Was I "that guy"?

[MAKG1]

Approach B doesn't help the windsock issue if all the patterns are left traffic, as is common.

And windsocks aren't always midfield.

There are still a few airports around with no weather reporting. Well, aside from watching your own wind corrections around the pattern.

 

[eetrojan]

Approach B doesn't help the windsock issue if all the patterns are left traffic, as is common.

I probably have a skewed view because my nontowered experience only includes French Valley (F70), Redlands (KREI), Big Bear (L35), Catalina (KAVX), and Corona (KAJO). They all have one runway with left traffic on one end and right traffic on the other..

On the other hand, they all have weather reporting, so I haven't had to find the windsock to make my direction of landing decision

 

[dtuuri]

Is it correct that your preferred approach of flying around the field, or circling left, is based on the old diagram you linked in post 58, this one?:


If so, does that mean that when approaching a nontowered field, you believe you should always do Approach A and not Approach B?:

The diagram is based on 91.126, which is where I draw my conclusions. To the extent it depicts 91.126 accurately, I agree with it. But the drawing is not to scale, so literally following the flight path doesn't work. It's more of a 3-D birdseye view where the large circle is a path through the air high above the ground. That view, though, breaks down when you look at the rectangular pattern "within". So, I only cite the drawing as a way to show FAA thinking when the rule was much younger and fewer planes had radios: Circle left, look for other traffic and wind direction, enter the pattern from the outside or descend on the upwind side and merge with closed traffic. You don't descend where you show.

While it doesn't explicitly say it should be done while crossing midfield above TPA, I read FAA Advisory Circular AC No. 90-66A (1993) (see 8a on p.2) as strongly supporting Approach B by saying that you should fly above TPA to check wind and landing direction indicators to determine the traffic pattern direction and then proceed to a point well clear of the pattern before descending to pattern altitude:

In theory, that's a reasonable plan of action. To the extent you fly far enough to leave the "vicinity" (often 5 miles in other context, such as class D) it would comply with 91.126. However, in practice pilots are too impatient and wind up making a descending 180° while still within what another pilot might define as the downwind leg. I think stopping the practice altogether would work better than trying to get pilots to agree on the amount of patience required. You don't need to define "vicinity" if you simply orbit to the left and join the pattern on the upwind or a 45 to the down wind or join on a properly flown crosswind.

Assuming my understanding of Approach A is correct, I have two questions --

(1) Is it practical to use Approach A to check wind and landing direction indicators?

I don't know the answer because, in my limited experience, all of the nontowered fields I have visited had automatic weather observation systems so I knew the wind direction before I got there.

Sure it is, remembering the limitations of the drawing. You aren't really trying to circle at three miles (or whatever). Remember, wind isn't the only reason or even the most important one--other traffic is what you're looking for mainly. You don't want to land head-on with somebody who can't read a sock.

(2) If you were approaching from the opposite side of the downwind for a runway that had left traffic for one landing direction and right traffic for the other such that the two possible downwinds were on the same opposite side of the runway, how would you know which way to circle in the first place unless you flew over the field above TPA and observed the windsock?

Circle left. Then you must depart and reapproach at the proper altitude to join the downwind (on a 45). Note that in that case your turn back toward the airport would be left again, then another left entering traffic before making right hand turns in the pattern. I hate these airports unless justified by obstacles. "Aircraft noise" isn't good enough for me.

Thank you for carrying on a civil dialog. It shows it can be done.

dtuuri

 

[EdFred]

Back to the OP. No, you weren't "that guy." The commercial student was "that guy." He could have easily adjusted his departure leg to let you in the pattern.

 

[eetrojan]

Circle left. Then you must depart and reapproach at the proper altitude to join the downwind (on a 45). Note that in that case your turn back toward the airport would be left again, then another left entering traffic before making right hand turns in the pattern.

