Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.

I've two thoughts:

Fly south, then west, pass overhead the field, and then 2 or 3 miles
later do a descending 225 degree right turn, and join on a 45 degree
to downwind, or

Stay east and then south of the airport, and join a straight in
outside 5 sm.

Opinions?

Stan

> wrote in message
...
>
> Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
> standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
> interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
> would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.
>
> I've two thoughts:
>
> Fly south, then west, pass overhead the field, and then 2 or 3 miles
> later do a descending 225 degree right turn, and join on a 45 degree
> to downwind, or
>
> Stay east and then south of the airport, and join a straight in
> outside 5 sm.
>
> Opinions?
>

Head southwest and enter left downwind.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:08:42 GMT, wrote:

> Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
> standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
> interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
> would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.

Stan,

ASSUMING IFR conditions (900 ft ceilings at my airport), I would descend
quick as I can to MDA, I then would cross midfield, turn left for downwind
and circle to land on 36.

To go out 5 miles for a straight in, you run the risk of losing the runway
environment should visibility be lower then VFR minimums.

Allen

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> ASSUMING IFR conditions (900 ft ceilings at my airport), I would descend
> quick as I can to MDA, I then would cross midfield, turn left for downwind
> and circle to land on 36.
>
> To go out 5 miles for a straight in, you run the risk of losing the runway
> environment should visibility be lower then VFR minimums.
>

Why are you concerned about losing the runway environment should visibility
be lower then VFR minimums if you're already assuming IFR conditions? If a
900' ceiling makes it IFR conditions we're talking about a Class E surface
area.

Fly SW and cross midfield at pattern altitude; join the the left
downwind.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

I like your first solution better than the second. Having said that, neither
the regs nor the AIM provide much guidance in the situation you describe.
Look at Advisory Circular 90-66A for more relevant information.

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message
...
> Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
> standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
> interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
> would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.
>
> I've two thoughts:
>
> Fly south, then west, pass overhead the field, and then 2 or 3 miles
> later do a descending 225 degree right turn, and join on a 45 degree
> to downwind, or
>
> Stay east and then south of the airport, and join a straight in
> outside 5 sm.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Stan

Forgot to say vfr flight. I know, the group is "ifr". Sorry, my
mistake

Stan

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 16:23:04 -0600, A Lieberman >
wrote:
>Stan,
>
>ASSUMING IFR conditions (900 ft ceilings at my airport), I would descend

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:20:54 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> Why are you concerned about losing the runway environment should visibility
> be lower then VFR minimums if you're already assuming IFR conditions? If a
> 900' ceiling makes it IFR conditions we're talking about a Class E surface
> area.

Hi Steven,

I am very new to this IFR stuff so bear with me....

I was told that on a VOR A type approach or circle to land, that once you
identify the runway environment, you must remain in visual contact.

Once you lose sight of the runway environment, I was told you must execute
a missed approach. Even though I may be in class E space, I must maintain
visual contact with the runway environement to land. Thus my position to
overfly the airport and always to keep it in my sight.

If I was to extend my downwind or an extended final to such where I lose
contact with the runway (as proposed by the original poster, a five mile
final), then missed approach would be appropriate especially if you are
coming into an airport without nav aids such as a localizer or ILS.

I am based in MBO (Madison MS) and runway 17/35 does not have any nav aids
for landing other then the VOR A or B approach.

In my instrument training, I have landed at minimums at MBO with my
instructor, and I sure was glad to experience it with a CFI on board!
Coming in at minimums makes for a VERY TIGHT pattern.

The poster subsequently did post that what should be done under VFR
conditions.

Hope this makes sense.

Allen

Bob,

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something but Figure 4-3-2 of the 2005 AIM
Shows only one entry to the pattern.

That is what you suggested. The straight in (his second choice) is probably
more dangerous. I would be concerned about the possibility of (if there is
an Instrument Approach to 36) someone coming in behind or above me.

I will look up the AC you referenced in an attempt to learn more. I know one
of the local DPEs might fail the straight in since he says the PTS
incorporates the AIM.

