, that's not to say you can't turn a 1-mile base in front of a plane on a 10-mile final as long as you will not interfere with the other plane's approach and landing, but if you turn right in front of someone a mile and a half final on a straight-in, and force that pilot to go-around, absent a true emergency (like you being engine-out), you have violated 14 CFR 91.113(g).

You should try to plan your arrival without disrupting the pattern, but there's nothing wrong with a straight in. FWIW, you should plan your arrival to the 45 degree entry to the downwind without disrupting the pattern too.

Amen, Brother Nick.

Its the same idea, but people get uppity about straight ins, most likely because they had a CFI drill it into them that they're bad.

Sad, but true. It is unfortunate that the FAA has published advisory "guidance" in AC 90-66A which appears to contradict the regulatory language in 14 CFR 91.113(g) as confirmed in Fekete (above), Administrator v. Boardman, and Administrator v. Dibble (5 NTSB 352 (1985)).

In any event, the CTAF is not the place to teach folks these truths. Do what you have to do to get out of the transgressor's way, and save lecture for a properly qualified person on the ground.

 

[Maxmosbey]

I think that it really depends on the airport. When I started flying again, after a twenty-six year lay-off, I noticed right off that airplanes were landing on both of our runways at the same time, and on a regular basis at our airport. This made me very nervous, and I thought that it was a dangerous situation. Since then, I've gotten quite used to it. We have two runways, a long one and a shorter one, and regardless of wind direction, the corporate aircraft are going to use the long one. The corporate aircraft generally come straight in too. We have a glider club, and they sometimes tie up a runway for quite a while doing their thing, so everyone else uses the other one. Some people just like one runway over the other. The point is, that everyone talks over the radio. The runways do intersect, but everyone is pretty good at timing their takeoffs and landings accordingly. I have since gotten used to it. I can see though, that someone coming in and not being used to the drill, could get a little up-tight about the whole thing. That said, that is the way we do things, and our airport is set up to operate smoothly that way. Our problem is when someone comes in who is not used to it, and they don't know what to do. Then we get that "deer in the headlights situation" that throws everything out of whack. I know, because when I started flying again, I was the deer in the headlights. But the important thing is to understand that every uncontrolled airport has their routine, and that is just the way it is.

 

[tdager]

I will say this...I am not a lemming.

If *everyone* is using one runway...but the winds favor another, and there is not some legitimate reason to be using that runway, I will use it.

I had that happen a month or two ago. Winds 10G15 (cannot remember the direction) but at the airport I was flying too everyone was using one that gave almost a 90-degree crosswind. I was like WTF in my head and announced for the runway that was aligned into the wind. Turns out that the restaurant on the field is an easier and shorter taxi on the crosswind runway.

So I respectfully waited my turn, announced my intentions, and landed on the runway into the wind. Seemed to work, no one got bent (literally or mentally) and I got my hamburger!

If someone HAD said something I would have just looked at them like the idiots they are and walked away laughing.

 

[Maxmosbey]

Sometimes planes start taking off on one runway, and everyone else keeps using it, even though the winds might shift a little as the day goes on. I can see in Don's situation though, it wouldn't work to have airplanes using 30 and 26 at the same time.

I don't know how many here attend flight breakfasts at uncontrolled airports, but that is a free-for-all. The first one that I went to, there were four airplanes converging on an airport with one runway and no taxiways, and there were two in the pattern. To add to the confusion, the FBO was using a right hand pattern for their rides. I was communicating with another airplane that was approaching at about the same speed and distance out that I was. About five miles out, I told him that I would do a 360 and let him lead the way. His response was that I should just keep my eyes open, and go for it. He ended up following me in, and when we got parked, he asked me if I had been to a lot of fly-ins, and I told him it was my first. He said, "if you do 360s waiting to get in, you'll be doing them all morning." I have found that to be true. If you want to get baptized in dealing with uncontrolled airports, do a couple of fly-ins. Since then, I've gotten a lot more comfortable flying in that manner. The important thing is to keep talking, keep it short, and keep your head out of the cockpit.

 

[GMascelli]

Administrator v. Fekete. Fekete

I know that guy. I don't think that was his only "run in". He also wanted a piece of me and two officers concerning the construction crew and the installation of the security fence at that same airport. A real "TOOL"

 

[bobmrg]

Administrator v. Fekete. Fekete, who was in the pattern, deliberately turned in front of a Citation on a straight-in, forcing the Citation to go around. And yes, it was an emergency revocation. There is enough case law to show that if you establish yourself on final well outside the traffic pattern (based on the case law, 3 miles or more will do well, 2-3 miles is arguable, and less than 2 miles won't cut it), you have the right of way over aircraft in the pattern. Now, that's not to say you can't turn a 1-mile base in front of a plane on a 10-mile final as long as you will not interfere with the other plane's approach and landing, but if you turn right in front of someone a mile and a half final on a straight-in, and force that pilot to go-around, absent a true emergency (like you being engine-out), you have violated 14 CFR 91.113(g).

Amen, Brother Nick.

