The FAA changed the definition of Upwind

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.
Click to expand...
Wait, what??? Who's saying they're doing that? I wouldn't agree with that either, descending to pattern altitude in the pattern is definitely not a good idea.

When I enter on the upwind, I enter on the upwind, at TPA.
 
Mooney Fan said:
Below is an interesting tidbit from AI. Of course the tool is not a definitive source it does however give food for thought.
Click to expand...
I love it! It is one of the few times I've agreed with AI when it comes to aviation.

Usually you get an answer that sounds right when you gloss over it. But when you go back and really read what came from AI, there is frequently a little slip that makes the answer totally wrong or misleading.
 
M20K said:
I love it! It is one of the few times I've agreed with AI when it comes to aviation.

Usually you get an answer that sounds right when you gloss over it. But when you go back and really read what came from AI, there is frequently a little slip that makes the answer totally wrong or misleading.
Click to expand...
AI does need taken with a grain of salt regardless of topic.

Fortunately in my neck of the woods we don’t hear many calls made about entering the pattern on the upwind. The CTAF 122.8 is like a party line and it’s just not that popular of a choice. ‍‍
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Wait, what??? Who's saying they're doing that? I wouldn't agree with that either, descending to pattern altitude in the pattern is definitely not a good idea.

When I enter on the upwind, I enter on the upwind, at TPA.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that. I'm saying you are not yet in the traffic pattern in the upwind, even though you are at "pattern altitude".

You are not in the traffic pattern until you have merged with the other traffic. Traffic on the upwind and legs is climbing from the runway. That is the FAA definition. See the OP.

Thus, you have not entered until somewhere on the crosswind leg.

Whether you are descending into the pattern, or flying level above ascending aircraft, the effect (and the risk) is the same.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Whether you are descending into the pattern, or flying level above ascending aircraft, the effect (and the risk) is the same.
Click to expand...

No, you're not "above ascending aircraft" because the upwind leg is not over the runway. It's offset so that you have a good view of planes that are taking off. If there's an ascending aircraft, it's easy to to turn away and circle back around.

See the figure I posted above.
 
asicer said:
So even more maneuvering over a noise-sensitive neighbor, parachute jump zone, etc?
Click to expand...

If there's a NOTAM for that side of the airport, comply with it. Otherwise, sure. Are you suggesting that flight on that side is always prohibited?
 
Ed Haywood said:
Wrong. FAA defines downwind as being at pattern altitude.
Click to expand...
Yes, because no one in the history of flying patterns has EVER climbed into the downwind.

It's also against the law to murder, does that mean murders don't happen because of a definition?

You load up a tired 152 at gross on a 6000+ DA day, you are going to be climbing into the downwind from crosswind, unless you want to **** everyone off with bomber patterns.
 
EdFred said:
You load up a tired 152 at gross on a 6000+ DA day, you are going to be climbing into the downwind from crosswind,
Click to expand...

Flying patterns in a Champ, under those conditions, you might still be climbing (or attempting to) while turning base ... :biggrin:
 
Daleandee said:
Flying patterns in a Champ, under those conditions, you might still be climbing (or attempting to) while turning base ... :biggrin:
Click to expand...
Well, if that's the case, according to the FAA, you aren't in the pattern!
 
Ed Haywood said:
I'm not saying that. I'm saying you are not yet in the traffic pattern in the upwind, even though you are at "pattern altitude".

You are not in the traffic pattern until you have merged with the other traffic. Traffic on the upwind and legs is climbing from the runway. That is the FAA definition. See the OP.

Thus, you have not entered until somewhere on the crosswind leg.
Click to expand...
Well, you were in the traffic pattern until this most recent FAA change... And in spite of the graphic, they have not changed the textual description, so I'd say you're still in the pattern.

And since this thread has gotten truly silly now, let me also say that it doesn't matter what you call it at this point...

Ed Haywood said:
Whether you are descending into the pattern, or flying level above ascending aircraft, the effect (and the risk) is the same.
Click to expand...
But if you're on an upwind, you are offset to the non-pattern side of the runway so that you can see the aircraft below you, so the risk is not the same, it's much lower as the aircraft below you are by definition going to be either on the runway or relatively in line with it.
 
Half Fast said:
No, you're not "above ascending aircraft" because the upwind leg is not over the runway.
Click to expand...
This is true. But are you going to then continue straight ahead and leave the area or are you going to turn Crosswind which *IS* crossing over the departing traffic. But there's still the issue of Descending in (what used to be called) the Upwind. What if I'm in a Cessna and the plane in front of me doesn't clear the Rwy or I'm just too close AND.... Climb and shift over to the (old) Upwind? I'd probably not see you in a low wing either, but I'm never going to see you in a high wing.

But I'm still unclear why anyone would use a NON STANDARD, NON APPROVED entry into the pattern. It layed out pretty clearly in the AIM the recommended pattern entries. The only time you want to be above the pattern is if you're coming in perpendicular for an Overhead entry where you can see the FULL pattern. Then after crossing the Rwy you descent the remaining 500' when you do the Teardrop or if there is no one in the pattern you opt to turn Downwind. And from 10 miles out or so (when you make your first call about your intentions) it is simple to manuver to one of the correct entries. So why bother to make stuff up.
 
