The FAA changed the definition of Upwind

Mooney Fan said:
I don't do upwind entries. I'll position for the overhead and execute a tear-drop or direct entry into the pattern depending on traffic.
Click to expand...
So how do you handle it if you're coming from the east, direct-to, and runway in use is 27? Sideatep a couple miles to the north and then head south to cross midfield?
 
Brad Z said:
I think a 45 degree to the upwind should be the corollary to the 45 to the downwind when approaching the airport from the opposite side. I think the midfield crosswind and midfield overflight methods both present unnecessary maneuvering risks.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

It should look like this:

1754863164107.png

The upwind leg is not over the runway; rather, it's offset as shown. This affords a good view of the pattern traffic and the runway. If a plane is taking off, it's easy to turn right and just circle back around for another go. I think it's a good method when approaching the airport from the side opposite the pattern.
 
AV8R_87 said:
So how do you handle it if you're coming from the east, direct-to, and runway in use is 27? Sideatep a couple miles to the north and then head south to cross midfield?
Click to expand...
That's an option. More likely I would be straight in traffic permitting. Or coming from the east with a heading of 270 I would slide over to the S-SW for a 45 entry given a left hand pattern.
 
Half Fast said:
It should look like this:
Click to expand...
I would not recommend what you've show as it is Non Standard and that's the last thing you want to do.

From the position you show you're arriving from you'd simple adjust so you ended up perpendicular to the active runway about 3+ miles out and then do an Overhead entry. From their it is your option, pending traffic, if you just join the Downwind or go out and do a Teardrop enter to enter on a 45.

Other thing that so many people don't realize, if you plan your arrival and turn just a bit, 10-15 miles out, you can arrive at the point to enter on the 45, potentially adding no time to your flight or maybe a minute or two at most. So if you don't like the Overhead entry, just plan a ways out to the point you can enter on the 45.
 
AV8R_87 said:
So how do you handle it if you're coming from the east, direct-to, and runway in use is 27? Sideatep a couple miles to the north and then head south to cross midfield?
Click to expand...

Straight in, or overhead level break into midfield downwind. :ihih:
 
Half Fast said:
This affords a good view of the pattern traffic and the runway.
Click to expand...
The view of the runway is probably pretty bad if the field is right hand pattern. And if it's RP, there's probably a good reason that they don't want you on that side of the runway at TPA.
 
asicer said:
The view of the runway is probably pretty bad if the field is right hand pattern. And if it's RP, there's probably a good reason that they don't want you on that side of the runway at TPA.
Click to expand...

The view of the runway is no worse than on the downwind in a RP. But RPs are a small subset anyway. In a conventional LP the 45 entry to the upwind works just fine.
 
asicer said:
The view of the runway is probably pretty bad if the field is right hand pattern. And if it's RP, there's probably a good reason that they don't want you on that side of the runway at TPA.
Click to expand...
Is there not a good reason they want you on "that side" of the airport of its a left-hand pattern?
 
Half Fast said:
The view of the runway is no worse than on the downwind in a RP.
Click to expand...
True if it's a tandem seat aircraft. Otherwise, you're closer to the runway than on downwind and you'd have to lean over the passenger to see the runway.
Lindberg said:
Is there not a good reason they want you on "that side" of the airport of its a left-hand pattern?
Click to expand...
If there is not a reason they want RP then the default is to the left. The reverse is not true.
 
asicer said:
True if it's a tandem seat aircraft. Otherwise, you're closer to the runway than on downwind and you'd have to lean over the passenger to see the runway.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Depends on how close. I haven't tried it with a RP yet, and might not have an opportunity to do so any time soon. It works just fine with a conventional LP, though.
 
asicer said:
True if it's a tandem seat aircraft. Otherwise, you're closer to the runway than on downwind and you'd have to lean over the passenger to see the runway.
Click to expand...
Do you have difficulty seeing the runway when on right downwind? The planes i fly aren't big enough that it's an issue.
asicer said:
If there is not a reason they want RP then the default is to the left. The reverse is not true.
Click to expand...
But they get to decide, right?
 
asicer said:
No, but the diagram from @Half Fast shows the upwind join as being much tighter than what would be a right downwind.
Click to expand...

It should be tighter, but that doesn't necessarily mean so tight that you can't see the runway. If it needs to be that tight, then use a different method to enter the pattern.
 
