Traffic Pattern Requirements

I said the rule doesn't address rectangular patterns and is more general in nature. The clever diagram is a right-handed flow, against the spririt of the rule, even though the pilot does so by turning left all the time like a ship with a jammed rudder. Sorry if that doesn't satisfy your desire to nail me.

I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

...Consider it my preemptive reply.

So who's trying to "nail" whom here? ;)

I think you're too literal for your own good.

That would probably be true if I were seriously considering flying as depicted in the diagram under discussion, but as MakG pointed out, this is one of those angels on the head of a pin discussions.
 
Let me share this thought...

I'm about as sure as I can be that if an FAA Inspector sees you turn right from the 45 onto left downwind where left traffic is the rule, s/he will not think further about it. OTOH, I'm equally sure that if s/he sees you do that double 270 turn from the other side, s/he will be waiting at the fuel pump to discuss the matter with you, and you will not prevail in the discussion that follows.

...and now I'm done on this subject.
 
Let me share this thought...

I'm about as sure as I can be that if an FAA Inspector sees you turn right from the 45 onto left downwind where left traffic is the rule, s/he will not think further about it. OTOH, I'm equally sure that if s/he sees you do that double 270 turn from the other side, s/he will be waiting at the fuel pump to discuss the matter with you, and you will not prevail in the discussion that follows.

...and now I'm done on this subject.

But but but... Ron, what if it's the mother ship doing a 5 mile right 360 to land on the taxi way with an overhead break because Elvis is feeling queezy.
 
I witnessed an airplane cross the runway midfield, announce 500' over pattern altitude, go out about 30 seconds, make a descending right turn of 225degrees to enter the pattern on the 45degree downwind midfield....and said pilot that I witnessed turned right (which was legal) to join the downwind.

Was this 225deg right turn legal?
I suppose said pilot COULD have turned 135degrees left.
 
Last edited:
This has been beaten to death. The 45 is not in the pattern, and a 225 teardrop into the 45 (as well as the following turn into downwind) are perfectly legal, and even standard. The 135 turn doesn't work. Draw it from a midfield crossing orthogonal to the runway and see where your 45 ends up.
 
When I cross over midfield and descend to enter a left downwind, it's always a right hand teardrop shaped turn while descending to TPA. I can't even visualize making a left turn to get back into the downwind. It wouldn't work out right and you'd practically be abeam the numbers or further.
 
I witnessed an airplane cross the runway midfield, announce 500' over pattern altitude, go out about 30 seconds, make a descending right turn of 225degrees to enter the pattern on the 45degree downwind midfield....and said pilot that I witnessed turned right (which was legal) to join the downwind.

Was this 225deg right turn legal?
I suppose said pilot COULD have turned 135degrees left.

Absolutely classic example of what I've been saying and why it shouldn't be done. What you saw is what pilots do, in actual practice, and is not according to the pretty diagram the Air Safety Foundation publishes. So, its non-standard even if you allow that it's legal, which it isn't. The right turn also results in a rightward flow against the spirit of the rule. I don't quibble with crossing above the pattern, but there again the plane was at pattern height for turbine aircraft. It should have turned left circled the field and descended on the upwind leg which it would have had plenty of time to see was clear of traffic (or not). Cutting across the field at pattern altitude is even worse. Here's how the FAA used picture it back when I learned to fly. If they ever intended to change this to a new procedure, they never said a word to anybody (other than the pattern exit, which caused a lot of discussion):
Oldpattern.jpg

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
Absolutely classic example of what I've been saying and why it shouldn't be done. What you saw is what pilots do, in actual practice, and is not according to the pretty diagram the Air Safety Foundation publishes. So, its non-standard even if you allow that it's legal, which it isn't. The right turn also results in a rightward flow against the spirit of the rule. I don't quibble with crossing above the pattern, but there again the plane was at pattern height for turbine aircraft. It should have turned left circled the field and descended on the upwind leg which it would have had plenty of time to see was clear of traffic (or not). Cutting across the field at pattern altitude is even worse. Here's how the FAA used picture it back when I learned to fly. If they ever intended to change this to a new procedure, they never said a word to anybody (other than the pattern exit, which caused a lot of discussion):

dtuuri

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying... The FAA says enter the downwind at a 45 and at TPA, after observing traffic and wind direction from above or at a distance from the pattern. It's right in their Airplane Flying Handbook.
 
