To Descend or Not Descend on the 45?

Flight_Watch

Flight_Watch

New Member
I was reading through a website regarding the common problems on private pilot check-rides. One of them was students descending on the 45.

I don't understand why they say NOT to descend on the 45? My flight instructor and several of the students I spoke with taught me that it is good practice to descend on the 45 and reach TPA just before turing downwind.

At this point I have not decided as a pilot which method I will practice.

Anyone have any advice for or against descending on the 45?

Here are the pros/cons I have come up with for both:

PROS- Descend of the 45
Good view of traffic and the field
Extra altitude incase of engine failure I can glide to the airport

CONS- Others might not see you up higher (but I do make radio calls to let them know my altitude at uncontrolled fields)


PROS- TPA on the 45
Others in the pattern might see you better

CONS- Out of altitude if the engine fails on the 45
Not as good view of the field and traffic


I don't want to do something just because I was told to do it without understanding the full rationale behind it. If anyone has a better understanding of this issue or any comments/experience it would be greatly appreciated.
 
[ QUOTE ]
PROS- Descend of the 45
Good view of traffic and the field

CONS- Others might not see you up higher (but I do make radio calls to let them know my altitude at uncontrolled fields)

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say your arguments are backwards.

It is far easier to see an airplane siloueted on the sky at or above your altitude, than it is to see one below you blending in with the ground. If you are 1500 AGL the other planes will be harder to spot, and since you are converging from above and their side or rear quarter they probably never see you.

I personaly like to have the fewest number of varibles when flying around other airplanes. Being exactly at pattern altitude allows everyone else to know when I am at.


[ QUOTE ]
Extra altitude incase of engine failure I can glide to the airport

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point

However, I am far more worried about a midair, than I am about my engine quiting.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I was reading through a website regarding the common problems on private pilot check-rides. One of them was students descending on the 45.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe that people are arguing about this kind of 3rd tier minutia to the point it would be considered a checkride trend.

People, remember two words: Technique vs Procedure

How is descending on a 45 EVER a "problem on a checkride"? Can anyone answer that for me? The only way I can think of is if TPA is 2000 msl, and you're at 17,000 msl on the 45!

There are many techniques for accomplishing the same thing.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why they say NOT to descend on the 45? My flight instructor and several of the students I spoke with taught me that it is good practice to descend on the 45 and reach TPA just before turing downwind.

[ QUOTE ]

At this point I have not decided as a pilot which method I will practice.

Anyone have any advice for or against descending on the 45?

Here are the pros/cons I have come up with for both:

PROS- Descend on the 45
Good view of traffic and the field
Extra altitude incase of engine failure I can glide to the airport


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair.

[ QUOTE ]

CONS- Others might not see you up higher (but I do make radio calls to let them know my altitude at uncontrolled fields)


[/ QUOTE ]

Or they might see you up higher. Fair, but I'll comment below.

[ QUOTE ]

PROS- TPA on the 45
Others in the pattern might see you better

[/ QUOTE ]

Or they might not.

[ QUOTE ]

CONS- Out of altitude if the engine fails on the 45
Not as good view of the field and traffic

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you planning at being on TPA 20 miles from the field?
grin.gif




[/ QUOTE ]
I don't want to do something just because I was told to do it without understanding the full rationale behind it. If anyone has a better understanding of this issue or any comments/experience it would be greatly appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

The big picture is this: It doesn't hurt to descend to TPA on the 45, if you're doing said entry. Regards different aircraft seeing you, or not; keep in mind that often, there's more than one TPA at many airports, controlled as well as uncontrolled. Not everyone uses 1000' agl. Helos can be at 500 agl, jets often use 1500 agl. So in reality, none of these techniques for entering the 45 to the pattern is really all that much better than another.

Just enter the pattern via an overhead maneuver, and you'll solve all these problems. Or via a straight-in. All legitimate techniques for pattern entry.
 
[ QUOTE ]
It is far easier to see an airplane siloueted on the sky at or above your altitude, than it is to see one below you blending in with the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have to disagree with that....especially after the other day here where I am.
grin.gif
Was in the middle of a furball of 6 airplanes, and damn if it wasn't tough as hell to keep the bandits in sight. All due to two leakers that spilled through the first line OCA CAP, and reached us. Couldn't sort them from the friendlies ahead in time for a BVR shot, so it became a knife fight in a phone booth real quick. Tough as heck to see the bandits in their Fulcrum paintjob against the backdrop sky.

Regards GA planes, what's the most common color? Some variation of blue and white. The two worst colors to put on a plane if you're trying to see them. At least looking down against terrain, you can normally see the movement of white against the darker backdrop....not always, mind you, but IMO more often than not. Many "depends" variables here too.
 
In the UK 45 degree entries are not allowed - if you are in a low wing airplane it is blocking too much.
 
I think the danger is descending on top of someone else also entering the pattern on the 45 who is already *at* TPA. Not really all that far-fetched, it nearly happened to me once; luckily, the higher traffic (A C-337) yielded the right of way to me. Just plan ahead to be at TPA a few miles from the field and it won't be a factor.

I *am* interested in hearing the techniques of those who favor the "overfly the field first, then enter the pattern" approach, since most versions of this that I've heard are some form of the above scenario.
 
[ QUOTE ]

I *am* interested in hearing the techniques of those who favor the "overfly the field first, then enter the pattern" approach, since most versions of this that I've heard are some form of the above scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

Overhead maneuver is one. Easily accomplished, quite useful. Overfly the field first, if you're referring to going perpendicular to the runway and entering a downwind, is another useful method; though it's use would need to be tempered with the amount of other traffic in the pattern, and other factors. Both methods are ways to check out/clear the runway if need be, or note the direction the tetrahedron is pointing, for those uncontrolled fields without ASOS/AWOS.