I think I get you. Let me restate with another picture of what I think you're saying, one that's a little bit more accurate in terms of scale:

To confirm - You're saying that if you're approaching from the "inactive" side of a runway that has left traffic in one direction and right traffic in the other, you should descend to TPA as you get close (orange), circle in a left-ward direction (green) while planning to enter the 45 for left-traffic (dashed blue), but if the wind dictates right traffic, you should then depart and re-approach to enter the 45 for right-traffic (purple)?

Please confirm or correct me.

Are you doing all of the green, blue, or purple maneuvering at TPA, or climbing and descending too?

And, to the OP, sorry for trashing your thread. I agree with Fred, the other guy has to watch for and work with you too, so don't worry about it.

 

[EdFred]

If right traffic, use a right circling method. Not a left. Guess what happens on that solid blue line when you have a 152 flying 747 patterns.

 

[eetrojan]

I see that issue now. However, to clarify, the runway has BOTH flavors of traffic, and I was assuming you don't know that the wind direction favors right traffic until you're already circling left (CCW) and you see the wind indicator. That's what I think dtuuri was describing.

Also, I'm not advocating, I'm trying to understand what dtuuri is promoting in lieu of the midfield crossover above TPA that I was taught.

 

[dtuuri]

Circle left. Then you must depart and reapproach at the proper altitude to join the downwind (on a 45). Note that in that case your turn back toward the airport would be left again, then another left entering traffic before making right hand turns in the pattern.

I gave this answer because I thought the question was what to do when you don't know there's both right and left patterns and you want to make right traffic after you circle above and discover from the segmented circle. From your last post, I guess you were just asking how to enter left traffic, which has been covered already. I'll assume you do NOT know anything about the airport and fly overhead above the pattern to take a look:

To confirm - You're saying that if you're approaching from the "inactive" side of a runway that has left traffic in one direction and right traffic in the other, you should descend to TPA as you get close (orange), circle in a left-ward direction (green) while planning to enter the 45 for left-traffic (dashed blue),

If the runway is known, coming from the opposite side (which you shouldn't be doing because of terrain or noise anyway), like this:

​

...but if the wind dictates right traffic, you should then depart and re-approach to enter the 45 for right-traffic (purple)?

Please confirm or correct me.

Yes, 500' above pattern altitude, except you probably want to circle the whole airport first before leaving, and go far enough to be out of the "vicinity". Keep it (the circle) close, just beyond the runway ends for the best view.

And, to the OP, sorry for trashing your thread. I agree with Fred, the other guy has to watch for and work with you too, so don't worry about it.

Me 2.

dtuuri

 

[eetrojan]

Thanks for the reply dtuuri.

You had it right. My question is what do you do, "when you don't know there's both right and left patterns and you want to make right traffic after you circle above and discover from the segmented circle." I'm just looking for a graphic explanation of what you mean by "depart and reapproach."

In your latest drawing, you circle over at TPA+500, descend on the upwind, fly a crosswind, and then enter the left downwind for runway 18.

Can you modify your drawing to how you would modify your flight path if you decided, presumably before you descend to TPA, that it was appropriate to fly right traffic for runway 36?

 

[dtuuri]

Can you modify your drawing to how you would modify your flight path if you decided, presumably before you descend to TPA, that it was appropriate to fly right traffic for runway 36?

Like this:


EDIT: When turning crosswind (or leaving the area when above the pattern, like here) choose the point based on any observed traffic, but beyond ("off" in the PCG) the runway end.

dtuuri

 

[EdFred]

Why would I continue to spend more time in the pattern? I'm still not getting when someone would advocated doing a 360 "in the pattern" before getting in the pattern. No thanks.

 

[dtuuri]

Why would I continue to spend more time in the pattern? I'm still not getting when someone would advocated doing a 360 "in the pattern" before getting in the pattern. No thanks.