Sad, but true. It is unfortunate that the FAA has published advisory "guidance" in AC 90-66A which appears to contradict the regulatory language in 14 CFR 91.113(g) as confirmed in Fekete (above), Administrator v. Boardman, and Administrator v. Dibble (5 NTSB 352 (1985)).

In any event, the CTAF is not the place to teach folks these truths. Do what you have to do to get out of the transgressor's way, and save lecture for a properly qualified person on the ground.

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

 

[sba55]

Perhaps they read Advisory Circular 90-66A: "However, for those pilots who chose to execute a straight-in approach, maneuvering for and execution of the approach should be completed so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and departing traffic." While it's only "advisory", that AC has certainly created the expectation you observe: many feel that aircraft on straight-in don't have any rights in the right-of-way department. I've taken to finding other ways to get in the pattern when it's busy. Not worth the stress wondering if someone's going to cut off my straight-in.

Regards,
Joe

Yeah, I agree. I'm just still annoyed because some guy in a 172 yelled at me because I was doing a straight in. He was the only guy in the pattern and I had been announcing for the last 10 miles when he decided to turn base just as I was 2NM from the runway. He ended up extending his downwind, but felt he needed to say something first.

-Felix

 

[AWACSEng]

So, this brings in the argument often presented by former military flyers. What about the overhead break. 500' or so above pattern alt. to get a good view of the traffic in the area followed by a decending 180 to sequence in. Seems practical, but dangerous when mixed in with those unfamiliar with mil ops.

 

[poadeleted20]

I know that guy. I don't think that was his only "run in".

There were actually three incidents of cutting off straight-in approaches cited in that case. It's not hard to imagine there were even more incidents where there was not enough admissible, substantive evidence to take to court.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron, would the case you cited apply to an entry on the 45 as well?

That case was strictly over 91.113(g), which only covers the right of way held by aircraft actually landing or on final.

There is a thread about patterns on the red board...

I no longer visit the AOPA board -- I just don't have the time to wade through all the drivel.

...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.

Sweat not, Brother Bob -- you need not lose any sleep over your statement. Other than the right of way afforded aircraft "while on final approach to land or while landing," there is no special language in 91.113 to cover aircraft on the 45 versus aircraft on downwind. The only language which I believe would apply to that situation is that in 91.113(d) regarding converging aircraft, which gives right of way to the aircraft on the right. If the FAA interprets 91.113 as I do, that would mean that in left traffic, the aircraft on the 45 (i.e., on the downwind aircraft's right) has right of way, but in right traffic, the aircraft on downwind (i.e., on the entering aircraft's right) has the right of way. Go figure. Maybe that's something which should be changed, but that's the way it is.

Personally, when dealing with a potential 45-downwind conflict, rather than relying in 91.113, I "drive" defensively -- looking, talking, listening, and when possible, negotiating on CTAF.

BTW, this is another reason I don't like the midfield crossover entry. If the aircraft entering left traffic from the 45 has right of way, the only place the aircraft downwind has to go is a 360 to the left, and if there's an airplane doing a midfield crossover, the aircraft on downwind would have nowhere to go. Likewise, if someone on the midfield crossover in right traffic cuts off the an aircraft on downwind at the same time someone's on the 45 entry, the downwind aircraft can't go left. That's why I like to keep the "box" inside the traffic pattern empty -- it gives folks somwhere to go if they must yield to someone with the right of way going in front of them.

 

[poadeleted20]

So, this brings in the argument often presented by former military flyers. What about the overhead break. 500' or so above pattern alt. to get a good view of the traffic in the area followed by a decending 180 to sequence in. Seems practical, but dangerous when mixed in with those unfamiliar with mil ops.

At civilian airports, the overhead pattern is properly flown at the TPA applicable to that aircraft. Unless there is, as at military airports, a tower to deconflict traffic, descending into the downwind is a very risky maneuver since you can't see what's happening beneath you. For traffic pattern entry, my practice (which I believe is consistent with FAA guidance) is to make sure I'm at TPA at least 2-3 miles from the airport.

In any event, in my 15 years in fighter types, with the exception of the tactical pitch flown at fields under fire (in which case it was a climb, not descent, to the downwind), the pitch to the downwind was always flown level, but maybe the E-3's do it differently.

 

[Richard]

Don, for what its worth, I have only done it once, and I felt odd afterwards. I was incoming to runway 22 from the west, hearing about 4 or 5 others in the pattern. Someone came from the east, handed off directly from Albuquerque Approach so he tuned in very late (happens), and immediately reported entering base for runway 17. Anyone who's been to KAEG knows that left base for 17 and right base for 22 overlap in a nasty way, and when he made his call, it was followed by 2 successive calls from a person on downwind on 22, and another on base for 22.

I'm on the 45, waiting for him to rectify the situation, he then reports a 2 mile base leg, and I about lost it. "You trying to kill someone? You realize that you are on a collision course with about 3 others in the pattern for 22, right?"

