Amateur night at the field

John S. wrote:

"enter upwind crosswind behind any traffic already in the pattern"

It's the "upwind crosswind" part that doesn't make sense to me.
Regardless, I don't think entering the pattern above pattern alt. is a
good idea.

AC 90-66A says "Arriving aircraft should be at the appropriate traffic
pattern altitude before entering the traffic pattern. Entry to the
downwind leg should be at a 45 degree angle abeam the midpoint of the
runway."

That works for me, no need to re-invent the wheel.

That is sort of hard to do when on a practice instrument approach.

I am confused by the upwind crosswind part of your statement. Did you mean
enter the upwind leg by flying crosswind. That would mean you just overflew
the downwind that you could have entered at 45. Or did you mean enter the
crosswind leg upwind of the runway? That would make more sense, but I think
you are supposed to fly across the upwind end of the runway right across the
numbers. That way you aren't likely to get into the way of departing
traffic. This also becomes a problem on long runways were some planes can be
at pattern altitude plus 500 by the end of the runway.

"john smith" wrote in message
...
Proper procedure when other traffic is already in the pattern would be
to overfly the airport at least 500 feet above pattern altitude and
enter upwind crosswind behind any traffic already in the pattern.

Three miles can be on final. What if you had to extend your final because
there were straight in finals ahead of you. You could easily find
yourself
on a three mile final. I remember being extended at a busy class D. They
kept putting Lear jets straight in ahead of me, and extending my
downwind. I
ended up about 10 miles out. I finally told the controller he should
either
fit me into the pattern or turn me over to the neighboring class B
controller whose space I was entering.

Three miles is not on final, it is entering the traffic pattern.
I tell them to call when they are one mile, even that is big for a
pattern.

In article ,
"soxinbox" wrote:

That is sort of hard to do when on a practice instrument approach.

If there is other traffic in the pattern, unless they are violating the
regs, you will break out into VFR conditions a mile or two from the
runway. You then follow the last airplane in the pattern.

I am confused by the upwind crosswind part of your statement. Did you mean
enter the upwind leg by flying crosswind. That would mean you just overflew
the downwind that you could have entered at 45. Or did you mean enter the
crosswind leg upwind of the runway? That would make more sense, but I think
you are supposed to fly across the upwind end of the runway right across the
numbers. That way you aren't likely to get into the way of departing
traffic. This also becomes a problem on long runways were some planes can be
at pattern altitude plus 500 by the end of the runway.

You guys are way over thinking the problem. If you overfly the runway
above pattern altitude you have a clear view of any aircraft in any
position in the pattern and follow the last airplane accordinly without
interferring. This keeps you in a postion to land on the airport from
anywhere in the pattern.

The scenario I originally described was night VMC, not a mix of IFR and VFR
aircraft. The tower was closed.

If you overfly the runway above pattern altitude you have a clear view of any aircraft in any position

That makes sense unless another acft is lost among the ground clutter.
At what point do you descent to pattern alt? That part I think is a bad
idea as the potential is always there to come down on top of another
plane in the pattern (the one you *didn't* see)

I'll stick with the AIM's recommendation on this one.

In article .com,
"Kingfish" wrote:

If you overfly the runway above pattern altitude you have a clear view of
any aircraft in any position

That makes sense unless another acft is lost among the ground clutter.
At what point do you descent to pattern alt? That part I think is a bad
idea as the potential is always there to come down on top of another
plane in the pattern (the one you *didn't* see)

I'll stick with the AIM's recommendation on this one.


The 360 overhead approach at pattern altitude works well. You come down
the runway centerline at cruise, check for traffic, break toward the
downwind over the threshold, pull power, should be at gear speed at the
180 point, drop flaps, continue the circle, ending at the threshold, and
flare to land.

Properly done, this approach is done power off after the break and
results in minimum time in the pattern. Remember, you are not in the
pattern until downwind -- likewise, those on the 45 or on straightin are
NOT on the pattern!

Be sure to check for traffic at all times.

You come down the runway centerline at cruise, break toward the downwind over the threshold, pull power, should be at gear speed at the 180 point, drop flaps, continue the circle, ending at the threshold, and flare to land. Properly done, this approach is done power off after the break and results in minimum time in the pattern

So, what's wrong with the 45 entry to downwind? The overhead break you
describe here with its rapid power reduction wouldn't do much for your
engine if it's high horsepower or turbocharged. That's not good power
management IMO. The other potential problem I see is that other traffic
already in the pattern wouldn't be expecting another acft to join the
pattern in the way you've described and might not be looking in that
direction. If everyone is using the same pattern entry procedure I
think it would minimize the chance of two planes meeting. If there's
nobody else in the pattern I guess it doesn't matter, but if there is
I'd leave the fighter pilot stuff to the Air Force and use the AIM
recommended entry.