EvilEagle said:
"A bad idea"
"A ****-poor entry to the pattern"
<paraphrase> Your explanation was so close to being correct but you're wrong because I disagree

May not say outright that something is dangerous, but I argue that at best they do not promote an even-keeled discussion of techniques.
Click to expand...
And then there wasn't even anything to back up those assertions. I still fail to see how it's "bad" or "****-poor".
 
Half Fast said:
It should be tighter, but that doesn't necessarily mean so tight that you can't see the runway. If it needs to be that tight, then use a different method to enter the pattern.
Click to expand...
With some cockpits, being able to see the runway through the right side window could mean a track wide enough to be construed as a left downwind.
Lindberg said:
Downwind to one place is just upwind to someplace else.
Click to expand...
Therein lies the problem. An airport with RP could be designated such because left downwind flies over noise sensitive neighbors, a parachute landing zone, etc.
 
asicer said:
Therein lies the problem. An airport with RP could be designated such because left downwind flies over noise sensitive neighbors, a parachute landing zone, etc.
Click to expand...
That’s a good point: that pattern might be specifically set because of obstructions on the other side, too. It’s always something, stay aware of what you’re doing and why.
 
I am not a fan of upwind entry. My reason is that planes on departure are ascending, vs level on downwind. Simple scenario, low wing joins the pattern on the upwind, high wing is climbing on departure. There's a good potential that neither can see the other. Contrast that with joining the downwind by crossing midfield (one of the AIM suggested pattern entries), everyone is at the same altitude and there should be much better visibility.

Obviously there are exceptions due to airspace, geography (like the airport right next to PHL).
 
asicer said:
With some cockpits, being able to see the runway through the right side window could mean a track wide enough to be construed as a left downwind.
Click to expand...
Ok. I don't actually know what "wide enough to be construed as a left downwind" means. I'd bet a lot of posters would consider my normal downwind scary close to the runway, and others would fly inside it.
asicer said:
Therein lies the problem. An airport with RP could be designated such because left downwind flies over noise sensitive neighbors, a parachute landing zone, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, different airports are different. So what's a great idea at one airport might not be a great idea at a different one. Likewise, what's a terrible idea at one airport might be a great one elsewhere.
 
Hang 4 said:
Obviously there are exceptions due to airspace, geography (like the airport right next to PHL).
Click to expand...
^^^ This.

For example, my home field (KJYO) is class G with a part time mobile tower. TPA is 1100 feet, 1300 for jets, and the KIAD class B floor is at 1500. We are also in the DC Special use area with a carve out to the NW. Going over the top and turning back is not viable. The preferred runway is 17. We have 5 flight schools and some very busy traffic in a tight space. To get to the downwind when the tower is closed is exciting to say the least.

Not having a term for "the thing formerly as upwind" that everyone understands, absolutely does not help communications.
 
Lindberg said:
Yes, different airports are different. So what's a great idea at one airport might not be a great idea at a different one. Likewise, what's a terrible idea at one airport might be a great one elsewhere.
Click to expand...
So basically, "unless you know the airport well, an upwind join is probably not a good idea"?
 
asicer said:
So basically, "unless you know the airport well, an upwind join is probably not a good idea"?
Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't say that. I'd say that, barring problems presented by airspace restrictions or NOTAMs or obstacles, etc., an upwind entry is a good idea when approaching an airport from the opposite side of the pattern.
 
For those so adamant about not entering on a tight upwind, do you not look outside? You should be able to see any airplane that's on the runway for a mile or so before you are abeam the numbers you'll be landing on, and as you are cruising along on the upwind all you have to do is not be lazy and look at the runway to make sure no NORDO zips on it and launches. Then you make a turn onto the crosswind as if you just departed the runway, and you're safely in the pattern with no one climbing into you, and no one you're descending on to. I have yet to have any trouble seeing the runway or planes on it with 99% of my time being in low wings. But apparently we have a bunch of pilots zipping around chasing the farmer's wife.
 
asicer said:
So basically, "unless you know the airport well, an upwind join is probably not a good idea"?
Click to expand...
I don't know that "unless you know the airport well" is totally limiting. I do think looking at the chart, planning ahead, and then finding a spot to join the flow is probably a good idea.

I just lament that communicating is also pretty important. And calling "midfield on the thing formerly known as upwind" is not very useful, nor is saying nothing. I don't know if it has to be called "upwind", but it should have a name everyone understands.

