Wrong way pattern

JohnWF

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
194
Display Name

Display name:
John at Salida
A fellow pilot just called me and said that as he was in the pattern at our local airport (left pattern is standard here) that another plane insisted on using a RIGHT pattern at the same time for the same runway. After avoiding a collusion my friend talked to the right pattern pilot who insisted that since it is an uncontrolled airport he is authorized to fly any pattern he wants to. My friend said that the right pattern pilot was adamant and somewhat obnoxious about what he could do if he wanted to.

My friend asked me what he might have done. I suggested the he should have taken the other fellow's N-number, called the FAA Flight Standard office in Denver, and have them contact the other fellow. Let the right pattern pilot educate the FAA about what he can/cannot do.

Comments?
 
Hmm, someone is unfamiliar with 14 CFR 91.126(b)(1).

It would be nice if it were possible to educate cowboys, but with an "I can do anything I want to" attitude, it's not possible.

Your options are the FSDO or to ignore it. As head-ons can be rather unpleasant, ignoring it isn't a very good option. But, consider the possibility that maybe he doesn't have a certificate to threaten.
 
John, don't be so sure and don't be too quick to call the FSDO, he might have some inconvenient questions for you.
Unless the airport has published that a LH pattern is required then a left hand pattern is recommended per the AIM but is not regulatory..
Wait until you get into an uncontrolled airport with active helicopter traffic, nordo ultralights, and the sky divers playing meat bomb all at the same time on a warm weekend.
I can hardly wait to hear a recording that phone call.
 
Pattern entry is advisory, but traffic pattern (right hand or left hand) is regulatory. If you have any doubt, I can show you the recommended suspension for failing to follow the correct traffic pattern.

I would just ask the other pilot if he has AOPA's legal services plan. If he says no, tell him it might be worth it.
 
I had an @sshat last night at the airport. I was on final when he jumped in front of me. So I had to go around. He was in a Champ, so he might not have had a radio. But I have a hard time believing that he didn't see me and the 2 other planes in the pattern before me, too. We were busy last night. Myself and others doing pattern work, couple of transients, gliders flying right hand patterns. Tell your friend to let it go and use it as a learning experience. Always look out for #1, most other people won't.
 
From what I've seen how you enter a pattern is open, heck pattern altitude is also fairly open, but traffic pattern direction is set in stone, and I have read where the feds will go on a head hunting expedition for people who screw around with it.
 
Don't insist on a right of way, especially in the air. Most uncontrolleds have a calm wind RW and do publish pattern direction for each RW in the AF/D.

You didn't say if traffic in the air was using Left pattern, but assuming that is what others were doing and this guy decided to go the opposition direction, then he was a hazard to everyone.

The best thing is to be aware of that guy in the future, and let others know what he did so they can all be aware of him. If he does it again, or repeats the stunt, then have several people complain. The FAA will likely take notice at that point if the guy is persistently flying unsafely.

Guys like that are on every field. The best way to deal with it is to fly defensively and plan to break out of the pattern when some guy decides to 'cowboy' as you say. Get down, and quit for the day.
 
Unless the airport has published that a LH pattern is required then a left hand pattern is recommended per the AIM but is not regulatory..

Oh yes it is.

Nothing published...it's left.

Right published...it's right.

Go the opposite direction, get busted, the FAA started cracking down on this a few years ago.

I never have the energy to look up such things but "Regulation Ron" should be along shortly to confirm or dispel my assertion.
 
Unless the airport has published that a LH pattern is required then a left hand pattern is recommended per the AIM but is not regulatory..

You sure about that? FAR 91.126(1):

(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and​
 
John, don't be so sure and don't be too quick to call the FSDO, he might have some inconvenient questions for you.
Unless the airport has published that a LH pattern is required then a left hand pattern is recommended per the AIM but is not regulatory..
Wait until you get into an uncontrolled airport with active helicopter traffic, nordo ultralights, and the sky divers playing meat bomb all at the same time on a warm weekend.
I can hardly wait to hear a recording that phone call.

You've got that backwards.

§91.126. Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.
(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.

(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace—

(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and
 
Screw the FSDO call the cops. Get him charged with careless and reckless that'll show him who is boss. Then call TSA and get his airport badge pulled. If you don't have a fence and airport badges call TSA to get some first.
 
Sell him a metal landing computer and complain about an idiot on the internet
 
There's no FAA reg I know of that addresses a big Texas boot up his ass ... :dunno:
 
Screw the FSDO call the cops. Get him charged with careless and reckless that'll show him who is boss. Then call TSA and get his airport badge pulled. If you don't have a fence and airport badges call TSA to get some first.

