Coming in hot

[PaulS]

I think the Cirrus thought he would get ahead of you in the downwind, he probably was coming in fast for that reason, kind of a dumb plan. In a G5 or newer he could slow down quickly by putting in flaps, the older Cirrus are tougher to slow down. Were it me in the Cirrus position seeing it might be close, I would do a 360, give the 150 time to get out of the way, then continue. It would have cost him 2 minutes.

On the other hand for the 150, he could have just extended the up wind or the crosswind to deconflict. The issue is determining there will be a conflict. You would think that the Cirrus calling 8 miles out would give you plenty of time for your pattern, but depending on conditions he could have been going 180 knots. Cirrus recommends entering the pattern at 120 knots or less. It sounds like he was going much faster, which he probably could have communicated much sooner, as in the first time he heard the 150 might be a conflict. He could have said "Hey 150, I'm coming in hot here, any chance you could extend for me, not sure I can slow down in time." A little extra communication goes a long way.

I don't think either of you were at fault, but the crass comment from the Cirrus guy makes me think he is a believer in the "big sky" method of traffic avoidance and he believes a bigger, faster plane is going to fare better in a midair than a 150. Not smart things to believe in.

 

[Dana]

I don't care how fast the Cirrus was going, from 8 miles away there was no reason he couldn't slow down to properly merge into a pattern he already knew contained slower aircraft.

The argument is that he wasn't really on crosswind but was departing and hence shouldn't have departed the way he did and that's why he should have to yield as per the converging aircraft regulations.

If he's doing a downwind departure then he's in the pattern until he leaves the downwind.

When I do a downwind departure I call my crosswind and downwind turns as in any normal traffic pattern, then "biplane on downwind, departing the pattern to the west (or whatever)."

 

[Pinecone]

Instead of the crossover at (or above) turbine altitude and a teardrop to the 45, why not just enter on a crosswind at pattern altitude, at downwind speed?

That is what I do.

 

[Chrisgoesflying]

If he's doing a downwind departure then he's in the pattern until he leaves the downwind.

I know. And I do the same. Again, been instructed by tower to do so and have done it myself on uncontrolled fields, although by the time I'm on downwind I'm well above TPA anyways. I think what some people argue is that the FAA RECOMMENDS to depart the pattern either runway heading or at a slight turn in the direction of the pattern, climb above the TPA or even clear the zone and then turn on course. But, it's just a recommendation. Just like it is a recommendation that faster traffic adjust their speed to slower traffic in the pattern or that aircraft joining the pattern yield to aircraft in the pattern. All of those are recommendations but none are actual regulations. OP didn't follow recommendations (don't blame him, I wouldn't have in that situation) and Cirrus pilot didn't follow recommendations (if I was in that same situation in my Comanche as the Cirrus pilot, I would have followed recommendations and slowed the heck down, yielding to the Cessna). But, technically speaking, neither followed recommendations but neither broke any regulations either. So, it's whatever - good thing it worked out just fine. As some have already said, playing chicken in an airplane is a bad idea. To me, the Cirrus pilot played more chicken than OP but I wasn't there so can't fully judge the situation.

 

[Clip4]

The other side of that is, flying the downwind puts you in a predicable place at a predicable altitude.

The handbook you cite is RECOMMENDED, it in not mandatory.

They are also big on the fly over the airport then turn back to join the 45. They recommend doing that at 1500 AGL, which is the altitude they recommend for turbine aircraft. HMMMMM.

Yep, it puts you in a predicable place - needlessly in the middle flight paths of the traffic using recommended entry procedures (45° entry, the crosswind entry and the course reversal entry)

I didn’t cite a handbook, but I suspect the diagram came from the AIM.

Yes, there are no VFR regulatory airport departure procedures. The FAA provides logical suggestions for the safest procedures. Those suggestions assumes all the pilots are using standardized procedures for uncontrolled airports to promote safety.

On a course reversal entry, the FAA recommends flying 500 above the traffic pattern altitude, not 1500 agl. For most airports today traffic pattern altitudes are not published. The pilot is supposed to fly 500 feet above the altitude being used.

 

[chemgeek]

I don't care what the recommended procedures are, aircraft flying around an airport have a responsibility to minimize the chance of a mid-air conflict whether or not they believe they have the right of way. In this case, the two aircraft involved were talking, but one was acting cavalierly and unwisely in terms of maintaining an adequate safety margin. There is no good reason to barge into the traffic pattern at a high rate of speed, nor is it excusable to make an inadequate attempt to establish visual contact with a known potentially conflicting aircraft. We should expect better of one another as pilots.