What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled field

[SCCutler]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f



...seems to me...

...that there is probably less risk in a properly-executed straight-in (start listening and watching far enough out to get the picture, be prepared to coordinate and negotiate, exercise restraint and consideration) than there is in flying to the airport area, descending to TPA, and entering on a 45, etc.

If I am approaching from the appropriate direction for a safely-executed straight-in, I am gonna fly it, subject (as always) to changing my plan to suit the circumstances.

$0.02.

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

...seems to me...

...that there is probably less risk in a properly-executed straight-in (start listening and watching far enough out to get the picture, be prepared to coordinate and negotiate, exercise restraint and consideration) than there is in flying to the airport area, descending to TPA, and entering on a 45, etc.

If I am approaching from the appropriate direction for a safely-executed straight-in, I am gonna fly it, subject (as always) to changing my plan to suit the circumstances.

$0.02.

I'm sold on that philosophy. That's pretty much what I've been trying to say and in probably too many words. There's no hard and fast rule like some want to set for themselves.

 

[SCCutler]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

Ken, I am often flying to Houston from Dallas (ADS), "destinating" at SGR (usually), where I am landing straight-in per tower's instructions, at HOU (occasionally), where I land wherever they tell me, or at IWS (fairly often), where I nearly always land straight-in.

As you know by now (maybe you always knew, but I forget where you just moved from), we almost always land south in Texas ('cept west Texas, which is really New Mexico anyway...).

One time, at IWS, I was announcing straight-in and I heard a guy coming from the south and entering downwind. I did my quick figuring and decided that one of us had to change plan, and it oughta be me, so I told him I was going to execute a 360 to allow him time to get down without having to fly a ridiculously-long downwind. he thanked me, and added, "I did not know Bonanzas knew how to do that."

Chuckled, I did.

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

Ken, I am often flying to Houston from Dallas (ADS), "destinating" at SGR (usually), where I am landing straight-in per tower's instructions, at HOU (occasionally), where I land wherever they tell me, or at IWS (fairly often), where I nearly always land straight-in.

As you know by now (maybe you always knew, but I forget where you just moved from), we almost always land south in Texas ('cept west Texas, which is really New Mexico anyway...).

One time, at IWS, I was announcing straight-in and I heard a guy coming from the south and entering downwind. I did my quick figuring and decided that one of us had to change plan, and it oughta be me, so I told him I was going to execute a 360 to allow him time to get down without having to fly a ridiculously-long downwind. he thanked me, and added, "I did not know Bonanzas knew how to do that."

Chuckled, I did.

At towered fields, ya fly how they want ya to fly. It threw me for a loop when a relatively new controller at PDK once asked me what runway I wanted. Winds were calm so landing without crossing paths with a bizjet was a preferable plan. It was her call. She had me changing from an overfly for right downwind for 20R to switching runways while I was inbound to landing left base for 2R to landing left base for 2L. I should have just specified one earlier.

Yep, the winds from off the gulf are new to me. Most of the time, they were pretty much from the west back in Atlanta. Yet, all day today we were landing on 1 with surface winds from the west and aloft from the southwest.

Unfortunately it's twice a week I'm having to either take the plane or have the student make a change to compensate for what another student is doing in the pattern. I wish it were not the case. We're hoping a tower will put an end to it. Controllers at PDK were not very forgiving of stupid maneuvers. I hope that happens here.

 

[SCCutler]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

My biggest concern is the preponderance of non-native English speakers in flight training. It is creating a real mess up here at times. How 'bout you?

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I've flown almost all my night hours without a flashlight. I just generally don't have anything I want to see lit up.

You're kidding, right?

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

My biggest concern is the preponderance of non-native English speakers in flight training. It is creating a real mess up here at times. How 'bout you?

It is, indeed. Quite often, it's a guess to what is said.

I had told this once before. The DPE who did my CFI ride at Chattanooga told me of a time last year when they had four aircraft converging on the airport. All four pilots had strong "Middle Eastern accents." It concerned the tower so much, they declared an alert status and had the TSA and other law enforcement on standby. I'm sure there was some egg on a few faces later on.

