Non-Towered Pattern Entry from Upwind Side (Poll)

[201er]

How do you personally typically enter the traffic pattern at an airport without an operating control tower when you arrive from the upwind side (opposite side from traffic pattern).

1 - Join on the upwind leg

2 - Perform a "teardrop" descending turn after crossing above the downwind leg

3 - Fly way past the airport and pattern and turn around some way and enter a normal 45

4 - Overfly midfield and directly join the downwind

 

 

5 - Fly an opposite direction (from usual pattern) base to final

6 - Navigate to a point to join a straight in final

 

 

[M20F]

TOO CLOSE FOR MISSILES, SWITCHING TO GUNS.   

[Hank]

1 hour ago, 201er said:

4 - Overfly midfield and directly join the downwind

This is what I do, but generally closer to the departure end rather than midfield. It's what I was taught, it's in the AIM, and it's pretty common in my experience. 

[ttflyer]

4. Making adjustments for traffic as needed. In both Jets (1,500' agl) and props (1,000' agl).  Not sure about the drop zone thing.  Never been an issue (that I was aware of) at any airport I use regularly. 

[Hank]

4 hours ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

That’s the AIM recommended procedure, Hank. No doubt about that.  I’ve never liked it, though.  As you know, my home airport also includes a drop zone and midfield overflights are a no-no there when they are jumping.  Further enforcing what I suppose is a non standard practice.  

We had jumpers at the field where I got my PPL and based the Mooney for 7 years. If jumpers were about to go, I'd either do a touch and go at the nearby Delta (4 whole nm away), or make a couple of 2-minute 360s somewhere, then land. No jumpers, coming from the north, I'd call then cross the departure end of 26 for left downwind (only 3000' long, midfield left me no time for anything!).

Ya'll fly safe out there!

[N201MKTurbo]

It all depends a lot on what is going on.  I live in the Phoenix area. The second busiest flight training area after south Florida. The local area is crazy busy, even the uncontrolled fields out in the sticks. 
 

If there is no one in the pattern, I will fly over midfield and enter downwind. If the pattern s crazy busy, I will fly over mid field, fly past downwind and pick a good way to enter the downwind. It all depends.

If it is dead quiet, I’ll just enter any way I please.

[Hank]

If the pattern is busy, or I'm coming in at a shallow angle (recently headed 253 for runway 36), I'll just point the nose a bit to the north 10-15 miles out, and cross the extended centerline a couple or three miles away; it's not much of a change, and puts me well below departing traffic. Then I turn downwind. Calling out "entering pattern on left crosswind" is an option, depending on what all is going on down there.

[Ned Gravel]

6 hours ago, Hank said:

This is what I do, but generally closer to the departure end rather than midfield. It's what I was taught, it's in the AIM, and it's pretty common in my experience. 

+1

[midlifeflyer]

I couldn’t answer the first question since whether I do a crosswind to downwind at pattern altitude vs cross the airport above the pattern and return on a 45 (I will not say “teardrop”) depends on traffic flow. As Mr Miyagi might say, “there is no typically.”

On the other, I fly approved procedures which pretty much cover everything other than violating the regs, so that was an easy one.

[Danb]

Generally I fly over midfield and join the downwind leg depending on the situation eg. amount of traffic, size of field weather and other items, on trips I’m on IFR flight plan so it’s up to ATC. If it’s busy and awkward I’ll fly out of my way and join the downwind leg 7-10 miles out, recently going into a busy uncontrolled field which was busy I flew about 10 miles out of my way to join safely our planes are generally faster then most in the pattern, if there’s a jet or fast commuter I try to talk to them and coordinate a safe approach considering he most likely has passengers and burns quite a bit of fuel. So my answer is it depends…

D

[gabez]

I always join the 45, we had a very big and deadly accident in KWVI a 150 vs a twin Cessna, the twin came in straight in on final and hit the 150. 

[varlajo]

While I enjoy entering via "overhead midfield and teardrop" (2) for various reasons, including purely esthetic, I hate the amount of talking that it takes to appropriately announce  

[midlifeflyer]

44 minutes ago, varlajo said:

While I enjoy entering via "overhead midfield and teardrop" (2) for various reasons, including purely esthetic, I hate the amount of talking that it takes to appropriately announce  

That's probably the reason for the term "teardrop" instead of "crossing midfield at [altitude] to return on a 45." The problem I have with the term is the number of pilots who treat is as a teardrop. They say "words mean somehing," but the way we phrase things often leads of mirroring behavior. 

I notice, for example, that @201er's teardrop depiction actually looks like a teardrop and is the way I see pilots do it all the time. But that is not what the FAA recommends for that entry. Here's the FAA's graphic for comparison. I think there's quite a bit of difference between:

(1) flying "clear of the pattern" - 2 miles beyond the patten which may be wider and possibly higher than normal that day (i.e, at least 3+ miles past the runway), then descending to pattern altitude (which will put you another 0.5 to 1 mile away from traffic in the pattern, then turning around for what is basically a 45° entry 3-4 miles from the airport; and

(2) a descending teardrop turn into a pattern that has pilots in 152s doing 737 downwinds.

