Traffic pattern conflict crosswind vs 45 entry

[dtuuri]

We always train to maintain at least blue line until the runway is made, normally blue line +10. It gives you time and options if something goes wrong.

Consider that it is an inefficient speed if you aren't in the takeoff configuration. With altitude, you aren't at anywhere near the same risk as during takeoff. Zealously guarding blue line only makes you more likely to fly unsafely, like too fast in the pattern or to keep within circling minimums on an IFR approach. Of all the pilots I've flown with, the one at the very top of my list used to refer to pilots like that as, "Victims of the blue line mania."

 

[unsafervguy]

This makes no sense. Vyse (blue line) + 10 is silly. If you're worried about climbing with one out, you want to be at Vyse, no more no less. Other than that, it has no particular magic. VMC (the red radial line) you might want some margin. However, both of these are predicated on as dturri said, one full power, the other feathered.

Guess what vyse on a Twinkie is? 105 mph exactly what the faa multi engine handbook says no less than vyse until runway made. Vmc is 95 so vmc+10 sounds reasonable to me.

 

[dtuuri]

However, both of these are predicated on as dturri said, one full power, the other feathered.

Um, I didn't say Vmc is with one engine feathered.

 

[dtuuri]

Guess what vyse on a Twinkie is? 105 mph exactly what the faa multi engine handbook says no less than vyse until runway made. Vmc is 95 so vmc+10 sounds reasonable to me.

Vsse (intentional engine failure) is 95 MPH, Vmc is 90 MPH (see: http://kingstonflyingclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Piper-PA-30-C-FCDI.pdf). Normal approach speed in the POH is 95 MPH, as recommended in the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook:

"The final approach should be made with power and at a speed recommended by the manufacturer; if a recommended speed is not furnished, the speed should be no slower than the single-engine best rate-of-climb speed (VYSE) until short final with the landing assured, but in no case less than critical
engine-out minimum control speed (VMC)."
​

A blue line maniac must have furnished the unfurnished speed recommendation.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Here's an idea - don't be a jerk and talk on the radio. I find that these two rules work in harmony.

Generally speaking, that would indeed be my preference. As some others pointed out earlier, communication can alleviate a lot of conflict. BUT, the communication needs to be effective. In the actual scenario, it was not effective.

So, here is what actually transpired: I was in the single (T6) doing pattern work and making standard announcements. As I turned x-wind, I hear a Twin Comanche make an announcement saying he was 'tear-dropping for the 45 to the right downwind'.

Upon hearing that I looked out to toward the 45 and saw nothing. So, turned onto the downwind and in hopes of alleviating any potential conflict, I announced that I was on the right downwind as soon as I had leveled. About a second or two after I made the announcement, Twin Comanche announces that he is on the right downwind and has traffic in sight. Now I am concerned. How in the heck this guy made a teardrop and 45 degree entry seems to defy physics and now he's potentially very close to me and I can't see him anywhere. As I'm still looking for him (I'm passed mid-field now) he announces he's on right base. I'm like 'how in the heck is this guy on right base already? Now I see him, he is about a hundred below me, at my 11 0'clock and crossing directly in front of me. I climb a couple hundred feet to increase separation and slow down since I'm going to have to wait for him and NOW he gets concerned and calls me and wants to make sure I see him. I reply that I see him and leave it at that. Extend my downwind and slow down considerably as he apparently decides to slow way the heck down once he's on final.

Essentially what happened was the dude either had already completed his 'tear drop' and added confusion to the situation by using the term or he decided to do a steep turn in hopes of getting ahead of me and he turned downwind WAAAY wide and overtook me only to turn in front of me on base.

No harsh words were spoken or right of way arguments were held. I think ultimately he scared himself more than me. I posted the question out of a general curiosity of what others would do in his situation. I have found myself in the twin drivers situation and like a few here, I would have simply done a left 360 for spacing rather than try to overtake another airplane on downwind, even if it was a cub. I'm not sure why he thought that was a good idea.

 

[David Megginson]

Generally speaking, that would indeed be my preference. As some others pointed out earlier, communication can alleviate a lot of conflict. BUT, the communication needs to be effective. In the actual scenario, it was not effective.

So, here is what actually transpired: I was in the single (T6) doing pattern work and making standard announcements. As I turned x-wind, I hear a Twin Comanche make an announcement saying he was 'tear-dropping for the 45 to the right downwind'.

