To Descend or Not Descend on the 45?

[ QUOTE ]
How is descending on a 45 EVER a "problem on a checkride"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only thing I can see is that the vast majority of mid-air collisions happen on good vis days, within an airport environment when one airplane descends into another. If you're descending on the 45 are you positive there isn't someone else flying the 45 under you at TPA?

Personally I teach folks to be at TPA (terrain and other variables permitting) at least a few miles out. If you over fly an uncontrolled airport to check the windsock I teach to exit the airport (pattern) enviroment and then descend away from the airport finally circling back for the appropriate entry. It might be overkill but eh better safe than sorry I guess.
 
Does anyone prefer to enter the pattern on the upwind leg, rather than overflying the airport and then turning to join the downwind leg on a 45 degree angle?
 
It's common practice for one of the runways where I used to instruct. You couldn't enter the 45 for it without getting dangerously close to class C airspace, so usually we just entered on a 45 to the upwind, and turned crosswind over the numbers (traffic permitting).
 
[ QUOTE ]
Personally I teach folks to be at TPA (terrain and other variables permitting) at least a few miles out.

[/ QUOTE ]Ditto.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone prefer to enter the pattern on the upwind leg, rather than overflying the airport and then turning to join the downwind leg on a 45 degree angle?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's essentially an overhead pattern.
 
Yesterday I entered on the upwind for the first time. I didn't even know you could do that until my instructor had me enter that way. I still prefer to fly over the airport perpendicularly because I have a better view of the flow of traffic (might just be 'cause I'm more used to it).
 
[ 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 ]

I teach to overfly, go out 1-2 miles and then do a right descending turn onto the downwind.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with the others, that prior to reaching "pattern entry," you should already be a the appropriate altitude.

What ever happened to just crossing mid-field at TPA and turning left 90 deg and joining downwind? All this over flying past downwind, go a couple of miles, another 180 to re join on a 45 is, in my opinion, a dangerous procedure and a waste of time/money.

Why could it be dangerous?
-at a busy GA airport, you are placing the aircraft through the same space twice. Do you drive past your house 3 blocks, make a U-ey and go back to your house?

-flying "higher" than TPA: Other traffic (like turbine a/c) are expecting you to be at "YOUR" altitude. We/they are already assigned 1500 AGL to stay away from you. They are also flying MUCH WIDER patterns than small GA traffic. Which means when you go the extra mile for the "180 to the 45" you are placing yourself/me in GREAT DANGER by flying head on into "OUR" normal pattern entry!

The "engine might quit" argument doesn't hold water. IF the engine were going to quit suddenly, it is more likely to do it when LARGE power of configuration changes happen, not in stabilized unaccelerated flight. The largest power change comes abeam the touchdown point when you make a large power decrease and/or pull carb heat (if req'd).

When making the 180 back to a 45, assuming it takes 1:00 minute for you to complete that turn (standard rate) you are turning the bottom of your aircraft (losing sight) toward approaching traffic. As previously noted, the approaching....read fast......aren't expecting you to be there, and would be what the FAA considers "unusual maneuvers in the traffic pattern."

-How about transitioning traffic? Perhaps their intent is to pass outside of the downwind "a few miles" to stay out of your way. Then, to his surprise, instead of joining the downwind you continue out towards him!

-Back to the engine might quit scenario: How about if the engine quits after overflew the downwind 1-2 miles? You know during your 180 turn back? If you would have turned left to the downwind you would have made it.

I know someone will say, "well, at my airport this is standard procedure." And that's fine......if you only fly at THAT airport. But when you do a cross country to another airport, it is HIGHLY likely that they will have no idea what you are doing. These maneuvers would then be putting everyone in that pattern in danger.

Go easy on me....its just another view.
 
[ QUOTE ]
What ever happened to just crossing mid-field at TPA and turning left 90 deg and joining downwind?

[/ QUOTE ]It's still alive, well, and done at many airports. Probably the most commonly used entry that never made it into the AIM.
 
Sure it is in the AIM.

Enter at any point, as long as your turns are to the left (unless a right pattern is specified). The 45 entry is certainly what the AIM recommends, but other entries all work well.