Daniel


"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>I like your first solution better than the second. Having said that,
>neither the regs nor the AIM provide much guidance in the situation you
>describe. Look at Advisory Circular 90-66A for more relevant information.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
>> standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
>> interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
>> would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.
>>
>> I've two thoughts:
>>
>> Fly south, then west, pass overhead the field, and then 2 or 3 miles
>> later do a descending 225 degree right turn, and join on a 45 degree
>> to downwind, or
>>
>> Stay east and then south of the airport, and join a straight in
>> outside 5 sm.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> Stan
>
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Enter upwind crosswind on the 45 north of the field, procede with left
turn to downwind for R36.

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was told that on a VOR A type approach or circle to land, that once you
> identify the runway environment, you must remain in visual contact.
>
> Once you lose sight of the runway environment, I was told you must execute
> a missed approach. Even though I may be in class E space, I must maintain
> visual contact with the runway environement to land. Thus my position to
> overfly the airport and always to keep it in my sight.
>
> If I was to extend my downwind or an extended final to such where I lose
> contact with the runway (as proposed by the original poster, a five mile
> final), then missed approach would be appropriate especially if you are
> coming into an airport without nav aids such as a localizer or ILS.
>

Keeping the runway in sight does not require 3 miles visibility.

I'm with McNicholl on this one, technically it would probably be a
crosswind entry. But it depends. Listen to the radio. Where is the
other traffic? The idea is an orderly flow of aircraft around the
pattern. Whatever else you do, enter behind one of the other planes and
make sure you don't cut anyone off. I am one of these people that
believe that if there is no one around, you can fly to the center of
the runway and do a "midfield" crosswind entry if the downwind is on
the other side of the field from you. And this works fine if there is
no one around to cut off. Or if you know where all the other airplanes
are and you wont interfere.

If in doubt, the best thing would be to fly to the other side of the
airport well north of the pattern and enter the downwind at a 45. This
is what I would do if I approached and there were a lot of radio
position calls indicating a lot of traffic in the pattern.

I'm with McNicholl on this one, technically it would probably be a
crosswind entry. But it depends. Listen to the radio. Where is the
other traffic? The idea is an orderly flow of aircraft around the
pattern. Whatever else you do, enter behind one of the other planes and
make sure you don't cut anyone off. I am one of these people that
believe that if there is no one around, you can fly to the center of
the runway and do a "midfield" crosswind entry if the downwind is on
the other side of the field from you. And this works fine if there is
no one around to cut off. Or if you know where all the other airplanes
are and you wont interfere.

If in doubt, the best thing would be to fly to the other side of the
airport well north of the pattern and enter the downwind at a 45. This
is what I would do if I approached and there were a lot of radio
position calls indicating a lot of traffic in the pattern.

What you are missing is that 4-3-2 deals with application of traffic pattern
indicators, period. Look at the note near 4-3-1 to see what the writers of
the AIM say about traffic pattern entries.

Bob

"Daniel L. Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
> Bob,
>
> Perhaps I am misunderstanding something but Figure 4-3-2 of the 2005 AIM
> Shows only one entry to the pattern.
>
> That is what you suggested. The straight in (his second choice) is
> probably more dangerous. I would be concerned about the possibility of (if
> there is an Instrument Approach to 36) someone coming in behind or above
> me.
>
> I will look up the AC you referenced in an attempt to learn more. I know
> one of the local DPEs might fail the straight in since he says the PTS
> incorporates the AIM.
>
> Daniel
>
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I like your first solution better than the second. Having said that,
>>neither the regs nor the AIM provide much guidance in the situation you
>>describe. Look at Advisory Circular 90-66A for more relevant information.
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
>>> standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
>>> interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
>>> would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.
>>>
>>> I've two thoughts:
>>>
>>> Fly south, then west, pass overhead the field, and then 2 or 3 miles
>>> later do a descending 225 degree right turn, and join on a 45 degree
>>> to downwind, or
>>>
>>> Stay east and then south of the airport, and join a straight in
>>> outside 5 sm.
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>>>
>>> Stan
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

I'd enter on crosswind about a mile north of the airport. I'd have a
view of the whole runway.

Your scenario would also be a good one, especially if I were trying to
sort out traffic.


> wrote in message
...
> Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
> standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
> interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
> would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.
>
> I've two thoughts:
>
> Fly south, then west, pass overhead the field, and then 2 or 3 miles
> later do a descending 225 degree right turn, and join on a 45 degree
> to downwind, or
>
> Stay east and then south of the airport, and join a straight in
> outside 5 sm.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Stan

Steven, thanks for the reply. Assuming you're vfr, and not off an ifr
approach, are your suggesting to proceed southwest at pattern altitude
and join downwind with a 45 degree or so left turn?
after all, all turns to the left when approaching to land!
Just looking for some ideas on what considered acceptable.