Viperdoc wrote:
The scenario I originally described was night VMC, not a mix of IFR and VFR
aircraft. The tower was closed.


You *can* practice IFR approaches at non-towered fields. The local
approach control vectors you to the localizer, you shoot the approach,
and you make all the calls that you'd make to a tower on the CTAF.

In article . com,
"Kingfish" wrote:

You come down the runway centerline at cruise, break toward the downwind
over the threshold, pull power, should be at gear speed at the 180 point,
drop flaps, continue the circle, ending at the threshold, and flare to
land. Properly done, this approach is done power off after the break and
results in minimum time in the pattern

So, what's wrong with the 45 entry to downwind? The overhead break you
describe here with its rapid power reduction wouldn't do much for your
engine if it's high horsepower or turbocharged. That's not good power
management IMO. The other potential problem I see is that other traffic
already in the pattern wouldn't be expecting another acft to join the
pattern in the way you've described and might not be looking in that
direction. If everyone is using the same pattern entry procedure I
think it would minimize the chance of two planes meeting. If there's
nobody else in the pattern I guess it doesn't matter, but if there is
I'd leave the fighter pilot stuff to the Air Force and use the AIM
recommended entry.


Kingfish,

If you had read my posting completely, you would have noticed that you
ALWAYS check for traffic in the pattern.

The 45 entry is fine -- if you are coming from that direction! The
overhead approach is far better than straightin, as it gives you
awareness of both those in and those entering the pattern. It also keeps
you in close, so as to avoid long, drawn-out patterns that so many
flight schools appear to be fond of these days.

Also, if you are in a flight, the o/h is the quickest, most efficient
way of getting the flight on the ground.

Reality check: Even if everybody were to use the 45 entry, they wouldn't
all be usinf the same set of references. Some would be a mile away on
downwind, while others would be 1/4 mile away. Then you have a problem!

There is simply no excuse for a three mile "final" in a light aircraft!

On Fri, 12 May 2006 19:11:52 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

In article . com,
"Kingfish" wrote:

You come down the runway centerline at cruise, break toward the downwind
over the threshold, pull power, should be at gear speed at the 180 point,
drop flaps, continue the circle, ending at the threshold, and flare to
land. Properly done, this approach is done power off after the break and
results in minimum time in the pattern

So, what's wrong with the 45 entry to downwind? The overhead break you
describe here with its rapid power reduction wouldn't do much for your
engine if it's high horsepower or turbocharged. That's not good power
management IMO. The other potential problem I see is that other traffic
already in the pattern wouldn't be expecting another acft to join the
pattern in the way you've described and might not be looking in that
direction. If everyone is using the same pattern entry procedure I
think it would minimize the chance of two planes meeting. If there's
nobody else in the pattern I guess it doesn't matter, but if there is
I'd leave the fighter pilot stuff to the Air Force and use the AIM
recommended entry.


Kingfish,

If you had read my posting completely, you would have noticed that you
ALWAYS check for traffic in the pattern.

The 45 entry is fine -- if you are coming from that direction! The
overhead approach is far better than straightin, as it gives you
awareness of both those in and those entering the pattern. It also keeps
you in close, so as to avoid long, drawn-out patterns that so many
flight schools appear to be fond of these days.

Also, if you are in a flight, the o/h is the quickest, most efficient
way of getting the flight on the ground.

Reality check: Even if everybody were to use the 45 entry, they wouldn't
all be usinf the same set of references. Some would be a mile away on
downwind, while others would be 1/4 mile away. Then you have a problem!

There is simply no excuse for a three mile "final" in a light aircraft!

The only two recommended approaches in the AIM are the 45 and
(believe it or not), the straight-in. I'm also a fan of the 360
overhead approach. It may look like somebody is playing fighter
pilot, but in fact, it's a very safe approach (the military doesn't do
it just because it looks cool....).

Here's at least one example where I think an overhead approach would
be safer than a 45.

Say the weather is dog sh_t, and visibility is down to or near VFR
minimums, and there is terrain obscuration around the vicinity of
your destination airport. Do you want to dilly dally around and
possibly fly *away* from the airport (basically turn your back to it)
so you can fly out so some point, then turn around and head back in
on a 45?

Not me... If the weather is poor, and I'm heading towards an airport
and I have it in sight off the nose, I'm going to keep it in sight,
break over the numbers and circle to land.

There have been two mid-air collisions near my home-base airport
over the last several decades. Both occurred at the "convergence"
of the entry to the 45 (a popular reporting point for said 45 entry).
My one close call to a mid-air (in 29+ years of flying) also occurred
at the entry to a 45 at a near-by un-controlled field.

Bela P. Havasreti