Redundant "traffic" and other annoyances . . .

[Eric Stoltz]

What about "teardrop to the 45?"

 

[dbahn]

What about "teardrop to the 45?"

Doesn't that mean that someone is using the FAA recommended procedure to overfly the airport beyond the runway then descend to a 180 to the 45 to downwind? If so that can be useful information if you're looking for traffic (which of course you should be).

Is it something else?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Doesn't that mean that someone is using the FAA recommended procedure to overfly the airport beyond the runway then descend to a 180 to the 45 to downwind? If so that can be useful information if you're looking for traffic (which of course you should be).

Is it something else?

Generally it ends up not being the FAA recommended procedure, and is simply a descending turn over the downwind. people saying “Teardrop to the 45” is probably one of the reasons people botch the procedure.

 

[DaviatorSF]

Generally it ends up not being the FAA recommended procedure, and is simply a descending turn over the downwind. people saying “Teardrop to the 45” is probably one of the reasons people botch the procedure.

When I do that, I go out at least a couple of miles before I start my 180, I want to be certain that I’m beyond the point where anybody could conceivably be flying in the pattern since it may be hard to spot conflicting traffic in the turn. I think I’m doing it as recommended. It drives me crazy when people cross over and start their turn and decent while they are essentially in the airspace that’s part of the traffic pattern. That isn’t safe in my book.

 

[asicer]

people saying “Teardrop to the 45” is probably one of the reasons people botch the procedure.

Maybe from now on I'll start saying "overfly midfield and return on the 45". Perhaps I'll start a trend, like "last call".

 

[dbahn]

When I do that, I go out at least a couple of miles before I start my 180, I want to be certain that I’m beyond the point where anybody could conceivably be flying in the pattern since it may be hard to spot conflicting traffic in the turn. I think I’m doing it as recommended. It drives me crazy when people cross over and start their turn and decent while they are essentially in the airspace that’s part of the traffic pattern. That isn’t safe in my book.

That's certainly consistent with the FAA advisory.

Personally, I prefer to just enter on the upwind on the non-pattern side of the runway and turn crosswind once I have a good look at the field and at the pattern activity. That's particularly advantageous in the Cub without a radio, as there are plenty of outs if there is a conflict, but I think it's safer for the same reasons even with radio communication. It's also quicker than going two miles out then two miles back.

 

[DaviatorSF]

That's certainly consistent with the FAA advisory.

Personally, I prefer to just enter on the upwind on the non-pattern side of the runway and turn crosswind once I have a good look at the field and at the pattern activity. That's particularly advantageous in the Cub without a radio, as there are plenty of outs if there is a conflict, but I think it's safer for the same reasons even with radio communication. It's also quicker than going two miles out then two miles back.

That seems as if it might work at some airports but could be a problem at others. Sometime the pattern is on one side or another because they don't want traffic flying on the opposite side of the airport for whatever reason. But I agree that if there isn't a good reason not to do it and if you're able to see departing traffic clearly and avoid becoming an issue, that's a better option than most. Also, in something like a Cub, the time and effort required to fly a couple of miles beyond the airport before coming around is significant, maybe it would take twice as long for you to do that than in the plane I fly.

At one airport where I commonly have to cross the field to enter the traffic pattern (and where I typically fly beyond and do the 180-to-45 entry) there is a parachute jump landing area on the non-pattern side of the field. So even crossing midfield requires extra diligence, just in case one of the jumpers isn't coming down in the quadrant of the field where they're supposed to be. You probably wouldn't want to be flying upwind on that side of the field. So it's all about knowing the airport, and the "fly beyond and turn around" is probably safer at an airport where you're less familiar with what might be happening there.

 

[Eric Stoltz]

I just think it's odd that pilots use the werds "teardrop entry" when AC 90-66C never mentions it. 4flight wrongfully calls it a teardrop. This is why Garmin Pilot is better. <---sarcasm, sorta.

 

[Palmpilot]

That's certainly consistent with the FAA advisory.

Personally, I prefer to just enter on the upwind on the non-pattern side of the runway and turn crosswind once I have a good look at the field and at the pattern activity. That's particularly advantageous in the Cub without a radio, as there are plenty of outs if there is a conflict, but I think it's safer for the same reasons even with radio communication. It's also quicker than going two miles out then two miles back.

It also eliminates turning your back on the airport. With the out-and-back procedure, I've noticed that it can be difficult to visually reacquire the field if it's surrounded by forest.

 

[Pinecone]

FAA guidance is descend THEN turn. But most people do a descending turn, which puts them belly up to traffic doing it correctly.

I also prefer upwind or cross wind entry when on the opposite side.

 

[DaviatorSF]

FAA guidance is descend THEN turn. But most people do a descending turn, which puts them belly up to traffic doing it correctly.

I also prefer upwind or cross wind entry when on the opposite side.

I’m guilty of usually doing a descending turn, but I do it out well beyond the traffic pattern. I suppose it might be better to descend then turn though, I can see the value in that.

I thought I’d add that ADS-B traffic may be another helpful tool that lets you see (mostly) whether any other traffic is a potential factor in the area where you are descending and turning, keeping in mind that there are airplanes out there which are not ADS-B-equipped (in my area, there are very few of those though.)