Upon hearing that I looked out to toward the 45 and saw nothing. So, turned onto the downwind and in hopes of alleviating any potential conflict, I announced that I was on the right downwind as soon as I had leveled. About a second or two after I made the announcement, Twin Comanche announces that he is on the right downwind and has traffic in sight. Now I am concerned. How in the heck this guy made a teardrop and 45 degree entry seems to defy physics and now he's potentially very close to me and I can't see him anywhere. As I'm still looking for him (I'm passed mid-field now) he announces he's on right base. I'm like 'how in the heck is this guy on right base already? Now I see him, he is about a hundred below me, at my 11 0'clock and crossing directly in front of me. I climb a couple hundred feet to increase separation and slow down since I'm going to have to wait for him and NOW he gets concerned and calls me and wants to make sure I see him. I reply that I see him and leave it at that. Extend my downwind and slow down considerably as he apparently decides to slow way the heck down once he's on final.

Essentially what happened was the dude either had already completed his 'tear drop' and added confusion to the situation by using the term or he decided to do a steep turn in hopes of getting ahead of me and he turned downwind WAAAY wide and overtook me only to turn in front of me on base.

No harsh words were spoken or right of way arguments were held. I think ultimately he scared himself more than me. I posted the question out of a general curiosity of what others would do in his situation. I have found myself in the twin drivers situation and like a few here, I would have simply done a left 360 for spacing rather than try to overtake another airplane on downwind, even if it was a cub. I'm not sure why he thought that was a good idea.

It sounds like the twin pilot was a hazard to aviation that day. Let's hope it was just an off day, and not representative of the rest of their flying.

And good job keeping your anger in check, and not arguing it out over the radio or on the ramp. You know the proverb about wrestling with a pig…

 

[Half Fast]

You know the proverb about wrestling with a pig…

Right. Better to fatten the pig up on corn, then barbecue it.

 

[Witmo]

I spend a lot of time in and around the pattern as I tow gliders. If I'm returning to land, my policy is to enter on a 45 most of the time but I will not continue to enter the pattern from the 45 if another airplane has reported downwind and I do not have him in sight. I'll ask him exactly where on the downwind he is but if I don't have a visual as I near the airfield, it's an automatic turn away from the pattern until I can establish where traffic already in the pattern is located. It may not be codified in the regs, but I consider aircraft established in the pattern as having ROW over anyone trying to enter (including, horrors, aircraft outside of 3 miles doing a straight in unless they happen to be any jet). Having said this, if I'm the one established on the downwind, I damn sure am going to watch for someone who's called the 45 and if I don't have him in sight, I'm not going to assume he sees me unless he calls me and says he has me in sight. I won't continue on the downwind unless we've worked out a deconfliction plan.

Similarly, I won't turn base if an aircraft has called a straight-in until I can positively establish how far out he is and what type aircraft he is. If he's far enough out and I know I can complete my landing without causing him to go around or alter his flight path, I will. If I'm unsure, I'll either extend my downwind and land behind him or break out of the pattern and reenter to land behind him.

Too many times I hear on the radio pilots making radio calls that obviously imply there's going to be a conflict down the road, but make no effort to use the information to positively deconflict themselves. The NTSB report linked to in an earlier post is an example of the information being available from the radio calls made and yet none of the pilots or controller assimilated the information until it was too late. I think some pilots think arriving at a Class D airport is safer because the controller is doing deconfliction--HE IS NOT. The local controller is sequencing aircraft but the responsibility for deconfliction rests with pilots whether the field is "controlled" or not.

 

[David Megginson]

I spend a lot of time in and around the pattern as I tow gliders. If I'm returning to land, my policy is to enter on a 45 most of the time but I will not continue to enter the pattern from the 45 if another airplane has reported downwind and I do not have him in sight. I'll ask him exactly where on the downwind he is but if I don't have a visual as I near the airfield, it's an automatic turn away from the pattern until I can establish where traffic already in the pattern is located. It may not be codified in the regs, but I consider aircraft established in the pattern as having ROW over anyone trying to enter (including, horrors, aircraft outside of 3 miles doing a straight in unless they happen to be any jet). Having said this, if I'm the one established on the downwind, I damn sure am going to watch for someone who's called the 45 and if I don't have him in sight, I'm not going to assume he sees me unless he calls me and says he has me in sight. I won't continue on the downwind unless we've worked out a deconfliction plan.

Similarly, I won't turn base if an aircraft has called a straight-in until I can positively establish how far out he is and what type aircraft he is. If he's far enough out and I know I can complete my landing without causing him to go around or alter his flight path, I will. If I'm unsure, I'll either extend my downwind and land behind him or break out of the pattern and reenter to land behind him.

