pattern entry

as a private student, i always overfly the field +500 TPA at an uncontrolled airport with no weather reporting to check winds, then teardrop in for a 45 degree entry on the left downwind, making radio calls before i do any turns....as far as commercial stuff goes i dont know much about it my opinion is that yes, you should save the company as much money as possible. However, at what point does money supercede safety?
 
fish314 said:
did you mean 500' above the Traffic pattern altitude, instead? That would seem to make sense.
Click to expand...

Oops, meant 500 feet above the TPA.

Some say that there might be a turboprop operating at the higher traffic pattern altitude... There might be someone there, but do you really think the turboprop wont have a radio? So if you have a radio, and the turboprop has a radio, you shouldn't have any problems.

As for landing straight in, as long as you've cleared the area for traffic you should be fine. This also eliminates the chance of a mid air while decending near the traffic pattern. In this case the straight in is safer IMO.
 
ehh?

its what it is 'recommends'

today I landed at KLNA. I was coming from south and had to make left pattern for runway 9...

PBBI's airspace sarts right at 1200 there, so u have 200 feet to be above the TPA.

so I got to 1200, made contact with airport traffic, and told my intentions, went over the airport, and tear dropped into a 45 downwind.....
 
I used to enter the pattern by overflying the runway 1000 AGL ("initial") flying upwind at 200KIAS, then cranking 60 degrees of bank until established on the downwind while bleeding off energy and configuring, and then making one continuous decending left turn to final. :D Seriously--it's called an "overhead pattern", look it up in the AIM.
 
The T-28 and Yak guys used to always do that one when they entered the pattern after they came back from mock dog fighting. I was so jealous.:)
 
It would seem that there are many ways to enter the pattern and many of them are recommended in the AIM.

The only time the FAA is going to refer to these recommendations in an enforcement action is when something goes wrong. When two airplanes collide at a non towered field everyone who has even a vaue idea of what an airplane looks like suddenly has an opinion: i.e. "those damn pilots in their stupid little airplanes - they're just dangerous!"

So! The FAA has to be seen to do something. They don't care how you get into the pattern, just as long as they don't get a phone call to come and investigate.
I haven't seen too many instances of the FAA watching at airports to see how people are flying their patterns.
Only time I saw this was when the "upside down brigade" started getting a little cocky with low passes, buzzing the FBO and such. Inevitably someone called and voila! there was Mr FAA with his badge looking all official. He didn't do much about the flybys but did issue a couple of notices to various pilots about weight and balance and some other minor things.

Basically I think you have to be extremely alert entering a non towered environment - it goes back to another thread about "thinking for yourself"
Even when the controller receives your cancellation and cheerfully tells you "no traffic observed between you and the airport" - He isn't flying your airplane. Merely thank him and watch like a hawk until you are safely on the ground.

My personal favorite is to begin monitoring the CTAF at 20 miles out and make a call at 15 miles even if I am still IFR. I listen to what people are saying and figure out how I am going to get in. Each time it seems things are a little different and I modify my pattern entry accordingly and try to be as safe as I can. Getting to the airport as quickly as possible is fine, but for me safety comes first.

Many times I am on a straight in instrument approach to get me below a could layer - even though the field is legally VFR and folks are flying in the pattern. In my humble opinion this is one of the most dangerous approaches, especially for a single pilot IFR aircraft. The folks in the pattern aren't expecting an airplane to arrive on an approach, especially if they are VFR only. So I have to be doubly alert and very prepared to take swift action to enter a pattern safely that won't cause an upset and keep us all safe as well as fly the approach, monitor the instruments and talk to ATC.
On the other hand when I have advertised at the outer marker on CTAF (and sometimes even at the 20 mile point) I have heard a reply of "OK we'll be looking for you and will be out of your way for the approach". - I then think to myself "now that guy is paying attention!" and it makes me feel safer!

In short - you do whatever is the safest and try to keep yourself out of the corner.
 
tgrayson said:
Since the ASF is not an FAA entity, their opinion isn't any more significant in my eyes than a random pilot's. Unless the "alternate entry" is endorsed by the FAA, I won't use or teach it. The AIM only recommends the 45 entry, but AC 90-66A allows a straight in as long as the aircraft gives way to other aircraft in the pattern.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. FAA pubs > AOPA pubs.
 
juxtapilot said:
Oops, meant 500 feet above the TPA.

Some say that there might be a turboprop operating at the higher traffic pattern altitude... There might be someone there, but do you really think the turboprop wont have a radio? So if you have a radio, and the turboprop has a radio, you shouldn't have any problems.

As for landing straight in, as long as you've cleared the area for traffic you should be fine. This also eliminates the chance of a mid air while decending near the traffic pattern. In this case the straight in is safer IMO.
Click to expand...


yeah the turboprop probably has a radio, but you get the weekend warriors with their pilatus or king air that either only do straight ins, or dont use the radio at all. I see it all the time. That and when I fly into uncontrolled fields 70% of the time im in a plane with no radios/electrical system. Midfield crossover at pattern altitude is by far the safest and most efficient in my eyes
 
It seems to me that the overfly 500' above TPA is an outdated procedure. Just about every airport I fly to has AWOS, so you don't need to overfly to see the windsock. You should know by 10-20 miles out what you should do by listening to AWOS and monitoring the traffic already at the airport. You should also be at TPA within 5 miles of the airport - easier to see traffic in the pattern. If I'm on the wrong side of the airport, I teach the 45 to the upwind. While on upwind, you can see everything - and everyone, and make an informed decision on when to make a crosswind entry.

