Why do CFIs discourage midfield crosswind?

JOhnH said:
2nd reply to a legitimate question, and you are already calling him stupid.
The only reason that bothers me is I have other stupid questions that I am now afraid to ask.
Click to expand...

First, I did not call him stupid. And second, maybe you missed my follow-up post:
timwinters said:
Why do you assume anything said here is meant to be taken seriously? :eek:
Click to expand...

Just trying to inject some levity into a topic that's been hashed here before ad nauseam and always turns into the same pizzing contest.
 
Last edited:
FlySince9 said:
I need to fly at larger airports? Gee... do they make airports with 4K runways... Wow! who'd-a known?
Click to expand...

That first sentence was unecessesary...but the rest was a point that I have wondered about too.

I had started a thread about this a while back, and it went about the same. Since aviation mostly seems to be built on experience, and ratcheting up procedures to make I all safer I was kind of expecting they had this all figured out yet I figured it was me not getting it. Seeing all the discussion, and differing views on this let’s me know I have to have a talk with my CFI to hear what he says about it.

Very interesting discussion. Also since there are so many views I see more and more why I have to have my head on a swivel...so where can I buy a head swivel mount?
 
timwinters said:
First, I did not call him stupid. And second, maybe you missed my follow-up post:


Just trying to inject some levity into a topic that's been hashed here before ad nauseam and always turns into the same pizzing contest.
Click to expand...

It’s good to have these threads. For a newcomer, it make us realize that there is no universal consensus.

This was the most recent tutorial I watched the other day and makes some sense to me. Here they show towards the end a “target point” further out to come in on the 45 safely.

 
It's worth mentioning...

Over the runway, on a midfield crosswind, places you right at the center of the goat rope and requires you to check for traffic in every direction from your position. And, add to that, on a calm day, when there's no obvious runway in use and planes could be planning to use the opposite runway as you?

Fuhgeddaboutit!

And, yes, I know, you should always check for traffic in every possible direction, but why put yourself in a location that demands it?
 
timwinters said:
Over the runway, on a midfield crosswind, places you right at the center of the goat rope and requires you to check for traffic in every direction from your position.
Click to expand...
This gave me an idea on how to sort out the free-for-all around uncontrolled airports (puh-leeze, it AIN'T "pilot controlled"). Just change 91.126 to require all "looks" to be to the left instead of "left-hand turns"! I bet everybody would ease into the pattern more carefully if they had to depend on somebody else's eyesight instead of their own marvelous vision.
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
(puh-leeze, it AIN'T "pilot controlled").
Click to expand...

I agree with that.
I don't care if someone wants to call it "pilot controlled", but don't correct me or others when we say "uncontrolled". If there is no control tower, it is uncontrolled.
 
Someone mentioning the pearl drop 270 turn effectively blind siding the pilot on high wing planes made me realize high vs low wing would maybe have different methods that were more optimal for seeing other traffic?
 
LongRoadBob said:
Someone mentioning the pearl drop 270 turn effectively blind siding the pilot on high wing planes made me realize high vs low wing would maybe have different methods that were more optimal for seeing other traffic?
Click to expand...
s

High wing/low wing, grass/paved, fast airplane/slow airplane, tandem/side-by-side, local/transient, calm winds or direct cross/20 knots straight down the runway, experienced pilot/inexperienced, lots of traffic /no traffic, etc etc etc. There is no single entry that's perfect under all the variables a pilot should be considering before sticking his nose into a traffic pattern. That 45 degree entry might be putting the sun directly into your face at that particular time of day which effectively blinds you to everything in front of you so some other entry would be much more appropriate for the given circumstance.
 
Witmo said:
That 45 degree entry might be putting the sun directly into your face at that particular time of day which effectively blinds you to everything in front of you so some other entry would be much more appropriate for the given circumstance.
Click to expand...
Interesting to contemplate. I'm having some trouble imagining the implementation of this technique in a way that avoids eventually having the sun in your eyes. Do you take a wide route to final and then make a straight-in? How do you get there without the sun blinding you on the way? You could just postpone landing until after the sun sets, I guess.
 
timwinters said:
It's worth mentioning...

Over the runway, on a midfield crosswind, places you right at the center of the goat rope and requires you to check for traffic in every direction from your position. And, add to that, on a calm day, when there's no obvious runway in use and planes could be planning to use the opposite runway as you?

Fuhgeddaboutit!

And, yes, I know, you should always check for traffic in every possible direction, but why put yourself in a location that demands it?
Click to expand...