 

[jason]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

...seems to me...

...that there is probably less risk in a properly-executed straight-in (start listening and watching far enough out to get the picture, be prepared to coordinate and negotiate, exercise restraint and consideration) than there is in flying to the airport area, descending to TPA, and entering on a 45, etc.

If I am approaching from the appropriate direction for a safely-executed straight-in, I am gonna fly it, subject (as always) to changing my plan to suit the circumstances.

$0.02.

I'm sold on that philosophy. That's pretty much what I've been trying to say and in probably too many words. There's no hard and fast rule like some want to set for themselves.

That's not even close to what you've been trying to say. You said there is no good reason to fly a straight-in approach.

 

[jesse]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

You're kidding, right?

Not really. I have one most of the time these days but I rarely find myself using it. Short of preflight, ice, or some odd problem.. I have no real need in the cockpit. I prefer not to trash my night vision.

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

That's not even close to what you've been trying to say. You said there is no good reason to fly a straight-in approach.

If for ANY reason, a straight-in approach affects the safety of flight for ANY aircraft in the traffic area, break off and re-enter the pattern with locally establish standards.

THAT is my position. As I said before, I'm opposed to doing just because you can. There are times it is not warranted and/or completly unnecessary. As I said before, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

 

[jason]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

If for ANY reason, a straight-in approach affects the safety of flight for ANY aircraft in the traffic area, break off and re-enter the pattern with locally establish standards.

THAT is my position. As I said before, I'm opposed to doing just because you can. There are times it is not warranted and/or completly unnecessary. As I said before, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Finally!

That's pretty much what I've said all along...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

That's not even close to what you've been trying to say. You said there is no good reason to fly a straight-in approach.

That's the exact same thing I thought when I saw that...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

Given the volume of student traffic we have at Conroe flying non-standard patterns, wide patterns, taking off too soon or landing too soon behind someone... anything you can do to minimize risk is good. Entering from downwind on the standard 45 will give you that advantage much more so than any other.

I don't understand this. If they're flying such messed-up patterns, why would you want to be IN the pattern with them? A straight-in keeps you the heck out of their way.

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I don't understand this. If they're flying such messed-up patterns, why would you want to be IN the pattern with them? A straight-in keeps you the heck out of their way.

And, you expect to teach landings how? By leaving and re-entering the pattern every time? If there are more than three other planes in the pattern, I'll go to another airport thirty miles away.

Flying is expensive enough. You try to compensate for that without giving up any safety.

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

Finally!

That's pretty much what I've said all along...

What bugged me about your post in the other thread was the impression of your attitude to make a straight-in approach.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

If for ANY reason, a straight-in approach affects the safety of flight for ANY aircraft in the traffic area, break off and re-enter the pattern with locally establish standards.

OK, how am I as a transient pilot supposed to know your "locally established standards?" And I don't see how a pattern is any different there than anywhere else.

I do agree with your position as stated above, but I think that more often than not a straight-in is the safest option if you're coming from the right direction.

THAT is my position. As I said before, I'm opposed to doing just because you can. There are times it is not warranted and/or completly unnecessary. As I said before, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I don't think anyone is saying that they do it just because they can - I think everyone is doing it because for their particular situation it is the safest and best option.

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

OK, how am I as a transient pilot supposed to know your "locally established standards?" And I don't see how a pattern is any different there than anywhere else.

I do agree with your position as stated above, but I think that more often than not a straight-in is the safest option if you're coming from the right direction.

