Including straight down.I think the "Cirrus - straight in" on that chart is misleading. The "Cirrus - straight in" can happen from any direction.
Wondering how rising up out of the ground works, though.
Including straight down.I think the "Cirrus - straight in" on that chart is misleading. The "Cirrus - straight in" can happen from any direction.
Including straight down.
AOPA put out an article and had diagrams on exactly what you said. They said the FAA says method one, the teardrop entry, is the preferred method. Crossing over mid-field and turning into downwind is the acceptable alternate. I usually cross over mid-field. You do have to yield to any traffic already on downwind, or on a 45 though.I thought we were encouraged to overfly the airport, 500 feet above pattern altitude, then once clear of the pattern, descend to pattern altitude, then turn right, to make the standard 45 degree pattern entry?
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_pol...iation/airplane_handbook/media/09_afh_ch7.pdf
See 7-5.
The other option seems to be to cross over the upwind at pattern altitude (so as to not have to descend into pattern traffic on the downwind, I would reckon), then turn directly into the downwind, yielding to the 45 degree entry traffic and existing pattern traffic.
Yup, I do that a lot too.When I'm coming in from the opposite side of the field I make a direct entry into a crosswind. I personally feel this is far safer than crossing midfield. Entering on the crosswind is basically flying the same circuit that someone does when they stay in the pattern and allows more time to set up and find other traffic than a midfield entrydoes. There's also less of a chance of conflicting with people coming in on a 45 to downwind...especially if they're NORDO.
I basically enter the pattern exactly how Ed's fine piece of artwork depicts entries. Even the cirrus approach, if no one else is in the pattern, if someone is in the pattern I make a direct entry into an upwind and fly a full circuit.
Flying over midfield saves, what?, maybe 15-20 seconds vs. a direct entry into a crosswind? It's just not worth it to me.
I would NEVER do a teardrop. They seem like the least safe option.
I'm thinking about this and why I choose mid-field. It's not to save a few minutes over crosswind, but it does save time over flying out to the pattern side of the airport and coming back.When I'm coming in from the opposite side of the field I make a direct entry into a crosswind. I personally feel this is far safer than crossing midfield. Entering on the crosswind is basically flying the same circuit that someone does when they stay in the pattern and allows more time to set up and find other traffic than a midfield entrydoes. There's also less of a chance of conflicting with people coming in on a 45 to downwind...especially if they're NORDO.
I basically enter the pattern exactly how Ed's fine piece of artwork depicts entries. Even the cirrus approach, if no one else is in the pattern, if someone is in the pattern I make a direct entry into an upwind and fly a full circuit.
Flying over midfield saves, what?, maybe 15-20 seconds vs. a direct entry into a crosswind? It's just not worth it to me.
I'm thinking a crosswind entry puts you in a place where departing traffic would more likely be at pattern altitude. Mid-field should have landing traffic and departing traffic well below you. It could be a bad place if someone was going around though. A mid-field crossing would leave you looking at 45 degree traffic as well as downwind traffic. Not sure I have an argument against crosswind entries.
Plus if you're coming in from the opposite side and enter on crosswind you have easily been able to watch what's going on to see if a plane has departed or not. There is no reason you should end up having in midair over the numbers on the departure end with the part in traffic because you've been watching this whole time.
So, what you're saying is that some people in the pattern use the same communication methodology that you and clip4 use here?Sounds like too much announcing and not enough communicating.
So, what you're saying is that some people in the pattern use the same communication methodology that you and clip4 use here?
When I'm coming in from the opposite side of the field I make a direct entry into a crosswind. I personally feel this is far safer than crossing midfield. Entering on the crosswind is basically flying the same circuit that someone does when they stay in the pattern and allows more time to set up and find other traffic than a midfield entrydoes.
OP again.
In this case, there were 2 planes ON the crosswind going against the flow (i.e. right turn out). If I'd attempted an entry directly to the crosswind leg, I'd have been going straight at the outbound traffic. The good news is that I'd have seen them (well, the whites of their eyes)...the bad news is that I'm not big on evasive actions.
Too bad there's no regulation to that effect for departures.Departing traffic should NOT be making a right turn until they're outside the airport environment, assuming the airport is standard left traffic.
Too bad there's no regulation to that effect for departures.
It's ok to turn away for a few minutes and wait for things to clear up too. A few more minutes of flying isn't a bad thing.
It's ok to turn away for a few minutes and wait for things to clear up too. A few more minutes of flying isn't a bad thing.
There is no regulation specifying direction of turns for departures, only for approaches to landing. The discrepancy between the AC, AIM, and regulations means that some people will consider the AC and AIM guidance for departure turns to be mandatory and some will not, thereby creating a potential for conflicts. That's why I wrote, "Too bad there's no regulation to that effect for departures."There may not be a regulation (too lazy to look) but there's definitely an AC that states you should fly runway heading to traffic pattern altitude and then depart straight out or with a 45° turn to the left.
Winds favor runway 5.
I'm east-ish and think my best option is to overfly midfield at 2800 and teardrop into downwind 5 left.
I announce position and intentions at 10 miles.
I announce position and intentions at 2 miles.
I then hear traffic departing 5 and planning to make a right turn out which puts them, possibly, heading toward me depending on how 'right' they go.
If you were "east-ish" enter normal pattern ... about 30 of the responses were for "cross-over" clover leaf pattern which would be "south-ish"
The teardrop entry is not my favorite - all that maneuvering and descending close to the traffic pattern makes me uncomfortable. I prefer the midfield crosswind entry. There is a new Advisory Circular on this topic (dated March 2018).
