A new Advisory Circular standardizes traffic pattern altitudes and procedures at airports without operating control towers.
Advisory Circular (AC) 90-66B, Non-Towered Airport Flight Operations, replaces two advisories: One from 1993 that addressed traffic patterns, and another from 1990 that provided communication guidance, according to officials with the National Business Aviation Association.
“No matter what a pilot flies – turbine, piston, parachute, glider, ultralight, lighter-than-air or unmanned aircraft system – they should read this AC, because it clearly presents the standards for operating at a non-towered airport,” said Richard Boll, a member of the NBAA Access Committee. “Not only does it guide the operation of a pilot’s particular aircraft, it gives the expectation of how pilots of other aircraft using the non-towered airport will operate.”
Standardizing the traffic pattern altitude was a primary focus of the members of the FAA’s Aeronautical Charting Forum, said Boll.
Noting the age of the previous guidance, he said the old standard was 800′ to 1,000′ above ground level (AGL). To eliminate that 200′ of confusion, the ACF set the standard at 1,000′ AGL, with left-hand turns, unless terrain or obstacles mandate otherwise.
Large and turbine-powered airplanes should enter the traffic pattern at an altitude of 1,500′ AGL, or 500′ above the established pattern altitude.
A recent change to the Aeronautical Information Manual introduced this standard, and the AC expands on it.
Entering the non-tower traffic pattern and self-announcing a flight’s position and the pilot’s intentions received equal detail and attention. It makes clear that airplanes terminating an instrument procedure with a straight-in approach do not have the right of way over VFR traffic in the pattern, said Boll. And when circling to land, left-hand turns are standard, unless otherwise documented.
The committee’s goal was to improve safety for all by standardizing operational practices and getting everyone who uses non-towered airports on the same 18 pages of the new advisory circular, Boll said.
“Everyone seems to focus on towered airport operations, but most of America’s more than 5,000 public-use airports do not have a tower, so safety depends on the pilots flying into them,” Boll said.
I would like some opinions, please….. Of these two items (Radio/Communications….. and…..Landing light on) Which do you hold as a higher level of avoidance when flying into a non-towered airport? I personally without any doubt feel that communications are first and foremost one of our most important tools to use, along with of course see and avoid which makes using the landing light make sense. I have a comrade that says they are equal in importance, to which I disagree. For instance, say you are flying into a non-towered airport that is known to be fairly busy, along with seeing and avoiding you have ONLY one of two other tools to use (yes, just for discussion sake) and they are… your radio….or your landing light…. which would you choose? Now if you feel as me the decision would be easy (radio) but if you feel they are equal, then you are saying that it would not matter, one is as good as the other. Thanks for any reply….. and who knows, if I get alot of opinions that really make me see this in a different light, then I may change my opinion (always open to improving the way I fly) Thanks so much
If only one is available, then obviously the radio is more desireable.
The FAA encourages that we turn on landing lights below 10,000’. At the airline, we left the landing lights on below 18,000’. In my Cessna, the (LED) landing lights pulse the entire time I fly. For me, they are both important.
Arguments over pattern and approach in non-towered airports are endless. No question each pilot is responsible for the safety of their own aircraft, those in it and others in the sky. Therefore, flying around without a radio is a major problem for those trying to figure out where others are in the sky, and to let others know where YOU are in the sky. After that, see and avoid is the basic rule.
Yes, but even an A380 could be entering the pattern NORDO in an emergency. And radios can be incorrectly tuned or fail. Once you get within visual range, I think see and avoid and the radio are basically equal resources.
Help me out Warren! The Mid field cross over into the standard 45 Deg then Downwind pattern are Intersecting patterns to the same runway. At Block Island I entered the downwind pattern while crossing traffic passed close in front. Communication were good and I was able to visually identify and adjust to land in sequence. … I do not see these conflicting dual paths to downwind as an improvement to safety. Busy weekend airports require a more uniform landing procedure to benefit safe operations.
With common sense being uncommon, I tell my students to enter on a 45 at a busy, non-towered airport. Mixing airplanes entering the TP from different directions and altitudes (particularly the overhead) is a prescription for conflict.