By this....
http://naco.faa.gov/pdfs/sc_259_10APR2008.pdf

LONE STAR EXECUTIVE (CXO) 37 N UTC6(5DT) N30°21.14W95°24.87HOUSTON

245 B S4​

​

FUEL 80, 100LL, JET A H–7C, L–19D, 21A
RWY 14–32: H6000X150 (ASPH) S–140 MIRL IAP
RWY 14: MALSR. PAPI(P2L)—GA 3.0° TCH 31. Thld dsplcd 591.
Hill.​

RWY 32:​

​

​

REIL. VASI(V4L)—GA 3.0° TCH 27. Tree.​

RWY 01–19:​

​

​

H5000X100 (CONC) S–140 MIRL​

RWY 01:​

​

​

PAPI (P2L)—GA 3.0° TCH 33. Tree.​

RWY 19:​

​

​

PAPI (P2L)—GA 3.0° TCH 40. Trees.​

AIRPORT REMARKS:​

​

​

Attended 1300–0300Z‡. Extensive military
helicopter activity on arpt. Helicopters use right-hand traffic. MIRL
Rwy 14–32 preset low intensity, increase intensity and ACTIVATE
MALSR Rwy 14—CTAF.​

WEATHER DATA SOURCES:​

​

​

ASOS 118.325 (936)760–4237.​

COMMUNICATIONS: CTAF/UNICOM​

​

​

122.95​

MONTGOMERY COUNTY FSS​

​

​

(CX0) TF 1–800–WX–BRIEF. NOTAM FILE
CXO.​

MONTGOMERY COUNTY RCO​

​

​

122.2 (MONTGOMERY COUNTY FSS)​

​

​

R HOUSTON APP/DEP CON 119.7 CLNC DEL 119.55​

RADIO AIDS TO NAVIGATION:​

​

​

NOTAM FILE IAH.​

HUMBLE (H) VORTACW​

​

​

116.6 IAH Chan 113 N29°57.41
W95°20.74346° 23.9 NM to fld. 90/5E. HIWAS.
ALIBI NDB (LOM) 281 CX N30°25.92W95°28.58141° 5.7 NM to fld. NOTAM FILE CXO.​

ILS/DME 108.7 I–CXO Chan 24 Rwy 14. Class IB. LOM ALIBI NDB.

Airmed helos use the same pattern and rent space in our hangar.

I don't think anyone is saying that they do it just because they can - I think everyone is doing it because for their particular situation it is the safest and best option.

By their opinion. But, you pretty much admitted to not knowing what is in operation nor checking available resources to find out. So, if one does not know what the procedures are would it not be reasonable to enter the traffic area in the normally recognized fashion? This is assuming one hasn't even looked at a chart to indicate "RP" for any runways nor the A/FD. Perhaps, they've not even gleaned available information which may be part of a current GPS database on their aircraft.

 

[gprellwitz]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

But, you pretty much admitted to not knowing what is in operation nor checking available resources to find out. So, if one does not know what the procedures are would it not be reasonable to enter the traffic area in the normally recognized fashion? This is assuming one hasn't even looked at a chart to indicate "RP" for any runways nor the A/FD. Perhaps, they've not even gleaned available information which may be part of a current GPS database on their aircraft.

Ummm.... I certainly don't recall Kent "admitting" anything like this. I've personally seen him checking the A/FD for preferred routes, and have received calls from him and Kate checking on the accuracy of information found therein. Your comment implied that there were "locally established procedures" beyond what appear in the A/FD.

 

[t0r0nad0]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

Spike, as someone who's flown in/out of IWS and SGR on a somewhat regular basis, I'll second that comment about you doing the 360 on long final. I typically only fly into IWS that airport with my mentor who's based there, and I'm typically the one on the controls until about a 1/2 mile final. Probably at least 50% of the time we've landed there, we've had to extend our downwind for traffic on a straight-in final.

That is one busy non-towered airport, too! There was one time I flew in there and had to insert my Cessna in the pattern in a gap between a T-6 Texan (part of the CAF squadron based there) and a J-3 Cub. The Cub was followed by a Stinson. Meanwhile, there were three planes stacked up to depart, one of which announced their departure while I was turning base to 1-mile final. I keyed the mic and politely asked them to wait until I had landed.

FWIW, even when we approached from the straight-in approach side, that airport is always so busy that we've never done a straight-in approach. We've always offset ourselves to the downwind side and entered on the 45. There's just too much else going on there.

Spike, IWS is less than 15 miles from my house, and SGR is less than 25. You best call me next time you're in town!

