Traffic pattern question: do you ever...

[denverpilot]

Practice areas are to the east of my home base (FNL). Mountains and city to the west. The flight school like mid-field entries at pattern altitude. I've had more problems caused by this practice than any other including straight in or base entries. I much prefer a cross-wind entry where I have better shot at seeing all the traffic and an easier escape if things go bad.

I never liked midfields at FNL... too many people also use the crosswind runway directly under you...

 

[ejensen]

I never liked midfields at FNL... too many people also use the crosswind runway directly under you...

Yeah, like three helicopters below and three+ in the pattern in front. And instructors do use it for short field work in the fixed wings.

 

[Jaybird180]

At W00, the pattern is published as:
...so the "heavy" traffic will be 200 above the "light" traffic, and the base of the B-space is only 300 above that. With all that, plus the SFRA around you and the FRZ only a mile away and approaches of 5.5 degrees one way and 6 degrees the other, W00 is definitely not for the faint of heart.

BTW, if you look closely at the airspace, the A/FD, and the DC SFRA/FRZ rules, you'll see there is no way to be arriving from the nonpattern side at W00, which makes this discussion moot for that airport.

Thank you for the correction on the specifics.

 

[dtuuri]

If Part 91.126(b) was written with the idea of merging aircraft gently into a traffic flow around an airport, so they each have time to see and avoid the others, all aircraft would need to turn in the same direction and all aircraft would need to avoid flight over the airport. Otherwise, crossing the airport makes for the most severe angles of convergence possible with aircraft approaching from 90° to 180° on the 'recommended' side. Those angles have the least cross-cockpit visibility and the highest closure rates too with head-on aircraft presenting the smallest frontal area. It's easier to spot an aircraft banking around the airport or sliding in slowly from the side, presenting its fuselage when not banked.

As for the ASF Figs 9 & 10, they have no scientific basis rooted in any empirical study to support them. Even some of the staff at AOPA disavow the mid-field cross (it isn't a 'crosswind leg' by FAA definition, btw). I call the descending 270° an 'ampersand' entry. Neither are legal nor safe in my view.

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

IMO this is the best document on how to enter traffic patterns.

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/sa08.pdf

Some will argue it is not an FAA document however AC90-66a contains the following.
"RELATED READING MATERIAL:"
"g. Pilot Operations at Nontowered Airports, AOPA Air Safety Foundation pamphlet."

IMO I disagree that the mid-field crossing causes a conflict,

You are entitled to your opinion, but over the 43 years I've been flying, I've seen it happen more times than I can count. For that reason, I recommend against it no matter what AOPA says.

in fact I would argue it is safer than descending and maneuvering to enter on what the pilot determines to be the 45 degree entry point.

Descending in the pattern? I agree that's a bad idea. Descending clear of the pattern and then entering the pattern at TPA? I can't see how that compromises safety, although I think that entering the crosswind at TPA is a better way to do it than flying over the airport above the pattern, clearing to the pattern side, descending to TPA, and then entering on the 45, so a crosswind entry is what I teach for that situation (arriving from the nonpattern side).

 

[poadeleted20]

I got my rear chewed out by some older pilot feller at some airport for not being at TPA when I entered once. I had been descending through the 45-degree to TPA,

Problem with that is you may be flying right through the wider, higher heavy/jet pattern at 500 above the "standard" TPA for light planes and usually about 1-2 miles abeam. For that reason, I strongly recommend being down to TPA no later than 2-3 miles out.

 

[poadeleted20]

You said that you cross at the end of the runway.

No, I didn't. I said I'd enter on the normal crosswind leg, which is usually about 1/2-1 miles past the departure end.

On a typical day I can be at or close to TPA at the end of the rwy.

So what? I'll still see you coming just fine if I'm flying wings level into the crosswind.

Even on the busiest days I haven't seen this situation.

I have -- many times.

Not to say that it cannot happen but I'm more worried about departure/go around traffic. They aren't looking for you at all

Why not? They should be.

and you'll still be belly-up to them turning dwind from xwind. The high

Your geometry is wrong. You'll be wings level, and they'll be climbing from your left 10-11 o'clock low position -- easy to see.

 

[Everskyward]

FYI many airports have a turbine pattern which is 500 feet above the standard TPA altitude, and this will place you in conflict with them.