He wound up doing about 3 360s and came in to land on 17 anyways. Moron. The other pilots eventually just extended their downwinds for a few miles to let him in. Doing 360s on base is almost never smart, IMHO.

AEG has a RWY 22R????

 

[Richard]

... maybe the E-3's do it differently.

Nice one, Ron.

 

[AWACSEng]

At civilian airports, the overhead pattern is properly flown at the TPA applicable to that aircraft. Unless there is, as at military airports, a tower to deconflict traffic, descending into the downwind is a very risky maneuver since you can't see what's happening beneath you. For traffic pattern entry, my practice (which I believe is consistent with FAA guidance) is to make sure I'm at TPA at least 2-3 miles from the airport.

In any event, in my 15 years in fighter types, with the exception of the tactical pitch flown at fields under fire (in which case it was a climb, not descent, to the downwind), the pitch to the downwind was always flown level, but maybe the E-3's do it differently.

We actually don't use the overhead. That hot dogging stuff is usually reserved for the fighter types. Normal for us is vector to final. The overhead description is from observations noted here at EDF. The decent my not begin untill established on downwind, but the entry to the overhead is well above TPA here. We are not in the habit of trying to run into other single minded aircraft. Would be quite embarasing with the large radar thingy and all.

 

[poadeleted20]

That hot dogging stuff is usually reserved for the fighter types.

The overhead pattern is not "hot dogging stuff" -- it is an essential part of fighter operations. Formation flying is inherent in fighter operations, and with respect to issues like expeditious recovery and avoiding threats near a forward airfield, the overhead pattern is the best way for a formation to break up and recover.

The overhead description is from observations noted here at EDF. The decent my not begin untill established on downwind, but the entry to the overhead is well above TPA here.

If EDF is like most fighter bases, the overhead pattern is flown at fairly high speed (like 300 knots) about 500 above the "standard" 1000 AGL TPA, with a level break to downwind, deceleration to approach speed (like 150 knots) and then a steep descent off the "perch" (essentially, past the abeam position turning base). This procedure is suitable to fighters at tower-controlled airports, but because of the dangers of descending onto other aircraft and the difficulty in losing that much altitude without flying a long way out, it is not a good idea in light planes at nontowered fields.

For these reasons, the standard procedure for light plane formation ops as promulgated by the FAA-designated light plane formation flying certification agencies FFI and FAST is to fly up initial at TPA and normal pattern entry speed with a level break to the downwind -- essentially a normal upwind entry with sequential crosswind turns to downwind. This isn't far off the procedure I recommend for entering the pattern at a nontowered airport when arriving from a direction approximately aligned with the landing runway under conditions in which a straight-in isn't a good choice -- be at TPA by 3 miles out, fly upwind up the runway checking for traffic taking off/in the pattern/entering on the 45, and make a crosswind turn to the downwind when it's safe to do so.

 

[TMetzinger]

The 45 to the upwind can be a good entry to a pattern too if you're coming from the "wrong" direction. Just join the upwind, watch for departing traffic, and make the crosswind at the appropriate point. I find it faster than overflying the field and manuevering to join the downwind.

 

[RMCN172RG]

I am not ashamed to judiciously use the radio to prevent a potentially dangerous situation.

I have also learned this and used it extensively today.

The lesson was an early solo pre PPL flying the pattern downwind mid field when another plane calls 5 mile final straight in. I report turning base and do not have the plane in sight. As I roll out and look for the traffic he crosses on final about 200 feet above me. Since then I make sure others know where I am and what I'm doing.

Now I know he was shooting the ILS and not just someone who did not want to enter the pattern, he was off while I was upwind on my trip around the airport.

Today I'm the pilot shooting the ILS, 8 nm out when another calls 4 miles out entering the downwind for the same runway. At five miles out a third plane enters the scenario asking for assistance. He only has two green lights in his Archer and wants someone to take a look at him. I call my final at each NM and land then turn off to look at the Archer on upwind. Meanwhile the other plane is also on upwind looking from the Air.

Just after the Archer turns downwind and I'm positive I see all three gear he says he now has the third light.

Everybody lands without incident.

 

[gismo]

That may be your right, but it just doesn't seem smart, or courteous, and I believe it raises the tension for everyone in or near the airport. There should be no reason why the "special" person can't work in with everyone else, not the other way around. I don't consider saving taxiing time to be a valid reason to throw a wrench in the works, especially at a multiple runway uncontrolled airport. Throw in a nervous student, poor radio calls, or just another sloppy pilot, and the results can be tragic.

Ask yourself where most mid-airs happen. Clue: it's not at cruise flight.

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.

 

[SkyHog]

That may be your right, but it just doesn't seem smart, or courteous, and I believe it raises the tension for everyone in or near the airport. There should be no reason why the "special" person can't work in with everyone else, not the other way around. I don't consider saving taxiing time to be a valid reason to throw a wrench in the works, especially at a multiple runway uncontrolled airport. Throw in a nervous student, poor radio calls, or just another sloppy pilot, and the results can be tragic.

Ask yourself where most mid-airs happen. Clue: it's not at cruise flight.

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.