I don't know what problem this is trying to solve.
 
EdFred said:
For those so adamant about not entering on a tight upwind, do you not look outside? You should be able to see any airplane that's on the runway for a mile or so before you are abeam the numbers you'll be landing on, and as you are cruising along on the upwind all you have to do is not be lazy and look at the runway to make sure no NORDO zips on it and launches. Then you make a turn onto the crosswind as if you just departed the runway, and you're safely in the pattern with no one climbing into you, and no one you're descending on to. I have yet to have any trouble seeing the runway or planes on it with 99% of my time being in low wings. But apparently we have a bunch of pilots zipping around chasing the farmer's wife.
Click to expand...
I'm risk adverse. With a host of other options available, potentially flying across the path of departing traffic for me is unacceptable risk.

And that guy who needs to 'go around' can ruin our day as well.
 
Mooney Fan said:
I'm risk adverse. With a host of other options available, potentially flying across the path of departing traffic for me is unacceptable risk.

And that guy who needs to 'go around' can ruin our day as well.
Click to expand...
Oh, you mean the option where you find all the traffic, then put your back to the field, and then have to attempt to find all the traffic again.

And why are you that close to a guy landing that you have to worry about him going around?

Sounds like you have some spatial awareness issues based on that post.
 
EdFred said:
Oh, you mean the option where you find all the traffic, then put your back to the field, and then have to attempt to find all the traffic again.

And why are you that close to a guy landing that you have to worry about him going around?

Sounds like you have some spatial awareness issues based on that post.
Click to expand...
The FAA change speaks to controlled fields. My comments are more aligned with uncontrolled fields.

Below is an interesting tidbit from AI. Of course the tool is not a definitive source it does however give food for thought.

-------------------------

Dangers of Upwind Entries to the Traffic Pattern​

Increased Collision Risk​

Entering the traffic pattern on the upwind leg can significantly increase the risk of mid-air collisions. This is particularly true at non-towered airports where traffic may be high. When pilots enter the pattern from the upwind leg, they may conflict with aircraft already established in the pattern, especially those making a 45-degree entry to the downwind leg.

Reduced Situational Awareness​

Using the upwind leg for entry can lead to reduced situational awareness. Pilots may not be able to see other aircraft effectively, as they are not following the standard traffic pattern procedures. This lack of visibility can result in dangerous situations, especially if other pilots are not aware of the non-standard entry.

Disruption of Standard Procedures​

Standard traffic patterns are designed to maintain safety and efficiency. When pilots deviate from these procedures, such as entering on the upwind leg, it disrupts the predictable flow of traffic. This unpredictability can lead to confusion among pilots and increase the likelihood of operational hazards.

Recommendations for Safe Entries​

To mitigate these risks, pilots are advised to adhere to standard entry procedures. The FAA recommends entering the traffic pattern at a 45-degree angle to the downwind leg, which enhances visibility and reduces the chances of conflict with other aircraft. Following these guidelines helps create a safer environment for all pilots operating in the traffic pattern.
 
That AI garbage is just that, garbage. How is a (not midfield) crosswind from upwind more dangerous to the 45 downwind that a normal crosswind from someone that just took off?

The whole AI answer is utter BS, especially when it says the 45 provides better visibility, ignoring the whole part where you just blinded yourself to the whole traffic pattern.

And what flow disruption? Oh yeah, none, because you fly the same crosswind as you would if you just departed, or extend upwind if necessary to tuck in behind anyone ahead of you.
 
My AI assistant gave "deadside" as the unofficial name for the traffic pattern opposite the downwind.

"For the leg or side opposite the downwind in the traffic pattern, pilot community discussions indicate it is still informally called the upwind leg in a traditional pattern context, but this term is no longer officially used by ATC or in the FAA AIM for that portion of the pattern. Instead, that side is sometimes called the "deadside" by some pilots, but the FAA has not assigned it a new official name in the updated terminology."

FWIW ... :dunno:

ETA: As much as we still hear ATITPPA & last call, I'm thinking that still using upwind for upwind will be around a bit longer.
 
Daleandee said:
My AI assistant gave "deadside" as the unofficial name for the traffic pattern opposite the downwind.