Unless you are flying 747 pattern the turbines are going to be outside and higher than the small airplane pattern. Of course, by definition, they will be "descending in the pattern".

 

[MachFly]

No. Descending into the pattern is a great way to cause a mid-air collision

That's if you don't scan the whole downwind, if you're aware of the whole situation I think there is no problem with it.


Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that you should be descending while being on the downwind, only while your entering, when on downwind you should be at TPA.

 

[poadeleted20]

That's if you don't scan the whole downwind, if you're aware of the whole situation I think there is no problem with it.

I understand that you think that. But my experience and the accident reports tell me you're wrong.

 

[MachFly]

I understand that you think that. But my experience and the accident reports tell me you're wrong.

Yes and I think I know why that happens. Most people I flown with just sit there and scan for traffic right in front of them (because that's where their going). While in reality there can be an aircraft in the downwind behind you and in your blind spot, because you do not see that aircraft there will be a higher chance of a collision. Now if the pilot moves his head to clear all the blind spots the risk of a mid air significantly decreases.

 

[Henning]

Yes and I think I know why that happens. Most people I flown with just sit there and scan for traffic right in front of them (because that's where their going). While in reality there can be an aircraft in the downwind behind you and in your blind spot, because you do not see that aircraft there will be a higher chance of a collision. Now if the pilot moves his head to clear all the blind spots the risk of a mid air significantly decreases.

You have to move a lot more than your head to clear your blind spots.

 

[MachFly]

You have to move a lot more than your head to clear your blind spots.

Agreed

 

[dtuuri]

When approaching from the non-pattern side I cross at TPA - 90 degrees to the rwy then join the downwind leg.

Hmmm.... could this be you in the red?

​

dtuuri

 

[Threefingeredjack]

When approaching from the non-pattern side I cross at TPA - 90 degrees to the rwy then join the downwind leg. It reduces the amount of radio calls and there's no mystery of where you are if you call 'approaching from the west, crossing at [TPA] then turning left-downwind for 14'.

Intentionally setting yourself up for a crossing midair is insane.

 

[Clark1961]

Intentionally setting yourself up for a crossing midair is insane.

But you aren't setting yourself up for a crossing midair any more than entering the pattern from the other side. Crossing over mid-field at pattern altitude is expected behavior in at least two countries.

What about the guys that are pattern altitude + 500 which is where the jets are? Isn't that a bad place to be?

 

[poadeleted20]

But you aren't setting yourself up for a crossing midair any more than entering the pattern from the other side. Crossing over mid-field at pattern altitude is expected behavior in at least two countries.

But not this one, and in at least one of those countries, the 45-downwind entry is prohibited.

What about the guys that are pattern altitude + 500 which is where the jets are? Isn't that a bad place to be?

Yes, which is why you overfly at least 500 above the highest TPA, not just your TPA.

 

[dtuuri]

But you aren't setting yourself up for a crossing midair any more than entering the pattern from the other side.

Then you will acknowledge the perfect right to self-aggrandizement of other pilots to simultaneously place themselves spinner to spinner in your face from the opposite side for the reciprocal runway, in mirror fashion to your entry maneuver?

dtuuri

 

[Palmpilot]

That certainly creates a dramatic increase in the closure rate.

Lots of food for thought in this thread.

 

[Palmpilot]

Yes, which is why you overfly at least 500 above the highest TPA, not just your TPA.

I used to worry about the difficulty that creates in seeing the wind sock, but it occurs to me that AWOSes, etc. are more common than they used to be, and there is probably not much jet traffic at airports that still don't have one.

 

[Everskyward]

You didn't ask me, but as one of at least 10 pilots, I enter crosswind over the departure end of the runway.

Me too, whether in a small airplane or a bigger one. Funny, I had one passenger comment on my crosswind entry once. He asked why I didn't cross midfield. I had never thought about it much before but I told him I wanted to see the entire runway out the left side being it was my first time to the airport, also since we're pretty fast that doesn't leave too much time for the downwind if we cross midfield.

 

[MadseasoN]

Hmmm.... could this be you in the red?

View attachment 26756
​

dtuuri

My opinion is based on a single rwy airport. I'm never more than 1/2 mile from the rwy. I added the red line to show where I'd be.

Do you suggest that the blue line is any safer? Look at how many lines you cross with the blue line. Also, I added some departure lines that need to be considered.

