Non Standard Pattern Entries....

T Bone

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
465
Location
Metropolitan Detroit
Display Name

Display name:
T Bone
I'm sure you've all seen them. Some fields, it's just "the way it's done" I suppose. Stiil, the FAR's are clear. That said, let me describe two for you, and get your opinion...

First, my home field. We have runway 18/36. The field is under a class B shelf, and off to the East, ESE, is the primary (to the surface) Bravo area, about 4 NM away. Most pilots approach the airport either from the North or West generally. When entering the pattern for 18, the most commonly used at the field is a "midfield" crosswind. Not in the FARs. And not known to any non locals who'd visit, unless they listened to traffic for awhile. Last time I was flying there, I entered downwind for 18 from the 45 (which put me right on the edge of the Bravo) and had to sequence with traffic entering midfield crosswind. It worked fine (this time) but made me wonder....

This week, I flew from a new airport. On returnig to the field, directly after criticizing the midfield entry I just described (sidenote: Instructor felt it was asking for trouble, saying a Bonanza might be at pattern altitude- 1000 agl- by the end of the runway- under 2600 feet.... ) he then described "how they do it" at this field. Parameters, also under the same Bravo shelf. Runways 35 and 4 are right traffic, while 17 and 22 are left. Problem? This puts downwinds right on the Canadian border! (Edit note: Airport is on an island, at the mouth of a river... Canadian soil is the far bank) If you were to enter from the 45, you would be in Canadian airspace, if only for a few minutes. That would require a flight plan, ATC com and transponder code. It would also (I think) preclude (solo) student pilot ops from this field. The solution they use? Overfly the field at 600 feet above pattern altitude. Descend into the downwind! Gotta say, I HATE this! It is wrong, and furthermore dangerous (and I was checking out in a low wing.... here, Cessna Cessna.... can you imagine?). So, what to do? I want to finish my checkout in this plane. One more flight. I probably should (probably WILL) file the plan, squawk and talk as required, and do the "correct" pattern entry here (though my FCC radio license, required for international flight, won't be here for another two weeks or so). Now, I've gotten used to the non standard method at the other field. Am I being paranoid here, or are these folks just nuts? BTW, seems an easy solution here, all these patterns should be reversed, which would turn traffic towards the US, and we could easily do "proper" entries. And I'm sure you've figured, both airports are uncontrolled.

Your thoughts?

Edited 12:58 There is an incorrect statement above, where I reference the FAR's. Had I bothered to research this, I'd find that what I thought was there is not! Consider the post amended, my wrist slapped, and my knowledge improved.... :cool:
 
Last edited:
I've never heard of entering downwind by "descending" into it. Perhaps it's not taught because it's not healthy nor recognized as a legal entry.

In AIM, I believe there is an alternate entry described for entry into downwind, in which you cross the airport at midfield and make the entry to downwind at the standard 45 degrees. This type of entry could be used in the situation you have described. But, I'm not a CFI.

Jim
 
Here are the entries that I've seen at my uncontrolled field:

KVAY - right pattern for 26, left for 8. N14 2SM to the SE (thus the right pattern)

1. Base entry from the north - most often for runway 8.
2. Crosswind entry from the south - most often for runway 26. Usually over the numbers, sometimes farther out.
3. Midfield crosswind at pattern altitude.
4. Straight-in to final (makes some sense for the VOR approach to 26)
5. Straight-in to downwind (makes some sense for the VOR approach to 26 when 8 is in use)

My opinion? You should ALWAYS use the 45 entry unless you have a good reason (some of your examples count as good reasons to me). And if not, you'd better be all over the radio and eyeballs all over the place.

My biggest peeve is the person who doesn't call their entry, AND uses a non-standard entry.
 
Worse is the person who screws up their radio call, whether standard entry or not. And you should always be on the look out for NORADs. BTW, L/R pattern is required, but entries are AIM recommendations, not FARs - mid-field and straight-in approaches are perfectly legal and often sensible.
 
T Bone said:
I'm sure you've all seen them. Some fields, it's just "the way it's done" I suppose. Stiil, the FAR's are clear. That said, let me describe two for you, and get your opinion...

First, my home field. We have runway 18/36. The field is under a class B shelf, and off to the East, ESE, is the primary (to the surface) Bravo area, about 4 NM away. Most pilots approach the airport either from the North or West generally. When entering the pattern for 18, the most commonly used at the field is a "midfield" crosswind. Not in the FARs. And not known to any non locals who'd visit, unless they listened to traffic for awhile. Last time I was flying there, I entered downwind for 18 from the 45 (which put me right on the edge of the Bravo) and had to sequence with traffic entering midfield crosswind. It worked fine (this time) but made me wonder....

