Mid air collision reported at T31

[Van Johnston]

I've always overflown non-towered airports 500' above the pattern before going wide and descending so as to enter midfield downwind at about a 45° angle.

This is the way I was taught (in 1986). The rationale -- back then -- is that you overfly at +500 to find the wind sock to see which runway is in use then proceed in whatever direction necessary (including potentially a 180) to set up for the descending 45 degree entry. I guess the advent of AWOS makes that rationale obsolete at AWOS-equipped fields, but overflying at +500 still seems safer to me.

 

[Dav8or]

It can display traffic in the pattern and you can set the range of the display, but will only alert with potential conflicts. I have had a GDL 88 with a GTN 650 for a couple of years and I do not get nuisance alerts.

Interesting. What are the criteria for a conflict alert? Does it work in all patterns, or just sometimes?

 

[BigBadLou]

I just watched video from a police car dash cam.

Would you be willing to share the link?
If you think it is too brutal for some, feel free to just PM it to me.
Thank you in advance.

 

[tawood]

Would you be willing to share the link?
If you think it is too brutal for some, feel free to just PM it to me.
Thank you in advance.

There is no link...he's local law enforcement.

 

[Lowflynjack]

Good point Jack. He would have had the sun in his face flying E to W like you said. Probably a factor.

I always taught the 500' overfly to a descending teardrop once outside of the TP and then enter 45 to downwind. This is what is recommended but as others have said, others ways to fly it also. Gotta have those eyes outside and head on a swivel around the TP

I've been flying my whole life, got my license at 17, now I'm 43. I had never heard of overflying the field and entering on a 45 until a few years ago. It sounds like a good idea and I've considered adopting it.

It was very confusing to most of us when people started calling they were flying over mid-field and entering on a teardrop to a 45. We had no idea what a teardrop was and had a few discussions on it until we finally found an instructor who was teaching this method and asked him. We truly thought they were crossing midfield at a 45 degree angle, then doing a teardrop turn from there all the way to final! I think it depends on what area of the country you were taught in, because it seems like a lot of people were taught the method you were.

 

[FlySince9]

Let me add one more thing... If you are bent on doing a midfield cross...do it more towards the Departure end threshold... My logic is that 1. Its safer than a normal crosswind because most aircraft aren't capable of climbing to pattern altitude by the time they reach the end of the runway... 2. Aircraft entering on a normal 45 entry to the down wind will be ahead of you when you turn downwind. 3. It gives you more time to get set up for landing (GUMPS etc)... My 2 cents...

 

[Stingray Don]

Interesting. What are the criteria for a conflict alert? Does it work in all patterns, or just sometimes?

I'm not sure what criteria the GTN 650 uses to generate an alert, but perhaps others can chime in on that. However, even with traffic in the pattern, I rarely get an alert. The 650 will display all traffic in the pattern (transponder equipped), but I only get the alert when there is a potential conflict. The alert tells you the relative position and distance of the of the target so you can get your eyeballs looking in the right area. The alerts have identified threats before I have spotted them in every single case but one, and that time it was about simultaneous. It is amazing how much traffic the ADS-B picks up that I had been missing.

 

[DesertNomad]

most aircraft aren't capable of climbing to pattern altitude by the time they reach the end of the runway

Our local practice airport is an old Air Force Base and you can be pretty high when reaching the end of the runway since it is about 8000' long.

 

[FlySince9]

s

Our local practice airport is an old Air Force Base and you can be pretty high when reaching the end of the runway since it is about 8000' long.

yea...there are always those annoying exceptions... but humans have the capability of modifying their behavior when necessary...

 

[neilw2]

Let me add one more thing... If you are bent on doing a midfield cross...do it more towards the Departure end threshold... My logic is that 1. Its safer than a normal crosswind because most aircraft aren't capable of climbing to pattern altitude by the time they reach the end of the runway... 2. Aircraft entering on a normal 45 entry to the down wind will be ahead of you when you turn downwind. 3. It gives you more time to get set up for landing (GUMPS etc)... My 2 cents...

