Straight in entry to the traffic pattern.

[ QUOTE ]
i teach, and require, that they only use the 45 entry during their time with me. but i also teach them what other ways people might and will enter the pattern.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I like to teach all of the different ways when I first teach the traffic pattern. Of course, I initially teach entering on the 45 as the "most accepted" way to do it. I don't like to demand they use that each time though. I like to show them all of the possibilities and then see them make their own decision and carry it out. That way I can see their PIC skills and decision making logic and offer my input as needed. "Plant the seed and watch it grow," if you will. Just my personal style.
 
in two days i saw two potential collisions because of traffic pattern entry into a non-towered field.

-the first was a Piper colt who used a crosswind entry over the numbers at traffic pattern altitude. the Colt pilot at least called his intentions, but a departing 172 doing max performance takeoffs had already begun to roll and came way too close for comfort to the Colt as he climbed up and almost into the Colt. i just saw that whole situation unfolding, and regret not getting on the radio and saying something. luckily no one got hurt.

-second was someone who entered using an extended straight in downwind entry. warrior pilot entering downwind made the call 5 miles out giving his intentions. not long after a twin called saying he was rolling on the active and would be staying in left closed traffic. again, i saw this one unfolding. fast twin, quick climb, and doubtful they would drop a wing on x-wind to check that the downwind was clear. warrior pilot just kept on cruising on his straight in downwind entry. twin was in his x-wind turn as the warrior came abeam him, both at the same altitude, and the twin closing fast. luckily the twin adjusted his pattern to give the warrior space. first off, the whole situation was a less than desirable one in terms of safety. second, the warrior cruising around 80 knots on downwind put himself in front of a twin who was surely cruising far faster than 80knots. thirdly, the warrior cut off another aircraft who was already established in the pattern before he was, not to mention at a lower altitude, and did nothing to remedy the situation. the entry choice sucked IMHO. but, the all around decision making of the warrior pilot was far worse.
 
[ QUOTE ]
the entry choice sucked IMHO. but, the all around decision making of the warrior pilot was far worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly my point. Everyone is going to do a non-standard entry at some point. There's a time and a place for different entries like that, and I'd rather be WITH my student when they did one so I can show them the time/place, rather than them just doing it out by themselves. That way I can watch their decision-making ability, and be able to say, "no, you might not want to do that BECAUSE....[insert reason here]" if necessary.

Honestly, I haven't flown many full patterns or done any 45 entries lately. And honestly, I pretty much enter whatever way is convenient. BUT, I make sure to state my intentions clearly, and if there's obviously students in the pattern (or just too many airplanes), then I have no problem spending an extra couple minutes so as not to create a hazard. Plus, it helps that I fly an airplane that has a pretty broad speed range.
wink.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
in two days i saw two potential collisions because of traffic pattern entry into a non-towered field.

-the first was a Piper colt who used a crosswind entry over the numbers at traffic pattern altitude. the Colt pilot at least called his intentions, but a departing 172 doing max performance takeoffs had already begun to roll and came way too close for comfort to the Colt as he climbed up and almost into the Colt. i just saw that whole situation unfolding, and regret not getting on the radio and saying something. luckily no one got hurt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Copy. Zero SA on the 172. 172 should know what's going on, even if non-standard, so long as there has been comm over the radio. If missed or not understood, clarify. Secondarily, though, the Piper Colt could've done something different if he wanted, he was communicating his intentions.

[ QUOTE ]

-second was someone who entered using an extended straight in downwind entry. warrior pilot entering downwind made the call 5 miles out giving his intentions. not long after a twin called saying he was rolling on the active and would be staying in left closed traffic. again, i saw this one unfolding. fast twin, quick climb, and doubtful they would drop a wing on x-wind to check that the downwind was clear. warrior pilot just kept on cruising on his straight in downwind entry. twin was in his x-wind turn as the warrior came abeam him, both at the same altitude, and the twin closing fast. luckily the twin adjusted his pattern to give the warrior space. first off, the whole situation was a less than desirable one in terms of safety. second, the warrior cruising around 80 knots on downwind put himself in front of a twin who was surely cruising far faster than 80knots. thirdly, the warrior cut off another aircraft who was already established in the pattern before he was, not to mention at a lower altitude, and did nothing to remedy the situation. the entry choice sucked IMHO. but, the all around decision making of the warrior pilot was far worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, poor SA on the Warrior. In addition to basic comm, it never hurts to be mindful of who you're communicating with. For example, if you're the Warrior, and you hear "Twin Cessna yada yada" calling, build more SA with a little more comm, and sequence accordingly.
 