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:56:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>>
>> Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
>> standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
>> interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
>> would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.
>>
>> I've two thoughts:
>>
>> Fly south, then west, pass overhead the field, and then 2 or 3 miles
>> later do a descending 225 degree right turn, and join on a 45 degree
>> to downwind, or
>>
>> Stay east and then south of the airport, and join a straight in
>> outside 5 sm.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>
>Head southwest and enter left downwind.
>
>

what you say makes sense to me, but I'm just surprised there's no
mention of such in the aim.

Instructors out there, is this what you teach students as a preferred
entry method, or do you prefer they comply with the aim
recommendations?
Just wondering how many pilots prefer to just make the simplest entry,
minimizing time manoeuvring in the pattern, and perhaps being safer on
the whole

Stan

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:26:33 -0600, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>Fly SW and cross midfield at pattern altitude; join the the left
>downwind.

But the first seems much more manoeuvring, possible preventing as good
a look out as the second option. I'm actually wondering if the second
seems more practicle.

Stan

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:26:54 -0800, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>I like your first solution better than the second. Having said that, neither
>the regs nor the AIM provide much guidance in the situation you describe.
>Look at Advisory Circular 90-66A for more relevant information.
>
>Bob Gardner
>
> wrote in message
...
>> Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
>> standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
>> interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
>> would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.
>>
>> I've two thoughts:
>>
>> Fly south, then west, pass overhead the field, and then 2 or 3 miles
>> later do a descending 225 degree right turn, and join on a 45 degree
>> to downwind, or
>>
>> Stay east and then south of the airport, and join a straight in
>> outside 5 sm.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> Stan
>

> wrote in message
...
>
> Steven, thanks for the reply. Assuming you're vfr, and not off an ifr
> approach, are your suggesting to proceed southwest at pattern altitude
> and join downwind with a 45 degree or so left turn?
> after all, all turns to the left when approaching to land!
> Just looking for some ideas on what considered acceptable.
>

Yup.

Forget about everything but safety. Flying over the center of the field 500
feet (or more) above pattern altitude keeps you away from everyone taking
off and landing...they are, after all, at field elevation. You get a good
look at planes on final and those rolling for takeoff. Then flying away from
the pattern and descending to pattern altitude well away from the pattern is
the safest solution to the problem you posed. Maneuvering, saving time,
saving gas...all take a back seat to safety.

Same thing applies at many controlled fields. Ask the controller for
permission to cross the airport and you will most likely be told to cross
midfield at 2500 feet or so...that's the way they do it at Seattle-Tacoma,
anyway. Hard to hit a jet when it has its wheels on the runway and you are
way up there.

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message
...
> But the first seems much more manoeuvring, possible preventing as good
> a look out as the second option. I'm actually wondering if the second
> seems more practicle.
>
> Stan
>
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:26:54 -0800, "Bob Gardner" >
> wrote:
>
>>I like your first solution better than the second. Having said that,
>>neither
>>the regs nor the AIM provide much guidance in the situation you describe.
>>Look at Advisory Circular 90-66A for more relevant information.
>>
>>Bob Gardner
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>> Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
>>> standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
>>> interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
>>> would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.
>>>
>>> I've two thoughts:
>>>
>>> Fly south, then west, pass overhead the field, and then 2 or 3 miles
>>> later do a descending 225 degree right turn, and join on a 45 degree
>>> to downwind, or
>>>
>>> Stay east and then south of the airport, and join a straight in
>>> outside 5 sm.
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>>>
>>> Stan
>>
>

Fly an extra 10 miles? For what purpose? Just enter the left downwind
and land. Don't make this more difficult than it has to be. The more
time you spend in the terminal area the more risk you have.