I actually have read you say that before and the more I think about it, the more since it makes. My only concern is that the midfield cross is a acknowledge entrance according to the AIM- where there is no mention of this modified method. I would be concerned that traffic wouldn't know where to look to find me if I entered the pattern this way.

 

[ejensen]

Let me add one more thing... If you are bent on doing a midfield cross...do it more towards the Departure end threshold... My logic is that 1. Its safer than a normal crosswind because most aircraft aren't capable of climbing to pattern altitude by the time they reach the end of the runway... 2. Aircraft entering on a normal 45 entry to the down wind will be ahead of you when you turn downwind. 3. It gives you more time to get set up for landing (GUMPS etc)... My 2 cents...

That's how I like to enter, crosswind past the end of the runway to downwind. You can see the whole airport. We have a flight school that uses/teaches the mid-field entry. Puts them belly up to the traffic on the 45 or downwind.

 

[FastEddieB]

My only concern is that the midfield cross is a acknowledge entrance according to the AIM...

I don't remember that, and can't find it now in the AIM. I don't see it depicted in any of the diagrams or mentioned in the text.

But that's not to say I might not be missing it - do you have a page or paragraph number?

 

[neilw2]

I don't remember that, and can't find it now in the AIM. I don't see it depicted in any of the diagrams or mentioned in the text.

But that's not to say I might not be missing it - do you have a page or paragraph number?

Well you made me actually look at the AIM to verify what my DPE told me and you are correct, the midfield crossover is not in there. Not sure why my DPE told me that. You taught me yet again trust but verify when listening to others...especially pilots...

I guess that makes my point incorrect and the departure end midfield crossover that @FlySince9 advocates may be my new normal.

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

That's how I like to enter, crosswind past the end of the runway to downwind. You can see the whole airport. We have a flight school that uses/teaches the mid-field entry. Puts them belly up to the traffic on the 45 or downwind.

Yep, me too. SOP entry at my airport (Cable in Upland, CA) is crosswind over the departure numbers when entering from the north. It still puts you belly up to traffic on downwind...but maybe a better chance of seeing someone on the 45? Bottom line is that it's one of the riskier phases of flight and you have to be on your toes.

 

[Lowflynjack]

From the Air Safety Institute:
There are several ways to enter the pattern if you’re coming from the upwind leg side of the airport. •

• One method of entry from the “opposite” side of the pattern is to cross over midfield at least 500 feet above pattern altitude (normally 1,500 feet agl). When well clear of the pattern—approximately two miles—descend to pattern altitude, then turn to enter at 45 degrees to the downwind leg at midfield (see Figure 9). •
• Because large and turbine aircraft fly 1,500-foot-agl patterns, crossing 500 feet above the single-engine pattern altitude might place you in conflict with traffic. If large or turbine aircraft are operating into your airport, 2,000 feet agl is a safer crossing altitude. •
• An alternate method is to enter on a midfield crosswind at pattern altitude, then turn downwind (see Figure 10). This technique should not be used if the pattern is busy. Give way to aircraft on the preferred 45-degree entry and to aircraft already established on downwind.

 

[eman1200]

FIGURE 10!!!! but I agree, if it's busy it might not be the best.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

cept that square pattern will be the thingy of the past.....if certain folk have their way.

 

[neilw2]

FIGURE 10!!!! but I agree, if it's busy it might not be the best.

Yep, if the pattern is busy I'm going in the long way for the standard entry anyways...and @Lowflynjack..thanks that's prob where I and the DPE were thinking of it- which is less of a authoritative reference as my previously stated AIM but still a relevant.

 

[TexDeuce]

I've owned five aircraft without electrical systems since I went light sport from ppl in 2000. Hand held radios are very good today and were in 2000. They have excellent range and easy to use especially if one hooks them up to an external antenna. There is no excuse for any aircraft, glider, etc. not to have one today if they do not have an electrical system. Anyone who thinks just looking around trying to spot another aircraft in the pattern at an uncontrolled airport is kidding themselves. In addition, I've never, in fifty years of flying, heard anyone "babble" on the radio in or near the pattern. Very difficult to see through the bottom of an airplane which is probably how this accident occurred if you read FAA reports of mid airs near airports.