[ QUOTE ]
91.126 is a good reference, however it doesn't state that you have to make any turns at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

91.126(b) Direction of turns, blah, blah, blah
(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airposrt displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, blah blah blah.

Talking to the local FSDO with the wiser instructor, they point to the difference between must and shall to indicate turns are to be used and therefore straight in entries are not allowed at uncontrolled airports under VFR.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
91.126 is a good reference, however it doesn't state that you have to make any turns at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

91.126(b) Direction of turns, blah, blah, blah
(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airposrt displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, blah blah blah.

Talking to the local FSDO with the wiser instructor, they point to the difference between must and shall to indicate turns are to be used and therefore straight in entries are not allowed at uncontrolled airports under VFR.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the FSDO guy said that, he needs to go back to school and take a good reading comprehension course. (This is not an FAA thing - federal regulators are well-known for their lack of mastery of the English language)

The section only\t says that if you make any turns, they must be to the left. It does not say, "Each pilot of an airplane must make turns, all of which must be to the left".

If he's right, then flying an ILS or straight-in non-precision approach to a non-towered airport is illegal.
 
[ QUOTE ]

The section only\t says that if you make any turns, they must be to the left. It does not say, "Each pilot of an airplane must make turns, all of which must be to the left".

If he's right, then flying an ILS or straight-in non-precision approach to a non-towered airport is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]


grin.gif
It's funny the number of people that interperet the reg to mean what you wrote above.
 
[ QUOTE ]
grin.gif
It's funny the number of people that interperet the reg to mean what you wrote above.

[/ QUOTE ]No it's not. It's very sad.
frown.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
grin.gif
It's funny the number of people that interperet the reg to mean what you wrote above.

[/ QUOTE ]No it's not. It's very sad.
frown.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Chalk that up with a number of other WOMs (Word Of Mouths) that people interperet to be regs.........

nitwits...
 
i see the regs as trying to provide a measure of safety and consistency (in general). if you keep that in mind and don't try to over-analyze things then reading and understanding the regs is much more simple.
 
[ QUOTE ]
i see the regs as trying to provide a measure of safety and consistency (in general). if you keep that in mind and don't try to over-analyze things then reading and understanding the regs is much more simple.

[/ QUOTE ]I think that sometimes there's a tendency with statutes and regulations to "play lawyer" and try to find hidden meanings and words that haven't been said. Of course, much like "playing house", that's not the way it really works.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If the FSDO guy said that, he needs to go back to school and take a good reading comprehension course. (This is not an FAA thing - federal regulators are well-known for their lack of mastery of the English language)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean to pick a fight but I don't see how insulting the guy helps make an argument true.

[ QUOTE ]
The section only\t says that if you make any turns, they must be to the left. It does not say, "Each pilot of an airplane must make turns, all of which must be to the left".

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, the word if doesn't appear in the reg. It may be nit-picking on the part of the FAA but this is a touchy area of the traffic pattern where most mid-airs occur. The Atlanta FSDO is supposed to be doing a series of safety seminars covering this specifically.

[ QUOTE ]
If he's right, then flying an ILS or straight-in non-precision approach to a non-towered airport is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a little out of context - I was specific about this applying to VFR flight, not to IFR.

I could be misinterpreting, but you seem just as adamant that straight entries are ok as the FSDO guy is adamant that they're wrong. Unfortunately, when an accident occurs because of a straight in entry, the FSDO guy will probably get the legal nod while attending funerals for the pilots.

Ok, I'll quit being devils advocate now.
grin.gif


Regards!
Marc
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he's right, then flying an ILS or straight-in non-precision approach to a non-towered airport is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a little out of context - I was specific about this applying to VFR flight, not to IFR.

[/ QUOTE ]Is it? Show me in the reg where it only applies to VFR flight.
 
Actually, FSDO guys tend to vary. I'm betting if you called the Orlando FSDO, they'd so that straight ins are okay while the Atlanta FSDO says no. You might even get two different opinions form people at the same FSDO......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top