Well, folks use midfield crosswinds at a lot of airports. In this case, it keeps them clear of the Class Bravo. I can see why they do it. My preference would be to join an upwind, then go around the regular pattern so I can identify everybody. However, since the AIM pattern entry is "recommended", folks can do pretty much anything. How is Detroit about giving Class B clearances and talking to you?

This week, I flew from a new airport. On returnig to the field, directly after criticizing the midfield entry I just described (sidenote: Instructor felt it was asking for trouble, saying a Bonanza might be at pattern altitude- 1000 agl- by the end of the runway- under 2600 feet.... ) he then described "how they do it" at this field. Parameters, also under the same Bravo shelf. Runways 35 and 4 are right traffic, while 17 and 22 are left. Problem? This puts downwinds right on the Canadian border! (Edit note: Airport is on an island, at the mouth of a river... Canadian soil is the far bank) If you were to enter from the 45, you would be in Canadian airspace, if only for a few minutes. That would require a flight plan, ATC com and transponder code. It would also (I think) preclude (solo) student pilot ops from this field. The solution they use? Overfly the field at 600 feet above pattern altitude. Descend into the downwind! Gotta say, I HATE this! It is wrong, and furthermore dangerous (and I was checking out in a low wing.... here, Cessna Cessna.... can you imagine?). So, what to do? I want to finish my checkout in this plane. One more flight. I probably should (probably WILL) file the plan, squawk and talk as required, and do the "correct" pattern entry here (though my FCC radio license, required for international flight, won't be here for another two weeks or so). Now, I've gotten used to the non standard method at the other field. Am I being paranoid here, or are these folks just nuts? BTW, seems an easy solution here, all these patterns should be reversed, which would turn traffic towards the US, and we could easily do "proper" entries. And I'm sure you've figured, both airports are uncontrolled.

Your thoughts?

THat sounds lik ONZ. Descending into downwind is bad, for just the reason you mention. I think the downwinds are east to try and stay over the river and avoid noise issues with some of the residences on the island. IIRC, there are also some towers or other obstructions over the mainland.....

Can you not keep enough clearance to Canada if you stay over the water?
 
I use midfield or upwind entries all the time, depending on what direction I'm approaching an airport from. I HATE the thought of descending into a downwind, that is horribly dangerous. I'd avoid that airport, personally. You fly Cessna's, think you'll see someone descending on top of you? Or, in that Diamond or the Tiger's I like, picture how many airplanes that wing can cover as you descend. No way.
 
I've only been to ONZ a couple of times, and now you've given me another good reason to stay away...

At PHN the midfield crosswind is a fairly popular way of entering the pattern. I don't like it because it puts you on a possible collision course with traffic doing a standard 45 entry. My Cardinal checkout CFI preferred the "normal crosswind entry" as an alternative to the 45, but I'm not sure that's much safer as not everyone's 45 entry intersects the downwind at the same point. I was taught that if you're going to overfly the pattern midfield going toward downwind, the way to join the pattern from there is to do a descending teardrop turn into the 45. That might actually be possible at ONZ without straying into Canadian airspace if the turn was tight enough, but it would be close. Normally I would say, the safest way to enter the pattern at any given field is probably the way everyone else is doing it there, but I think I have to make an exception in case of descending into the downwind, that sounds just totally nuts to me. If 40,000 people do a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing...

Liz
 
T Bone said:
I'm sure you've all seen them. Some fields, it's just "the way it's done" I suppose. Stiil, the FAR's are clear.

It is unclear to me why one would write, "Still, the FAR's are clear" when the FAR's contain no mention of pattern entry at all--standard or non-standard.
 
wsuffa said:
Well, folks use midfield crosswinds at a lot of airports. In this case, it keeps them clear of the Class Bravo. I can see why they do it. My preference would be to join an upwind, then go around the regular pattern so I can identify everybody. However, since the AIM pattern entry is "recommended", folks can do pretty much anything. How is Detroit about giving Class B clearances and talking to you?



That sounds lik ONZ. Descending into downwind is bad, for just the reason you mention. I think the downwinds are east to try and stay over the river and avoid noise issues with some of the residences on the island. IIRC, there are also some towers or other obstructions over the mainland.....

Can you not keep enough clearance to Canada if you stay over the water?