Too many times I hear on the radio pilots making radio calls that obviously imply there's going to be a conflict down the road, but make no effort to use the information to positively deconflict themselves. The NTSB report linked to in an earlier post is an example of the information being available from the radio calls made and yet none of the pilots or controller assimilated the information until it was too late. I think some pilots think arriving at a Class D airport is safer because the controller is doing deconfliction--HE IS NOT. The local controller is sequencing aircraft but the responsibility for deconfliction rests with pilots whether the field is "controlled" or not.

When you're towing on the way up, do people remember that they have to yield to you?

 

[dtuuri]

Suggestion for a new FAR: "The other aircraft always has the right of way."

 

[skyking3286]

Yesterday I was flying and a twin made a mid-field (over the non-controlled airport) entry to downwind. I was on a 45 to mid-field, almost equal distance from the downwind. It was like cutting in line. It's absolutely ill-logical to have the FAA say that an over the field midfield downwind entry is OK, as per the latest guidance. Hmmm, let us design a traffic pattern that puts two planes head on. I know, the mid-field entry to the pattern! FAA guidance isn't always safe.

To complicate it even further, the airport I was landing at has a very active skydiving landing zone that this twin busted right through to get to the downwind. Someday there will be a skydiver and AC collision right over the field if the over the field mid-field entry continues. Uff da. There is a standard entry for a reason. Adding another standard isn't safe.

Advisory Circular 90-66B Updated

 

[David Megginson]

Yesterday I was flying and a twin made a mid-field (over the non-controlled airport) entry to downwind. I was on a 45 to mid-field, almost equal distance from the downwind. It was like cutting in line. It's absolutely ill-logical to have the FAA say that an over the field midfield downwind entry is OK, as per the latest guidance. Hmmm, let us design a traffic pattern that puts two planes head on. I know, the mid-field entry to the pattern! FAA guidance isn't always safe.

To complicate it even further, the airport I was landing at has a very active skydiving landing zone that this twin busted right through to get to the downwind. Someday there will be a skydiver and AC collision right over the field if the over the field mid-field entry continues. Uff da. There is a standard entry for a reason. Adding another standard isn't safe.

Advisory Circular 90-66B Updated

Here in Canada, overhead midfield is the VFR circuit recommended entry, and 45° doesn't even make the list. I find the slowly-converging 45° unnerving (it feels like a blueprint for a midair), but when I'm entering the VFR pattern in the US, I still conform to local practice and do it.

 

[Witmo]

When you're towing on the way up, do people remember that they have to yield to you?

For the most part, yes. If I can, however, I'll try and plan my tow so they don't have to yield to me. Communication is the key. If several aircraft are inbound, I'll avoid towing the glider anywhere near their entry flight path. If we're staying in the pattern, I'll extend the departure leg so that inbound aircraft can all enter and land before us as the glider will foul the runway for a few minutes while the pilot gets out and the ground crew tows the glider clear. We try to do our best to inconvenience our powered brethren as little as possible. It's actually quite rare that the glider or the tow and glider have to take advantage of ROW rules.

 

[David Megginson]

For the most part, yes. If I can, however, I'll try and plan my tow so they don't have to yield to me. Communication is the key. If several aircraft are inbound, I'll avoid towing the glider anywhere near their entry flight path. If we're staying in the pattern, I'll extend the departure leg so that inbound aircraft can all enter and land before us as the glider will foul the runway for a few minutes while the pilot gets out and the ground crew tows the glider clear. We try to do our best to inconvenience our powered brethren as little as possible. It's actually quite rare that the glider or the tow and glider have to take advantage of ROW rules.

That makes sense. The right-of-way rules are there as a backstop for when all else fails, like the chute in a Cirrus.

 

[Warmi]

Here in Canada, overhead midfield is the VFR circuit recommended entry, and 45° doesn't even make the list. I find the slowly-converging 45° unnerving (it feels like a blueprint for a midair), but when I'm entering the VFR pattern in the US, I still conform to local practice and do it.

Doesn’t work all that well in a low wing aircraft and also, if you are supposed circle at 2000 feet before doing overhead entry , what if you got 2 planes entering... you end up with another mini-pattern at 2000 feet ?