 

[dtuuri]

My opinion is based on a single rwy airport. I'm never more than 1/2 mile from the rwy. I added the red line to show where I'd be.

Well, if you can fly around in an elevator I suppose others can too, so even though I didn't draw a line for elevators, you would be on a head-on collision course with other elevators just the same. Elevators aren't entitled to special treatment.

Do you suggest that the blue line is any safer? Look at how many lines you cross with the blue line. Also, I added some departure lines that need to be considered.

No, I'm not suggesting it, I'm flat-out telling you it is. At TPA, you're at an even better vantage point than a departing aircraft to see the flow around the airport, then you're joining the same pattern as an aircraft remaining there. That said, maneuvering to join an upwind is better in terms of time to assess the situation and gives more options for dealing with a potential conflict, such as turning in behind and well above an aircraft on climbout, as long as you're at least beyond the departure end of the runway. Your departure lines don't reflect that those aircraft are climbing above TPA, making avoidance of them quite easy--just cross their paths behind them.

If anybody else thinks crossing mid-field at TPA is a good practice, see my first post #44 in this thread and try to refute each point in the first paragraph. I'd like to see where I'm, uh, going wrong.

dtuuri

 

[Henning]

Safest place to cross midfield is 300' unless an Ag operation is underway. Rarely do we conflict with any traffic doing it.

 

[poadeleted20]

I used to worry about the difficulty that creates in seeing the wind sock, but it occurs to me that AWOSes, etc. are more common than they used to be, and there is probably not much jet traffic at airports that still don't have one.

Not to mention all the other weather information preflight and inflight, and things like trees and smoke at the destination. Eyeballing the wind sock, while nice to do, just isn't that essential.

 

[poadeleted20]

Safest place to cross midfield is 300' unless an Ag operation is underway. Rarely do we conflict with any traffic doing it.

So there I am, just past the missed approach point, cleaning up for the climb, when Henning comes zipping across in front of me in his 310. Not cool, Henning, but you're probably just trolling again with that remark.

 

[Henning]

I'll have my eye on you and I don't do it in my 310 and you'll see my bright yellow plane. The fact remains accident potential wis it is the least likely place to find conflicting traffic. As I said before, I'll fly a routing that takes me around at least to an FAF type distance for a straight in. I fly 120 kts minimum to about 500' on final.

 

[Palmpilot]

Not to mention all the other weather information preflight and inflight, and things like trees and smoke at the destination. Eyeballing the wind sock, while nice to do, just isn't that essential.

Well, I guess we might as well just take them all down then.

Somehow I doubt that airports like E36 or F25 get enough jet traffic to worry about.

 

[Dr. O]

At an uncontrolled and/or new to me field with traffic I will enter a left hand upwind at pattern altitude and at normal spacing from the runway so that I can see any traffic and see what is queuing up for take off down on the ground, turn left and go across the departure end numbers which puts me tight in and above anyone departing that I might not see, and then merge left into the downwind traffic by adjusting my turn...
Gives me ample time to see the nordos and the strange approaches... I generally find that that driving XC and drilling straight into the downwind at midfield leaves me uncomfortable at what I might be missing...
This habit comes from having cut off a 150 that was middle grey in color, on a misty fall afternoon in the half dusk, CFI and student who had no lights and no strobes turned on and did not make a radio call in response to my announcement of turning downwind and then base... I was standing in the lounge drinking coffee when this nut comes in ranting and raving that I nearly killed him... Turns out he and the student were on a mile and a half final in the 150 when I turned base at a half mile in the Viking slowing through 120 knots as the gear was coming down... When I said that I did not see him and I never heard him announce when I announced downwind or base, he said he was on final and had the right of way and that I had better learn to fly...

Never argue with an idiot as they will pull you down to their level and beat you with experience... So I apologized and made a mental note to protect myself from folks like him by using my new pattern from then on... That was 25 years ago and I do it this way still...

 

[DouglasBader]

I do what's best at the time. A 45 entry to the downwind is great if you're coming from that direction, but not convenient (or appropriate) when coming from another. Flying over the field then extending out to re-enter on a downwind is a little ridiculous in my opinion, unless it's necessary to blend with traffic.

If I'm coming from the opposite side of the field as the downwind, I may make a midfield crosswind entry, which puts me in a good position to watch the downwind area for traffic and blend in. Sometimes I'll approach straight in at pattern altitude, and perform an overhead "break" or entry from over the numbers; it also puts me in a good position to watch the traffic pattern and look for other aircraft. Sometimes a direct base entry works best. Sometimes a straight in approach works best; in most IFR flying, I arrive via an approach, and unless circling, land straight in off the approach.