Absolutely classic example of what I've been saying and why it shouldn't be done. What you saw is what pilots do, in actual practice, and is not according to the pretty diagram the Air Safety Foundation publishes. So, its non-standard even if you allow that it's legal, which it isn't. The right turn also results in a rightward flow against the spirit of the rule. I don't quibble with crossing above the pattern, but there again the plane was at pattern height for turbine aircraft. It should have turned left circled the field and descended on the upwind leg which it would have had plenty of time to see was clear of traffic (or not). Cutting across the field at pattern altitude is even worse. Here's how the FAA used picture it back when I learned to fly. If they ever intended to change this to a new procedure, they never said a word to anybody (other than the pattern exit, which caused a lot of discussion):

dtuuri

"Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator"
 
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying... The FAA says enter the downwind at a 45 and at TPA, after observing traffic and wind direction from above or at a distance from the pattern. It's right in their Airplane Flying Handbook.

If you look at the diagram I posted the FAA's idea is to circle the airport to determine the runway then enter on a 45.

If you want to cite the Air Safety Foundation, they say fly 2 miles beyond the pattern before descending. The airplane mentioned above went only 30 seconds (EDIT: and only beyond the runway). Unless it was traveling more than 4 miles/minute (240 mph), it didn't go nearly far enough to comply. I've tried to explain to the ASF that in the real world pilots don't go 2 miles, but they pushed back saying they don't believe me. They can ask Jaybird180 then.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
If you look at the diagram I posted the FAA's idea is to circle the airport to determine the runway then enter on a 45.

If you want to cite the Air Safety Foundation, they say fly 2 miles beyond the pattern before descending. The airplane mentioned above went only 30 seconds. Unless it was traveling more than 4 miles/minute (240 mph), it didn't go nearly far enough to comply. I've tried to explain to the ASF that in the real world pilots don't go 2 miles, but they pushed back saying they don't believe me. They can ask Jaybird180 then.

dtuuri

Please look at the San Francisco TAC at KHAF and tell me how this is remotely safe. Both patterns are on the northeast and TPA is 1000 MSL.

Winds usually favor 30 and almost all approaches are from the southeast.
 
Please look at the San Francisco TAC at KHAF and tell me how this is remotely safe. Both patterns are on the northeast and TPA is 1000 MSL.

Winds usually favor 30 and almost all approaches are from the southeast.
I'm NOT in favor of the ASF recommendations at all. I only mean to show them it might look nice on paper, but pilots don't do it the way they draw it in real life. Descending against the flow right into the downwind leg is a terrible practice.

dtuuri
 
:confused: I click it and it opens.

dtuuri

That is probably because it is cached in your browser. I once ran into the same problem - uploaded an image, then used the link to it in the post. Then made the mistake of deleting the attached image; but the post still looked OK to me on preview and when I viewed the final post. Only when I either used another browser or forced a reread of the image did I see that the image wasn't there.
 
:confused: I click it and it opens.

dtuuri

I just tried it again, and then with a different browser, and both times I got the same error message.

Is anyone else getting the error message?
 
I just tried it again, and then with a different browser, and both times I got the same error message.

Is anyone else getting the error message?

I get the same error. When he gets a chance he needs to upload his image again.
 
Hmmm... I renamed it and reloaded. It looks better now:

dtuuri

That really is old. Love the four-course beacon.

The problem with circling the traffic area is the large number of pilots flying B-52 patterns. Especially in calm winds where they may be going in the opposite direction. And terrain and airspace often do not cooperate.

Try that at KHAF and you'll be digging holes in mountainsides. Try it at KOAR and you'll bust Class C AND Class D (KOAR is Class G at the surface, Class E at TPA).
 
Last edited:
That really is old. Love the four-course beacon.
It's not to scale too, note the size of the tetrahedron. It does give a sense of how to comply with the published regulation though.
Try that at KHAF and you'll be digging holes in mountainsides. Try it at KOAR and you'll bust Class C AND Class D (KOAR is Class G at the surface, Class E at TPA).
I'm not saying there aren't special cases, nor would the FAA not recognize that there are. I don't see KHAF as being very special--lots of airports use right hand patterns. There's no excuse for descending into the pattern from above, IMO.

dtuuri
 
There's no excuse for descending into the pattern from above, IMO.

Not even terrain?

That seems like a REALLY good excuse to me.

The issue is not the right hand pattern. As you say, those are everywhere. It's the mountain peak less than 5 miles in the pattern direction.