 

[gibbons]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

It is absolutely amazing that every airport or FBO you've ever flown at houses the worst pilots in the world and requires extreme caution to stay alive. I feel for you. IME--99.99% of the airports I've flown to have fairly competent local pilots. Maybe I'm optimistic.

I'll back Ken up on this one. I used to believe that most pilots were "fairly competent". I guess I based that on my own desire to be a good pilot and on folks I generally fly with (like those on this board) - very interested in aviation and determined to stay current and improve their skills.

That changed when I started doing flight reviews. I know I haven't seen it all, but I've sure had my eyes opened. Change "fairly competent" to "barely competent" and I'll agree with you.

 

[poadeleted20]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I'm still not convinced that trying to funnel all entering aircraft from all different directions into the 45-degree entry is a good idea. I'll stick with my straight-in, upwind, and crosswind entries when arriving from the final approach and non-pattern sides of the airport.

 

[bbchien]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I'll back Ken up on this one. I used to believe that most pilots were "fairly competent". I guess I based that on my own desire to be a good pilot and on folks I generally fly with (like those on this board) - very interested in aviation and determined to stay current and improve their skills.

That changed when I started doing flight reviews. I know I haven't seen it all, but I've sure had my eyes opened. Change "fairly competent" to "barely competent" and I'll agree with you.

Sadly, I agree with Chip........

 

[Everskyward]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

Sadly, I agree with Chip........

Me too. Before I became a CFI I wasn't really exposed to many pilots, only the ones I worked with doing mapping. They had much more experience than me and I was the newbie. When I started instructing, especially when giving flight reviews and checkouts, I initially expected the same level of skill. I soon realized this was unrealistic, but sometimes it was hard for me to believe that some of these people had actually passed a test at some time. Not only that, they were out there in the airspace flying around like that.

 

[Steve]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

It's like driving on the interstate, anyone driving slower than you are dumb bastards and anyone driving faster than you are SOB's.

 

[gprellwitz]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

It's like driving on the interstate, anyone driving slower than you are dumb bastards and anyone driving faster than you are SOB's.

Close. Anyone driving slower than me had better be in the right lane. Anyone driving slower than me in the left land is a dumb, discourteous SOB. Anyone driving faster than me is a reckless fool (and I'd better get in the right lane)

 

[Tom-D]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

What several thousand posts tells me about non standard entries at pilot controlled field..

It tells me many pilots don't know they are "THE CONTROL" and there is no such thing as an UNcontroled field, unless there are no pilots there.

 

[Richard]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

What several thousand posts tells me about non standard entries at pilot controlled field..

It tells me many pilots don't know they are "THE CONTROL" and there is no such thing as an UNcontroled field, unless there are no pilots there.

I absolutely agree.

 

[gismo]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

Haaaa, the real reason... your ego doesn't fit in the pattern...

Perhaps, perhaps not. The biggest problem I see in the pattern is that too many pilots think that the way they enter and fly the pattern is the only way everyone else should do it. This is not a one size fits all situation and if everyone would focus on fitting in and letting others fit in with their preferred methods things would work better IMO.

 

[stingray]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

If for ANY reason, a straight-in approach affects the safety of flight for ANY aircraft in the traffic area, break off and re-enter the pattern with locally establish standards.

THAT is my position. As I said before, I'm opposed to doing just because you can. There are times it is not warranted and/or completly unnecessary. As I said before, just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I read most of your responses to straight in Ken and I just don't get it. Why is a straight in going to be a safety factor to other pilots if done right?

If you call out farther than 4 miles, you should be able to sequence yourself with others just as if you were in the pattern. Just because you are in the pattern does not make sequencing any easier. I have been overtaken in the pattern by a twin before, for no other reason than he was a poor pilot. Multiple T and G's and he just could not figure out how to extend a little to stay in line.

If someone in the pattern is calling base and you are calling 6 miles no factor. If some one is calling down wind and you are calling 2 miles not a factor if the other pilot just extends or slows down. Keep in mind if you call final at 2 miles you are closer than he is so why would he care that you are not right in front of him instead. If you were 1 mile in front of him calling downwind he would have to slow down, or go around. By calling final, all he has to do is extend downwind to sequence. I will add that trying to see a plane that is 1 mile behind you is far harder than seeing a plane 1 mile in front of you.