I’ve been arguing your well made point for years but there are still those hot-rod Sky Kings who like to perform an air show by peeling off at midfield at 160 kts. They are the ones who think they own the sky, never considering there might be someone in the pattern without a radio (me). I don’t want to ruin anybody’s fun but lives are at stake and lives take precedence over fun. “Overhead” approaches should be illegal at non-towered airports!
Not having a radio should be illegal at in the entire airspace!
Hi Phil. Ironically we’re going to Block Island tomorrow for a $100 hamburger. Manny’s comment is on the mark. A 45 degree downwind entry from the downwind side (the long-time recommended entry) is a near head-on collision hazard with the new ‘Alternate Midfield Entry’ (which has been considered an option by AOPA for many years in their Safety Advisor for Nontowered Airports and from comments I’m reading by Canadian pilots is the standard entry in Canada). But the 45 degree downwind entry is also itself in potential conflict with the straight-in at the base-to-final turn. I think it is good to have these options but we have to use good judgement and we should follow the FAA guidelines which are for straight-in’s, do not disrupt the flow of other aircraft, and for the new Alternate Midfield Entry, the AC states it should not be used when the pattern is congested and that entry should yield to the preferred 45 degree and downwind traffic. Theoretically if all of that is followed carefully there will be no conflicts. But sometimes those guidelines are probably not followed too well, and the AC includes an additional comment in the paragraph on straight-in’s that “pilots operating in the traffic pattern should be alert at all times to aircraft executing straight-in landings, particularly when flying a base leg prior to turning final.” Of course we should also maintain the same vigilance for the Alternate Midfield entries.
This new “Guidance” is no help, and in the limit it can be less safe.
For example, where small aircraft are using a short crossing runway (wind favored), but a turbojet needs the longer runway, the guidance is an invitation to both wake vortex exposure and a collision hazard.
For turbojets that need to use are a more safe instrument approach based flight path to land on the long runway, there is no practical alternative to using a straight-in to that runway. Overflying the entire short runway pattern is not only a hazard, but confuses the entire airport.
There are many other examples…
I suppose you may be in one case talking about a jet using the cross-over directly to the long runway downwind, and during the cross-over, they are essentially overflying the small runway pattern creating a collision and wake turbulence hazard? I don’t think this AC will change what the turbojets do. In section 9.5 the AC still includes the normal 45 degree downwind entry as the recommended entry, and notes as in the previous AC that straight-in’s are an option. I expect turbojets to continue using the straight-in and I think the best thing for all involved is stay out of their way until they get on the ground.
So now imagine with all this chaos and confusion the FAA allowing planes to fly with NO RADIO around non-towered airports? Start to get the picture now?
I was taught by my 1st instructor that 800 was standard for our field and then another instructor told me it was published at 1000. Later I was about to flare in my high wing aircraft when a low wing aircraft undercarriage filled my windshield touching down in front of me. It was only a Cherokee 140 but looked like a jumbo jet when up that close. We were told that we flew the entire pattern together. His radio had quit. I then decided that if I fly low wing aircraft it might be best to be at 800 but for a high wing 1000 would be best. That way we couldn’t hide from each other as easily…….
Hi, Randy. If both aircraft in your example were at the same altitude (as they should be before entering the pattern) they probably wouldn’t be “hiding” from each other, right?
Most airports, non towered included do not allow jets to fly at the same pattern altitude as SELs. And they even sort them according to their pattern speeds and noise abatement. The proper way to deal with traffic is to LISTEN first on your RADIO to get a picture of the sky. Then act accordingly.
I agree with Gary in that the best defense as far as altitude for avoiding a mid-air in the pattern is to use the same TPA for the same type aircraft, where all eyeballs will be at the same altitude and theoretically eliminate blind spots.