 

[201er]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

I notice, for example, that @201er's teardrop depiction actually looks like a teardrop and is the way I see pilots do it all the time. But that is not what the FAA recommends for that entry. Here's the FAA's graphic for comparison. I think there's quite a bit of difference between:

The FAA had a prior graphic that looked awful similar to the whole descending turn "teardrop" method:

[midlifeflyer]

7 minutes ago, 201er said:

The FAA had a prior graphic that looked awful similar to the whole descending turn "teardrop" method:

That's probably exactly why they added "not to scale." No one (including you?) was reading (quoting from your picture)  "fly clear of traffic pattern (approx. 2 mi.). Descend to pattern altitude, then turn." But that's the way it's been described in print as far back as I can recall, not as a descending teardrop turn onto the Cessna below you.

[Justin Schmidt]

16 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

That's probably exactly why they added "not to scale." No one (including you?) was reading (quoting from your picture)  "fly clear of traffic pattern (approx. 2 mi.). Descend to pattern altitude, then turn." But that's the way it's been described in print as far back as I can recall, not as a descending teardrop turn onto the Cessna below you.

Ultimately,  this is the failure of the "quick" CFI (ones just building hrs to run off to the airline.) Not explaining the actual procedure. Many of which didn't learn correctly themselves as when are they going to need that information with the airlines. 

Also, to blame is foreflight. Many of those software engineers,  and I have worked with them,  are not pilots and do not understand.

[midlifeflyer]

12 minutes ago, Justin Schmidt said:

Ultimately,  this is the failure of the "quick" CFI (ones just building hrs to run off to the airline.) Not explaining the actual procedure. Many of which didn't learn correctly themselves as when are they going to need that information with the airlines. 

Also, to blame is foreflight. Many of those software engineers,  and I have worked with them,  are not pilots and do not understand.

Could be.  But I think it's more likely that the term "teardrop" just puts a picture of a teardrop into some people's brains.  So that's what they do. Fly away from the runway just enough to get back to it quicky after a descending turn when we are really being asked to fly about 2 miles from the downwind leg as it exists at the time .  If we could find a another shorthand, it might help. 

[Yetti]

Mid 45 upwind entry usually.

Teardrop is stupid as it puts in conflict with the Mid 45 downwind entry people

Airport not busy- maneuver for the Overhead Break or for you AIM people the Overhead Maneuver.  ya it's in the AIM.  Making radio calls of what I am doing for the uninitiated.

[47U]

On 4/24/2025 at 8:29 PM, N201MKTurbo said:

It all depends a lot on what is going on.  I live in the Phoenix area. The second busiest flight training area after south Florida. The local area is crazy busy, even the uncontrolled fields out in the sticks.

Coming back from Willmar on 21 March, I took this screenshot.  “Crazy busy” might be an understatement.

[N201MKTurbo]

29 minutes ago, 47U said:

Coming back from Willmar on 21 March, I too this screenshot.  “Crazy busy” might be an understatement.

You flew right through the stack. What altitude were you at? Oh, I see it at the top, you were at 10,500 you should be OK with the stack, but you did fly through the Arlin arrival to Sky Harbor. Wow, you went the long way from Wilmar. Did you dip all the way down to El Paso? 

[47U]

6 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

You flew right through the stack. What altitude were you at?

I was at 10.5.  As I went through, all the altitude tags were several thousand feet below me.  I was right on the edge of the 30 mile Mode C circle.

[Vance Harral]

On 4/26/2025 at 9:11 AM, 47U said:

Coming back from Willmar on 21 March, I took this screenshot.  “Crazy busy” might be an understatement.

Phoenix is certainly busy, but screenshots like this are misleading and create more anxiety than necessary.  Let's conservatively guess there are about 200 aircraft in that screenshot.  But they're spread out across the entirely of the Phoenix TAC chart, which is about 6800 nm^2.  The traffic icons in that shot depict airplanes with wingspans of about 3 miles - ridiculously over-scaled.  Fun to show, maybe, but not meaningful.

Apologies if that sounds snarky, but it triggers one of my pet peeves, which is a few clients that are completely fixated on traffic.  If they don't see anything on their traffic display at 5 miles, they keep zooming out until they do, then they start worrying about a "threat" that's 20 miles away while ignoring other, more important risks.  Like, you know, actually flying the airplane.

[PT20J]

Entry totally depends on the airport, nearby terrain, and other traffic. I do whatever is most expeditious without impeding others. I never have an issue with getting into the traffic flow in some reasonable manner to land. Taking off is a bigger issue at uncontrolled fields when there is a lot of traffic in the pattern as it seems no one wants to extend a bit to let some departures out. 

[varlajo]

17 minutes ago, Vance Harral said:

Phoenix is certainly busy, but screenshots like this are misleading and create more anxiety than necessary.  Let's conservatively guess there are about 200 aircraft in that screenshot.  But they're spread out across the entirely of the Phoenix TAC chart, which is about 6800 nm^2.  The traffic icons in that shot depict airplanes with wingspans of about 3 miles - ridiculously over-scaled.  Fun to show, maybe, but not meaningful.

Apologies if that sounds snarky, but it triggers one of my pet peeves, which is a few clients that are completely fixated on traffic.  If they don't see anything on their traffic display at 5 miles, they keep zooming out until they do, then they start worrying a "threat" that's 20 miles away while ignoring other, more important risks.  Like, you know, actually flying the airplane.

I was more surprised about the lack of vertical filtering. Don't see much point displaying traffic five or nine thousand feet above or below. 

But an impressive picture for sure 

[201er]

On 4/26/2025 at 11:11 AM, 47U said:

Coming back from Willmar on 21 March, I took this screenshot.  “Crazy busy” might be an understatement.

You think that’s bad? Wait till you see this?