I agree. Anyone flying NORDO with no handheld and not talking IS THE FOOL. I'm not saying the radio is the end all be all, but it is a hell of a lot better coupled with your eyes than only having your eyes.

I've seen too many goofballs zooming around the pattern not talking or listening and I don't care for it at all. Have some respect for your fellow aviators people.

 

[JCranford]

Would you be willing to share the link?

There is no link...he's local law enforcement.

Yeah, theres no link. The video was actually not my department, but the neighboring department we share a training facility with. The guy who's car caught the incident is office'd here and he knows I fly so called me over to view it.

 

[MAKG1]

For a third way to do this, I prefer the upwind entry at a nontowered field IF I know which runway the wind favors (usually, not always, available). The upwind entry is done at TPA on the opposite side of the field from the pattern, just far enough away so you can see the runway, and gives you an extended look at the runway before turning crosswind. Even with right traffic, this gives you a lot of warning if someone is taking off NORDO, and it also gives you a good look at the pattern at the correct altitude from just barely outside.

It can take a while if the runway is long, but you also get a good look at 45 entry traffic, as it's right in front of your nose on crosswind. Coordinate/yield/whatever as necessary.

 

[flyingron]

Figure 9 (if to scale) is downright dangerous. If you're going to do that manouver, descend well past the pattern.

 

[MAKG1]

Figure 9 (if to scale) is downright dangerous. If you're going to do that manouver, descend well past the pattern.

IF you follow the directions, you fly at least two miles directly away from the airport, then you descend 500 feet (at least another mile), and THEN you turn the teardrop into the 45. No one will be flying a 3 mile downwind. And if they are, nothing you do is "right" because that makes B52 patterns look small.

It's not to scale.

The problem I see is that terrain is often an issue that far from the airport. If you do that at KHAF or KTVL, you'll be eating granite.

 

[flyingron]

It's not just the guy on downwind but also the person flying the allegedly preferred 45.

 

[Omalley1537]

This is the way I was taught (in 1986). The rationale -- back then -- is that you overfly at +500 to find the wind sock to see which runway is in use then proceed in whatever direction necessary (including potentially a 180) to set up for the descending 45 degree entry. I guess the advent of AWOS makes that rationale obsolete at AWOS-equipped fields, but overflying at +500 still seems safer to me.

I was taught the same when I got my PPL in '14.

 

[PPC1052]

I One plane appears to be southbound on a right downwind for 35. The other plane is flying east to west approaching the airport environment.

The plane with the Air Force academy cadet was making right traffic? Isn't that a left traffic pattern?

 

[PPC1052]

A plane is right on your nose, same altitude, and you take the tail off? Right or left pattern, no excuse. If this is what occurred.

Maybe. But one plane violated a clear regulation. We all know it can be tough to see other traffic. Add in the fact that the other plane wasn't where it was supposed to be, and now it's really tough to spot the other aircraft.

 

[PPC1052]

My daughter and I just got back from a long cross country, and NUMEROUS times I heard aircraft call out that they were "10 miles southwest over [blank] inbound" where [blank] is actually 10 miles northeast, etc.

I sure wish I could say that I had never made that mistake honestly.

 

[PPC1052]

there have been so many threads on pattern entry, crossing midfield, nordo, etc.., that I'm glad we're hashing it out again here.

Yeah. Makes me wonder how this can be true:

Yeah, I know midfield crossing entries are the standard in alot of the UK-oriented countries (including Canada). I used them regularly in Australia, but they're not exactly an expected manouver here.

 

[PPC1052]

For a third way to do this, I prefer the upwind entry at a nontowered field IF I know which runway the wind favors (usually, not always, available).

I don't think that's a half bad way to enter from the "wrong" side.

 

[RV10flyer]

I wish everyone that has landing lights would use them at least when close to the airport. My HID's are on anytime below 10,000'. It makes it much easier to see another aircraft.

 

[MAKG1]

I don't think that's a half bad way to enter from the "wrong" side.

There are a few situations where it doesn't work. If there is a DZ on the "wrong" side of the airport, I'm avoiding it any way I can. Sometimes noise abatement doesn't want you there. If all runways have left traffic and there is an ambiguous choice of runway, this can put you nose to nose with another aircraft.