A. You aren't doing a 360° "in the pattern".

B. You're trying to see what the traffic, active runway and wind situation is.

Where have you been, jail?

dtuuri

 

[EdFred]

I can do exactly that by making a crosswind entry whether it be midfield, or over the numbers, or a quarter mile out, or a half a mile out, and that left circling technique is most certainly a 360 - OK, maybe 270, either way one is still vulturing.

 

[dtuuri]

I can do exactly that by making a crosswind entry whether it be midfield, or over the numbers, or a quarter mile out, or a half a mile out, and that left circling technique is most certainly a 360 - OK, maybe 270, either way one is still vulturing.

Flying over the airport is downright dangerous. You're a menace.

dtuuri

 

[Palmpilot]

Like this:
View attachment 36084

Looks to me like you just recommended the "ampersand" entry.

 

[EdFred]

Flying over the airport is downright dangerous. You're a menace.

dtuuri

And the left circling method puts one right over the airport as well.

 

[dtuuri]

And the left circling method puts one right over the airport as well.

It goes "around" the runway. What you advocate goes like this:

​

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

Looks to me like you just recommended the "ampersand" entry.

It's more of an amperrrrrrsand entry.

dtuuri

 

[EdFred]

Your crayon scratch is wrong.

 

[dtuuri]

Your crayon scratch is wrong.

Fixed it:

​

dtuuri

 

[eetrojan]

Like this:
View attachment 36084

EDIT: When turning crosswind (or leaving the area when above the pattern, like here) choose the point based on any observed traffic, but beyond ("off" in the PCG) the runway end.

dtuuri

Thanks. What's "PCG"?

 

[EdFred]

Still wrong. I said I could enter on crosswind at midfield not that I do. Reading is fundamental.

 

[Palmpilot]

Thanks. What's "PCG"?

Pilot/Controller Glossary

 

[Palmpilot]

It's more of an amperrrrrrsand entry.

What's the difference, and how does it address your objections to the ampersand entry?

 

[dtuuri]

What's the difference, and how does it address your objections to the ampersand entry?

Well first of all, what you're referring to here is when the pilot:

1. Doesn't know the active runway
2. Discovers the airport has a RH pattern
3. Sees the wind favoring the RH pattern

That's in contrast to when the runway is known and an upwind (or proper crosswind) entry would be better. So, it's a rare event. Also, my drawing makes a point of going beyond the vicinity before descending and maneuvering for the pattern entry. A number of places in the FARs and elswhere, as I've mentioned, consider "vicinity" to be within 5 miles. Half of that would satisfy the Air Safety Foundation/AOPA, I suppose, but the truth is pilots just don't have the patience for even that as these threads always prove. In this special case, this type of manuevering is pretty much the only way to safely get it done. Not so when there's no RH pattern in use.

dtuuri

 

[MAKG1]

How can a pilot not know a runway has a RH pattern? It's printed on the FN sectional.

Not looking is at least one of the few really obvious 14 CFR 91.103 violations. Even for a diversion. It's especially important for a diversion, as if you could afford to waste time in the pattern, the diversion may not have been necessary.

 

[dtuuri]

How can a pilot not know a runway has a RH pattern? It's printed on the FN sectional.

Not looking is at least one of the few really obvious 14 CFR 91.103 violations. Even for a diversion. It's especially important for a diversion, as if you could afford to waste time in the pattern, the diversion may not have been necessary.

In a perfect world with no recent changes, but it still wouldn't matter. You need to know which runway's in use and where the traffic is.

"As if you could afford to waste time in the pattern"? A pattern is "wasting time"?

dtuuri

 

[MAKG1]

In a perfect world with no recent changes, but it still wouldn't matter. You need to know which runway's in use and where the traffic is.

"As if you could afford to waste time in the pattern"? A pattern is "wasting time"?

dtuuri

Flying around the field an extra circuit to figure out the traffic pattern you should already know is indeed wasting time.

 

[dtuuri]

Flying around the field an extra circuit to figure out the traffic pattern you should already know is indeed wasting time.