I find that at a very busy non-towered airport, like my home airport, those who do not enter on the recommended 45 entry have a very hard time fitting in to the pattern. On a normal weekend, there is an average 6-10 aircraft in the pattern, or entering, throughout the day. An over the middle of the field and around any old which way you want kinda entry just doesn't seem to work at a busy non-towered airport. In fairness, the airport does list more operations per day average, than either the nearby class d or even the class c, that are each within about 20 miles, so this may not apply to what most of you think of as a non-towered airport.
In addition, those that do decend onto the pattern, have a hard time avoiding other traffic in the pattern. I can't count the number of times I have been in a pattern with a student, heard two planes call on the 45, and look out to see them only a few hundred feet from each other, one high, one low. Every time this happens, they end up resolving their potential mid-air, by announcing their altitudes. The one that is at pattern altitude, tends to get the right of way, as they should.

Anyhow, we all have our stories I'm sure. But do you need to decend onto the pattern? If not, why do it?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sure it is in the AIM.

[/ QUOTE ] Where? Never noticed it. The "left turn rule" is a basic regulation from the FAR, not a recommended procedure in the AIM. The crosswind entry doesn't appear as one of the AIM-standard recommended entries. That's all I meant.

BTW, ever notice that the AIM-recommended 45° entry violates the left turn rule?
 
Never, Ever...Descend into the traffic pattern. AUTOMATIC BUST if you descend into the traffic pattern. Reference AC90-66A para 8(b). It states, "Arriving aircraft should be at the appropriate traffic pattern altitude before entering the traffic pattern." If you did not know the answer to this question, you should read through this twelve page advisory circular.

The major threat here is that a low wing aircraft will descend into a high wing aircraft...neither seeing the other. If they were at the same altitude...they would be clearly visible.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

I teach to overfly, go out 1-2 miles and then do a right descending turn onto the downwind.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with the others, that prior to reaching "pattern entry," you should already be a the appropriate altitude.

What ever happened to just crossing mid-field at TPA and turning left 90 deg and joining downwind? All this over flying past downwind, go a couple of miles, another 180 to re join on a 45 is, in my opinion, a dangerous procedure and a waste of time/money.

Why could it be dangerous?
-at a busy GA airport, you are placing the aircraft through the same space twice. Do you drive past your house 3 blocks, make a U-ey and go back to your house?[ QUOTE ]




If you already know the direction of traffic flow and runway in use...no problem...join the traffic pattern and land. At many non-towered airports there will be no reported traffic, no weather info and no answer on the unicom. Therefore approaching the airport you will have no idea what the appropriate runway to use will be. To figure out the direction of the wind, and to observe any unreported traffic, fly over the airport well above traffic pattern altitude (this includes the turbine aircraft tpa) and observe the wind sock, look for traffic then figure out which runway you will use. Then fly several miles away from the airport and descend to traffic pattern altitude. Once at traffic pattern altitude commence your arrival into the airport traffic pattern and land.

This may not seem like to most efficient way to enter the traffic pattern...but it is the FAA recommended technique and quite frankly...the safest one.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is descending on a 45 EVER a "problem on a checkride"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only thing I can see is that the vast majority of mid-air collisions happen on good vis days, within an airport environment when one airplane descends into another. If you're descending on the 45 are you positive there isn't someone else flying the 45 under you at TPA?



[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. And this would go back to the "maintaining visual lookout" argument.
 
[ QUOTE ]
What ever happened to just crossing mid-field at TPA and turning left 90 deg and joining downwind?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. Perfectly doable.



[/ QUOTE ]
-flying "higher" than TPA: Other traffic (like turbine a/c) are expecting you to be at "YOUR" altitude. We/they are already assigned 1500 AGL to stay away from you. They are also flying MUCH WIDER patterns than small GA traffic. Which means when you go the extra mile for the "180 to the 45" you are placing yourself/me in GREAT DANGER by flying head on into "OUR" normal pattern entry!

[/ QUOTE ]

Freaking fatty jet drivers and their wide patterns..........if only the pax weren't onboard...
grin.gif


But agree with you.

[ QUOTE ]

The "engine might quit" argument doesn't hold water. IF the engine were going to quit suddenly, it is more likely to do it when LARGE power of configuration changes happen, not in stabilized unaccelerated flight. The largest power change comes abeam the touchdown point when you make a large power decrease and/or pull carb heat (if req'd).


[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. Plus, one should be planning to put down where need be if an engine failure happens, vice trying to stretch to the airport if your posit to do so is unfeasable.

[ QUOTE ]

I know someone will say, "well, at my airport this is standard procedure." And that's fine......if you only fly at THAT airport. But when you do a cross country to another airport, it is HIGHLY likely that they will have no idea what you are doing. These maneuvers would then be putting everyone in that pattern in danger.

