What is the correct visual approach pattern?

[IndyTim]

This seems like a dumb question but I'm going to ask it anyway.  I've hit this scenario a couple times on recent trips, and as a still-learning pilot I'm wondering what other folks do.   

 

I was on an IFR plan, with VMC as I approached my destination at a towered, class Delta airport with left traffic.  Runways were 18/36, with winds at 360.  My heading was 270.  Approach told me to expect a visual to 36.

 

When I was still east of the airport on a heading of 270, Tower gave me "cleared to land 36" without any further specification.  The question (and this applies to non-towered airports as well):  what would you do?

 

Would you:

 

a. follow the AOPA preferred crossing for a NON-TOWERED airport, cross the runway midfield, execute a RIGHT 270-degree turn to join downwind for 36?

b. cross midfield and make a LEFT 90-degree turn to join 36 downwind?

c. join a RIGHT DOWNWIND for 36?

d. ask the tower for clarification of the pattern?

e. something else?

 

I'm wondering because, after I landed, I saw two other aircraft come in behind me on a RIGHT traffic pattern.  And, my experience is that ATC gets impatient if you spend too much time in the pattern - hence my concern that the preferred option for a non-towered airport might not be the best option.

 

I've hit this scenario at non-towered airports, and I've been following the preferred approach with the midfield crossing and 270-degree turn.  I don't like it, but I understand the value.

[Glenn]

I think I would have let the tower know that I would enter a right base leg for 36.

[1964-M20E]

I think I would have let the tower know that I would enter a right base leg for 36.

+1

[Shadrach]

I think I would have let the tower know that I would enter a right base leg for 36.

+2  Tim, You were in a class D environment. Tower was in contact with anyone else in the airspace.  Flying a full pattern at a controlled field is a waste of gas. If you're set up for the base or the straight in, let them know. 90% of the time the'll tell what they want. If they don't, tell them what you want. You are right to want to ensure that everyone is on the same page.

[IndyTim]

I think I would have let the tower know that I would enter a right base leg for 36.

That makes sense.

 

Additional question: what is Tower expecting?

[Shadrach]

The tower is supposed to have you visually in sight before issuing the cleared to land clearance and is probably assuming you will make the shortest route to final approach with a RH base leg.  However, if the published traffic pattern is left hand to 360, and his instructions are not explicit to deviate from those published data, I would (and do) ask for clarification before assuming anything.  

 

 

Ref?  How is that handled under Special VFR?

[midlifeflyer]

That makes sense.

 

Additional question: what is Tower expecting?

 

The main point is that the left/right traffic issue is non-existent at a towered airport. The AFD and other documents  tell you the traffic pattern so you know what to do when the tower is closed.

 

A Tower will typically give you a pattern entry instruction. In your situation, depending on where you were to the east, I would expect a "make right downwind" or "make right base" instruction.

 

In their absence, the Tower doesn't care, most likely because there isn't enough other traffic to worry about at the moment. And they are expecting you to simply do something reasonable that gets you onto the runway expeditiously - like that right downwind or right base entry.

[carqwik]

You can only get a visual approach IFR if 1) you have the airport in sight or 2) you have a preceding airplane (to the same airport) in sight that you can follow to the field.  Once cleared for the visual approach at a towered field, you're expected to get to the landing runway in the most expeditious manner with navigation and altitude at your discretion to ensure safe operations.  Typically you are given a visual approach clearance by a radar facility and then turned over to the tower.  If the tower wants you do something different than just getting to the runway, they'll tell you so.

 

For example, all the IFR arrivals from the north to Scottsdale come via a STAR (which goes past Scottsdale) but the controller will always tell you to report the field in sight (or those who don't get that call volunteer that info) from which the magic words come "cleared for the visual approach Rwy XX, Scottsdale, contact the tower now at XXX.XX."  So if runway 3 is in use, tower instructions could vary from "cleared to land runway 3" to something modified such as "cross the airport midfield at or above X,XXX thousand enter right traffic runway 3, continue."  Also, you can expect sequencing as well if they're busy with a landing clearance to come.

 

At Deer Valley (Phoenix), a visual approach is given without runway specificity...the airport has parallel runways.  So the clearance is "Runway 7" for example with the tower then assigning the landing runway (7L or 7R).