Sorry, not following, mid field, I know the traffic on upwind and final are by design, far away and below. A mile from the field, I look at the upwind leg, both directions to check for the oblivious. As I cross the upwind, midfield, I'm looking at the down wind, again both ways, plus in front for someone coming on a 45. By this time I've announced at least 3 or 4 times where I am and what I am doing. Hopefully people in the pattern are talking and I know where those people are. By design, flying over midfield, I don't have to be too concerned with someone taking off, or someone landing, where as on the upwind they are converging with me if it's my unlucky day. Making the turn to downwind is no more dangerous than coming in on a 45. The same issues that can bite you midfield are the same that will bite you coming in on a 45. The calm day scenario makes flying the crosswind regularly to join even more dangerous in my opinion.
 
PaulS said:
By design, flying over midfield, I don't have to be too concerned with someone taking off, or someone landing, where as on the upwind they are converging with me if it's my unlucky day.
Click to expand...

Huh? Who's going to be converging with you when you're on upwind? Besides, upwind is not a part of the contemplated scenario.

PaulS said:
By this time I've announced at least 3 or 4 times where I am and what I am doing. Hopefully people in the pattern are talking and I know wHere those people are.
Click to expand...

Ahhh...relying on radios...got it.
 
Was thermaling over an airport the other day and saw the best [worst] of both worlds. Pilot crossed west-east midfield, flew two miles past the field, u-turned, flew back over midfield east-west to enter left downwind.
 
BTW...entering the crosswind over the end of the runway (or just a touch beyond) instead of flying a mid-field crosswind also has the advantage that you are flying the EXACT same circuit that you do when you stay in the pattern practicing landings...so you should already be familiar with everything about it. Including the timing and speeds and slowing down, etc.

This should be especially beneficial for a low time pilot.
 
JOhnH said:
I agree with that.
I don't care if someone wants to call it "pilot controlled", but don't correct me or others when we say "uncontrolled". If there is no control tower, it is uncontrolled.
Click to expand...
What if it's Class E to the surface?
 
timwinters said:
First, I did not call him stupid. And second, maybe you missed my follow-up post: Just trying to inject some levity into a topic that's been hashed here before ad nauseam and always turns into the same pizzing contest.
Click to expand...

Actually Tim, to point out the obvious, the 4th word of your 1st post is "stupid". What's more incredible is your comment expressing frustration with such topics becoming a "pizzing contest" since you literally are the one who started it in that direction with your accusation that my motivation was stupidly trying to save time; which is unfounded nonsense and contributes nothing to a serious discourse to be had. A general suggestion to folks who think that a topic has been addressed once too many, please just ignore the thread. You aren't paying the bandwidth or storage costs on POA so let that be someone else's problem. In closing, I really appreciate the contributions by PaulS, dtuuri, LDJones and others who shared their insightful comments. This is exactly what I was hoping to get out of this topic.
 
timwinters said:
Huh? Who's going to be converging with you when you're on upwind? Besides, upwind is not a part of the contemplated scenario.
Click to expand...

So you don't look to the upwind?? That's not good at all, no, no, no. Upwind is the guy not on the radio, out enjoying life, it's his down wind.

timwinters said:
Ahhh...relying on radios...got it.
Click to expand...

Yep, radios and eyeballs, ignore either to your own and everyone else's peril.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Synthetic or dyno? N2 or air? .45ACP or 9mm? Mayo or Miracle Whip? Ginger or Mary Ann? Jeannie or Samantha? Emacs or Vi? High wing or low wing? Breast or chicken wing? Concealed carry or open carry?
Click to expand...

What’s the confusion here ? Everyone knows .45ACP, Mary Ann, Emacs, and open carry!
 
brcase said:
I agree, it seems many of the pilots doing the mid-field crossing to the 45 seem to miss the 2 mile recommendation the FAA recommends.

Brian
Click to expand...

True, and it may have something to do with that diagram. If a runway is typically about a mile long, that is badly not to scale for a two mile outleg.
 
dtuuri said:
My comment was about controlled airspace. You can't separate the two when you're discussing Class E.
Click to expand...

When flying IFR to a nontowered field in Class E airspace, does ATC ever vector you after you call the field in sight? Do they tell you which runway to use, where to enter the pattern (report 3 mile left base for 27), etc., or do you do your own thing in VMC? With no tower, once I call the field in sight, ATC gives me the choice to cancel IFR in the air or on the ground, but they have yet to offer vectors, sequencing or clearance to land at a non-towered field, regardless of the airspace surrounding it.