Presently, because I leave the traffic pattern low, I often depart contrary to the pattern; if it's left traffic and there's a more direct line with a right turn departing to the fire, I make a right turn. I may never reach traffic pattern altitude; my turn usually begins near the end of the runway (sometimes before), and the crosswind leg is usually initiated well below 100'. It's a long slow climb and turning away from the traffic pattern helps eliminate conflicts, rather than enhancing them. What I don't want is a long climb up into or through the traffic pattern.

Sometimes, conversely, a downwind departure out of a normal traffic pattern works best. Often it's straight-out, with a long, slow climb. It all depends what the needs are at the time. Likewise, I might use a different runway than other traffic is using on arrival; so long as this is timed with and worked in with other traffic, it's not a problem. Yesterday I used a runway that crossed the one most traffic was using. There was enough of a crosswind that I wanted the shorter, more aligned runway for landing, though I was departing downwind on the downhill, longer runway when I was loaded. When landing on the shorter runway, I couldn't see the ends of the long runway, due to trees. I made sure that I closely monitored the pattern, as well as the taxiways and the runway itself, that I'd be landing across, to ensure that nobody was on that runway when my vision became obscured by trees on landing. I certainly didn't want to arrive at the intersection of the two runways when I'd be preoccupied with my landing, to find a conflict.

Couple that watchfulness with appropriate radio calls, and one should do what's best for that particular phase of the operation. I used three different runways for takeoff and landing yesterday, depending on the current winds, and my need to take off or land; takeoffs were on a different runway and a different direction than landings, and I landed two different directions, as well. Each time back to the field was different. Don't get too set on doing things one way. Don't get too set on doing things one way simply because everyone else is doing that, too. Look at your particular flight and even if the aircraft is capable of doing something else, look at your comfort level, your experience, and the nature of your airplane, then decide.

I took off on the longer runway, even though it was downwind with a stronger crosswind, because I weighted twice as much taking off as landing. My performance was limited. Lighter, on return, I didn't want as much crosswind. I could stop a lot shorter than I could takeoff, so a runway aligned into the wind was better for me, and represented a shorter taxi to the reloading pit. Go with what works for you on that particular operation; it may change each time you take off or land, depending on many things. The same may be true of pattern entries or exits. Standardize where convenient, but don't sacrifice operational ability or flexibility, or safety, just to be standard. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to enter the pattern or leave it, or take off or land.

 

[denverpilot]

I buzz DIA at 200' while dodging lasers and RVs.

 

[Palmpilot]

I think I like the crosswind entry idea for approaching from the non-pattern side of the airport, but I would think that it would be better to fly it where a normal crosswind would be. Doing it over the departure end of the runway might involve cutting across the pattern if the runway were not very long.

 

[gismo]

Why not cross the field at TPA and enter the downwind on the 45 from the field side? I believe that approach is close to what the Canadians do.

When in Canada do as the Canadians do (it's mandatory there IIRC) and when in the USA don't (do what the Canadians do in in their country). I believe that entering downwind from the runway side is the one and only pattern entry method that used to be actively discouraged in the AIM.

 

[Clark1961]

Then you will acknowledge the perfect right to self-aggrandizement of other pilots to simultaneously place themselves spinner to spinner in your face from the opposite side for the reciprocal runway, in mirror fashion to your entry maneuver?

dtuuri

I agree that your statement is loco. Self-enlargement of other pilots???

Please think it through - you'll be at pattern altitude and not be nose or tail on to anyone unless they are performing the same maneuver. You'll have a side view or view-from-above of all other planes in or entering the pattern.

 

[edmeis3]

I buzz DIA at 200' while dodging lasers and RVs.

What altitude and crossing procedure do you use crossing DIA when direct KEIK - KAPA? LOL, we wish.

I saw an argument between CFIs in another thread about signing off sport pilots to fly and land in class B, I'm guessing they weren't from around here.

 

[dtuuri]

I agree that your statement is loco. Self-enlargement of other pilots???