The only time it would be rude to use straight in is if there was a very busy pattern with more than say 5 or 6 planes already in it.

I have been crowded more times than once by people entering downwind while I was in the pattern either downwind or base.

Dan

 

[timwinters]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I fly a lot of cross countries and land at a lot of different airports and I'm glad I fly in the part of the country where at least 75% of the time, when I arrive at an airport, I'm the only one around. When no other traffic responds to my 10mi and 5mi calls, I make sure (best I can) that there are no NORDO's in the pattern and then enter it from whatever direction I'm coming, including straight in. Spending 5 more minutes in the air for no good reason is defeating the purpose of flying (saving time) and it costs money.

If anyone is in the pattern then I will try to enter with a 45 midfield downwind.

 

[infotango]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I'm still not convinced that trying to funnel all entering aircraft from all different directions into the 45-degree entry is a good idea. I'll stick with my straight-in, upwind, and crosswind entries when arriving from the final approach and non-pattern sides of the airport.

This is the most reasonable post I've read. Ron is bang on, IMHO.

Often instrument approaches leave people off on straight in approaches into uncontrolled airports, if that what works, that's what you do.
I don't see how routing all the traffic into a 45 makes things any more safe. If anything, when all the aircraft converge into a 45, they are potentially converging from all over the place, (well 180 degrees) to say nothing of the fact that with people may be turning from crazy angles to enter the 45 outside the pattern, you can possibly end up with midairs from all kinds of directions OUTSIDE of the pattern.
At least with a straight in aircraft are only converging from two possible directions, base leg and an extended final. Besides some people fly such huge patterns, they are effectively doing a straight in, so it pays to be vigilant on base in any situation.

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I read most of your responses to straight in Ken and I just don't get it. Why is a straight in going to be a safety factor to other pilots if done right?

If you call out farther than 4 miles, you should be able to sequence yourself with others just as if you were in the pattern. Just because you are in the pattern does not make sequencing any easier. I have been overtaken in the pattern by a twin before, for no other reason than he was a poor pilot. Multiple T and G's and he just could not figure out how to extend a little to stay in line.

If someone in the pattern is calling base and you are calling 6 miles no factor. If some one is calling down wind and you are calling 2 miles not a factor if the other pilot just extends or slows down. Keep in mind if you call final at 2 miles you are closer than he is so why would he care that you are not right in front of him instead. If you were 1 mile in front of him calling downwind he would have to slow down, or go around. By calling final, all he has to do is extend downwind to sequence. I will add that trying to see a plane that is 1 mile behind you is far harder than seeing a plane 1 mile in front of you.

The only time it would be rude to use straight in is if there was a very busy pattern with more than say 5 or 6 planes already in it.

I have been crowded more times than once by people entering downwind while I was in the pattern either downwind or base.

Dan

Imagine trying to return to your home airport where there is a school with more than a few inadequate students and four of them are doing touch-n-go's in the pattern... They are flying non-standard patterns. Meaning, they are flying nothing remotely close to a rectangular pattern. Yesterday, I turned crosswind with a student. We flew the downwind and at mid-field suddenly saw a plane turning downwind in front of us. It wasn't until they turned base (After appearing to turn right, out of the pattern) they were the SAME tail number who had called turning final behind us on the last T-n-G. Ya think that might get your attention?

I've had them turn crosswind early behind me and I've had them continue downwind so far I'm not sure if they are staying in the pattern or not. Another event the other day was after my student and I had pulled off the runway and held past the line to clean up. We called clear and wasn't off the runway more than five seconds when I turned left toward my student upon which I saw a plane rolling out behind us. That's WAY too close. This isn't JFK with 45 second separation.

Today, I took a student to Huntsville, 30 miles away, for practice landings. We were the only one's up there. Upon returning to Conroe, we had to fit in with FIVE Indian students doing T-n-Gs.

Later, one of their planes sat in position while our other plane had long called base and was turning final.