 

[Palmpilot]

Yesterday I was flying and a twin made a mid-field (over the non-controlled airport) entry to downwind. I was on a 45 to mid-field, almost equal distance from the downwind. It was like cutting in line. It's absolutely ill-logical to have the FAA say that an over the field midfield downwind entry is OK, as per the latest guidance. Hmmm, let us design a traffic pattern that puts two planes head on. I know, the mid-field entry to the pattern! FAA guidance isn't always safe.

To complicate it even further, the airport I was landing at has a very active skydiving landing zone that this twin busted right through to get to the downwind. Someday there will be a skydiver and AC collision right over the field if the over the field mid-field entry continues. Uff da. There is a standard entry for a reason. Adding another standard isn't safe.

Advisory Circular 90-66B Updated

Notice that the diagram you attached tells the mid-field crossover aircraft to "yield to the preferred 45° and downwind traffic."

 

[dtuuri]

Notice that the diagram you attached tells the mid-field crossover aircraft to "yield to the preferred 45° and downwind traffic."

Yes, which makes your point about the recommendation being contrary to the FARs. To "yield" would be to make a right turn, but the FARs require all turns to the left.

 

[David Megginson]

Doesn’t work all that well in a low wing aircraft and also, if you are supposed circle at 2000 feet before doing overhead entry , what if you got 2 planes entering... you end up with another mini-pattern at 2000 feet ?

I have a low wing. And I've never heard of or seen circling overhead at 2,000 ft AGL before an overhead midfield circuit entry. Is that a US thing?

 

[dbahn]

Yes, which makes your point about the recommendation being contrary to the FARs. To "yield" would be to make a right turn, but the FARs require all turns to the left.

I'd argue that a right turn would be acceptable on the basis that you are no longer "approaching to land" but are actually departing the area to initiate another re-entry and approach. But I think we both agree that one of the hazards in the crosswind midfield entry is that there aren't a lot of good avoidance options when a conflict does pop up on the pattern side of the field.

The same logic would apply in the OP's situation where the twin would make a left turn in a right hand pattern to avoid the single on crosswind. He has aborted the approach to land and therefore 91.126 doesn't apply until he again is "approaching to land". (If he makes a standard rate turn that won't occur for at least a minute and more likely about two minutes or more.)

 

[sourdough44]

I was thinking one could descend to 400 AGL then call ‘lower aircraft’. I see they say not to take advantage of this rule.

Only one other plane in the pattern? If so, easy to work out. If all else fails, extend the downwind for a longer final.

 

[Warmi]

I have a low wing. And I've never heard of or seen circling overhead at 2,000 ft AGL before an overhead midfield circuit entry. Is that a US thing?

It appears to be the Commonwealth thing - I remember reading about overhead join and multiple planes entering at the same time and circling.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Suggestion for a new FAR: "The other aircraft always has the right of way."

OK, so, like, you are on downwind, see someone entering the pattern, sense the potential for a conflict, and turn to go behind them. Just to be sure.
Now, the other guy see's you already on downwind and turns to go behind you. Just to be sure.
Paint swapped.
It's not like the grocery store where you can both stop and step back and forth to the right/left until something works.

 

[David Megginson]

It appears to be the Commonwealth thing - I remember reading about overhead join and multiple planes entering at the same time and circling.

I've never flown in the UK, but if someone tried a stunt like that at a Canadian airport, they'd face some ... well, not harsh, but maybe passive-aggressively fake-polite words from fellow pilots on the ground afterwards.

The overhead entry is simple: you cross the field from the inactive side at circuit altitude, then turn left (or right) onto the mid-downwind. As you're approaching the airport, you have the whole circuit in your windshield -- take-off, climb, crosswind, downwind, base, final, landing, and even holding short -- so you instantly have a complete picture of the situation. You have lots of time to slow down, speed up, or alter your course a bit to the left or right to fit into existing traffic (as well as talking on the radio, of course, if the other traffic isn't NORDO).

If you're arriving from the active side, then you remain 500 ft above circuit altitude until you've crossed the approach path, then descend, turn around, and cross back to join. The other recommendation for VFR circuit entry at an uncontrolled, non-MF airport is joining direct to downwind, but only if it doesn't cause a conflict.

 

[flyingron]

The pattern above is pretty much standard in all the commonwealth countries. That's what we did in Australia as well. If you entered the way the US AIM depicts and someone saw you, you'd be given some "advice."

 

[dbahn]

The pattern above is pretty much standard in all the commonwealth countries. That's what we did in Australia as well. If you entered the way the US AIM depicts and someone saw you, you'd be given some "advice."

It's like driving on the opposite side of the road from what you're used to doing in your native country . . .