DTW would probably be no trouble to talk to to duck inside Bravo for 1D2 (you can actually do the 45 entry without busting, not that hard, but it is close, so most simply avoid it). My guess is though that if everyone would do it, they'd get really annoyed after awhile. Not so concerned with that one though, I'm used to it. The Bonanza issue mentioned by this other instructor is a non issue. Even my freinds Lancair IV (DEFINITELY will out climb a Bonanza) wouldn't be able to reach 1000 agl from under 2600 feet of runway, so as long as we're at or inside the numbers, this entry seems to work okay.

The other one is indeed KONZ, and you are correct about the noise (probably the obstructions too). As to doing the 45 and keeping clear of Canada, no. Even with an 800 foot agl pattern (keeps us closer in) there's no room. Canadian airspace starts roughly halfway between the island and the shore, which is VERY near the downwind leg. I'm thinking a straight in to downwind might be appropriate? If not, a midfield entry, as long as a close eye for traffic is kept, might be acceptable. Descending into downwind? I've heard never to do it. I've read it. And I've read stories/seen pictures of why... Horribel, horrible idea IMHO.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
It is unclear to me why one would write, "Still, the FAR's are clear" when the FAR's contain no mention of pattern entry at all--standard or non-standard.
Well...the FARs ARE clear about one thing in the pattern...that being left turns unless otherwise published.

Other than that, as Ed said - entry proceedures are only recommended in the AIM.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
It is unclear to me why one would write, "Still, the FAR's are clear" when the FAR's contain no mention of pattern entry at all--standard or non-standard.

Simple. Because I was wrong!:dunno: It (as I know you know) is not covered in the FAR's, but as mentioned above is in the AIM. Okay, advisory in nature. Still, I've no desire to descend into the pattern. I wonder what others out there do? I think I'll take a trip tomorrow and take the scanner or handheld, and watch the pattern for awhile.....
 
First, I'm not a big fan of the midfield crossover entry because it puts you belly-to-belly with anyone entering on a 45 to downwind and potentially cuts off folks in the closed pattern turning crosswind to downwind. If I'm coming in from the north or northwest to an airport where 18 is the active, I'll head for a point about a mile north of the airport at TPA, make an upwind entry, and then fly the upwind to the "normal" crosswind turn point half a mile to a mile beyond the departure end of the runway. That gives me a much better opportunity to see and be seen by everyone else in the pattern no matter what they're doing.

Second, I was not aware of any requirement for a flight plan, ATC comm, or a transponder code just because you crossed the US-Canadian border on a flight that starts and ends in the USA since there's no ADIZ along that border. While a flight plan is required if you're going to land in Canada, there's still no need for ATC comm or a transponder even to do that under VFR (yes, Virginia, you can fly your Cub to Calgary). So that part of it is a bit confusing to me.

Now, to specifics.

As far as I can tell, you're talking about Grosse Ile in Detroit, and I see no reason why you'd need to talk to ATC to fly the right hand patterns on 4 or 35, although being under the DTW B-space you do need a transponder squawking 1200 with mode C. However, all things equal, if I'm arriving at ONZ from the west with 35 active, I'll enter on the crosswind up at the north end of the field (normal crosswind leg) at TPA (under the 2500 shelf) and fly the right traffic from there. For 4, I'll use an upwind entry as described above. Using these approaches, I'm never in Canadian airspace, so the issues about flight plans and comm become moot.
 
Ron Levy said:
As far as I can tell, you're talking about Grosse Ile in Detroit, and I see no reason why you'd need to talk to ATC to fly the right hand patterns on 4 or 35, although being under the DTW B-space you do need a transponder squawking 1200 with mode C. However, all things equal, if I'm arriving at ONZ from the west with 35 active, I'll enter on the crosswind up at the north end of the field (normal crosswind leg) at TPA (under the 2500 shelf) and fly the right traffic from there. For 4, I'll use an upwind entry as described above. Using these approaches, I'm never in Canadian airspace, so the issues about flight plans and comm become moot.

Correct, this is Grosse Ile. Thanks for the response, seems as safe and sane an entry as I can get, I'll give it a go.

Ron Levy said:
Second, I was not aware of any requirement for a flight plan, ATC comm, or a transponder code just because you crossed the US-Canadian border on a flight that starts and ends in the USA since there's no ADIZ along that border. While a flight plan is required if you're going to land in Canada, there's still no need for ATC comm or a transponder even to do that under VFR (yes, Virginia, you can fly your Cub to Calgary). So that part of it is a bit confusing to me.


