Over the top for left downwind

[Swampfox201]

This question deals with the thread titled "Call the tower".

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=63350

I agree with 99% of the topics discussed here but in the thread above I found myself scratching my head.

Lets say I am landing at an uncontrolled airport and am flying east to west and will be landing on runway 36. The uncontrolled airport has left patterns. I was taught to overfly the airport at TPA at midfield and to make a radio call saying "Cessna 1234 5 miles to the east over the top for midfield left downwind runway 36"

The reason is two fold. Directly over the runway at TPA I will not have a conflict with landing and departing traffic and as I approach left downwind at TPA I can scan the downwind leg for traffic moving from my right to left. This is how I was trained and its how I trained my students when I was instructing.

I understand the post above deals with a controlled airport and that discussion has been hashed to death. My questions are why did many of you have a problem with this traffic pattern entry method? Is this not standard? What's up with somebody saying its Canadian?

We are here to learn. Somebody enlighten me please.

Thanks!

 

[Jim Logajan]

I prefer to enter the traffic pattern from below.

And risk a collision with Arne Saknussemm? Do you have a death wish?

 

[Jim Logajan]

If one is entering the pattern from a midfield crosswind at an airport where there are 3 other aircraft on downwind and not enough spacing for you to squeak in, what's the out?

If it is a left pattern, you make a 90 degree turn to the right, putting you on the upwind leg. A 135 degree turn takes you even farther and faster away from conflict.

This is no different than if you are approaching on a 45 entry and need to turn away - a 90 degree turn to the right takes you away in a direction least likely to have traffic. A 135 degree turn takes you even farther and faster away from conflict.

The number and quality (in terms of safety) of exits at different points in an approach to the pattern seem to me to be the same for both kinds of patterns. If there were a strong winner in either case then there would presumably be a consistent recommendation among countries of the world. Since there is no such consistency, it appears no strong evidence points either way.

The only thing the regulations say is that, absent specific instructions for an airfield, all turns be to the left. If one wanted to be anal, the "standard" 45 entry is in violation of that regulation because an aircraft has to make a 45 degree turn to the right into the downwind.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I believe that recommendation is for aircraft in the pattern, not aircraft entering it... Is it not?

The word "pattern" (or circuit) does not appear. It uses the phrase "When approaching to land...."

 

[Jim Logajan]

Easy enough if you've not yet crossed over the airport. But what if you're over the top? That's the scenario I'm discussing. There's a point in time for that entry in which no good options to exit exist.

You are under no obligation to use the pattern entry being discussed if it bothers you.

I've been cut off in busy patterns enough times by stupid pilots performing stupid pattern entries to know that just because a lot of people do it does not make it right

If you think the pattern being discussed is stupid and dangerous and can show that, you should take your evidence to the FAA and petition them to rewrite the regulations to prohibit it.

I would argue that the regs (although not specifically stated, they state "when approaching for landing, all turns must be made to the left, unless a TPI indicates right turns") are discussing turns while established in the pattern. The 45° is an entry, not an established leg of the pattern.

Since the regs don't recognize the concept of pattern, it doesn't matter whether the 45 is a part of it (though of course it is, since how else could we be arguing over entries to the downwind.) All it recognizes is that one be approaching for landing. If you collide with someone on the 45 do you think that the NTSB or the FAA would say you were in cruise flight or on approach to landing when the collision occurred? Which would you say?

 

[Jim Logajan]

So you can interpret it your way and ill interpret it mine.

Common sense says they're discussing turns in the pattern.

When you turn off the 45 you are already in the pattern.

So you both think the NTSB, the FAA, and everyone with common sense would classify a collision on the 45 as having occurred during cruise and not on approach to landing?

 

[Jim Logajan]

It's not a recommendation, it's a regulation (14 CFR 91.126(b)), but yes, it's for in the pattern, not entering the pattern.

Sigh. Pattern is not used so you are being inventive in your claim.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Guess the FAA is, too, as well as the NTSB. Plenty of case law on point, starting with Administrator v. Boardman and the various cases cited therein. You are quite without legal backing on this issue, but there is much to support the position against which you are arguing. Do the legal research and come back when you find something to support your argument.

You are among those making the claim that a right turn onto the downwind is not part of an approach to landing and therefore not subject to regulation. Why don't you just quote the portion from Administrator v. Boardman, or any other of the various alleged cases, that supports that claim?

 

[Jim Logajan]

When approaching a left pattern on the 45, in order to roll wings level to a heading that is parallel with the runway, one must make a 45 degree turn to the right with the latter portion of that turn being completed while entering the pattern. Nit picking for sure, but true nevertheless.

While I agree, I think at this point repeating that argument is the equivalent of pushing on a string. The point is made or it is not. At core the issue is what is required to be safe that also meets regulatory requirements. If it is argued that there exists a definition of approach that makes the 45 entry meet regulatory demands, then once that exceptional item is noted (and conceded,) one needs to move on to whether that exception enhances or degrades safety.

 

[Jim Logajan]

This is from an AOPA publication re "Operations at Nontowered Airports." It's from 2003.

Is this what y'all are discussing?

That is my understanding; either Figure 9 or Figure 10, though the latter may be the more divisive one. I've used the approach in Figure 9; have yet to use the one in Figure 10. Because those on a 45 or downwind entry are less likely to be looking for traffic over midfield it makes sense that the AOPA would advise midfield traffic to yield to those aviators.