That's actually funny.

We have only 1 airport round these parts SFRA/FRZ that I'm aware of that has a fence. It looks like a ghost town. Security is really working very well there. Not even pilots want to go there and if it weren't for the maintenance facility, I doubt ANYBODY would go.
 
I wonder if that was the same pilot with the K model Bonanza last weekend that blocked 3 tie down spots when he parked. Oh, and the registration expired in 2012.
 
When I was taxiing out for my first takeoff during my PPL check ride, an airplane came in and made right traffic for a left pattern runway. The DPE sitting next to me nearly had a coronary, got on the CTAF and let the guy have it. He practically quoted the regulation from memory to him. He then told me if the guy had not have done a touch and go, we would have turned right behind him so they could speak.
 
I see Denny's ignorance of 14 CFR 91.126(b) has already been addressed. That said...

Short of an in-flight emergency requiring immediate landing from that direction, the actions of the "other pilot" described by the OP are clear and indefensible violation of the rules. Since this pilot is a hazard to others, and is apparently unwilling to accept friendly help in conforming his/her behavior to a regulation which has safety as its primary justification, turning the matter over to the FSDO may be the only remaining option ("blanket parties" being hard to arrange in the civilian world).
 
Last edited:
I'm coming in to one of my favorite airports the other day. I hear another aircraft announce downwind. I am on the 45 and looking all over for this guy, nothing. Then I see an aircraft on the right downwind, OK, I can deal with that, but I wish he would have said right downwind. So the guy on the right downwind calls base, OK, I can deal with that as I am just starting my downwind. Then the guy on base flies through final onto a left base, then makes a large circling left hand turn onto final and lands (he does call final). So I see this guy nosed straight into the fuel pump getting gas and just write him off as a cowboy. Anyway I run into an instructor I know who says this guy is his solo student and a great stick. I wonder what the DPE will say?:rofl:
 
John, don't be so sure and don't be too quick to call the FSDO, he might have some inconvenient questions for you.
Unless the airport has published that a LH pattern is required then a left hand pattern is recommended per the AIM but is not regulatory..
Wait until you get into an uncontrolled airport with active helicopter traffic, nordo ultralights, and the sky divers playing meat bomb all at the same time on a warm weekend.
I can hardly wait to hear a recording that phone call.

Negative.


§91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.

(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.

(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace—

(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right;
and

(2) Each pilot of a helicopter or a powered parachute must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft.

(c) Flap settings. Except when necessary for training or certification, the pilot in command of a civil turbojet-powered aircraft must use, as a final flap setting, the minimum certificated landing flap setting set forth in the approved performance information in the Airplane Flight Manual for the applicable conditions. However, each pilot in command has the final authority and responsibility for the safe operation of the pilot's airplane, and may use a different flap setting for that airplane if the pilot determines that it is necessary in the interest of safety.

(d) Communications with control towers. Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft to, from, through, or on an airport having an operational control tower unless two-way radio communications are maintained between that aircraft and the control tower. Communications must be established prior to 4 nautical miles from the airport, up to and including 2,500 feet AGL. However, if the aircraft radio fails in flight, the pilot in command may operate that aircraft and land if weather conditions are at or above basic VFR weather minimums, visual contact with the tower is maintained, and a clearance to land is received. If the aircraft radio fails while in flight under IFR, the pilot must comply with §91.185.

[Doc. No. 24458, 56 FR 65658, Dec. 17, 1991, as amended by Amdt. 91-239, 59 FR 11693, Mar. 11, 1994; Amdt. 91-282, 69 FR 44880, July 27, 2004]


§91.127 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class E airspace.

(a) Unless otherwise required by part 93 of this chapter or unless otherwise authorized or required by the ATC facility having jurisdiction over the Class E airspace area, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class E airspace area must comply with the requirements of §91.126.

(b) Departures. Each pilot of an aircraft must comply with any traffic patterns established for that airport in part 93 of this chapter.

(c) Communications with control towers. Unless otherwise authorized or required by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft to, from, through, or on an airport having an operational control tower unless two-way radio communications are maintained between that aircraft and the control tower. Communications must be established prior to 4 nautical miles from the airport, up to and including 2,500 feet AGL. However, if the aircraft radio fails in flight, the pilot in command may operate that aircraft and land if weather conditions are at or above basic VFR weather minimums, visual contact with the tower is maintained, and a clearance to land is received. If the aircraft radio fails while in flight under IFR, the pilot must comply with §91.185.