Well, my information could be wrong, but here's my source. Everytime we call Lansing FSS for a breifing, we must indicate we have FDC security information India (was Hotel when I started training a year back, and has been India since I think June last). This FDC Notam includes requirements for leaving US airspace/entering Canada's (no landing required or mentioned) whereby even VFR flights must be on an active flight plan, have contact with ATC and be squawking an assigned transponder code. Having just listened to this again, it states "For flights outside the US". It doesn't mention destination specifically, and it does say "prior to leaving US or entering Canadian airspace". In talking with a preflight breifer in Lansing a few minutes ago, she stated that this was from FDC Notam 2/5319, and was in effect for travel accross US/Canadian and US/Mexican boundries, nationwide. When I asked if there was somewhere I could go online to view this in text, she referred me to AOPA online (gotta love that!). In a preliminary search under FDC Notam 2/5319, the site responded with nearly 2000 results. When I tried to narrow my search, the site stopped responding... I will try back later.....
 
AOPA Air Safety Foundation has published an excellent Safety Advisor, Operations at Non-Towered Airports, that summarizes the regulartory and advisory information on the subject and provides many examples (with clear graphics) of good operating practices at airports without an operating control tower. I ensure that all my students review this free publication, available for download in PDF format from the AOPA Air Safety Foundation's publication pages. (You don't have to be an AOPA member to view or download these publications.)

A companion Safety Advisor, Operations at Towered Airports,is also available.
 
Flying to Canada

I noticed discussion drift in the topic about non-standard pattern entries to a debate about flight-plan requirements for overlfying Canada.

If you're an AOPA member, check out the following information:

Canadian Flight Information
Due to recent confusion on what types of flight plans are required for flights to, from, and within Canada, NAV CANADA has provided the following explanation...
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/travel/canada/index2.html

You can find additinional information about international flights on AOPA's Web site at:

http://www.aopa.org/members/resources/international.html
 
At Double Eagle, my home airport, runway 17/35's pattern is very close to Albuquerque's Class C. It's actually hanging on signs around the airport to use an upwind entry to runway 17 or 35. Anyone disagree with that? I'm not sure how I feel about it.
 
NickDBrennan said:
At Double Eagle, my home airport, runway 17/35's pattern is very close to Albuquerque's Class C. It's actually hanging on signs around the airport to use an upwind entry to runway 17 or 35. Anyone disagree with that? I'm not sure how I feel about it.

you mean a straight in approach?
 
Michael said:
you mean a straight in approach?

No - actually, you fly the full upwind leg, then crosswind, then downwind, then base, and final. I don't really like it, because if someone is on final, you're kinda cutting them off in case of a go around. I'll see if I can get my hands on the diagram that they had posted at Double Eagle for a while.
 
NickDBrennan said:
No - actually, you fly the full upwind leg, then crosswind, then downwind, then base, and final. I don't really like it, because if someone is on final, you're kinda cutting them off in case of a go around. I'll see if I can get my hands on the diagram that they had posted at Double Eagle for a while.

You shouldn't cut anyone off on the crosswind. If someone is going around, don't turn crosswind!!! If someone goes around while you are on crosswind, you'll be out of their way well before they can get to you.
 
NickDBrennan said:
No - actually, you fly the full upwind leg, then crosswind, then downwind, then base, and final. I don't really like it, because if someone is on final, you're kinda cutting them off in case of a go around. I'll see if I can get my hands on the diagram that they had posted at Double Eagle for a while.


Actually, you should be able to see them to know what they're doing.

Adjust your upwind to avoid conflicts in the crosswind - either turn early or extend.
 
I'm not expressing myself correctly. I see the issue being that someone, sometime, is going to do something stupid, like cutting someone off on a go-around. When I'm on the upwind, I keep my eyes peeled even harder on the traffic to make sure that I don't do anything like that, but I'd much rather it not be an issue at all.

I would never cut across someone's flight path intentionally, but I see people around here doing some bonehead stuff all the time.
 
NickDBrennan said:
At Double Eagle, my home airport, runway 17/35's pattern is very close to Albuquerque's Class C. It's actually hanging on signs around the airport to use an upwind entry to runway 17 or 35. Anyone disagree with that? I'm not sure how I feel about it.
I like it. Keeps folks where they can see and be seen. If you're doing it RIGHT, you can see anyone on the runway in front of you and avoid them if the go around. If there so far back that you can't see them, they ain't gonna catch you before you turn crosswind and they can then space themselves behind you with their crosswind turn.

BTW, this is the standard pattern entry at the carrier, where they land 40 REALLY high performance aircraft on a 700-foot runway at the rate of one every 40 seconds, and you just don't see midairs around the boat even when someone bolters (misses the wires and goes around).
 
Back
Top