I just learned that school has been responsible for seventeen accidents and seven deaths during their time on the field. Along with that, I just did a insurance checkout for a guy who went to that school for primary training. In January, he was stuck circling over the north end of Lake Conroe. Why? He had accidentally turned on the AP and had no clue it had happen. He was looking for help trying to control the plane. He finally manages to get control then he plants it on a tiny peninsula on the lake. I've got some video and stills of that coming from the flight nurse next door. I'll also try to get a picture of the whole peninsula. Why was he turned loose without knowing the aircraft's systems?

Oh, and that student was not Indian but he is a product of that school. I signed his logbook but that's all. He had that to show to an insurance company. He received no endorsement as the plane was not high performance nor complex. It was a C177. I did strongly recommend he get some more dual instruction.

My point is, if you don't try to fit in and set up in a normal pattern it may come back to bite. I'm very fearful of what could happen at times on this field. That isn't my thought for every field. But, it is my reason for sticking to a standard that everyone else is doing simply because they don't have the skill or intelligence to do something different or adapt to it.

If that didn't answer your question, come on down to Conroe... join the party!

 

[jason]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

Imagine trying to return to your home airport where there is a school with more than a few inadequate students and four of them are doing touch-n-go's in the pattern... They are flying non-standard patterns. Meaning, they are flying nothing remotely close to a rectangular pattern. Yesterday, I turned crosswind with a student. We flew the downwind and at mid-field suddenly saw a plane turning downwind in front of us. It wasn't until they turned base (After appearing to turn right, out of the pattern) they were the SAME tail number who had called turning final behind us on the last T-n-G. Ya think that might get your attention?

I've had them turn crosswind early behind me and I've had them continue downwind so far I'm not sure if they are staying in the pattern or not. Another event the other day was after my student and I had pulled off the runway and held past the line to clean up. We called clear and wasn't off the runway more than five seconds when I turned left toward my student upon which I saw a plane rolling out behind us. That's WAY too close. This isn't JFK with 45 second separation.

Today, I took a student to Huntsville, 30 miles away, for practice landings. We were the only one's up there. Upon returning to Conroe, we had to fit in with FIVE Indian students doing T-n-Gs.

Later, one of their planes sat in position while our other plane had long called base and was turning final.

I just learned that school has been responsible for seventeen accidents and seven deaths during their time on the field. Along with that, I just did a insurance checkout for a guy who went to that school for primary training. In January, he was stuck circling over the north end of Lake Conroe. Why? He had accidentally turned on the AP and had no clue it had happen. He was looking for help trying to control the plane. He finally manages to get control then he plants it on a tiny peninsula on the lake. I've got some video and stills of that coming from the flight nurse next door. I'll also try to get a picture of the whole peninsula. Why was he turned loose without knowing the aircraft's systems?

Oh, and that student was not Indian but he is a product of that school. I signed his logbook but that's all. He had that to show to an insurance company. He received no endorsement as the plane was not high performance nor complex. It was a C177. I did strongly recommend he get some more dual instruction.

My point is, if you don't try to fit in and set up in a normal pattern it may come back to bite. I'm very fearful of what could happen at times on this field. That isn't my thought for every field. But, it is my reason for sticking to a standard that everyone else is doing simply because they don't have the skill or intelligence to do something different or adapt to it.

If that didn't answer your question, come on down to Conroe... join the party!

But can we agree that the whole country isn't Conroe, TX? There are a lot of different airports and a lot of different situations. Perhaps we could say that a straight-in is inadvisable in Conroe due to the unusually high percentage of training flights. There are very few training flights at most airports around here. We all need to remember that what we see every day isn't the same as what others see.

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

But can we agree that the whole country isn't Conroe, TX? There are a lot of different airports and a lot of different situations. Perhaps we could say that a straight-in is inadvisable in Conroe due to the unusually high percentage of training flights. There are very few training flights at most airports around here. We all need to remember that what we see every day isn't the same as what others see.

We can mostly agree on that. The other side of it is we can never be certain what is happening and even once you enter the pattern, you can have surprises. My own opinion is sticking with the standard cuts down on that surprise.