In other words, your argument is disingenuous, ineffective, inapplicable, inappropriate and was a waste of your time to try to make it.
 
Hank S said:
When flying IFR to a nontowered field in Class E airspace, does ATC ever vector you after you call the field in sight? Do they tell you which runway to use, where to enter the pattern (report 3 mile left base for 27), etc., or do you do your own thing in VMC? With no tower, once I call the field in sight, ATC gives me the choice to cancel IFR in the air or on the ground, but they have yet to offer vectors, sequencing or clearance to land at a non-towered field, regardless of the airspace surrounding it.

In other words, your argument is disingenuous, ineffective, inapplicable, inappropriate and was a waste of your time to try to make it.
Click to expand...
I have no earthly idea what the heck you're talking about.

Edit: I can't engage you in an argument based on your argumentative tone. You need to say something opposite of what I say or else it makes no sense. In this case, as you say, ATC gives the IFR aircraft the choice of canceling in the air or on the ground. That proves my point that IFR aircraft are being protected in Class E controlled airspace. Not just from other IFR aircraft until they cancel, but from VFR aircraft by increased weather minimums allowing see and avoid.
 
Last edited:
hish747 said:
You aren't paying the bandwidth or storage costs
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself!


<-----

Because, actually, yes, yes I am.

And I have a very smart-assed pointed sense of humor that you don't understand yet. Not as bad as EdFred, granted, but still....

:rolleyes:

Seriously my first post was all just smart-assed BS due to the previous pizzing contests that have occurred on this topic here. You'll get used to it, or not, I don't care which.
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
I have no earthly idea what the heck you're talking about.

Edit: I can't engage you in an argument based on your argumentative tone. You need to say something opposite of what I say or else it makes no sense. In this case, as you say, ATC gives the IFR aircraft the choice of canceling in the air or on the ground. That proves my point that IFR aircraft are being protected in Class E controlled airspace. Not just from other IFR aircraft until they cancel, but from VFR aircraft by increased weather minimums allowing see and avoid.
Click to expand...
What he is saying is that IFR doesn't mean a controller is controlling the airport if there's no tower. Regardless of class e to the surface or class g, the airport environment itself is not-controlled, and therefore, these exact same scenarios apply equally. You still need to look for other aircraft and fit into the pattern (unless its IMC, in which case there should not be any VFR traffic in the area).

And therefore, the IFR conversation is not germane to this conversation.

So back to the point at hand - is there really a difference between being surprised by someone 90 degrees off your right side during downwind who joins the pattern and didn't see you and someone who entered on a teardrop, didn't see you, and surprises you from behind and to the left of you?

Nope. Either way, the approaching aircraft has the responsibility to see and fit in, and I'd rather see the whole pattern via a midfield crosswind than to limit myself by doing it 500ft above TPA and then descending into the 45 on the other side.

And as the aircraft approaching, that's all that matters, frankly.
 
Hank S said:
When flying IFR to a nontowered field in Class E airspace, does ATC ever vector you after you call the field in sight? Do they tell you which runway to use, where to enter the pattern (report 3 mile left base for 27), etc., or do you do your own thing in VMC? With no tower, once I call the field in sight, ATC gives me the choice to cancel IFR in the air or on the ground, but they have yet to offer vectors, sequencing or clearance to land at a non-towered field, regardless of the airspace surrounding it.

In other words, your argument is disingenuous, ineffective, inapplicable, inappropriate and was a waste of your time to try to make it.
Click to expand...

I can't figure out what your point is, or what you thought his point was. In other words, water is wet, so what?
 
SkyHog said:
What he is saying is that IFR doesn't mean a controller is controlling the airport if there's no tower. Regardless of class e to the surface or class g, the airport environment itself is not-controlled, and therefore, these exact same scenarios apply equally. You still need to look for other aircraft and fit into the pattern (unless its IMC, in which case there should not be any VFR traffic in the area).

And therefore, the IFR conversation is not germane to this conversation.

So back to the point at hand - is there really a difference between being surprised by someone 90 degrees off your right side during downwind who joins the pattern and didn't see you and someone who entered on a teardrop, didn't see you, and surprises you from behind and to the left of you?

Nope. Either way, the approaching aircraft has the responsibility to see and fit in, and I'd rather see the whole pattern via a midfield crosswind than to limit myself by doing it 500ft above TPA and then descending into the 45 on the other side.