wrote:
> But the first seems much more manoeuvring, possible preventing as good
> a look out as the second option. I'm actually wondering if the second
> seems more practicle.
>
> Stan
>
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:26:54 -0800, "Bob Gardner" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I like your first solution better than the second. Having said that, neither
>>the regs nor the AIM provide much guidance in the situation you describe.
>>Look at Advisory Circular 90-66A for more relevant information.
>>
>>Bob Gardner
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
>>>standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
>>>interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
>>>would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.
>>>
>>>I've two thoughts:
>>>
>>>Fly south, then west, pass overhead the field, and then 2 or 3 miles
>>>later do a descending 225 degree right turn, and join on a 45 degree
>>>to downwind, or
>>>
>>>Stay east and then south of the airport, and join a straight in
>>>outside 5 sm.
>>>
>>>Opinions?
>>>
>>>Stan
>>
>

"Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> Same thing applies at many controlled fields. Ask the controller for
> permission to cross the airport and you will most likely be told to cross
> midfield at 2500 feet or so...that's the way they do it at Seattle-Tacoma,
> anyway. Hard to hit a jet when it has its wheels on the runway and you are
> way up there.

Yup, that's what they do around here. Ask to transition LaGuardia, and
they'll have you fly directly over the tower at 1500 feet. I've had them
do similar at Newark and Kennedy.

At White Plains, they'll often give spam cans closed traffic on 29 while
running jets on 34; they just ask you to keep your downwind in tight,
passing right over the numbers of 34.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message =
...
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>> Same thing applies at many controlled fields. Ask the controller for=20
>> permission to cross the airport and you will most likely be told to =
cross=20
>> midfield at 2500 feet or so...that's the way they do it at =
Seattle-Tacoma,=20
>> anyway. Hard to hit a jet when it has its wheels on the runway and =
you are=20
>> way up there.
>=20
> Yup, that's what they do around here. Ask to transition LaGuardia, =
and=20
> they'll have you fly directly over the tower at 1500 feet. I've had =
them=20
> do similar at Newark and Kennedy.
>=20
> At White Plains, they'll often give spam cans closed traffic on 29 =
while=20
> running jets on 34; they just ask you to keep your downwind in tight,=20
> passing right over the numbers of 34.

Occasionally I fly IFR into Spirit of St. Louis Airport from the east,
and it's rare NOT to be vectored squarely across Lambert Field,
continuing outward south-westerly until getting further vectors to KSUS.
Once, in VMC, I was asked to cross "the building with the big blue =
roof"!

Depends on what the weather is, and if there is VFR traffic. If it is
IFR conditions and no VFR traffic is observed, then circle anyway as you
please, while looking out for traffic.

If there are other VFR traffic, I don't like either of your options. Too
much maneuvering for the first option, and it is best to avoid straight-
ins when there is VFR traffic.

I would fly slightly west to intercept the extended downwind and merge
with the traffic.

Alternatively, you could fly south, pass overhead and turn directly
downwind. I wouldn't do the descending 225-degree right. Way too much
maneuvering near the traffic pattern. You could do this if you go a few
miles out, but you are wasting time and fuel on something that could be
accomplished quite easily and safely.




wrote in news:cfiqv0hgqs3mic8c9hr1cv87rpeiikqji2@
4ax.com:

> Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
> standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
> interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
> would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.
>
> I've two thoughts:
>
> Fly south, then west, pass overhead the field, and then 2 or 3 miles
> later do a descending 225 degree right turn, and join on a 45 degree
> to downwind, or
>
> Stay east and then south of the airport, and join a straight in
> outside 5 sm.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Stan

Bob,

The AC you referenced AC 90-66a says in "7. GENERAL OPERATING PROCEDURES
....E. The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern.
However, for those pilots who choose to execute a straight-in approach ,
maneuvering..." I believe that this clearly indicates that the 45 entry is
the standard traffic pattern and that the straight-in is an exception to the
standard.

Perhaps my 2005 AIM differs from your AIM. The note under 4-3-3 "Examples
Key to traffic pattern operations 1. Enter pattern in level flight, abeam
the midpoint of the runway, at pattern altitude..." supports the entry we
both think is best.

In my 2005 AIM
4-3-4 is "Visual Indicators ar Airports Without an Operating Control Tower".
4-3-3 is "Traffic Patterns".

I thank you for your reference to AC 90-66a which I have read and since we
both agree on the best entry don't see much value in arguing about the
justification for that opinion especially since the Original Poster asked
for "Opinions."

I will, since I respect your opinion, let you have the last word, if you
choose, and will read what you have to say and then drop the matter.