I view crossing over an airport as an arrogant 'me first' act with no respect or consideration for the safety of others. Here's one definition:

self-aggrandizement
n
the act of increasing one's own power, importance, etc., esp in an aggressive or ruthless manner​

Please think it through - you'll be at pattern altitude and not be nose or tail on to anyone unless they are performing the same maneuver. You'll have a side view or view-from-above of all other planes in or entering the pattern.

Please see my post #44 and try to refute, point by point, what I wrote there. It's based on a career's worth of actually flying in and out of hundreds, if not thousands, of different uncontrolled airports. I don't need to "think it through" virtually, BTDT.

dtuuri

 

[Clark1961]

I view crossing over an airport as an arrogant 'me first' act with no respect or consideration for the safety of others. Here's one definition:

self-aggrandizement
n
the act of increasing one's own power, importance, etc., esp in an aggressive or ruthless manner​

Please see my post #44 and try to refute, point by point, what I wrote there. It's based on a career's worth of actually flying in and out of hundreds, if not thousands, of different uncontrolled airports. I don't need to "think it through" virtually, BTDT.

dtuuri

We can agree to disagree if you don't care to think it through. That's fine with me. Your post 44 simply states that flying over the runway is bad without viable support of the claim. It does make statements that have little bearing on facts. Consider that other countries require crossing over midfield. I guess they are all wrong while you perceive yourself to be correct. Fine. I disagree..

 

[denverpilot]

What altitude and crossing procedure do you use crossing DIA when direct KEIK - KAPA? LOL, we wish.

I saw an argument between CFIs in another thread about signing off sport pilots to fly and land in class B, I'm guessing they weren't from around here.

Heh. I filed IFR and they vectored me right through the surface ring tonight around midnight.

Wasn't another airplane in the sky. Well, there was some SWA Cactus dude somewhere just getting in, but he was on another frequency and the controller was working multiples. Never saw him.

Coyotes were yipping out next to 10/28 at the end of the hangar row at APA while I did paperwork and locked up. Was kinda cool. They were noisy. Maybe they caught a rabbit.

 

[dtuuri]

Your post 44 simply states that flying over the runway is bad without viable support of the claim. It does make statements that have little bearing on facts.

Well, if you just want to disagree without a rebuttal to my argument, maybe someone else would care to try? I'll even parse it with room to comment:

If Part 91.126(b) was written with the idea of merging aircraft gently into a traffic flow around an airport, so they each have time to see and avoid the others, all aircraft would need to turn in the same direction and all aircraft would need to avoid flight over the airport.

Rebuttal:_________________

Otherwise, crossing the airport makes for the most severe angles of convergence possible with aircraft approaching from 90° to 180° on the 'recommended' side.

Rebuttal:_________________

Those angles have the least cross-cockpit visibility...

Rebuttal:_________________

...and the highest closure rates too...

Rebuttal:_________________

...with head-on aircraft presenting the smallest frontal area.

Rebuttal:_________________

It's easier to spot an aircraft banking around the airport or sliding in slowly from the side, presenting its fuselage when not banked.

Rebuttal:_________________

As for the ASF Figs 9 & 10, they have no scientific basis rooted in any empirical study to support them.

Rebuttal:_________________

Even some of the staff at AOPA disavow the mid-field cross (it isn't a 'crosswind leg' by FAA definition, btw).

Rebuttal:_________________

I call the descending 270° an 'ampersand' entry.

Rebuttal:_________________

Neither are legal nor safe in my view.

Rebuttal:_________________


dtuuri

 

[DouglasBader]

The midfield crosswind is as safe a place to be as any. It allows a good scan of the entire downwind leg while entering, as well as all other legs, as well as overflight of the runway complex and a view of the windsock. Furthermore, a midfield crosswind turning left onto the downwind is a left turn, whereas a right midfield 45 to the downwind is not.

An overflight of the approach end, likewise, for an overhead pattern with a continuous left or right hand turn to final works very well, and is a pattern I've very commonly used when flying to the airport VFR on fires. Direct at traffic pattern altitude to the numbers at cruise speed, then a descending turn to the numbers to land to load and return, is safe, compliant, effective, and puts me in a position to see other traffic.

If it's not blending with other traffic, then I work with the other traffic, adjusting as necessary. It may be that extending upwind a little to swing in behind downwind traffic works well. It may be that a base entry works well. I've done straight-ins many times with good effect, and still do.

Crossing over the field is not a dangerous act in the least, and it's a perfectly acceptable way to enter or fly a traffic pattern.