It's figuring out the traffic you don't know. There is your problem. And once is not extra, too.

dtuuri

 

[MAKG1]

It's figuring out the traffic you don't know. There is your problem. And once is not extra, too.

dtuuri

Some of your diagrams have people going around twice, such as the "left circling method" above. At a minimum of two minutes apiece (and possibly more if it's a long runway), that's not appropriate in an urgent (but not emergency) situation such as an airsick passenger.

In an emergency such as partial-power engine failure or zero oil pressure indication, of course, blast in, turn the wrong way, whatever you have to to handle the situation safely.

 

[eetrojan]

Flying around the field an extra circuit to figure out the traffic pattern you should already know is indeed wasting time.

It seems clear that you should already know that 36 is left traffic and 18 is right traffic.

Even if so, might you need to circle above TPA to observe the wind and know which runway and corresponding traffic pattern is appropriate?

Also, might you be unfamiliar with the airport and simply want to circle above TPA?

 

[MAKG1]

It seems clear that you should already know that 36 is left traffic and 18 is right traffic.

However, might you need to circle to observe the wind and know which runway and corresponding traffic pattern is appropriate?

Also, might you be unfamiliar with the airport and simply want to circle?

As much as people don't like it, for that specific example, when arriving from the east, you can overfly midfield at 500 above the highest TPA, observe the windsock and traffic, and then decide whether to teardrop left or right into the 45. Or if you don't want to do that for whatever reason, enter the crosswind for the calm wind runway an extra mile out, then maneuver to enter the 45 if that turns out to be wrong; otherwise just fly the pattern. Once.

For the more common all-left-traffic case, maneuver for the 45 on the near side, and if you don't like the traffic or wind, turn your downwind into an upwind for the other side.

Neither of these requires two circuits.

I guess you haven't had the joyful experience of a kid in the back seat asserting he has to pee yet.

 

[dtuuri]

Some of your diagrams have people going around twice, such as the "left circling method" above.

Those are eetrojan's diagrams with unchanged labels. I modified them as requested to show my method of compliance with 91.126. Circling overhead an unfamilair field is good operating practice and specifically recommended by the FAA. When it's deemed necessary, my method conserves time, space and turn degrees. The turns also are in compliance with 91.126, unlike your "teardrop" method. Cutting straight across the field above the pattern makes no more sense than it does at pattern altitude because you could run smack into your twin doing just the opposite. You'd just have farther to fall. There's no honor in saving time there.

At a minimum of two minutes apiece (and possibly more if it's a long runway), that's not appropriate in an urgent (but not emergency) situation such as an airsick passenger.

Your airsick passengers shouldn't jeopardize the safety of another pilot's passengers by causing you to disregard good operating practices, so I don't see that as a valid excuse, but I do feel bad for you. Cleaning up the mess isn't pleasant, BTDT.

In an emergency such as partial-power engine failure or zero oil pressure indication, of course, blast in, turn the wrong way, whatever you have to to handle the situation safely.

Yes! And if everybody else there is looking out for you the way I've been saying--they'll see you and avoid you, NORDO or not!

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

It seems clear that you should already know that 36 is left traffic and 18 is right traffic.

Not in the diagrams I've been addressing, assuming North is up. Left traffic for 18, right for 36.

dtuuri

 

[eetrojan]

Not in the diagrams I've been addressing, assuming North is up. Left traffic for 18, right for 36.

dtuuri

My bad. I got it backwards when writing the textual description to MAKG1.

I'm now correctly seeing (I think...) that left traffic for 18 and right traffic for 36 has both downwind legs on the east side of the runway - as shown in most of the drawings.

 

[jesse]

I can do exactly that by making a crosswind entry whether it be midfield, or over the numbers, or a quarter mile out, or a half a mile out, and that left circling technique is most certainly a 360 - OK, maybe 270, either way one is still vulturing.