Daniel

> What you are missing is that 4-3-2 deals with application of traffic
> pattern indicators, period. Look at the note near 4-3-1 to see what the
> writers of the AIM say about traffic pattern entries.
>
> Bob
>
> "Daniel L. Lieberman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bob,
>>
>> Perhaps I am misunderstanding something but Figure 4-3-2 of the 2005 AIM
>> Shows only one entry to the pattern.
>>
>> That is what you suggested. The straight in (his second choice) is
>> probably more dangerous. I would be concerned about the possibility of
>> (if there is an Instrument Approach to 36) someone coming in behind or
>> above me.
>>
>> I will look up the AC you referenced in an attempt to learn more. I know
>> one of the local DPEs might fail the straight in since he says the PTS
>> incorporates the AIM.
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>I like your first solution better than the second. Having said that,
>>>neither the regs nor the AIM provide much guidance in the situation you
>>>describe. Look at Advisory Circular 90-66A for more relevant information.
>>>
>>> Bob Gardner
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
>>>> standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
>>>> interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
>>>> would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.
>>>>
>>>> I've two thoughts:
>>>>
>>>> Fly south, then west, pass overhead the field, and then 2 or 3 miles
>>>> later do a descending 225 degree right turn, and join on a 45 degree
>>>> to downwind, or
>>>>
>>>> Stay east and then south of the airport, and join a straight in
>>>> outside 5 sm.
>>>>
>>>> Opinions?
>>>>
>>>> Stan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.usenet.com
>
>

> wrote:
> Just wondering how many pilots prefer to just make the simplest
entry,
> minimizing time manoeuvring in the pattern, and perhaps being safer on
> the whole

That is what my last instructor taught me, and what the local FAA Safety
Counselor (who's also a CFII) recommends.

Extra maneuvering near an airport increases collision risk. Flying all
over the county just to achieve the sacred 45 degree downwind entry is
silly and dangerous.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Bob Gardner" wrote:
> Then flying away from the pattern and descending to pattern altitude
> well away from the pattern is the safest solution to the problem you
> posed.

What's the point of that? That requires more turns at low altitude near
an airport, increasing collision exposure.

Join the pattern as expeditiously as possible (always following
right-of-way rules) and get it on the ground.

Crossing midfield at pattern altitude gives a good view of the pattern
and the windsock and sets you up for an simple turn to the downwind.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:
>
> Too
> much maneuvering for the first option,

Yup.

> and it is best to avoid straight-
> ins when there is VFR traffic.

Why? If you're approaching from a direction that is straight in to your
runway, what would be safer--flying all over the area to set up for a
downwind?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

> wrote in message
...
> Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
> standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
> interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
> would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.

I guess you could do an abbreviated version of the overhead join, whereby
you descend on the dead side (on the east) and then when you get to circuit
height, cross the northern end of the runway, effectively joining the
circuit on the crosswind leg. Normally with an overhead join to a left-hand
circuit you'd be approaching from the "live" side of the circuit at 2,000
feet or so, but as you're on the dead side already, this doesn't apply.

> Fly south, then west, pass overhead the field, and then 2 or 3 miles
> later do a descending 225 degree right turn, and join on a 45 degree
> to downwind, or

Probably not favourable, as you're in the vicinity of traffic in the circuit
but as you're in a right turn, you won't have a particularly good view in
the direction you're turning (particularly if you have a high-wing
aircraft). All you need is for someone to be doing what my instructor used
to call "V-bomber circuits" (i.e. not keeping them tight and close in) and
you're in a potentially sticky spot. With the crosswind join you're already
flying in the direction of the circuit when you start, and the main lookout
will be for departing traffic, which until you get to the runway will be
forward of your nine o'clock. If you converge onto the downwind from 45
degrees you'll be looking over your left shoulder to try to spot people,
which isn't ideal.

> Stay east and then south of the airport, and join a straight in
> outside 5 sm.

That's probably the nicest way. Actually the absolute nicest way would be to
join on a right-hand downwind (we often have both directions working at once
at my home field), but in a non-ATC situation you would want to stick with
the official way.

D.

"David Cartwright" > wrote in message
...
>
> All you need is for someone to be doing what my instructor used to call
> "V-bomber circuits" (i.e. not keeping them tight and close in) and you're
> in a potentially sticky spot.

Was he British?