I know there are some who disagree with me on that. But, as long as I'm expected to teach a standard the DPEs also expect, I'll do so and I'll stand firm on that. This on top of the safety advantage I already believe in.

 

[stingray]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

Imagine trying to return to your home airport where there is a school with more than a few inadequate students and four of them are doing touch-n-go's in the pattern... They are flying non-standard patterns. Meaning, they are flying nothing remotely close to a rectangular pattern. Yesterday, I turned crosswind with a student. We flew the downwind and at mid-field suddenly saw a plane turning downwind in front of us. It wasn't until they turned base (After appearing to turn right, out of the pattern) they were the SAME tail number who had called turning final behind us on the last T-n-G. Ya think that might get your attention?

My point exactly on doing a straight in. Everything is in front of you, you can see the field. In my opinion there is nothing safer as far as midairs go. Think about it.

By the way if the CFI's are signing off students that cannot fly a regular rectangular pattern and know where they are you need to call the proper authorities, if not just for the safety of others.

Dan

 

[poadeleted20]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

If folks doing T&Gs can't fly a rectangular pattern properly, they shouldn't be out solo. IOW, if you say you want standard pattern entries because the people flying the pattern can't fly standard patterns properly, I think you're trying to fix the part that isn't broke.

 

[timwinters]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

If folks doing T&Gs can't fly a rectangular pattern properly, they shouldn't be out solo.

Very true, maybe it's not the students that are the problem...maybe it's their instructors.

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

If folks doing T&Gs can't fly a rectangular pattern properly, they shouldn't be out solo. IOW, if you say you want standard pattern entries because the people flying the pattern can't fly standard patterns properly, I think you're trying to fix the part that isn't broke.

I suppose we could get rid of the school. Many pilots on the field would like to see it go away. And, did I mention most of those students are not solo?

 

[bbchien]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

It's so bad in my locale that I believe I have described by ultra-defensive approach here- I don't teach it, though.

Senecas have awful lateral visibility. The pilot's eyeball is just above each engine nacelle. So of you're below me and to either side, I'm not seeing you.

The airspace above our home drone is =>2000 MS class Charlie. So I'll fly to the drone at 2200 in Charlie, talking to app con; enter a standard rate left turn over the field listening also to unicom, and identifying every thing moving- out on the 45, downwind, crosswind, upwind, EVERYONE. Then when finally comfortable there's nobody on crosswind or entering the downwind, its join the down wind FROM THE CROSS WIND LEG. Mind you I am above it and have to be quite carefull that nobody is entering from the non-traffic side or is upwind on departure. However, I have done two rounds' worth of sweeps and am pretty sure of that......

The problem with crossing and going out to the 45 in a Seneca is that I'm flying 110 knots to stay well above OEI speed, and that's just not enough time in the entry to sort everyone out.

And you would be amazed what I see.
Guys in 150's turning inside 172's in the downwind just before they turn base.
Guys cutting across the upwind zone at 700 agl.
Guys with radios, turned off....or maybe they haven't worked for a coupla years. Or maybe their headset is......in the car.
Guys in cars driving across the runway.
Guys in pistons trying to make the straight in C500 go around.
Guys calling their positions 180 degrees from where they are. (Airman disorientation?)
LSAs "doing their thing" talking to nobody. They do the whole pattern inside of everyone else.

It's enough to make you cry....or go land at the Charlie. So on the day that Dagger 1 lands at my field, it's off to the Charlie terminal.

 

[stingray]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

It's so bad in my locale that I believe I have described by ultra-defensive approach here- I don't teach it, though.

Bruce I had the pleasure of driving through Chicago to and from Indiana to pick up a couple of rotary engines, I wish they would have fit in the Bellanca. It would have been safer traveling over the lake. I don't see how people live in those conditions it would drive me insane and this was only Sunday afternoon, I can't even think about what it would be like during rush hour. Flying would be the same, if I had to fight the whole time I would just move. I know most people can't and that is where I am fortunate enough that I can. We don't have fuel at our airport but it is peaceful.

Dan