But it does keep all turns in the correct direction. That last problem is a big one, though. Not a good idea to use in calm wind, unless everyone is using one runway.

 

[mscard88]

I don't remember that, and can't find it now in the AIM. I don't see it depicted in any of the diagrams or mentioned in the text.

But that's not to say I might not be missing it - do you have a page or paragraph number?

When I taught this way it was an Advisory Circular that had the same as what Jack has in post 135 above. Here's the link but I'm not sure if this is still recommended by the AC. Doesn't appear to be in the current AC. The AIM also has the newer recommendation in para 4-3-3.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC90-66A.pdf

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/aim.pdf

 

[GRG55]

From the Air Safety Institute:
There are several ways to enter the pattern if you’re coming from the upwind leg side of the airport. •

• One method of entry from the “opposite” side of the pattern is to cross over midfield at least 500 feet above pattern altitude (normally 1,500 feet agl). When well clear of the pattern—approximately two miles—descend to pattern altitude, then turn to enter at 45 degrees to the downwind leg at midfield (see Figure 9). •
• Because large and turbine aircraft fly 1,500-foot-agl patterns, crossing 500 feet above the single-engine pattern altitude might place you in conflict with traffic. If large or turbine aircraft are operating into your airport, 2,000 feet agl is a safer crossing altitude. •
• An alternate method is to enter on a midfield crosswind at pattern altitude, then turn downwind (see Figure 10). This technique should not be used if the pattern is busy. Give way to aircraft on the preferred 45-degree entry and to aircraft already established on downwind.

Figure 9 is how I was taught to do it way back in 1974. It remains my method of entering the pattern for uncontrolled airports unless I have radio communications with other airplanes or AWOS and the wind/circuit direction is known.

 

[asicer]

For a third way to do this, I prefer the upwind entry at a nontowered field IF I know which runway the wind favors (usually, not always, available).

This is what I tried to upload in post #69.

 

[FastEddieB]

For a third way to do this...

Therein, I think, lies the rub.

A pilot approaching a non-towered airport is faced with other pilots who may be entering the pattern in one of now three (or four or five or more) ways.

Personally, I think safety would be enhanced if this were more standardized. Traffic would be far more likely to be where you're looking for them to be, not in the process of any one of three or more possible entrees at a variety of different altitudes at different points in the process.

But that appears to be wishful thinking, so a conscientious pilot still needs to be alert to pilots "rolling their own" in a wide variety of ways.

 

[N659HB]

I agree that standardization would help, but then there's the cowboys who depart using non-standard procedures. What to do about someone climbing into your path from below?

 

[FastEddieB]

I agree that standardization would help, but then there's the cowboys who depart using non-standard procedures. What to do about someone climbing into your path from below?

Head on a swivel and try to expect the unexpected.

Not saying it's the case here, and one can fall victim to "confirmation bias", but over the years I've read about way too many midairs in the pattern that simply would not have happened if everyone had entered and flown the standard, suggested pattern. And so it goes...

 

[MAKG1]

Head on a swivel and try to expect the unexpected.

Not saying it's the case here, and one can fall victim to "confirmation bias", but over the years I've read about way too many midairs in the pattern that simply would not have happened if everyone had entered and flown the standard, suggested pattern. And so it goes...

To be honest, the only time a nonstandard pattern use freaked me out was when I encountered a airplane that just blew right through the pattern (and the DZ) on a diagonal, NORDO at exactly 1000 AGL and went on his merry way. At least he flew in a straight line. Well, I guess there was the time a Bo blasted by me on the left perhaps 100 feet off, on a long straight in (that's why I don't do those at uncontrolled fields anymore, outside the context of an instrument approach).

 

[Dav8or]

Head on a swivel and try to expect the unexpected.

Not saying it's the case here, and one can fall victim to "confirmation bias", but over the years I've read about way too many midairs in the pattern that simply would not have happened if everyone had entered and flown the standard, suggested pattern. And so it goes...

I suspect that even if everyone flew the recommended pattern and pattern entry, there would still be mid airs, they would just occur further out from the pattern, out where people would all be trying to line up on a 45 degree entry from which ever way they came.