Over the top for left downwind

[Swampfox201]

This question deals with the thread titled "Call the tower".

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63350

I agree with 99% of the topics discussed here but in the thread above I found myself scratching my head.

Lets say I am landing at an uncontrolled airport and am flying east to west and will be landing on runway 36. The uncontrolled airport has left patterns. I was taught to overfly the airport at TPA at midfield and to make a radio call saying "Cessna 1234 5 miles to the east over the top for midfield left downwind runway 36"

The reason is two fold. Directly over the runway at TPA I will not have a conflict with landing and departing traffic and as I approach left downwind at TPA I can scan the downwind leg for traffic moving from my right to left. This is how I was trained and its how I trained my students when I was instructing.

I understand the post above deals with a controlled airport and that discussion has been hashed to death. My questions are why did many of you have a problem with this traffic pattern entry method? Is this not standard? What's up with somebody saying its Canadian?

We are here to learn. Somebody enlighten me please.

Thanks!

 

[MAKG1]

I was taught to overfly the field at the highest TPA + 500 feet, then teardrop into the left 45. You still enter downwind at TPA, but you're descending into the 45.

This can be done even with fairly constrained airports, like KHAF (right traffic for 30 -- there is a mountain on the 45, but it's far enough out).

 

[F01LA]

I've noticed that the "midfield left downwind" seems to be the preferred entry at uncontrolled airports in some regions I've flown. Disadvantage: You enter at a collision point for both aircraft on downwind and those entering on a 45. And you're turning your belly at them.

I was taught the TPA+500 crossover to a teardrop to the 45. Disadvantage: Lots of turning time, and vulnerable to turbine traffic at pattern altitude.

Personally, I now prefer to enter on a regular crosswind at TPA, then turn onto the downwind. Gives you a good view of the full pattern. Only disadvantage is you have to watch out for traffic climbing into the crosswind. Also, I've found some pilots confused as to what I was doing, probably because they expected the midfield downwind entry.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I would suggest announcing that you are on crosswind because that is where you are. If you do it midfield announce that you are on a midfield crosswind. "Over the top" would imply (at least to me) that you are somewhere above TPA.

Having said that, I do crosswind entries all the time at ONZ because any attempt to enter from a "45" to downwind involves either penetrating Canadian airspace or making u turns at pattern altitude in the middle of where most people are flying the downwind leg. I've seen both, but the former is not legal if you are not squawking and talking to ATC (or don't have an FAA medical) and the latter is not safe.

 

[JHW]

...Lets say I am landing at an uncontrolled airport and am flying east to west and will be landing on runway 36. The uncontrolled airport has left patterns. I was taught to overfly the airport at TPA at midfield and to make a radio call saying "Cessna 1234 5 miles to the east over the top for midfield left downwind runway 36"...

IMO you are doing it exactly right. There is no point in wandering around in the vicinity of an airplane magnet at varying altitudes, that is how accidents happen. Crossing mid-field at TPA and turning onto downwind gets you on the ground in with the shortest time exposure and keeps you in a position to see the whole pattern as you approach.

As for the comment about "being canadian" that's because it's the standard practice there. Canadians may have peculiar views about things like carrying sidearms and appropriate foods to apply mayonaise, but they do have good sense when it comes to flying traffic patterns.

 

[Swampfox201]

I would suggest announcing that you are on crosswind because that is where you are. If you do it midfield announce that you are on a midfield crosswind. "Over the top" would imply (at least to me) that you are somewhere above TPA.

Good point. Hadn't thought of that.

 

[DaleB]

Where I fly regularly, it is standard practice to cross midfield (at TPA) and enter a left downwind.

"Crossing midfield to enter a left downwind" is the typical call. I like to announce a few miles out what I'll be doing.

 

[F01LA]

Regardless of entry type, I am curious what everyone else does when there seems to be a conflict where you want to enter. Stay outside the pattern? Try a different entry?

E.g., You are getting ready to do a midfield crosswind for a left downwind entry. You notice an aircraft that has taken off, is on crosswind, and is getting ready to turn downwind. If you continue your course, the other aircraft will likely be running you down just as you turn downwind.

 

[Steve Job]

I was taught to either cross midfield at TPA + 500 or +1000, or enter an upwind at TPA. Interesting that there is even a debate about this. I'm curious to hear what everyone else was taught.

 

[tinerj]

Sullivan Traffic, Ercoupe 880 10 miles to east, Sullivan.
Sullivan Traffic, Ercoupe 880 4 miles to east to land on 6, Sullivan
Sullivan Traffic, Ercoupe 880 crossing mid-field east to west for left downwind on 6, Sullivan. (I cross TPA+500)
Then make a normal left turn to left downwind for 6, and make the usual pattern announcements.

I have noticed that a lot of pilots, including one of my instructors, crossed at TPA. Maybe conflicting traffic is easier to see -- at TPA + 500, the airplane is lost in ground clutter.