Go easy on me....its just another view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking of which. You ever see some people that have fits over anyone doing a straight-in to their uncontrolled field? Some people have some serious heartburn over that...for no good reason, generally.
 
[ QUOTE ]

The major threat here is that a low wing aircraft will descend into a high wing aircraft...neither seeing the other. If they were at the same altitude...they would be clearly visible.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they were keeping an appropriate visual lookout, maneuvering as necessary to gain one, as well as help be seen, then this wouldn't be a problem.
 
Even while maneuvering the wings are still in the way. Descending into the traffic pattern is a collision threat...it poses a definite danger...it's a poor display of airmanship. If nothing else, it adds another element of risk...another dimension into the matrix of factors likely to cause a mid-air collision.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Even while maneuvering the wings are still in the way. Descending into the traffic pattern is a collision threat...it poses a definite danger...it's a poor display of airmanship. If nothing else, it adds another element of risk...another dimension into the matrix of factors likely to cause a mid-air collision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that being established at TPA is good and safe, but I also think some use the high wing/low wing argument as a cop out. It doesn't take much maneuvering to clear your low or high six in these planes. But many pilots fly while staring straight ahead and fail to do this.
 
[ QUOTE ]

I agree that being established at TPA is good and safe, but I also think some use the high wing/low wing argument as a cop out. [ QUOTE ]


I really have to disagree with you on this one. For the more accomplished pilots...increased vigilance and the knowledge of this issue would reduce the collision threat at best...but never entirely eliminate the threat of descending on top of another airplane. Now take a pilot who rents an airplane once every 90 days and flies 5 hours a year. This pilot most likely is intensely focusing on aircraft control in the pattern...with little attention remaining for other important factors...such as collision avoidance. For our fellow pilots who are legal...but not necessarily proficient...I believe it is a real world threat. Heck...I still maintain it's a threat if it's two airline pilots flying the respective aircraft in this manner.

I respect your beliefs about collision avoidance...feel strongly that the hi/lo wing threat is real.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I agree that being established at TPA is good and safe, but I also think some use the high wing/low wing argument as a cop out. [ QUOTE ]


I really have to disagree with you on this one. For the more accomplished pilots...increased vigilance and the knowledge of this issue would reduce the collision threat at best...but never entirely eliminate the threat of descending on top of another airplane. Now take a pilot who rents an airplane once every 90 days and flies 5 hours a year. This pilot most likely is intensely focusing on aircraft control in the pattern...with little attention remaining for other important factors...such as collision avoidance. For our fellow pilots who are legal...but not necessarily proficient...I believe it is a real world threat. Heck...I still maintain it's a threat if it's two airline pilots flying the respective aircraft in this manner.

I respect your beliefs about collision avoidance...feel strongly that the hi/lo wing threat is real.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with you on the fact that it is a threat, I just believe that it's a threat that can be mitigated more than some believe it can, that's all. I'm in agreement with you overall.
 
Cessna_Flyer,

I'm not sure but I think its in the Sierra SOP to enter the 45 at TPA. You should look into it and point it out to your instructor if it is in there.

I think while skimming the above posts that I read that some were suggesting overflying the field as an alternative to entering on the 45? Not sure I follow that. You still have to enter the traffic pattern somehow, so that still leaves the question of whether or not to enter on the 45 and whether or not to enter the 45 at TPA. What I've always done is call the CTAF about 10 miles out for advisories. If I get no response I'll overfly 1000 ft above TPA to check for wind and traffic. If I do get a response (and deturmine the active runway in the process) it will depend on how easy it is to get on the 45. If it is on the oposite side of the airport I'll overfly, if its on the same side I'll just enter on the 45 and plan to be at TPA a couple miles from the field. If I overfly I'll tun 90 degrees to the runway in the direction of the pattern. Fly for about one minute while descending at about 500 FPM then teardrop around to the 45 continuing the descent which will put me on the 45 at TPA about a mile and a half or so from the field depending on groundspeed of course. There are exceptions however. For example at Byron (C83) they do a lot of parachute jumping. My first instructor told me a story how he had a near miss with a "meat missle" because he overflew and the pilot flying the jumpers aparently did not monitor the CTAF where my instructor had made repeated calls asking if there were any jumpers in the area. Because of that he taught me to always make a wide circle and plan to enter on the 45 at TPA at any airport with skydivers. Also makes me think twice about skydiving.
crazy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top