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 01:21:06 GMT, wrote:

>Instructors out there, is this what you teach students as a preferred
>entry method, or do you prefer they comply with the aim
>recommendations?
>Just wondering how many pilots prefer to just make the simplest entry,
>minimizing time manoeuvring in the pattern, and perhaps being safer on
>the whole

FWIW, I was taught that if approaching an uncontrolled field from the
non-pattern side, fly 1000' over pattern altitude to midfield, turn to
cross pattern at 90deg angle, fly outbound, make a right-descending
turn to enter 45 deg inbound leg (assuming left traffic, left turn for
right traffic), join pattern a-la AIM on downwind. If joining from
the pattern side of the field, maneuver to be at pattern altitude and
make 45deg entry a-la AIM. When breaking off an instrument approach
in VMC, once told to change to advisory, maneuver as needed to enter a
standard VFR pattern, including breaking off a straight in approach to
an in-use runway and join the pattern.

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> Forget about everything but safety. Flying over the center of the field
> 500 feet (or more) above pattern altitude keeps you away from everyone
> taking off and landing... Bob Gardner
>

I like that "more" part. Larger aircraft will often use a pattern 500 ft
higher.

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
1...
>
> Depends on what the weather is, and if there is VFR traffic. If it is
> IFR conditions and no VFR traffic is observed, then circle anyway as you
> please, while looking out for traffic.
>

Anyway I please? What about FAR 91.126(b)?


>
> If there are other VFR traffic, I don't like either of your options. Too
> much maneuvering for the first option, and it is best to avoid straight-
> ins when there is VFR traffic.
>

Why is it best to avoid straight-ins when there is VFR traffic?

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>
> When breaking off an instrument approach
> in VMC, once told to change to advisory, maneuver as needed to enter a
> standard VFR pattern, including breaking off a straight in approach to
> an in-use runway and join the pattern.
>

Why?

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Andrew Sarangan" wrote:
>>
>> Too
>> much maneuvering for the first option,
>
> Yup.
>
>> and it is best to avoid straight-
>> ins when there is VFR traffic.
>
> Why? If you're approaching from a direction that is straight in to your
> runway, what would be safer--flying all over the area to set up for a
> downwind?
>


The final leg is where two airplanes are most likely to come in contact.
This is where they are converging towards the runway, and the pilots are
least likely to be scanning. This is also when two airplanes will be at
different altitudes, making them harder to spot. How many times have you
followed a traffic in the pattern and lost visual contact after it turns
final? A straight-in is notorious for inaccurate distance estimates.
However, I do straight-ins when the situation calls for it. But I've had
several close encouters that makes me think twice in such situations. All I
am saying is that it warrants extra caution compared to other entries.

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> When breaking off an instrument approach
> in VMC, once told to change to advisory, maneuver as needed to enter a
> standard VFR pattern, including breaking off a straight in approach to
> an in-use runway and join the pattern.

But isn't a straight-in approach part of a perfectly valid VFR pattern? Why
bother flying around the town when you're already lined up for finals?

D.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>> All you need is for someone to be doing what my instructor used to call
>> "V-bomber circuits" (i.e. not keeping them tight and close in) and you're
>> in a potentially sticky spot.
> Was he British?

Now how did you guess? Really nice bloke, actually - a West Country huntin',
shootin' and fishin' type who flies big things full of cargo for a living
(or did, last time I spoke to him) and doubles as an examiner.

D.

Plus the Skydivers usually open between 1500 and 2000 ft AGL. I would
much rather try avoiding a Parachute rather than a free falling
skydiver.

Ok maybe not an issue at every airport, but certainly an issue at some
of the airports I fly at.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 08:48:12 +0000 (UTC), "David Cartwright"
> wrote:

>"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>> When breaking off an instrument approach
>> in VMC, once told to change to advisory, maneuver as needed to enter a
>> standard VFR pattern, including breaking off a straight in approach to
>> an in-use runway and join the pattern.
>
>But isn't a straight-in approach part of a perfectly valid VFR pattern? Why
>bother flying around the town when you're already lined up for finals?

(applies to Steve's reply as well)

The way it was explained to me, if there are already aircraft in the
pattern, doing a straight in would likely cut them off, and would
increase exposure to a base-to-final/straight-in final midair (I'm
assuming this is also attempting to comply with 91.113(g), don't get
lower on a straight in just to have right-of-way).