[FloridaMan]

I'll go ahead and add since I'm in Florida and we have a combination of a LOT of GA traffic at controlled and uncontrolled fields, and a good amount of foreign students, that I am beyond clear at enunciating my position, intention and sequencing. If you're lucky enough to have a tower, at some of the fields that are not so busy you can end up with either a swarm of pilots who caravan in at once, distracting the poor fellow in the tower, or at uncontrolled fields you can have all sorts of confusion. I've bugged out on flying in to KLAL during a fly-in (not sun-n-fun) once. As it turns out, a number of others that were going did the same due to the confusion in and around the airspace. 

[IndyTim]

You can only get a visual approach IFR if 1) you have the airport in sight or 2) you have a preceding airplane (to the same airport) in sight that you can follow to the field.  Once cleared for the visual approach at a towered field, you're expected to get to the landing runway in the most expeditious manner with navigation and altitude at your discretion to ensure safe operations.  Typically you are given a visual approach clearance by a radar facility and then turned over to the tower.  If the tower wants you do something different than just getting to the runway, they'll tell you so.

 

 

 

My uncertainty is around the boundary between IFR and VMC operation.  If it's IMC it's generally obvious: fly the approach (without or without vectors to some identified waypoint).  But when transitioning to visual there are gray areas.  I understand the concept of getting to the runway threshold expeditiously but was (erroneously as it turns out) under the impression that I should follow VFR pattern procedure in doing so (where there were no other instructions to the contrary).  Given that tower maintains responsibility for separation under this particular scenario, I concur that VFR pattern protocol isn't applicable, AS LONG AS I'm not doing anything unexpected.  Hence my earlier question about what the tower is realistically expecting.

 

But I still think there is gray: depending upon one's position with relation to the runway threshold, there could be more than one reasonable way to get to it, and in lieu of specific Tower instructions, I hold there is (potentially) an opportunity for an incident.

 

I agree that, as with just about every other gray area I can think of, it always pays to just ask, if in doubt about ATC's meaning and/or expectations.

[mike_elliott]

I think I would have let the tower know that I would enter a right base leg for 36.

When ATC hands you to tower, they will instruct you to "report (2 mile right base, or right downwind or whatever else they feel will avoid the melding of aluminum) at a class D. Just do what they want you to do, or request something else if you don't like it. 

[Deb]

We asked the tower manager at KFMY (Class D, contract tower) the answer to your question. He expects you to stay on the same side of the runway, and maneuver to land as you see fit; you can enter a downwind, a base, or anything else. If you need to do an unexpected maneuver (a 360 degree turn because you're too high, for example) he expects you to tell him. If he wants you to enter a downwind or base, he'll tell you specifically. Otherwise, it's up to you. As he said, he's seen it all.

[Hank]

I was recently cleared to land Runway 6 while still inbound 8-10 nm west, heading 088. So I veered slightly left and entered on left base. Before that, at about the same spot, I've been cleared to land Runway 31 and entered left downwind. If cleared for 24, I'll just move slightly right and make it a left downwind; for 13, slightly right for right base entry.

At uncontrolled fields, I will crossover 3000-4000' from the approach end because midfield isn't enough room on a 3500' or 4000' field to comfortably turn to left downwind and stabilize before dropping gear. I DO NOT make 270 turns where other planes are converging, since that blinds me to many of them.

[FloridaMan]

And if you do something that the guys in the tower at KFMY don't like, they'll be more than happy to let you know. 

[Dave Marten]

 

When I was still east of the airport on a heading of 270, Tower gave me "cleared to land 36" without any further specification.  The question (and this applies to non-towered airports as well):  what would you do?

 

You're thinking way too hard.

 

Tower has cleared you to land on 36. The runway is now yours so GO LAND! Simple as that. If the tower provides additional or specific instruction then comply. Tower knew exactly where you were so no need to tell them anything other than acknowledging your clearance to land.

 

 

For clarity: if at a non-towered field then all non-towered traffic pattern procedures apply.

[Dave Marten]

I think I would have let the tower know that I would enter a right base leg for 36.

No need. You've already been cleared to land on 36.

[Andy95W]

No need. You've already been cleared to land on 36.