+1. The rest of the world disagrees with him and he apparently can't see that.

Thinking that doing a series of circles above an airport is safer is just ridiculous. Try having 5 planes do those circles at once all at slightly different altitudes, slightly different angles, some low wing some high wing, all climbing and descending because they can't hold altitude (most GA guys can't). LMFAO, just a joke, really..

The less turns you make approaching the airport to land, and the less you vary your altitude and speed, the safer it will be. Spend your time **LOOKING** outside the window instead of maneuvering all over.

All this maneuvering just adds more exposure to the airport environment as a whole and most certainly does not increase safety which is why absolutely no one teaches it.

 

[MAKG1]

Your airsick passengers shouldn't jeopardize the safety of another pilot's passengers by causing you to disregard good operating practices, so I don't see that as a valid excuse, but I do feel bad for you. Cleaning up the mess isn't pleasant, BTDT.

A distressed passenger will absolutely keep me from doing unnecessary extra maneuvering.

Best practice is to observe the field prior to pattern entry, which can be done without as much maneuvering as you're advocating.

One hazard of circling the field far out that hasn't been mentioned is that you become vulnerable to straight in/out landing and departing traffic (e.g., IFR) along the extended centerlines that you would not be exposed to crossing midfield or over the arrival end numbers.

 

[dtuuri]

The rest of the world disagrees with him and he apparently can't see that.

You're the one out there on a limb, not me. Even Ed only says he "could" not that he "would" do it.

Thinking that doing a series of circles above an airport is safer is just ridiculous.

Count 'em. Three-fourths of a turn and you're in the pattern on an upwind. Unless you're seizing on that one-in-a hundred time you make RH traffic where you didn't know you'd need to before you got there.

Try having 5 planes do those circles at once all at slightly different altitudes, slightly different angles, some low wing some high wing, all climbing and descending because they can't hold altitude (most GA guys can't). LMFAO, just a joke, really..

Maybe where you've taught...

The less turns you make approaching the airport to land, and the less you vary your altitude and speed, the safer it will be.

That would be a straight-in. Not recommended at busy airports.

Spend your time **LOOKING** outside the window instead of maneuvering all over.

That's my point. Cutting across the runway increases the closing rate, decreases your outside visibility, decreases your frontal area for the other guy to see and makes as much sense as running a stop sign to lower your exposure to traffic.

All this maneuvering just adds more exposure to the airport environment as a whole and most certainly does not increase safety which is why absolutely no one teaches it.

You run stop signs under the same theory?

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

A distressed passenger will absolutely keep me from doing unnecessary extra maneuvering.

Best practice is to observe the field prior to pattern entry, which can be done without as much maneuvering as you're advocating.

One hazard of circling the field far out that hasn't been mentioned is that you become vulnerable to straight in/out landing and departing traffic (e.g., IFR) along the extended centerlines that you would not be exposed to crossing midfield or over the arrival end numbers.

It's hard to believe you've even read my posts or looked at the diagrams. None of that holds up to scrutiny. Especially the departing traffic fear. That's Landsberg's phobia (and most inexperienced/controlled airport denizens). The fear some departing airplane's gonna climb right up there and knock you out of the sky like a heat-seeking missle. Baloney.

EDIT: Yet, it's ok to zoom across the pattern at warp speed at TPA where the other planes are all at the same altitude, but you're afraid to cross where the other planes are up to 1000' below you--climbing slower than you're cruising? GMAFB!

dtuuri

 

[MAKG1]

EDIT: Yet, it's ok to zoom across the pattern at warp speed at TPA where the other planes are all at the same altitude, but you're afraid to cross where the other planes are up to 1000' below you--climbing slower than you're cruising? GMAFB!

Who said anything about TPA?

Not me. Ever.

If I'm crossing at midfield, it's 500 above the highest TPA, unless instructed otherwise by an operating control tower at that field.