Comments on: The Rest of the English-speaking World Has Figured This Out

By: Peter Row

Peter Row — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 19:05:51 +0000

I’d like to throw another monkey-wrench into this discussion. Disclaimer: I’m of the “communicate clearly, be respectful, then do what makes sense” pattern entry philosophy.

However, I recall (as a VFR pilot, before I got my own instrument ticket) hearing traffic on the CTAF like “Cessna 12345 is over MUGSY inbound on the ILS for 32.” This meant nothing to me (at that time). At least, if you know what the ILS is, you can figure out what direction this aircraft is coming from. What about “Cessna 12345 is 3 miles out, inbound on the VOR alpha approach.” Even another instrument pilot won’t know where this aircraft is coming from unless he has personally reviewed that approach. This means that only the safety pilot (or instrument pilot, if it is an approach in actual conditions) is “looking” for traffic, because no one else knows where to look.

I’m not aware of a practice instrument approach aircraft’s odd entry ever causing an accident. If someone can answer why this seems to work OK, or how this can/should be improved, we might be a lot closer to understanding the best ways to deconflict VFR aircraft in the “standard” pattern.

On the other hand, maybe this should be a different dogfight -> what to do with those darn instrument guys flying around in VMC! How rude! (sarcasm, of course)

By: John Mahon

John Mahon — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 17:30:32 +0000

There were about 200 Stearmans at NAS Norman OK in the summer of 1945. As many as 100 might be in the air any time it was daylight, and 8 or 10 at night. We all used the standard 45 degree entry, mandated and seriously enforced. Woe be to the cadet who messed it up. I don’t remember a single ‘Near-miss” and certainly no collisions. There was no tower, and no chattering radio. Abhorred by all was the pattern-disturber who stretched out his pattern with a mile-long final leg. 50 yards is plenty. I still operate the same way at my tower-less home airport, and still mentally castigate the selfish fool who starts his final from halfway to hell. He should go all the way and leave the rest of us alone.

By: N lynn thoma

N lynn thoma — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 22:50:03 +0000

I do like the midfield crosswind entery, but, only when approaching from the non-pattern side of the airport. One thing I dislike about the “45″, is that you have all these aircraft converging from all directions and altitudes to the same spot. How many miles away from the airport does a “45″ start from anyway? It seems the Canadian way just has a different scary spot on which to converge. I’m a huge fan of good accurate radio work (when you have one), who you are, where you are, and where you are going. If that means reporting that you’re 5 north 2000 decending planning midfield crosswind or 5 north 2000 will go to a point 5 southwest, decend and enter a 45, it’s all good to me…even that 10 mile base or final, although, as a matter of courtesy, I consider people who are in the pattern as having the right of way. With this flexability on traffic pattern enterys, everyone is not forced to fly over the exact same spot. Safer I think!

By: Chris Pfaff

Chris Pfaff — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 22:27:14 +0000

I like the standardization, but as an instructor, I question the mid-field crossing. Possible problems are during fly-ins, especially that may do impromptu airshows, and the descent from above TPA down to TPA while essentially in the traffic pattern. Enlighten me as to how this descent problem is not a problem.

By: Steve Phoenix

Steve Phoenix — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 04:22:56 +0000

There seems to be a lot of opinions, but very little data. How many midairs occur between airplanes that are using the AIM procedures in the strictest sense and how many occur between airplanes when a “non-standard” procedure is used? How do the Canadians fair statistically?

There must be a better way to determine what the correct standard should be than just offering opinions. Or it may be that no standard is better; I don’t see birds using standard rectangular patterns. That’s my data point.

By: David Heberling

David Heberling — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 02:24:05 +0000

I was originally a 45 degree entry guy. I exchanged a few emails with Hirchman challenging his use of “FAA Approved” for the overhead approach. His answer that one Inspector where he lives approves this procedure left me less than satisfied. Then he used his trump card, Canada. That got me interested. What we really need is an update of the AIM pertaining to traffic patterns. This discussion needs to formalized and all the stakeholders involved. I am an old dog willing to learn a new trick. I just want it well thought out and blessed by the national office of the FAA. Then this dogfight called off.

By: Jack Voss

Jack Voss — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 22:19:07 +0000

It appears that we have many “standards” in the mix. That, in itself, appears unsafe.

By: Ben Bailey

Ben Bailey — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 22:15:54 +0000

I’m not sure that I am crazy about all this “blog”, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Seems that I am missing stuff. I looked all over my copy of the Feb AOPA Pilot and could not find Hirschman’s “dogfight” anywhere. And now that I found the link in my E-pilot, I find all the comments but not the original article. Since most of my aviation studying and reading is in my easy chair in front of the fireplace, I become a bit frustrated when the e-pilot has part of a story and I have to chase links to get the rest of it, and even in the print edition many of the stories give highlights and send me off to cyberland to get the full story.

Operations at non-towered airports has been a major interest of mine over my instructing career and I really try to capture all the information I can on the subject. But it’s analogous to the dictum in 91.103 to become familiar with “all available information” concerning your flight. It doesn’t say “readily” available information. With the NOTAM system (and especially concerning TFRS), a lot of the “available” information is very difficult to come by.

These truncated and “go somewhere else to fine the rest” articles are really a turnoff and leave the reader with less than full information

i know that I sound like a Luddite, but I thought you might like another opinion.

By: Roy Uchman

Roy Uchman — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 22:00:40 +0000

Regardless of which pattern entry you favour, I think we can all agree that standardization and communication are two of the most important characteristics.

Like I said, I don’t have experience flying into an uncontrolled U.S. field, but I’m leery of the 45 degree pattern entry for the following reasons: one guy’s 45 might be 60 degrees and 1nm and another guy’s 45 is 30 degrees and 5nm, and he may be a couple hundred feet off of the pattern altitude. That’s a lot of sky to be scanning if I’m on downwind or if I’m following these guys onto the downwind.

Conversely, with the Canadian procedure, if I’m on downwind, I know that I need to be looking overhead the airport, directly to my left. That’s a relatively small piece of the sky. Whereas, if I’m crossing overhead to join the downwind, I’m looking for traffic that’s already on the downwind, and that’s a fairly well defined area as well. In addition to this, position reports are more accurate when relative to the airport (i.e,. “…1 mile north, crossing overhead to join left downwind runway 28.”).

By: Jan Melkebeek

Jan Melkebeek — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 21:42:30 +0000

The 90 degrees midfield entry at pattern altitude +500 ft is not found in English speaking countries only. For non-towered airports in Belgium, France, … this is the standard entry. This also allows to check the windsock or to check the airfield for obstructions (like sheep or other animals). Of course, for a high-wing aircraft this entry is somewhat safer than for a low-wing one.
For towered airports all depends on the control tower of course: straight-in or base entry or entry points…