Course, if there's nobody discernable visually or via radio already in
the pattern when I get there I'd continue the approach straight-in and
land, but if I can't ensure that I'd come in behind someone already on
downwind, I'd maneuver to get behind them in the sequence.

I agree, Cross midfield at pattern altitude, and enter down wind. give
way to aircraft entering on the 45. The reason for instructors
teaching the crossing at 500-1000' over and then entering the 45 is a
because that is the recommended proceedure in the AIM. This is one
area that I think the AIM is lacking in that I can not come up with any
good reason to do this over the cleaner shorter and aurguably safer
method of crossing at pattern altitude and just turning downwind. I
really like the AOPA Air Safety Foundation document on flying and
Non-towered airports. I just wish they could get the FAA to go along
with (and provide FAA documentation) supporting the Alternate pattern
entry they show. Perhaps more instructors would start teaching the
alternate method which I believe is safer.

(My Safer aurgment goes like this: Against overflying and enter on the
45. 1. flying over the pattern it is very difficult to see aircraft
below you in the ground clutter. 2. How far out do you go to get out of
the pattern to descend to pattern altitude. I watch twins routinely fly
3 mile patterns, This is nearly a Cross Country in the J-4. 3.
Skydivers and Turbine aircraft patterns are routinely at the 1500 to
2000' level. 4. above 1000' it is much more difficult to see Windsocks
and other details about the runway. For overfly at Pattern altitude.
1. Efficent 2. Never leave gliding range of the runway 3. Can see other
aircraft better since they should all be at pattern altitude. 4. Can
See windsock and other runway details better.

Brian

In article om>,
"Brian" > wrote:

> Plus the Skydivers usually open between 1500 and 2000 ft AGL.

Um, no, not most skydivers I used to jump with anyway; that's pretty
low! 2000'-3000' and higher (tandem jumpers would open around 4,500'
IIRC) is more reasonable, I'd guess. Have a look down from 2000'
sometime. How'd you like to be hurtling towards the ground ar >100 MPH
from THAT altitude? You'd be OK if your main works as planned but it
doesn't leave you much room for handling any emergencies.

> I would much rather try avoiding a Parachute rather than a free falling
> skydiver.

At the vertical speeds involved I'd be amazed if you could spot a
skydiver nearby in freefall (far in front of you is different but harder
for different reasons), let alone plan and execute a course to avoid
them!
>
> Ok maybe not an issue at every airport, but certainly an issue at some
> of the airports I fly at.

Better to look at the sectional for those tricky to spot teeny-tiny
parachute logos and keep ear on the CTAF when coming in or coming
through the area to hear the "Jumpers away" call and/or avoid the
drop-zone altogether if you're familiar, or just give the airport a wide
berth if you're not specifically familiar with local operations.

Take care,
-Patrick Dirks.

1. 2-3k probably is more the norm for parachute opening, It has been a
while since I have dropped any on a regular basis. However I do recall
that for certification the are required to do a drop from low altitude,
It seems to me it somewhere between 3,000 and 3,500 ft agl to be
dropped from.

Anyway the point being the lower I am the more time and easer the
parachute will be to see.

2. I agree you would never be able to see or avoid a free falling
skydiver.

3. Funny my Sectional doesn't show a Parachute symbol, yet the are
skydiving almost Dawn to Dusk 7 days a week. On the other hand they are
very good about making Radio calls for dropping parachutes, and If you
are aware that they are there they are easy to avoid.

Brian

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
>>But isn't a straight-in approach part of a perfectly valid VFR pattern?
>>Why
>>bother flying around the town when you're already lined up for finals?
> The way it was explained to me, if there are already aircraft in the
> pattern, doing a straight in would likely cut them off, and would
> increase exposure to a base-to-final/straight-in final midair (I'm
> assuming this is also attempting to comply with 91.113(g), don't get
> lower on a straight in just to have right-of-way).

I see what you mean, though joining on any leg runs the risk of cutting up
someone on the preceding leg (e.g. if you join on an extended downwind, you
have to keep your eye out for people on their crosswind leg).

I guess the main difference with joining on final is that when you're within
three miles or so of the runway, you are probably descending and so someone
on base has to look in three dimensions (i.e. down as well as sideways) in
order to spot you, thus increasing the risk of them not seeing you.

