Non-Towered Pattern Entry from Upwind Side (Poll)

[N201MKTurbo]

I agree the the screenshot doesn’t depict the situation correctly, but when a GA airport (KDVT) has a run up area for a single runway that has 8 positions, you know you have a busy airport.

[MikeOH]

1 hour 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 about a "threat" that's 20 miles away while ignoring other, more important risks.  Like, you know, actually flying the airplane.

^^^ THIS ^^^

I'm probably the opposite, having learned to fly decades ago before GPS and in-cockpit traffic displays.  I was taught to keep my head on a swivel  looking OUTSIDE.  Consequently, I likely don't spend enough time checking the iPad for traffic!  Also, I've spotted traffic that isn't where the traffic display says!  I've heard that can be caused by ground station delay vs. receiving directly from the other aircraft.  But, how am I supposed to know that when searching for a target!!??!  When I hear traffic announce on the radio my FIRST reaction is to look OUTSIDE; I fear some pilots go heads down to 'find' the target on their screen first!

[47U]

3 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

Fun to show, maybe, but not meaningful.

I completely agree with your comments.  All zoomed out it looks unpenetrable.  I was struck by the comparison of the vast open space between Deming and Twentynine Palms.  So few tags, and then there’s the PHX Class B in contrast.  The image requires context.

[Austintatious]

Well, I should have read the first post before voting, I misunderstood the question and thus my votes are a bit inaccurate.

In short, my answer is that I fly in a manner as to minimize the possibility of conflict with other traffic.  Sometimes this does not comport with recommendations.

A general rule I abide in aircraft and boats is to keep as much space as possible between myself and other vessels and assume everyone else believes they have the right of way. 

Edited April 27 by Austintatious

[midlifeflyer]

14 hours ago, Austintatious said:

In short, my answer is that I fly in a manner as to minimize the possibility of conflict with other traffic.  Sometimes this does not comport with recommendations

Makes sense…so long as it comports with requirements. 

[Pinecone]

First off, it is NOT a teardrop with a "descending" turn in the FAA guidance.  It is crossing over the field DESCENDING FIRST, THEN TURNING to join the 45.   Read the actual boxes on the diagram.  The turn is AT PATTERN ALTITUDE.  Doing a descending turn is setting up for a possible mid air.

I mainly do what the FAA suggests, in that I overfly the field, descend, turn back and join the 45.

But, if that pattern has little or no traffic, I will enter by crossing midfield to end of runway, at pattern altitude, and join the downwind.

[Marc_B]

I don't think the answer is binary and I don't think there is "one" right way to solve this problem and so the FAR/AIM have guidelines that suggest standard solutions so that you have more PREDICTABLE responses for traffic "see and avoid" practices.

Certainly there are some clearly "wrong" approaches.  But few absolutes here, hence the variety and discussion.

Flying home yesterday it was a gusty day with crosswinds and not the best weather.  A Comanche in the pattern working on touch and goes.  I had him on ADS-b, I had him on the radio, and as I got closer I had him visually.  Approaching from the SE and planning to land Rwy 10.  Initially I was planning a midfield crossover to a left downwind to join the pattern.  But as I got closer it looked clear that the easiest and safest way was just to enter a crosswind behind him, keep him in sight, announce my intentions and that I had visual of "aircraft currently on crosswind" and following behind.  I was flying faster and could have "cut in front" and not be a hazard...but I'd give up visual contact just to shave a minute or two off my flight time.

Many times the safest way of deconfliction is to minimize your time in the area, not maximize it.  But also important is the ability to SEE.  So I think that the idea of a 45 to downwind just puts you enough outside the pattern to be able to SEE and hear traffic, gives you the most options if your spacing won't work, and gives you an easy "out" if things don't look good to just give it some time and try again later.  

The cross midfield at pattern altitude and turn downwind has similar ability to "see" the traffic in the pattern and plan your entry, it's on the opposite side of the pattern and can give you an "out" with a turn away if needed.  BUT there are plenty of fields where it's not smart to cross midfield (i.e. parachute areas), and sometimes other runways in use make this "opposite pattern side" still an active flight area.  But from a pure visual standpoint, flying over midfield likely gives the best "overview" of the field, the windsock, the traffic in the pattern.  Even with a 2 mile long runway, glancing 1 mile each direction is likely better than 2 miles out on the 45 and perhaps you can't see the traffic on base/final (at 3-4 miles away) or just touching down.

 

I think it's one thing to say "I chose this entry to landing because...it allowed me best visibility, allowed me to follow traffic I had visual on, allowed me to clear the area more quickly, was necessary for spacing, etc."  It's completely different to have no reason and just tuck your head and barrel in because that's "how I've always done it."  There are pilots/aircraft out there who don't have ADS-b, who don't have radios, who aren't paying attention, and who may be training/distracted/dealing with in flight issue.  That's why it will ALWAYS be EVERYONE'S job to see and avoid.