[Doc. No. 24458, 56 FR 65658, Dec. 17, 1991, as amended by Amdt. 91-239, 59 FR 11693, Mar. 11, 1994]
 
One possible, though unlikely, explanation to some of these shenanigans...

When practicing engine outs in the vicinity of an airport, there will be times when you arrive at pattern altitude with no way to fly a standard pattern.

I think students should be proficient in "whatever it takes" patterns if and when an engine fails. Most times they should aim for a "key position" abeam the numbers at about pattern altitude in the proper direction, but I'd rather see them fly a non-standard pattern and land in the first third of the runway than feel that have to maneuver to a standard pattern.

Certainly unlikely, as I said, but it is one possible explanation to a non-standard pattern being flown.

If I were approaching a pilot about it, it would start with a query: "Is there any special reason you chose to fly right traffic?" There may actually be one. If not, and the pilot is receptive, it may constitute a "teaching moment".
 
I never have the energy to look up such things but "Regulation Ron" should be along shortly to confirm or dispel my assertion.
:rofl:

Screw the FSDO call the cops. Get him charged with careless and reckless that'll show him who is boss. Then call TSA and get his airport badge pulled. If you don't have a fence and airport badges call TSA to get some first.

Get bullied as a child?
 
I am not a fan of calls to authorities. I would go face to face of he is based at that field. If he still wanted to be a jack$&#, I would just spread the word if his dangerous habits and arrogant attitude.
 
I am not a fan of calls to authorities. I would go face to face of he is based at that field. If he still wanted to be a jack$&#, I would just spread the word if his dangerous habits and arrogant attitude.

What about those student cross countries that come from other airports and don't know about him?

I think everyone hates tattling, but with truly unsafe and uninterested behavior, it becomes the only option that might actually work.
 
So you have a newish student that has never flown a RH pattern before and the nearest deserted uncontrolled airport is LH patterns only, what are you to do???????
 
When practicing engine outs in the vicinity of an airport, there will be times when you arrive at pattern altitude with no way to fly a standard pattern.
While there is a general exception to the Part 91 rules for emergencies, I don't know of one which provides an exception for practicing emergency procedures like engine failure. So, while you can legally deviate from the recommended entry as part of a training drill, the regulation on direction of turns in the pattern remains legally binding unless the engine really quit.
 
Last edited:
I am not a fan of calls to authorities. I would go face to face of he is based at that field. If he still wanted to be a jack$&#, I would just spread the word if his dangerous habits and arrogant attitude.
How will that work to change his behavior if talking to him didn't and he's exhibited the attitudes described by the OP?
 
One possible, though unlikely, explanation to some of these shenanigans...

When practicing engine outs in the vicinity of an airport, there will be times when you arrive at pattern altitude with no way to fly a standard pattern.

I think students should be proficient in "whatever it takes" patterns if and when an engine fails. Most times they should aim for a "key position" abeam the numbers at about pattern altitude in the proper direction, but I'd rather see them fly a non-standard pattern and land in the first third of the runway than feel that have to maneuver to a standard pattern.

Certainly unlikely, as I said, but it is one possible explanation to a non-standard pattern being flown.

If I were approaching a pilot about it, it would start with a query: "Is there any special reason you chose to fly right traffic?" There may actually be one. If not, and the pilot is receptive, it may constitute a "teaching moment".

What other regulations do you consider to be optional for training purposes?
 
What other regulations do you consider to be optional for training purposes?

You and Henning both make excellent points.

As quick background, in about 40 years of flying and over 4,500 hours of instruction given, I have yet to have an accident nor a violation. I am not currently instructing, though I may again someday, but really hope to keep my record clean on both counts.

I've always been a pretty conservative pilot and try to adhere to all regulations.

But I think an instructor finds himself on the horns of a dilemma:

On the one hand, violating regs is a good way to lose one's license, or even life, and it also sends a horrible message to the student - do as I say, not as I do.

But on the other hand, simulating emergencies in order to see what a student will do, and giving him or her flexibility to act in that simulated emergency would seem to enhance safety going forward.

I would say that pulling an engine on a twin right after takeoff to practice engine-out procedures could be construed as Careless and Reckless operation - yet we do it for the benefits it provides going forward.

So, let me put this out there - am I alone in this regard, or do other instructors allow for some flexibility (read illegality) in their teaching methods? Maybe I gradually just became a cowboy and didn't even realize it!
 
If you don't train pilots to land from nonstandard patterns you will have pilots flying around lacking a valuable skill. I pity pilots that haven't been trained in such. First time you set a pilot up with a nonstandard approach guarantee they flub it up...
You and Henning both make excellent points.