Half Fast said:
You're crossing over the airport at TPA with planes ascending below you.
Click to expand...

At midfield, any aircraft below you are either on the runway, about to touch down, or have just taken off. That's why it is the safest place to cross.

On the crosswind, other aircraft are within 300 feet of pattern altitude, aligned on the same track with you, and climbing with their back to you. That is why it is the least safe place to cross.
 
M20K said:
But I'm still unclear why anyone would use a NON STANDARD, NON APPROVED entry into the pattern.
Click to expand...

Because the FAA has their head up their ass with the approved pattern entry. The 45 to downwind is straight out of Retardsville unless you are already out there. So you acquire all the traffic in the pattern, go fly out to bum****sville to descend, losing sight of all previous traffic. Now you are out there not knowing if someone else has now joined the pattern or taken off because you have your back to it, and then you have to try and find everyone again once you do turn around. Oh, and the best part, the right of way rules. Now it ****s everything up because now the 45 guy - who isn't in the pattern - now has the right of way by regulation. Find me the exception in part 91 - hint, it's not there. I don't know who came up with it, but they should be shot. Stood back up and shot again.

But hey, lemmings, gonna lemming. Because "IT"S STANDARD!!!" And absolutely no one who advocates for it uses their pea-brain to realize it is absolutely stupid.

Midfield crosswind, also stupid. Make the crosswind entry where a normal crosswind turn would be. Not have parallel crosswinds. With the midfield, you can end up putting yourself and others in a no way out situation.

And so far the only defense against upwind is the bellowing of, "it's not standard!!!." Yeah, it's not, it's better.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
At midfield, any aircraft below you are either on the runway, about to touch down, or have just taken off. That's why it is the safest place to cross.

On the crosswind, other aircraft are within 300 feet of pattern altitude, aligned on the same track with you, and climbing with their back to you. That is why it is the least safe place to cross.
Click to expand...
Wrong. I've been at pattern altitude from departure at midfield a number of times at uncontrolled fields. So it's definitely not the safest place to cross. The safest place to cross would be where you can keep all traffic in your vision, and that isn't the place. Also, you don't ****ing turn to crosswind there if someone just departed. It's like you guys think, "If I fly an upwind, I just turn here for crosswind, and hope everyone gets out of my way." Yeah, no.

On downwind I'm within 300 feet of anemic climbers on crosswind. Why is that not just as dangerous?
 
EdFred said:
Because the FAA has their head up their ass with the approved pattern entry. The 45 to downwind is straight out of Retardsville unless you are already out there.
Click to expand...
Okay, got it. Not really interested in safety. Any chance you've gotten this theory from flying a sim where you just push start again? :D

Have a good day.
 
M20K said:
Okay, got it. Not really interested in safety. Any chance you've gotten this theory from flying a sim where you just push start again? :D

Have a good day.
Click to expand...
No. It comes from being a flight instructor, multiple ratings, thousands of hours, and having a brain. I am interested in safety and explained why the 45 is a HORRIBLE procedure. What is your reason for saying it is the best way to enter from the non-pattern side other than "The FAA said so."

I will have a good day when idiots start using their brain and realize the FAA way sucks total ass, other than just parroting their horrible suggestions. I already explained why it sucks. You ignored that, not surprising considering what I've seen you post.

So, got anything that actually shows why putting yourself blind to the pattern is safer than keeping your eyes in the pattern?
 
EdFred said:
No. It comes from being a flight instructor, multiple ratings, thousands of hours, and having a brain. I am interested in safety and explained why the 45 is a HORRIBLE procedure. What is your reason for saying it is the best way to enter from the non-pattern side other than "The FAA said so."

I will have a good day when idiots start using their brain and realize the FAA way sucks total ass, other than just parroting their horrible suggestions. I already explained why it sucks. You ignored that, not surprising considering what I've seen you post.

So, got anything that actually shows why putting yourself blind to the pattern is safer than keeping your eyes in the pattern?
Click to expand...
I think you are forgetting to say the "teardrop" part. You aren't saying a standard 45 entry is bad, are you?
 
Salty said:
I think you are forgetting to say the "teardrop" part. You aren't saying a standard 45 entry is bad, are you?
Click to expand...
I am saying it is bad when coming from the non-pattern side of the airport. Landing south, left traffic, and you are coming in from the east, 45 entry away. You aren't putting your back to the airport environment in that situation. You keep everything (mostly) in front of you. The other problem (although not from a safety issue, just a regulation issue ) is the whole 91.113 says that the 45 plane has the right of way, but the AIM says it doesn't. Regulation trumps suggestion. You also have the issue with 91.126(b)(1). All turns are to be to the left (assuming left traffic). Making that turn onto downwind is as Judas Priest would say, "breakin the law, breakin the law."

But from a safety standpoint if you are already on the downwind side, and coming in from that way the, 45 is fine. Putting your back to the airport to get on the 45, not so much.
 