If there is conflicting traffic, then I do whatever seems right considering where I am. Typically, I climb another 500 feet (TPA + 1000), continue west, and then come back to get on the downwind.

 

[John221us]

I was taught to cross midfield at TPA+500, but, since that conflicts with Turbine traffic, I usually add at least a few hundred feet. I will descend into a left downwind if the pattern is empty, but I can see where that might not be the safest (especially since I fly a low wing), otherwise, if there is traffic, I do will do the teardrop entry into a 45. At my field, they have jumpers inside the pattern and you cannot overfly the field. In that case, I enter crosswind at TPA.

 

[dtuuri]

First, there's no such thing as a "mid-field crosswind leg". Look up the definition of crosswind leg.

Second, in Canada, entries into the downwind leg from opposite directions are forbidden. They happen to ban the 45° entry to keep things safe.

Third, this subject has been beat to death and every time--your side loses the logic argument big time. Give it up. Go around the airport, not over it.

dtuuri

 

[flyingron]

First, there's no such thing as a "mid-field crosswind leg". Look up the definition of crosswind leg.

Second, in Canada, entries into the downwind leg from opposite directions are forbidden. They happen to ban the 45° entry to keep things safe.

You're wrong about Canada both ways. They NEITHER ban the 45 to downwind NOR do they forbid the midfield crosswind (AND YES THE DEFINE THAT TERM).
The midfield crossfield entry is the recommended procedure for circuit entry from the "opposite" (they call it upwind) side.

 

[dtuuri]

You're wrong about Canada both ways. They NEITHER ban the 45 to downwind NOR do they forbid the midfield crosswind (AND YES THE DEFINE THAT TERM).
The midfield crossfield entry is the recommended procedure for circuit entry from the "opposite" (they call it upwind) side.

If I'm wrong, Transport Canada has it wrong too. See page 237:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/EN/TP14371/PDF/HR/TP14371E.pdf

Note that at airports with pseudo ATC (they call it MF for mandatory frequency) where everyone has to have a radio and the airport has an advisory service, both entries are allowed. But at apples-to-apples airports with our uncontrolled airports, no they can't. And there is no "midfield crosswind" on the diagram there either, it's just like ours.

Any Canadians out there lurking can feel free to enlighten..

dtuuri

 

[JHW]

I was taught to cross midfield at TPA+500, but, since that conflicts with Turbine traffic, I usually add at least a few hundred feet. I will descend into a left downwind if the pattern is empty, but I can see where that might not be the safest (especially since I fly a low wing), otherwise, if there is traffic, I do will do the teardrop entry into a 45. At my field, they have jumpers inside the pattern and you cannot overfly the field. In that case, I enter crosswind at TPA.

so you descend into traffic approaching from the side where you are doing your teardrop, maybe turning your back to that traffic as you descend into it? Do you find it easy to see traffic below you in your cherokee compared to traffic at the same altitude ?

 

[Ken Ibold]

I was taught to overfly the field at the highest TPA + 500 feet, then teardrop into the left 45. You still enter downwind at TPA, but you're descending into the 45.

And what about those airports where there are separate pattern altitudes for different kinds of traffic?

 

[Howard Wilson]

Was trying to stay away from this, but.....
I don't remember any training on this subject other than to stay at a safe altitude 'above' the TP when crossing pattern. It probably depends on the airport and your experience with the normal flow of things. If I'm on a cross country trip coming into an airport that is new to me I'm going to follow a 'standard' pattern, which to me means a 45 degree entry onto the downwind leg. Why subject yourself to traffic at PA that may be coming at you from all sides? Guy on downwind from crosswind, gal on 45' to downwind, Lear calling 5 miles out for instrument practice, plane going around because somebody decided to taxi the length of the runway to get to the hangar quicker.....etc.... All at pattern altitude... What if some of them don't have a radio???
just sayin'
h

 

[NineThreeKilo]

I was taught to cross midfield at TPA+500, but, since that conflicts with Turbine traffic, I usually add at least a few hundred feet. I will descend into a left downwind if the pattern is empty, but I can see where that might not be the safest (especially since I fly a low wing), otherwise, if there is traffic, I do will do the teardrop entry into a 45. At my field, they have jumpers inside the pattern and you cannot overfly the field. In that case, I enter crosswind at TPA.

I cross mid-filed TPA +500ish, this allows me to check out the runway, windsock and scan for traffic on cross wind/downwind/base/final before I ammat their altitude.

As for the turbine thing, well normally I am the turbine traffic and most small fields don't have many PC12s or the like, if I suspect someone flying a higher pattern I'll adjust.

It's really about hedging your bets, 9 time out of 10 the trouble maker, no calls or wrong freq guy ain't flying a turbine, also most times turbine traffic will be shooting a approach and doing a straight in.