[kortopates]

Lots of talking around it but nobody seems to reference (except Mark K perhaps) the current AC 90-66C which was updated not long ago after some tragic mid-airs.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-66C.pdf

As for the traffic pict that display is a distraction. You’re aware you can filter out non relevant traffic by altitude? In GP mine filters out all traffic’s more than 3K feet below or above, otherwise my map display would be unusable flying in the busiest airspace in the world - SOCAL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Austintatious]

1 hour ago, kortopates said:

Lots of talking around it but nobody seems to reference (except Mark K perhaps) the current AC 90-66C which was updated not long ago after some tragic mid-airs.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-66C.pdf

 

From that AC

"" Further, to mitigate the risk of a midair collision at a non-towered airport in
other than instrument conditions, the FAA does not recommend that the pilot execute a
straight-in approach for landing, when there are other aircraft in the traffic pattern. The
straight-in approach may cause a conflict with aircraft in the traffic pattern and on base to
final and increase the risk of a mid air collision"

I have never understood how a straight in approach to land somehow poses more of a mid air risk than a 45 degree entry to the downwind.  In either case you have traffic converging to the same position.  I can make an argument for the 45 degree entry being less risk, a few actually, but I can also make as many arguments for the long straight in being less risky.

 from this source https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/81821/Hansman_Mid-air collision.pdf

There is a pie chart of the Track intersect angles for all the mid air collisions studied...   The most common at 54 percent is a faster aircraft running into the back of a slower aircraft.  The 45 degree converging is 12 and the 90 degree is slightly higher at 15.

[3. Detailed Analysis of Mid-Air Collisions Reported in the Airport Pattern
Out of the 112 reported cases, 50 occurred in the airport pattern. This section analyzes those 50 accidents in
more detail. As can be seen in Figure 3, over 80% of the mid-air collisions in the airport pattern happened on final,
short final or on the runway. As a result, the track intersection angle most often observed is that of two aircraft going
in the same direction. The narratives of these reports paint a similar picture for most of these accidents: two aircraft
on approach to the same runway settling into each other as they get closer to the runway. This type of encounter is
characterized by a rather small relative velocity which often results in the two aircraft only “bumping” each other.
As a result, 31 of the 50 accidents in the airport pattern were non-fatal.
Out of the 50 accidents, 9 (18%) involved at least one aircraft that didn’t have a radio. According to the 2007
FAA Avionics Survey5, only 2% of the GA fleet did not have a radio installed.]

 

Now, it is true that Final approach is where most of the collisions happen... however they draw no conclusion that these were due to "improper" or "not recommended" traffic patter execution by either aircraft. A conflict on final could very well occur when both planes fly the recommended pattern, especially when one is faster and they are unaware of one another.

I fly a fast aircraft and to me, a long straight in final seems to be less of a hazard than going on an excursion to position myself to enter a 45 to the downwind.  This puts me making several maneuvers in an area where If other people are trying to enter 45 to the downwind, they will be more difficult to see and  I could come into conflict with them...  However If I proceed straight in,  I have 10+ miles to listen and observe and detect non ADSB and no-radio traffic.  And I know where my possible conflicts  will be... They will either be approaching from base or perhaps I am overtaking a slower aircraft already on final... IOW, I know more precisely where to look for conflicting traffic... Also, to be fair, I am often still in communications with approach who is advising me on any traffic they see on radar for the airport.

This all being said, I am not convinced these statistics are the only relevant facts on which to decide best practices... I think that there are probably other factors not considered in the above that can be very relevant to how one might choose to enter and fly a pattern safely.  For instance, High wing vs Low wing aircraft have different blind spots.  What may give you great visibility in a high wing, you may have a huge blind spot in a low wing and visa versa.  I have seen pictures of a low wing aircraft stuck to the top of a high wing aircraft... they collided and stuck together on final, each unable to see the other. (they landed stuck together) If however the low wing had been the lower aircraft, perhaps they could have seen and avoided that collision. 

 

 

 

 

 

[GeeBee]

From the AC 90-66. 

Fly the Standard Traffic Pattern. Arriving aircraft should enter the airport’s traffic

pattern at traffic pattern altitude and avoid straight-in approaches for landing to mitigate

the risk of a midair collision. See the paragraphs below and paragraph 11 for additional

information.

I did this once flying into Starksville, MS. I was in a 757 and I cleared out the entire traffic pattern for 20 minutes. It would have been better to fly the straight in for everyone. Not all situations are equal.

[Hank]

15 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

From the AC 90-66. 

Fly the Standard Traffic Pattern. Arriving aircraft should enter the airport’s traffic

pattern at traffic pattern altitude and avoid straight-in approaches for landing to mitigate

the risk of a midair collision. See the paragraphs below and paragraph 11 for additional

information.

I did this once flying into Starksville, MS. I was in a 757 and I cleared out the entire traffic pattern for 20 minutes. It would have been better to fly the straight in for everyone. Not all situations are equal.

I've followed a jet around the pattern at Auburn, KAUO. We were both talking the whole way around. He was faster, and flew downwind and base in a bank, leveling off on final. He then pulled clear and watched my landing. Strangely we were alone in the pattern; that must have been before they signed the contract with Delta and tripled the number of planes, leading shortly to adding a yet-to-be-built tower.