One other thing, if there are parachute operations, DO NOT do a mid-field crosswind entry.
 
tgrayson said:
Unless the "alternate entry" is endorsed by the FAA, I won't use or teach it. The AIM only recommends the 45 entry, but AC 90-66A allows a straight in as long as the aircraft gives way to other aircraft in the pattern.
Click to expand...

mojo6911 said:
My thoughts exactly. FAA pubs > AOPA pubs.
Click to expand...

A couple of things to note. The AIM did have the alternate pattern entry included with the current recommended procedure when I was a CFI. AC90-66A is dated August 1993. I know for a fact that the alternate entry was included in the AIM after the circulation of 90-66A. The AIM is also not regulatory, it is a copulation of fundamentals and basics and thus it is not all inclusive.

AC90-66A does not:
...ban the alternate method under the Principle Changes
paragraph on page 1.

...require the use of the "recommended" procedure.

AC90-66A does:
Allow individual airports to establish local procedures.

Encourage the AIM entry, it does not require the AIM entry en lieu of
he "alternate" entry.

Airport owners and operators, in coordination with the FAA, are responsible for establishing traffic patterns. However, the FAA encourages airport owners and operators to establish traffic patterns as recommended in this AC.​
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...7c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf
 
tgrayson said:
Don't take the fact that it's a "recommendation" too seriously; the FAA could use AIM "recommendations" in enforcement actions to demonstrate a violation of 14 CFR 91.13, Careless or Reckless operation of an aircraft. And they have.

Safety is about adhering to a standard, regardless of whether it's optimal (for you) or not. If I'm expecting you to enter the pattern on a 45 and instead, you're doing some more efficient (for you) but unexpected, you're compromising the safety of both of us.

Pilots that are aware of proper procedures and follow them, no matter how inconvenient, impress me with their self-discipline, professionalism, and attention to detail. Those who disdain proper procedures, or are ignorant of them, suggest to me that they apply the same carelessness to all aspects of their flying.
Click to expand...

As often happens in your rush to judgment, you have entirely missed the point of the thread.

There is no "standard" for behavior in a traffic pattern. There are few "proper procedures" to "disdain," as you insultingly put it. People do power-off 180s; spot landings; wide patterns; narrow patterns; straight-ins; circles-to-land; stop-and-goes; low passes a few feet of the runway; engine failure practice in twins; glider landings without transponders or radio calls; the list of things that don't fit your world of "proper procedures" is copious and, to someone who understands only "adhering to a standard," they must be truly terrifying.

So, if you're expecting "me" or anyone else to enter the pattern on the 45, and you're not looking elsewhere because of that, then I say you're asking for a midair. The traffic pattern is the very least predictable, and therefore the most dangerous, place to fly. You must look everywhere, all the time, and be prepared for anything. It's like a traffic circle in car-land: there are a few rules; some people obey them; and most of the time, it all works out.

Just to recapitulate the OP: the FAA examiner suggested that the 45-degree entree was "unexpected and dangerous." I agree. Perhaps you're suggesting he's not up to speed on "adhering to a standard," and I guess that's possible; but he probably knows a lot more about standards than you do.

The pattern entry that I recommended, and that many other obviously experienced pilots have supported in this forum, is a well known and often used procedure, not only here, but also in Canada, where it is officially sanctioned.

Perhaps you are saying you don't need to be looking out for those pilots at American aerodromes, because after all, they're Canadians and they "disdain our procedures." Hmmm. If you're only looking for people on the 45, you're going to need all the luck you can get.

Oh, and iet me know how it works for you the next few times you do a 45 entry to downwind at night in low visibility in a mountainous, turbulent area, because that's what your precious AIM recommends.

Say, when was the last time you informed New York Tracon that your true airspeed had changed by 10 knots? Let me know how that one works out for you, too.
 
tonyw said:
If there's nobody in the pattern, a straight in is a completely safe and acceptable pattern.
Click to expand...

It might be safe but not always acceptable. Some airports say "No straight in approach."



I've also become a fan of not overflying the traffic pattern if you already know which runway is being used (AWOS/ASOS) or traffic calls when you first tune in. No need to create a collision hazard by flying over if you already know which runway is being used.
 
PDC said:
Oh, and iet me know how it works for you the next few times you do a 45 entry to downwind at night in low visibility in a mountainous, turbulent area, because that's what your precious AIM recommends.
The question i'd ask myself in the 1st place here is

wtf am I doing near mountains in a low visibility area at an uncontrolled airport entering the pattern? Why am I not on IFR fpl with a app into there?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Perhaps you could be IFR. Assuming that you are rated, equipped, current, and proficient....

But if you're not all those things, the Fed pubs don't say too much to dissuade you from making that flight. No, the kind of judgment that says you should be IFR in this situation stems (if not from hair-raising experience) from non-fed publications: ASF, R. Collins, Langewiesche, "I learned about flying from that...," and all kinds of non-Fed sources that each of us evaluates critically, and decides to incorporate into our professional growth as pilots. Such judgment may, in small part, come from instructors who have read and thought more widely than simply from the Fed pubs; but usually it has to be earned by broad and open-minded study, made in the context of ongoing practical experience.

So, to dismiss respected and experienced information sources as "just another voice, the same as any pilot," because they're not Fed, is not merely narrow-minded; it's doctrinaire. That means, it's destructive, because it violates the ideals of critical thinking and judgment that render pilots professionals, rather than automata.

The attitude I see represented by some posts on this subject, as elsewhere, reminds me of the old Soviet system, which did not care if something were safe or if it worked. What really mattered was, "Is it in the Party manual?" If not, take the man out and shoot him.

Well, I think the best pilots are thinking people, not ideologues; and I think the best teachers are people who model thinking and judgment, not those who are doctrinaire bullies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top