You can do the teardrop or circle, but not 5 miles out. MAYBE two miles out.

Fortunately, there aren't any houses on that slope, and usually no vehicles. But there are hiking trails and every once in a while, CalFire does exercises up there. 14 CFR 91.119(c) is an issue. Even if you disregard terrain, that mountain makes for some very "interesting" wind shear at and above TPA.
 
Last edited:
Not even terrain?

That seems like a REALLY good excuse to me.
Not in my view. You might be dropping in on top of some poor hapless student in the pattern. Now, if management there has something else published (I saw nothing in the A/FD), do that. Presumably, such a procedure would be designed to keep any descending traffic away from any closed traffic, maybe by prohibiting the latter.

dtuuri
 
Not in my view. You might be dropping in on top of some poor hapless student in the pattern. Now, if management there has something else published (I saw nothing in the A/FD), do that. Presumably, such a procedure would be designed to keep any descending traffic away from any closed traffic, maybe by prohibiting the latter.

You're not SERIOUSLY saying that pilots should select their altitude without regard to terrain, ARE YOU??? :confused:

http://skyvector.com/?ll=37.515156292409635,-122.50157560869528&chart=127&zoom=1
 
Not in my view. You might be dropping in on top of some poor hapless student in the pattern. Now, if management there has something else published (I saw nothing in the A/FD), do that. Presumably, such a procedure would be designed to keep any descending traffic away from any closed traffic, maybe by prohibiting the latter.

dtuuri

KHAF is used frequently by students (on those rare VFR days), as it's a very close-in non towered airport with a wide and long runway.

However, almost without exception, every last one of them crosses midfield at 1500 and teardrops into the right 45 for 30, no more than two miles out. Just what you say they shouldn't do.

Most of the old-timers just do straight-ins.

I'll do a straight in if it's quiet, otherwise the teardrop thing.

I rather thoroughly disagree that terrain is not relevant here. I think you could make a sensible argument that this is a rare case where a straight-in is safer than a pattern, but only if that's what the students do, too.

There is obviously a priority at this airport other than pilot safety. It would be MUCH safer for both of the patterns to be on the other side.
 
Last edited:
KHAF ...

There is obviously a priority at this airport other than pilot safety. It would be MUCH safer for both of the patterns to be on the other side.

Looking at the chart, it's not obvious to me.

What do you think the priority is?
 
KHAF is used frequently by students (on those rare VFR days), as it's a very close-in non towered airport with a wide and long runway.

However, almost without exception, every last one of them crosses midfield at 1500 and teardrops into the right 45 for 30, no more than two miles out. Just what you say they shouldn't do.

Most of the old-timers just do straight-ins.

I'll do a straight in if it's quiet, otherwise the teardrop thing.

I rather thoroughly disagree that terrain is not relevant here. I think you could make a sensible argument that this is a rare case where a straight-in is safer than a pattern, but only if that's what the students do, too.

There is obviously a priority at this airport other than pilot safety. It would be MUCH safer for both of the patterns to be on the other side.

Agreed....

Risk = Exposure....

The less time you are in the airport traffic area, the less chance of hitting something... It is simple math...:yes:
 
Looking at the chart, it's not obvious to me.

What do you think the priority is?

Noise abatement.

There are some expensive B&Bs on the ocean side of the airport. And some elephant seals (only during the winter mating season). But not enough for NOAA to call it a marine sanctuary like they did further south.
 
You're not SERIOUSLY saying that pilots should select their altitude without regard to terrain, ARE YOU??? :confused:

http://skyvector.com/?ll=37.515156292409635,-122.50157560869528&chart=127&zoom=1
I've already checked it out before I commented. I saw the mountain rising twice the height of the pattern roughly. I'm saying find another route to downwind instead of dropping in from above. The FAA's AFH says it this way:
"Arriving airplanes should be at the proper traffic pattern altitude before entering the pattern, and should stay clear of the traffic flow until
established on the entry leg. Entries into traffic patterns while descending create specific collision hazards and should always be avoided."​
If I were going there, I'd join the upwind over the water and forget entering downwind via a 45 if terrain over there precludes using it safely. Then I'd probably register my opinion with management for having such an unsafe procedure.

dtuuri
 
And how is flying the upwind and crosswind at TPA while everyone else is climbing from below different from descending into the pattern? You have the same blind spots.

At least no one flies B52 patterns there.