Sure enough, one reads incident reports (mostly near misses, but not always)
of conflicts between aircraft on straight-in approaches and those that have
come in on the circuit. In most cases, though, the problems are related to
human factors - not least confusion/bolshieness over the statement that
priority should be given to an aircraft on its final approach. That is, in
many such cases the straight-in aircraft knows there's traffic in the
circuit, but deliberately adopts the "I'm on final so the other guy can go
whistle" attitude - illegally, because to put themselves in this position
they've broken the rule that when entering the circuit/pattern, you
shouldn't get in the way of other aircraft already in it.

With the application of some common sense, though, straight-in approaches
can be perfectly safe. A good lookout on the part of both pilots, combined
with the application of "blind" radio calls (just because you don't have ATC
doesn't mean you shouldn't talk just in case someone's listening - I do it
all the time and it's amazing how many times someone replies who you hadn't
seen) should do the trick. The only downside is that if you're a Cessna
pilot, you can't really see up and left because someone put a wing in the
way, so the lookout has to be top-notch on the part of the straight-in
pilot.

D.

Agreed. Over the airport in a descent, enter left dowwind and land. Eyes
and ears peeled the whole way. Broadcast my intentions in as concise a
manner as I can. Or just enter behind the last pilot.

Frankly, If I were approaching from the NW and saw someone from the NE do a
"cross, fly out, RH 225 to the 45 entry", I would be totally confused and
surprised to see that you are landing at the same airport I was aimed at.
But my eyes would be on you the whole way.

The only thing I wouldn't do is fly a right hand pattern at a LH runway.
Otherwise enter whatever leg is shortest or follow the last plane in the
pattern.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> Fly an extra 10 miles? For what purpose? Just enter the left downwind
> and land. Don't make this more difficult than it has to be. The more
> time you spend in the terminal area the more risk you have.
>
>

Maule Driver wrote:
> Agreed. Over the airport in a descent, enter left dowwind and land. Eyes
> and ears peeled the whole way. Broadcast my intentions in as concise a
> manner as I can. Or just enter behind the last pilot.
>
> Frankly, If I were approaching from the NW and saw someone from the NE do a
> "cross, fly out, RH 225 to the 45 entry", I would be totally confused and
> surprised to see that you are landing at the same airport I was aimed at.
> But my eyes would be on you the whole way.

Well, I've managed to stay out of this thread 'til now, but the pressure is
irresistible.

I see some merit in the 225 deg turn to the 45 entry.

Descending onto the downwind from across the field puts any traffic already on
the downwind underneath me and made more difficult to see due to my low wings
and the ground-clutter background. As I make a descending left turn, my view of
the airplane I am about to cut off is blocked by my rising right wing.

On the other hand, with the 225 deg turn to the 45 entry method, I cross the
downwind safely above pattern altitude, and in my 225 deg right turn I have a
full view of the downwind and my lowered right wing is out of the way. I view
the downwind from pattern altitude, so I am looking for traffic against the sky
instead of against ground clutter. My own airplane is in a turn for several
seconds, presenting a more visible profile and increasing the opportunity for
other pilots to see me.

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1107529116.31256@sj-nntpcache-3...

>
> Well, I've managed to stay out of this thread 'til now, but the pressure
is
> irresistible.
>
> I see some merit in the 225 deg turn to the 45 entry.
>
> Descending onto the downwind from across the field puts any traffic
already on
> the downwind underneath me and made more difficult to see due to my low
wings
> and the ground-clutter background. As I make a descending left turn, my
view of
> the airplane I am about to cut off is blocked by my rising right wing.
>
> On the other hand, with the 225 deg turn to the 45 entry method, I cross
the
> downwind safely above pattern altitude, and in my 225 deg right turn I
have a
> full view of the downwind and my lowered right wing is out of the way. I
view
> the downwind from pattern altitude, so I am looking for traffic against
the sky
> instead of against ground clutter. My own airplane is in a turn for
several
> seconds, presenting a more visible profile and increasing the opportunity
for
> other pilots to see me.

I agree with you Dave. This is the way I was taught, for the reasons you
mentioned, and it's always made the most sense to me from the safety "see
and be seen" point of view.

"David Cartwright" > wrote in message
...
>
> Now how did you guess?

By the reference to "V bombers" and "circuits".