And as the aircraft approaching, that's all that matters, frankly.
Click to expand...
Controlled airspace doesn't mean all aircraft in it are under ATC control, just the IFR aircraft. VFR aircraft are "controlled" by weather requirements to protect IFR aircraft. That's why you have transition areas for the IFR approach. In the glory days before Control Zones were renamed Class E surface areas it was apparent that "Control" didn't mean VFR traffic was being directed by ATC because many control zones had no tower or ATC facility of any kind despite the authoritarian name. I think the connection between controlled airspace and IFR traffic has been lost on the younger generation, but knowing it puts things in a more clear perspective of what it's all about. That's why I interjected.

On the other matter, you're OK with somebody heading straight at you doing the same thing as you only in the opposite direction? Somebody hard to see and fast, like an RV? FWIW, I'm not in favor of the +500 foot crossover either. I used to be, but I've found I'm the only one that ever did it correctly.
 
dtuuri said:
Controlled airspace doesn't mean all aircraft in it are under ATC control, just the IFR aircraft. VFR aircraft are "controlled" by weather requirements to protect IFR aircraft. That's why you have transition areas for the IFR approach. In the glory days before Control Zones were renamed Class E surface areas it was apparent that "Control" didn't mean VFR traffic was being directed by ATC because many control zones had no tower or ATC facility of any kind despite the authoritarian name. I think the connection between controlled airspace and IFR traffic has been lost on the younger generation, but knowing it puts things in a more clear perspective of what it's all about. That's why I interjected.

On the other matter, you're OK with somebody heading straight at you doing the same thing as you only in the opposite direction? Somebody hard to see and fast, like an RV? FWIW, I'm not in favor of the +500 foot crossover either. I used to be, but I've found I'm the only one that ever did it correctly.
Click to expand...
I have no idea where you're going with the IFR stuff. But I think we all agree that IFR aircraft are not under a controllers guidance or direction in the pattern if a class e airport .

For the latter - no one is talking about flying opposite you on downwind .90 degrees is not 180 degrees
 
SkyHog said:
I have no idea where you're going with the IFR stuff. But I think we all agree that IFR aircraft are not under a controllers guidance or direction in the pattern if a class e airport .
Click to expand...
Until the IFR flight plan is canceled, separation with other IFR aircraft is provided. That's "control".

SkyHog said:
For the latter - no one is talking about flying opposite you on downwind .90 degrees is not 180 degrees
Click to expand...
See my post #22:

dtuuri said:
If you aren't wearing horse blinders, I don't see that as a problem. I do see as a problem approaching another aircraft at a high closure rate with small frontal areas projecting from each plane. Here's a sketch of a blue plane and red plane approaching a runway and heading for a like colored pattern. The winds are calm, one or the other plane has no radio or is on the wrong frequency or has mistakenly announced its position. In this country, radio is not required. Both pilots are looking for traffic on the downwind, taking off and maybe trying to find the windsock. I'd prefer to go around the end of the runway and merge with departing traffic showing me the top of its wing and side of its fuselage and converging at a slower speed.

View attachment 73326
Click to expand...
 
dtuuri said:
Until the IFR flight plan is canceled, separation with other IFR aircraft is provided. That's "control".
Click to expand...
That is not strictly correct. Separation is provided when in IMC. In VMC even under IFR, the pilot is responsible for separation. But either way, that separation does not occur once a pilot is handed to the UNICOM

See my post #22:

​
Click to expand...

Got ya. But still, the approaching aircraft has better visibility this way
 
Here is how L70 wants is done:
from_sky_.jpg
 
Since the FAA training experts have decided that we are all ignorant of basic safety concepts, we must now integrate risk management into many additional phases of flying (ACS vs. PTS).

Considering potential courses of action, which would be less risky: encountering a previously unseen airplane on a collision course at 90 degrees while descending inside the traffic pattern or at 45 degrees in level flight at the same altitude?

That is most likely the reason for the note that says not to use the alternate method if other aircraft are using the 45 degree entry.
 
IK04 said:
Since the FAA training experts have decided that we are all ignorant of basic safety concepts, we must now integrate risk management into many additional phases of flying (ACS vs. PTS).

Considering potential courses of action, which would be less risky: encountering a previously unseen airplane on a collision course at 90 degrees while descending inside the traffic pattern or at 45 degrees in level flight at the same altitude?

That is most likely the reason for the note that says not to use the alternate method if other aircraft are using the 45 degree entry.
Click to expand...

You're not supposed to descend from above TPA to TPA inside the traffic pattern.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top