Overall is, be flexible, communicate your intentions, keep your SA up, and keep a lookout going; and there shouldn't be much of a problem, IMHO.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I *am* interested in hearing the techniques of those who favor the "overfly the field first, then enter the pattern" approach,

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that I favor it, but it is just the way that I was trained. I overfly the RW at 1000 ft above TPA and then exit on a 45 degree towards the DW leg. Go outbound on the 45 for xx amount of time and then do a 180 turn back while descending and enter the TPA on a 45.


Anyone else????
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I *am* interested in hearing the techniques of those who favor the "overfly the field first, then enter the pattern" approach,

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that I favor it, but it is just the way that I was trained. I overfly the RW at 1000 ft above TPA and then exit on a 45 degree towards the DW leg. Go outbound on the 45 for xx amount of time and then do a 180 turn back while descending and enter the TPA on a 45.


Anyone else????

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, it's another technique that's neither right nor wrong if you be flexible, communicate your intentions, keep your SA up, and keep a lookout going.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think the danger is descending on top of someone else also entering the pattern on the 45 who is already *at* TPA. Not really all that far-fetched, it nearly happened to me once; luckily, the higher traffic (A C-337) yielded the right of way to me. Just plan ahead to be at TPA a few miles from the field and it won't be a factor.

I *am* interested in hearing the techniques of those who favor the "overfly the field first, then enter the pattern" approach, since most versions of this that I've heard are some form of the above scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

I teach to overfly, go out 1-2 miles and then do a right decending turn onto the downwind. If done right, the plane should be at TPA just before entering downwind and the pilot will have a good view of the entire stretch of downwind as they do the turn.

Confused that people are busting on this...any specifics as to how they broke PTS?
 
Ok, so I can answer my own question on this.
banghead.gif


Out of the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook comes the following: on entering the 45, "Arriving airplanes should be at the proper traffic pattern altitude before entering the pattern and should stay clear of the traffic flow until established on the entry leg. Entries into traffic patterns while descending create specific collision hazards and should always be avoided."
 
You have to descend at some point! If you are careful to see and avoid descending on the 45 should be no problem at all. The purpose of the 45 is so you can see other traffic already in the pattern and sequence yourself in accordingly (like a freeway on-ramp), so by the time you enter the downwind leg you should be well-established at TPA. OTW, it's just technique.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Entries into traffic patterns while descending create specific collision hazards and should always be avoided."

[/ QUOTE ]

Not part of the PTS obviously, but clearly bust-able from a checkride perspective--and I agree, poor technique.
 
PTS reads:

1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements relating to traffic patterns....
2. Complies with proper traffic pattern procedures.

So, I'm guessing the examiners in question deemed descending while entering the 45 improper procedure.
 
Yeah, that was my bad--it actually IS in the PTS, as the section on traffic patterns references FAA Handbook 8083-3 (Airplane Flying Handbook). Which means that in this instance, doing something that the AFH tells you not to is bust-able during a checkride, even if perfectly legal otherwise.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If it's not part of the PTS, then how can they fail you for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can't!

Or rather aren't suposed to.
banghead.gif



[ QUOTE ]
Out of the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook comes the following: on entering the 45, "Arriving airplanes should be at the proper traffic pattern altitude before entering the pattern and should stay clear of the traffic flow until established on the entry leg. Entries into traffic patterns while descending create specific collision hazards and should always be avoided.

[/ QUOTE ]


If it's not in the FARs or the PTS then the examiner can't bust you for it.

The AIM and all other handbooks are the FAA's sugestions on how they would like things done. They are NOT regulatory!

It's still a good idea to follow the guidlines in the AIM and other publications, but by themselves they can't be reason for failure of a checkride.



The flip side is that the DPE is suposed to examine your decision making and judgement. Deviation from standard pratices without a good though out reason is an example of bad judgement.

Also DPEs are suposed to look at the applicants overall performance durring the entire time in the air and on the ground. Often a pilot will fail a checkride because he was weak in several areas, but the DPE only wrote up the worst examples (this is what happened to me on my CFI ride).
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that was my bad--it actually IS in the PTS, as the section on traffic patterns references FAA Handbook 8083-3 (Airplane Flying Handbook). Which means that in this instance, doing something that the AFH tells you not to is bust-able during a checkride, even if perfectly legal otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is why examiners who aren't big-picture carry no stock with me.
 
Many would consider a descent into the pattern of a non-towered airport to be unnecessarily risky for may of the reasons already mentioned. The low-wing landing on top of high wing is a classic example. I've generally seen a preference fro being =at= pattern altitude at least a mile before reaching it. There's definitely less risk.

Looking for something in the PTS for the DPE to hang his hat on? Check the "special emphasis" areas - especially "aeronautical decision making and risk management".There's still a lot of leeway in the PTS for a DPE to fail someone who he thinks is doing something unsafe.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Many would consider a descent into the pattern of a non-towered airport to be unnecessarily risky for may of the reasons already mentioned. The low-wing landing on top of high wing is a classic example. I've generally seen a preference fro being =at= pattern altitude at least a mile before reaching it. There's definitely less risk.



[/ QUOTE ]

I think the reg Iain mentioned of 45 entries not being allowed for safety reasons is a cop-out by the Brit aviation authorities. It's like saying the converse with high wing aircraft. In either case, as well as your above case, I don't think the risk is from the aircraft's wing positon, it's from the pilot(s) not gaining and maintaining an adequate visual lookout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top