You can establish on the 45 at TPA after crossing midfield at 1500, just not 5 miles out.
 
And how is flying the upwind and crosswind at TPA while everyone else is climbing from below different from descending into the pattern? You have the same blind spots.
...
You can establish on the 45 at TPA after crossing midfield at 1500, just not 5 miles out.

In the first place, you're way above traffic climbing out, especially at shorter runways, so crossing over them is not normally an issue. If it's a long enough runway where a high performance airplane might be near TPA as it passes the departure end of the runway you can extend and get behind it just the same as if you had taken off or made a go-around behind it. You could also break out of the pattern and reenter. Entering upwind affords a great view of the surface action and any departing aircraft. A turning descent into the downwind while the nose is pointed mostly away from the action doesn't allow that, so I don't agree with your blind spot comment.

The downwind leg is offset from the runway a different distance for each pilot. It isn't the same, like always drawn in textbooks and advisory circulars, so allowances need to be made for where somebody else might prefer to fly it. The ASF figure #9 says "two miles beyond the pattern" before starting a descent. If that can't be done or if the practitioners simply don't comply then the procedure itself isn't safe.

You seem to be a fair observer, why not give the upwind entry a try and see if you like it? Don't cross over any portion of the runway though. There might be somebody squeezing past the mountain to enter downwind on a 45 from the opposite direction.

dtuuri
 
Believe me, I have given thought to that pattern, as I really don't like it.

The runway is not short. It's twice as long as both of the nearby towered GA airports (which is where all those students are coming from). Noise abatement is to turn crosswind at 400 MSL, but the usual rules about not turning before the DER mean that people are usually much higher, especially if the usual 15 knot wind is blowing.

When I practice a short field takeoff there in a 172 or PA28, I try to lift off before the displaced threshold. In calm winds, I can do that if I'm a bit light and it's executed perfectly. In a 15 knot wind, it's pretty easy.
 
Last edited:
In the first place, you're way above traffic climbing out, especially at shorter runways, so crossing over them is not normally an issue. If it's a long enough runway where a high performance airplane might be near TPA as it passes the departure end of the runway you can extend and get behind it just the same as if you had taken off or made a go-around behind it. You could also break out of the pattern and reenter. Entering upwind affords a great view of the surface action and any departing aircraft. A turning descent into the downwind while the nose is pointed mostly away from the action doesn't allow that, so I don't agree with your blind spot comment.

The downwind leg is offset from the runway a different distance for each pilot. It isn't the same, like always drawn in textbooks and advisory circulars, so allowances need to be made for where somebody else might prefer to fly it. The ASF figure #9 says "two miles beyond the pattern" before starting a descent. If that can't be done or if the practitioners simply don't comply then the procedure itself isn't safe.

You seem to be a fair observer, why not give the upwind entry a try and see if you like it? Don't cross over any portion of the runway though. There might be somebody squeezing past the mountain to enter downwind on a 45 from the opposite direction.

By "ASF figure #9," I assume you're referring to this document:

http://flighttraining.aopa.org/pdfs/SA08_Nontowered_Airport_Ops.pdf

That's similar to the method I was taught, and one problem I have noticed with it is that, especially at an unfamiliar field, it can be difficult to reacquire visual contact with the airport after turning back inbound. Your method appears to eliminate that problem.
 
One problem with the direction of turns regulation is that there is an ambiguity when you're dealing with an airport that specifies left traffic for one end of the runway, and right traffic for the opposite end. If the wind is calm, if there's no ASOS, or if the plane has no radio, then the pilot doesn't know which direction of turns to use until he or she commits to landing in one direction or the other.
 
You might want to discuss airspace with your CFI on your next flight review.

If the latest IFR magazine is to be believed, there are 19,700 airports, 503 with airline service. I think he is right.

Bob Gardner
 
If the latest IFR magazine is to be believed, there are 19,700 airports, 503 with airline service. I think he is right.

Bob Gardner

I would think most of the 19,000+ other airports are Class G at the surface, not Class E.
 
My airfield lacks any visual markings but right traffic to 17 is depicted on the sectional and in the AFD. What would the law say in this case?
I have encountered that situation twice in almost 35 years of flying.

In both cases I contacted the airport manager who took the cheaper option of having the "right traffic" note removed from the AFD. In both cases the airport manager was unaware of the conflict created by the lack of a segmented circle and published right traffic.
 
Back
Top