Most places you see a turbine on down wind are towered anyways.

I prefer to be above to get a better vantage picture, then just jump into it at TPA.

Your milage may vary.

 

[somorris]

The last time I remember that this came up, Barney suggested just entering the upwind at TPA then flying a regular pattern. I have done this several times, and I like it. You get a chance to look over the airport to see what's going on. I definitely do not like descending in the pattern, and the teardrops to a left downwind (I used to use the technique) now seem more dangerous to me. On the radio, I try to be real clear about what I am doing.

 

[Henning]

I avoid over the top unless instructed, I'll just set myself up outside the airport traffic area to make the entry I want.

 

[Silvaire]

...
I don't remember any training on this subject other than to stay at a safe altitude 'above' the TP when crossing pattern...

Okay but we're not talking about" crossing" the pattern, we're talking about entering the pattern. You don't want to enter the pattern by descending into it.

And this ain't Canada. :wink2:

 

[MAKG1]

And what about those airports where there are separate pattern altitudes for different kinds of traffic?

As I said, 500 above the highest TPA. If turbines are at 1500 AGL, pistons at 1000 and ultralights at 500, that means cross at 2000 AGL.

 

[MAKG1]

As for the turbine thing, well normally I am the turbine traffic and most small fields don't have many PC12s or the like, if I suspect someone flying a higher pattern I'll adjust.

Actually, I see a fair number of PC12s and King Airs arriving at PAO snd SQL after the tower closes. But both those airports have 1000 AGL bayside traffic only at that time.

 

[LDJones]

The things we can get our undies bunched up over around here. Do what makes sense for the arrival causing the least risk and inconvenience to your fellow aviators. "Tawk amongst yoselves" and work it out on your way in.

 

[Henning]

The things we can get our undies bunched up over around here. Do what makes sense for the arrival causing the least risk and inconvenience to your fellow aviators. "Tawk amongst yoselves" and work it out on your way in.

I prefer to enter the traffic pattern from below.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I prefer to enter the traffic pattern from below.

And risk a collision with Arne Saknussemm? Do you have a death wish?

 

[Howard Wilson]

Okay but we're not talking about" crossing" the pattern, we're talking about entering the pattern. You don't want to enter the pattern by descending into it.

And this ain't Canada. :wink2:

Yup entering the pattern after crossing the active runway at PA. Direct conflict with any plane doing a go around or missed approach. If you are a low wing (perish the thought) as you turn onto midfield left down wind you are blocking from your scan the two routes where the majority of the traffic usually comes from.
I'd like to visit Canada some day...in the summer.
h

 

[flyingron]

If I'm wrong, Transport Canada has it wrong too. See page 237:.

dtuuri

MF isn't "pseudo-ATC" but more a regulatory obligation to make position reports (in Australia, they're called MBZ's: Mandatory Broadcast Zone).

At the completely uncontrolled field it is exactly the opposite of what you are asserting. Did you actually read the Canadian AIM you posted? At an uncontrolled field you are OBLIGED to make the entry to circuit from the upwind side (i.e., making the midfield crosswind entry) unless you have "without a doubt" established that a downwind entry will be safe.

When an MF exists (i.e. obligatory use of position reports), you're allowed to do either the midfield crosswind entry or the straight into downwind or 45 or join on base or join on final.

 

[dtuuri]

MF isn't "pseudo-ATC" but more a regulatory obligation to make position reports (in Australia, they're called MBZ's: Mandatory Broadcast Zone).

Radio is mandatory within (usually) a five mile radius of 'selected' airports, so are position broadcasts. This is not comparable to an uncontrolled airport in the US., so it is psuedo-ATC in my opinion because it's similar in size and requirements to our class D. I think most of those airports also have a ground station the reports are addressed to.

At the completely uncontrolled field it is exactly the opposite of what you are asserting. ... At an uncontrolled field you are OBLIGED to make the entry to circuit from the upwind side (i.e., making the midfield crosswind entry) unless you have "without a doubt" established that a downwind entry will be safe.

I never said "the opposite", I said it differently: "Second, in Canada, entries into the downwind leg from opposite directions are forbidden. They happen to ban the 45° entry to keep things safe." That's all true, regarding airports comparable to the OP's scenario. They don't allow 45° entries to coexist unless MF requirements are established, i.e., all aircraft must have two-way radios and must use them within a five mile radius.

When an MF exists (i.e. obligatory use of position reports), you're allowed to do either the midfield crosswind entry or the straight into downwind or 45 or join on base or join on final.

It's not called a "crosswind entry". The crosswind leg is the same place with the same name we have. If you want to insist otherwise, show us a reference.

Again, you cite "When an MF exists...", which isn't comparable to the OP's situation. Our CTAFs aren't mandatory and two-way radios aren't required here. We must assume we don't know where all the other traffic is located.