+1. But if in doubt, asking for clarification is free.

[atn_pilot]

While asking for clarification is "free," it can also add to radio congestion, and it's entirely unneccessary. Dave Marten is right. Once you're cleared for that visual, go for it. ATC doesn't want you to tell them how you're going to do it, and they're not looking to give you advice on how to do it, either. They expect you to just get to the runway that they've cleared you to land on in the most efficient way possible. Keep the radio uncluttered and the traffic moving efficiently.

[dmevans]

Hey guys,

 

I am a Mooney Driver and a full time Air Traffic Controller. I have seen a lot of good advice and input on this thread so far. So let's talk visual approaches.

 

The reason we clear aircraft for the visual approach is to expedite IFR aircraft to their destination. There is no need to vector an aircraft to final if the pilot is on downwind and can see the airport off his/her wingtip. If you are cleared for the visual approach at a towered airport, you are expected to proceed to the airport without making any drastic maneuvers ie. (crossing overhead the airport, extending downwind, 360's, etc...).

 

If you find yourself in a situation where you cannot make the runway because you are too high or too fast, advise the controller before making any drastic changes to your flight path. Here's why:

 

1.) Remember that you are still IFR. When you are IFR, the Tower/Tracon has increased separation responsibility for you in comparison to VFR aircraft. For example, let's say you were cleared for the visual approach with a regional jet 10 miles behind you. The regional jet did not have you in sight, but approach control issued a speed restriction to ensure separation between both aircraft. The regional jet is still on approach control frequency. You're 4 miles from the airport tracking inbound on a right base/midfield downwind entry. You decide to cross overhead the airport and enter the downwind due to your higher than normal approach speed and altitude. You can see how the 10 miles between you and the regional jet could diminish fairly quickly. This is an exaggerated scenario, but can you see where I am going here?

 

2.) Giving the controller a heads up in this scenario will allow the tower controller to coordinate with the approach controller on your sequence reference the in-trail regional jet.

 

Non towered airports:

 

You can do whatever your heart desires. As an approach controller, I cannot clear another IFR aircraft in or out of that airport until the aircraft calls me to cancel his/her IFR or reports on the ground.

--------------------------------------------------

 

Hope this helps.

 

If you guys have any other ATC related questions, tag me in the post, or PM me. I will be more than happy to help!

[Mooneymite]

When I fly the company jet, not only do I have to comply with the FAR's, and the controller's instructions, I have to comply with company SOP's. In the case of "cleared to land", I can't just head for the numbers and swoop in levelling the wings at touch-down...I have to comply with the company's stabilized visual approach rules. Without anything more specific than "Cleared to land runway 36", we land as expeditiously as possible complying with appropriate guidance. There is nothing more efficient than a jet at its destination with the engines shut down.

[Bob - S50]

I think I would have let the tower know that I would enter a right base leg for 36.

 

+3

 

Bob

[midlifeflyer]

My uncertainty is around the boundary between IFR and VMC operation. If it's IMC it's generally obvious: fly the approach (without or without vectors to some identified waypoint). But when transitioning to visual there are gray areas. I understand the concept of getting to the runway threshold expeditiously but was (erroneously as it turns out) under the impression that I should follow VFR pattern procedure in doing so (where there were no other instructions to the contrary). Given that tower maintains responsibility for separation under this particular scenario, I concur that VFR pattern protocol isn't applicable, AS LONG AS I'm not doing anything unexpected. Hence my earlier question about what the tower is realistically expecting.

But I still think there is gray: depending upon one's position with relation to the runway threshold, there could be more than one reasonable way to get to it, and in lieu of specific Tower instructions, I hold there is (potentially) an opportunity for an incident.

I agree that, as with just about every other gray area I can think of, it always pays to just ask, if in doubt about ATC's meaning and/or expectations.

It is never a bad thing to make sure the pilot and ATC are on the same page. But I will differ slightly on the way you put it. If ATC doesn't instruct a specific pattern entry method, I wont "ask" for a clarificantion. I will "tell" them how I plan to enter. "N34X, cleared to land. Making right base," not, "how would you like us to enter the pattern?" If they need something else, they will tell me.

Some will think that's just a difference in semantics but I think it's an important distinction in terms of how we view our relationship with ATC.