As quick background, in about 40 years of flying and over 4,500 hours of instruction given, I have yet to have an accident nor a violation. I am not currently instructing, though I may again someday, but really hope to keep my record clean on both counts.

I've always been a pretty conservative pilot and try to adhere to all regulations.

But I think an instructor finds himself on the horns of a dilemma:

On the one hand, violating regs is a good way to lose one's license, or even life, and it also sends a horrible message to the student - do as I say, not as I do.

But on the other hand, simulating emergencies in order to see what a student will do, and giving him or her flexibility to act in that simulated emergency would seem to enhance safety going forward.

I would say that pulling an engine on a twin right after takeoff to practice engine-out procedures could be construed as Careless and Reckless operation - yet we do it for the benefits it provides going forward.

So, let me put this out there - am I alone in this regard, or do other instructors allow for some flexibility (read illegality) in their teaching methods? Maybe I gradually just became a cowboy and didn't even realize it!
 
But on the other hand, simulating emergencies in order to see what a student will do, and giving him or her flexibility to act in that simulated emergency would seem to enhance safety going forward.
I'm with you that far, but not as far as breaking a regulation in training in order to train for a real emergency. The FAA grants no quarter for that.
I would say that pulling an engine on a twin right after takeoff to practice engine-out procedures could be construed as Careless and Reckless operation - yet we do it for the benefits it provides going forward.
You might say that, but the FAA would not as long as you adhere to the general guidelines in the PTS and AFH as well as the aircraft's POH for such training -- and you don't turn right to land where it's left traffic.
So, let me put this out there - am I alone in this regard, or do other instructors allow for some flexibility (read illegality) in their teaching methods? Maybe I gradually just became a cowboy and didn't even realize it!
You're not alone in not breaking the rules in order to give emergency training -- I'm right there with you, because the FAA allows no such "flexibility".
 
How about going to a towered field and request right traffic, short approaches, early turnouts, etc. if you guys are so worried about regulations? It's pretty easy to find an almost unused but towered airport, "request right traffic short approach for simulated engine out". Or whatever scenario you want. This place gets sooooo uptight about regulations, surely there is a way to teach students even if that means someone has to give you permission to do it.
 
How about going to a towered field and request right traffic, short approaches, early turnouts, etc. if you guys are so worried about regulations? It's pretty easy to find an almost unused but towered airport, "request right traffic short approach for simulated engine out". Or whatever scenario you want. This place gets sooooo uptight about regulations, surely there is a way to teach students even if that means someone has to give you permission to do it.

Not only that, but if you wanted the student to get experience with the other direction of turns, wouldn't going to an airport where the desired direction was specified suffice?
 
I recently finished up my training flying out of a Class D towered field and they ended up putting me in a few right hand patterns and I will say that I messed up my first few turns from downwind to base and to final in the 172, but finally got the hang of it. I'm glad I've got some Legal experience in a right hand pattern.
 
You and Henning both make excellent points.

As quick background, in about 40 years of flying and over 4,500 hours of instruction given, I have yet to have an accident nor a violation. I am not currently instructing, though I may again someday, but really hope to keep my record clean on both counts.

I've always been a pretty conservative pilot and try to adhere to all regulations.

But I think an instructor finds himself on the horns of a dilemma:

On the one hand, violating regs is a good way to lose one's license, or even life, and it also sends a horrible message to the student - do as I say, not as I do.

But on the other hand, simulating emergencies in order to see what a student will do, and giving him or her flexibility to act in that simulated emergency would seem to enhance safety going forward.

I would say that pulling an engine on a twin right after takeoff to practice engine-out procedures could be construed as Careless and Reckless operation - yet we do it for the benefits it provides going forward.

So, let me put this out there - am I alone in this regard, or do other instructors allow for some flexibility (read illegality) in their teaching methods? Maybe I gradually just became a cowboy and didn't even realize it!
Before FTG got the tower, I used to practice various emergency landings. But only when there wasn't traffic (or very little) and always announced exactly what I was doing, prefaced by the phrase "practicing emergency procedures". Everything I did could have been construed as violations, or at the minimum as careless.

Now that we have the tower, I don't get to practice as often because of coordination with the tower.
 
Before FTG got the tower, I used to practice various emergency landings. But only when there wasn't traffic (or very little) and always announced exactly what I was doing, prefaced by the phrase "practicing emergency procedures". Everything I did could have been construed as violations, or at the minimum as careless.

Now that we have the tower, I don't get to practice as often because of coordination with the tower.

Just practice at a nearby non-towered field. You should have a choice of several within 30 nm.
 
Back
Top