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

For a wide variety of reasons, the one place you don't want to be is inside the traffic pattern at TPA. Whatever leg of the pattern you join, join it from the outside, not the inside. Trying to join the downwind from the inside means you'll be belly up to both traffic already on the downwind from closed traffic and traffic joining from the 45. If you find a conflict in this situation, you have nowhere else to go. If you want to overfly the field to look at the wind sock or something, please do that at least 500 above the highest TPA, then continue across until clear of the pattern (2-3 miles out) before descending turning back to join the 45 leg at TPA. If you don't want to do that, join the crosswind leg at the normal point about 3/4-1 mile beyond the departure end of the runway at TPA. This will give you a good view of anyone on the upwind or climbing out so you can maneuver to avoid them during your entry, and there will be nobody to whom you will be belly-up.

 

[fiveoboy01]

I had to read the OP twice to be sure I wasn't seeing things.

Crossing the field and the downwind leg at the same altitude as traffic in the pattern?

Seems dangerous to me.

 

[Silvaire]

...If you want to overfly the field to look at the wind sock or something, please do that at least 500 above the highest TPA, then continue across until clear of the pattern (2-3 miles out) before descending turning back to join the 45 leg at TPA. ...

We are talking about a mid-field crosswind entry, not familiarizing yourself with an unknown field or studying the windsock. It is done all the time, has been for donkeys years and study the accident reports all you want, they aren't filled with mid-air collisions caused by this maneuver.

 

[F01LA]

For a wide variety of reasons, the one place you don't want to be is inside the traffic pattern at TPA. Whatever leg of the pattern you join, join it from the outside, not the inside. Trying to join the downwind from the inside means you'll be belly up to both traffic already on the downwind from closed traffic and traffic joining from the 45. If you find a conflict in this situation, you have nowhere else to go.

I think it's that feeling of being "trapped" that really keeps me away from the mid-field crosswind/downwind entry, regardless of its popularity. If you enter on a regular crosswind beyond the departure end, you can always turn away and out of the pattern if there is a conflict.

 

[poadeleted20]

We are talking about a mid-field crosswind entry, not familiarizing yourself with an unknown field or studying the windsock.

Then there's no need for it, and entering on the real crosswind (no such thing in the books as a "mid-field crosswind" leg in the pattern) make a lot more sense.

It is done all the time, has been for donkeys years

So is unprotected sexual contact. Doesn't make it smart.

and study the accident reports all you want, they aren't filled with mid-air collisions caused by this maneuver.

It's still an unwise maneuver unless like in Canada it's the only authorized entry.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think it's that feeling of being "trapped" that really keeps me away from the mid-field crosswind/downwind entry, regardless of its popularity. If you enter on a regular crosswind beyond the departure end, you can always turn away and out of the pattern if there is a conflict.

He gets it!

 

[Silvaire]

Trapped? My gosh you are in an airplane with both hands and both feet on controls. You can go up, down, left, right, faster, slower and you make it sound like you're on rails with nothing but an oh s#!t handle to grab on to.

I give up.

 

[dtuuri]

Trapped? My gosh you are in an airplane with both hands and both feet on controls. You can go up, down, left, right, faster, slower and you make it sound like you're on rails with nothing but an oh s#!t handle to grab on to.

I give up.

It seems to me, if you wanted to minimize the chance of a midair collision, you'd formulate a rule that has all pilots approach an airport in a manner that minimizes their closure rates. You'd try to write the rule so they can see the most surface area of the convergent aircraft. That would mean they'd approach at small angles to each other while heading in the same general direction. It would mean they'd all have to orbit the airport in the same direction and merge with that flow at minimal angles. Well, that's exactly how the regulation reads. Crossing over an airport places convergent aircraft at extreme angles and high closure rates. The high incident rate of collisions on final proves my point--converging on the very same geographic location at or near the same altitude is risky business.

dtuuri

 

[Ken Ibold]

As I said, 500 above the highest TPA. If turbines are at 1500 AGL, pistons at 1000 and ultralights at 500, that means cross at 2000 AGL.

So now you're going to chop and drop 1000 feet in a descending 270 degree turn? Sorry, not my idea of a smart move.

 

[MAKG1]

So now you're going to chop and drop 1000 feet in a descending 270 degree turn? Sorry, not my idea of a smart move.

No, not a 270 deg turn. A teardrop into the 45. And take a couple of miles out from the field if you need it. At your typical 80-90 knots in the pattern, that's well under 500 FPM. If a 500 FPM descent isn't your idea of a smart move, how do you handle VASIs?

 

[NineThreeKilo]

So now you're going to chop and drop 1000 feet in a descending 270 degree turn? Sorry, not my idea of a smart move.

Thats not even close to a steep decent BTW.

I'd just fly a pattern at 1k AGL, cross over midfield at 500 above that.