"For the leg or side opposite the downwind in the traffic pattern, pilot community discussions indicate it is still informally called the upwind leg in a traditional pattern context, but this term is no longer officially used by ATC or in the FAA AIM for that portion of the pattern. Instead, that side is sometimes called the "deadside" by some pilots, but the FAA has not assigned it a new official name in the updated terminology."

FWIW ... :dunno:

ETA: As much as we still hear ATITPPA & last call, I'm thinking that still using upwind for upwind will be around a bit longer.
Click to expand...
Deadside huh? :fingerwag:
 
EdFred said:
For those so adamant about not entering on a tight upwind, do you not look outside? You should be able to see any airplane that's on the runway for a mile or so before you are abeam the numbers you'll be landing on, and as you are cruising along on the upwind all you have to do is not be lazy and look at the runway to make sure no NORDO zips on it and launches. Then you make a turn onto the crosswind as if you just departed the runway, and you're safely in the pattern with no one climbing into you, and no one you're descending on to. I have yet to have any trouble seeing the runway or planes on it with 99% of my time being in low wings. But apparently we have a bunch of pilots zipping around chasing the farmer's wife.
Click to expand...
****ing in the wind you are.
 
EdFred said:
For those so adamant about not entering on a tight upwind, do you not look outside?
Click to expand...

I don't have any problem with arriving on upwind. However, I take issue with the term "entering". On the upwind, you have not entered the traffic pattern yet. You are at a different altitude than the rest of traffic, so you still have to merge with them.

EdFred said:
You should be able to see any airplane that's on the runway for a mile or so before you are abeam the numbers you'll be landing on, and as you are cruising along on the upwind all you have to do is not be lazy and look at the runway to make sure no NORDO zips on it and launches. Then you make a turn onto the crosswind as if you just departed the runway, and you're safely in the pattern with no one climbing into you, and no one you're descending on to.
Click to expand...

But they can't see you. And that makes it less safe than an entry where both aircraft can see each other. Because you are not infallible. Some % of the time, you WILL fail to see the other traffic. Blind spot, distraction, sun in your eyes, whatever. If they can also see you, that provides another chance to avoid a collision.

Do I think it is dangerous or bad? No. I've done it and probably will again. But in the parlance of the FAA, it is not preferred. They dislike it so much that they have apparently redrawn their diagram to make their preference clear.

The silly thing about this discussion is that to convert it to a preferred entry, all you have to do is turn at midfield instead of crosswind. Then no vertical convergence, and everyone can see everyone else at the merge point.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I don't have any problem with arriving on upwind. However, I take issue with the term "entering". On the upwind, you have not entered the traffic pattern yet. You are at a different altitude than the rest of traffic, so you still have to merge with them.



But they can't see you. And that makes it less safe than an entry where both aircraft can see each other. Because you are not infallible. Some % of the time, you WILL fail to see the other traffic. Blind spot, distraction, sun in your eyes, whatever. If they can also see you, that provides another chance to avoid a collision.

Do I think it is dangerous or bad? No. I've done it and probably will again. But in the parlance of the FAA, it is not preferred. They dislike it so much that they have apparently redrawn their diagram to make their preference clear.

The silly thing about this discussion is that to convert it to a preferred entry, all you have to do is turn at midfield instead of crosswind. Then no vertical convergence, and everyone can see everyone else at the merge point.
Click to expand...
When I "enter" the upwind I am at pattern altitude. I try to be at TPA 2 miles from the airport. So I see the assumption of it being dangerous if descending. That's not the case for what I am talking about. I can see everyone else in the pattern just as well as they can see me.

If I am going to miss a plane on the runway just because I am on upwind, I am just as likely to miss a plane when I turn from crosswind and they are downwind, or turn from downwind and they are base, or turn from base when they are final, or final I am final and land on the guy that I couldn't see when I was upwind. Because if I can't see a plane at my altitude or on the runway, it's not going to matter where I am in the vicinity of the airport. Which is why if a straight in doesn't work I will always upwind entry at TPA. Gives me the best visibility of what is going on.
 
Ed Haywood said:
But they can't see you. And that makes it less safe than an entry where both aircraft can see each other. Because you are not infallible. Some % of the time, you WILL fail to see the other traffic. Blind spot, distraction, sun in your eyes, whatever. If they can also see you, that provides another chance to avoid a collision.
Click to expand...

So any time I follow someone, it is dangerous because they can't see me? Let's all fly at each other head on all the time, that will be safer then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top