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-66B.pdf
That still doesn’t change the idea that turning your back on the airport environment isn’t the best idea nor is it necessary at all for a proper entry.I recommend flying a couple of miles out before performing the teardrop.
Bob
I'm not sure I'm understanding the advantage of a crosswind entry. Two big issues I see there are that crosswinds are messy and busy. By messy, I mean that varying performance profiles mean that crosswind position and crosswind altitude could be just about anywhere for your traffic. The longer the runway, the messier. By busy I mean that every departure interacts with crosswind. Even a straight out will be traffic for a crosswind entry.
Not true for a midfield. Half your traffic taking off will have disappeared at this point, leaving only downwind departures and pattern fliers. Downwind distance often varies a bit, but downwind altitude is pretty consistent. 45 arrivals are aiming for the same place you are. This would seem like a negative, but it actually makes life easier...conflict resolution is who's gonna get there first. No complicated mental math of figuring out how your arrival point and the 45 interact, just distance and speed. Also, arrivals tend to be the chattiest, making conflict resolution between arrivals more straight-forward compared to arrival/departure resolutions. I find most departures make fewer radio calls and tend to be more distracted by the high-workload of take-off.
All-in-all, I think it's a judgment call and to have all the tools in your belt sharp. Pick the one that makes the most sense for situation you are perceiving. Even the universally-despised teardrop (in this thread, anyway) is useful. I used it a few days ago. Landing 30 (RP) at KEUL from the west, I noted a helicopter in left pattern and landing the parallel. He was doing the pattern at 3000' where standard right pattern at the airport is 3400'. I wasn't interested in being at 3400' and crossing over him. 400' seemed a little tight to me. I stopped my descent at 3900' and did a teardrop entry, which worked out nicely.
I would never do a teardrop entry. I won't turn my back to an active runway where I intend to land. If it isn't busy I'll happy do a midfield entry. No one should be midfield just above traffic pattern altitude. If it's that busy I'll fly a big circle around and come in for the 45 to the downwind. And if its really that busy I'll go elsewhere.
For what purpose? You've overflown the field. Its either permissive for landing or not. If not, what's a big circle (which is really what the teardrop is) going to really do? If you objective is to be on a 45 for the downwind you can do that without overflying the field in the first place.I keep hearing this "turn your back" thing, but you don't turn your back at all. You fly past it. You've already seen what you need to see, and if not seeing the pattern during the teardrop is an issue, you're making the teardrop way too close.
For what purpose? You've overflown the field. Its either permissive for landing or not. If not, what's a big circle (which is really what the teardrop is) going to really do? If you objective is to be on a 45 for the downwind you can do that without overflying the field in the first place.
How do you enter on an outside 45 from the opposite side of the field without overflying it? I guess you could arrange to cross well outside the pattern space and come from the other side again. (Half Moon Bay...this is an airport that often calls for this.)
The purpose of the big turn is to give you a place away from the pattern to descend, so that you're at pattern altitude when you're on the 45.
Midfield works so long at there isn't lots of traffic. If there is I go the long way around. The problem I have with the teardrop entry is it takes your eyes off the runway and reduces your situational awareness.I don't have a big issue with a midfield entry when it makes sense. I've certainly used it. It does require that you're in a place where you can be at pattern altitude on the opposite side of the airport safely. Not all airports and not all situations work with that. Not all situations work for a teardrop, either. Just not understanding the hate for the teardrop.
You fly a circle a couple miles away from the airport, keeping it (and as much traffic as you can see) in sight. You get to be really, really cautious when you pass the departure end of the runway. You then turn inbound on the 45.
Exactly who is at pattern altitude midfield that you have to overfly by 500 feet?
Midfield works so long at there isn't lots of traffic. If there is I go the long way around. The problem I have with the teardrop entry is it takes your eyes off the runway and reduces your situational awareness.
You fly a circle a couple miles away from the airport, keeping it (and as much traffic as you can see) in sight. You get to be really, really cautious when you pass the departure end of the runway. You then turn inbound on the 45.
Exactly who is at pattern altitude midfield that you have to overfly by 500 feet?
Midfield works so long at there isn't lots of traffic. If there is I go the long way around. The problem I have with the teardrop entry is it takes your eyes off the runway and reduces your situational awareness.
Must be an awfully long runway. I usually take off at about 500 feet/minute and 100-120 miles an hour. If my runway is 5000 ft (roughly a mile, give or take) it should only take me 30 seconds to traverse its length at takeoff speed. At 30 seconds I've climbed 250 feet. Even at double that I've climbed 500 feet. Pattern altitudes were I live are mostly 1000 feet above runway elevation.I'm at pattern altitude midfield when working in the pattern, just about every time, most pilots are. If I hear someone or see someone in the downwind, or turning downwind when doing a Crossfield entry, I will turn out of there unless I know I can safely mix in.
Must be an awfully long runway. I usually take off at about 500 feet/minute and 100-120 miles an hour. If my runway is 5000 ft (roughly a mile, give or take) it should only take me 30 seconds to traverse its length at takeoff speed. At 30 seconds I've climbed 250 feet. Even at double that I've climbed 500 feet. Pattern altitudes were I live are mostly 1000 feet above runway elevation.
Lets say you're in a Skyhawk climbing 500 feet/minute at the same runway. Now you're only doing 80 miles an hour, so its going to take you about a minute to traverse the length of that runway. A minute in which you will have climbed 500 feet.
You need to be climbing around 2000 feet/minute to be at pattern altitude mid-field. Most GA aircraft cannot do that.
You need to be climbing around 2000 feet/minute to be at pattern altitude mid-field. Most GA aircraft cannot do that.