 

[John Collins]

I think it is primarily a faster airplane issue that would overtake a slower aircraft in the pattern. This comes up frequently in real life. When I am in the faster airplane, I keep the other aircraft in sight and I fly a wider pattern. I wait until the other aircraft turns base and continue until there is sufficient spacing for me to turn base.

 

[David Megginson]

The pattern above is pretty much standard in all the commonwealth countries. That's what we did in Australia as well. If you entered the way the US AIM depicts and someone saw you, you'd be given some "advice."

The benefit in Australia is that you don't have Australians routinely flying across the US border, and vice-versa, messing up each-others' VFR circuits.

 

[danhagan]

I fly a Cirrus, best stay out of my way, lol.

I'm sure you're a good pilot Paul, but some of your brethern (see below)

And it's important for all pilots to know that, whether they like straight-ins or not. I'd go one step further and say that according to the Pilot Controller Glossary the aircraft on final approach IS in the pattern, by definition.

Yeah, we got to experience it this past weekend ... 5 in the pattern, 1 crosswind, 1 base and 3 on downwind including me when a Cirrus (sorry Paul) announces 3 mile straight in as his first call ... we're RIGHT traffic on 28 and CAN'T fly south of the field due to the sky divers, so 4 of us have to bail OUT of the pattern to the north for Mr Cirrus .... we have a temporary runway (taxiway is now runway and shorter) ... Mr Cirrus called a go-around for unknown reasons and made LEFT traffic interfering with the drop zone also

 

[PaulS]

I'm sure you're a good pilot Paul, but some of your brethern (see below)



Yeah, we got to experience it this past weekend ... 5 in the pattern, 1 crosswind, 1 base and 3 on downwind including me when a Cirrus (sorry Paul) announces 3 mile straight in as his first call ... we're RIGHT traffic on 28 and CAN'T fly south of the field due to the sky divers, so 4 of us have to bail OUT of the pattern to the north for Mr Cirrus .... we have a temporary runway (taxiway is now runway and shorter) ... Mr Cirrus called a go-around for unknown reasons and made LEFT traffic interfering with the drop zone also

Lol, wasn't me. For the record I will call a straight in if it's quiet. But if I hear or see someone in the pattern, I'll break off and do a standard downwind entry.

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

Yeah, we got to experience it this past weekend ... 5 in the pattern, 1 crosswind, 1 base and 3 on downwind including me when a Cirrus (sorry Paul) announces 3 mile straight in as his first call ... we're RIGHT traffic on 28 and CAN'T fly south of the field due to the sky divers, so 4 of us have to bail OUT of the pattern to the north for Mr Cirrus .... we have a temporary runway (taxiway is now runway and shorter) ... Mr Cirrus called a go-around for unknown reasons and made LEFT traffic interfering with the drop zone also

My radio call to that straight-in Cirrus? "That's a negative, Ghost Rider, the pattern is full."

 

[Palmpilot]

My radio call to that straight-in Cirrus? "That's a negative, Ghost Rider, the pattern is full."

Are you the pilot who tries to control a "pilot-controlled" airport?

 

[sourdough44]

‘Negative Ghost Rider’, that phrase still has meaning after all these years.

 

[Shawn]

You didn't much listen to what I said, did you? Or did you just come here to rant about your personal view of how the air regulations should work?

As I pointed out, safety (and yes courtesy) goes both ways. The person trying to enter the pattern needs courtesy from those already in the pattern or he may be stuck out there burning fuel while a bunch of "self-cenetered DBs" drone around continuously in the pattern.

By your argument, you'll leave a bunch of guys sitting in the run-up area, unable to get into the air because the pattern is full of people who you feel have more of a right to the airspace than they?

As Mr. Palm points out, the regulations are the last resort when other communications and common sense yield the need for a conflict resolution.

Context matters, quit trying to apply my point to any and all possible scenarios vs what the OP is discussing. Stick to to point.

You post lacked the "courtesy" part you later tried to apply and only a cold look at the regulations and right of way hence my response in applying common sense and to not be "that guy" just because there is not a regulation proving you from.

...but to your attempt at a point...yeah, if the pattern is full of planes all in a tight landing sequence, the dude in runup is indeed stuck because the regs DO state that landing aircraft have the right fo way.

 

[Lachlan]

The blimp thread got me thinking... if two blimps converged in the pattern, would they just bounce off each other like those YouTube videos of the morons running into each other holding the big rubber exercise balls? Who would film it? Would it be considered a go-around?