EdFred said:
So you acquire all the traffic in the pattern, go fly out to bum****sville to descend, losing sight of all previous traffic. Now you are out there not knowing if someone else has now joined the pattern or taken off because you have your back to it, and then you have to try and find everyone again once you do turn around. Oh, and the best part, the right of way rules. Now it ****s everything up because now the 45 guy - who isn't in the pattern - now has the right of way by regulation.
Click to expand...
While I may not use as strong language as EdFred, this is definitely my observation and experience with 45 degree entries unless you happen to be somewhere on that side of the field already. The busiest non-towered fields I frequent nearly scare the cr@p out of myself at times when I feel obligated to wander out a few miles from the field and do a teardrop entry to the 45, losing sight of everything while doing it, and hoping the situation hasn't changed drastically by the time I'm in position again. Throw in a mix of piston singles, a jet or two, and a couple helicopters and it feels like shaking the Magic 8-Ball for what you'll see by the time you're back in the airport environment. More than a few times, because of how the situation has changed while maneuvering the 45 entry, I've had to abandon the attempted pattern entry, go back out again and try again. There are many times that doing an upwind entry would make infinitely more sense because I could maintain visual on what is evolving, but because of perceived "norms" I won't do it.

The chief-offending airport for this is French Valley (F70), which is now scheduled to get a NFCT, something that is long overdue.
 
The other problem with the teardrop entry is that few do it correctly and few CFIs teach it correctly (mine didn't). You're supposed to cross the airport at least 500' above TPA, maintain that altitude while flying several miles beyond the pattern,  then descend to TPA,  then turn onto the 45. Too many pilots do a descending turn directly to the 45 and close in.
 
Half Fast said:
The other problem with the teardrop entry is that few do it correctly and few CFIs teach it correctly (mine didn't). You're supposed to cross the airport at least 500' above TPA, maintain that altitude while flying several miles beyond the pattern,  then descend to TPA,  then turn onto the 45. Too many pilots do a descending turn directly to the 45 and close in.
Click to expand...
Not just 500 above, but 500 above the highest pattern altitude, and quite a few fields have TPA at 1500 for the faster movers.
 
EdFred said:
And being on the downwind as some crosswind climbs aren't finished until the plane is on downwind.
Click to expand...
Turn from the crosswind to the downwind prior to pattern altitude is not FAA recommended.

While there could be a revision, AOPA references AIM stating that turn to the crosswind should happen before 300 feet of reaching pattern altitude on the departure.
======================================

"Only one line in this section of the AIM talks about the first turn a pilot is expected to make: “If remaining in the traffic pattern, commence turn to crosswind leg beyond the departure end of the runway within 300 feet of pattern altitude.”
www.aopa.org

Turning crosswind: When’s the right time?

www.aopa.org
 
Last edited:
Jeff Oslick said:
While I may not use as strong language as EdFred, this is definitely my observation and experience with 45 degree entries unless you happen to be somewhere on that side of the field already. The busiest non-towered fields I frequent nearly scare the cr@p out of myself at times when I feel obligated to wander out a few miles from the field and do a teardrop entry to the 45, losing sight of everything while doing it, and hoping the situation hasn't changed drastically by the time I'm in position again. Throw in a mix of piston singles, a jet or two, and a couple helicopters and it feels like shaking the Magic 8-Ball for what you'll see by the time you're back in the airport environment. More than a few times, because of how the situation has changed while maneuvering the 45 entry, I've had to abandon the attempted pattern entry, go back out again and try again. There are many times that doing an upwind entry would make infinitely more sense because I could maintain visual on what is evolving, but because of perceived "norms" I won't do it.

The chief-offending airport for this is French Valley (F70), which is now scheduled to get a NFCT, something that is long overdue.
Click to expand...

You do know there is a thing called a direct entry where you skip the teardrop, right?
 
Mooney Fan said:
Turn from the crosswind to the downwind prior to pattern altitude is not FAA recommended.

While there could be a revision, AOPA references AIM stating that turn to the crosswind should happen before 300 feet of reaching pattern altitude on the departure.
======================================

"Only one line in this section of the AIM talks about the first turn a pilot is expected to make: “If remaining in the traffic pattern, commence turn to crosswind leg beyond the departure end of the runway within 300 feet of pattern altitude.”
www.aopa.org

Turning crosswind: When’s the right time?

www.aopa.org
Click to expand...
And people never drive over the speed limit, ever.
 
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/ac_90-66c.pdf
One relevant note from the document, there are others.
Note: An aircraft outside the traffic pattern would not be bound by § 91.126(b) (see paragraph 11.3 and Appendix A, Traffic Patterns, for aircraft crossing over midfield above pattern altitude to enter the pattern). Unless otherwise required by part 93, or authorized or required by ATC, the requirements for traffic pattern flow under § 91.126 continue to apply to other airspace classification types under § 91.127 (Class E airspace), § 91.129 (Class D airspace), and § 91.130 (Class C airspace). This is particularly likely when a towered airport is operating as a non-towered airport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top