On the subject of the TPA being standardized by this AC, I think I’m seeing a very dangerous assumption made. There may be some airports out there that didn’t standardize years ago when most went to 1000′ TPA and can do so now without any problems. However that doesn’t mean there are now no exceptions. Where I’m currently based at Robertson Airport 4B8, the TPA is still 800′ agl – as far as I can guess it is because there are some very high towers close enough to the runway that they cause pilots to fly a tighter pattern. Another airport not too far from there is Bayport Aerodrome 23N, where the TPA is 600′ agl due to overhead traffic landing at a nearby Class C airport. I doubt the TPA’s will ever change at these airports, so it is still extremely important to check the Chart Supplement (A/FD) as needed.
Reading the Supplement is important. It does get revised, so referring to it, even at familiar airports, should be part of the process. Not every airport is standardized to 1,000’, for various reasons. The Idaho backcountry is a good example.
The other aid to see and avoid is ADS-B In and Out. It should be mandated everywhere for everyone.
Probably. But that raises the debated subject of equipping to eliminate a problem – ex: install an Angle of Attack indicator to eliminate LOC. And the other issue of making exceptions for guys with no electrical system – what would happen to them. ADS-B is great, but you still can have an equipment failure or an emergency causing an equipment failure.
That’s like saying don’t install an autopilot for IFR because it can fail. ADS-B is a valuable tool for see and avoid, in my opinion. I flew airliners with and without TCAS. It rarely failed and it was a good heads up warning for traffic. I felt a lot better having it than not having it…just like ADS-B In and Out.
As a side note, some folks think they’ll never fly in Class B airspace, so they can avoid installing ADS-B. Let’s not forget that a transponder is required within the 30 mile Mode C veil, surface to the upper limit (not always 10,000’). Class B’s like Seattle are narrow on the east/west direction. That Mode C veil extends for some distance outside the boundaries of the SEA Class B. Now try and transit through those areas after 1/1/2020 while avoiding terrain and low clouds withou ADS-B.
I’m sure there are other areas that apply, like the R-2508 Complex near KEDW, where a transponder is required to transit, even outside the restricted areas, but within the boundary of the complex. ADS-B may not be required there, although the FAA states that ADS-B will be required anywhere where a transponder is now required, while they specifically mention Class A, B, C and above 10,000’ in Class E more than 2,500’ AGL. The Mode C veil is depicted in the graphics concerning ADS-B, BTW.
I understand your autopilot comparison but I didn’t exactly mean it that way. With the autopilot, it is a workload saver and it is assumed that the pilot has the basic skills to operate the airplane safely if it fails. With the reference I made to the Angle of Attack indicator, quite a few folks, and I am one of them, believe they are trying to fill a hole in the pilot’s skills, so that would leave the pilot in the same dangerous predicament if the Angle of Attack indicator failed. The truth is we don’t really know if that pilot would get any benefit from it if his skills are that bad.
The reference I made to the ‘guys with no electrical system’ is because if your suggestion were adopted, the no electrical system folks would be affected differently than everyone else, because they have been exempt from the Mode C veil rule and they will be exempt from the ADS-B requirement in that same airspace.
Understand your point.
I wonder if the AOA would not help folks get used to flying slow. Many that I know are reluctant to do so without adjusting approach speed for their weight. Too many use 1.3 gross weight Vso plus ten or so for whatever reason. If they had AOA I would think they would feel more comfortable flying at the correct speed for their weight, which is not always at MGW.
Back to traffic patterns: As long as there is human involvement planes will be flying at different altitudes and using different entries. Its the way it is. As a long time, often blue in the face CFI, nothing has changed as I can see it. Sigh…
I don’t see any major problem with pilots flying at the manufacturer’s recommended approach speeds. In the small airplanes that’s way above 1.3 x Vso – that’s where they should be.
Come on people ! You are making no sense ! How can you have a ‘STANDARD’ and include a number of exceptions or options. There can be no options for midfield, straight in, overhead entry. It creates conflict and confusion, such as what we read here, …. cross midfield, go 2nm and make a 360 !!! Where does that take you ? Stupid. That’s not going to work. Confusing!
Make one set procedure the standard with regards to right or left hand traffic. Announcing your position 5 mins. out, position announcements at 45 degree entry to downwind, turns to base and turn to final. TPA will be 1000′ AGL or 1500′ AGL if approach speed exceeds 120 MPH. That’s it. No waivers, no ‘yeah buts’ no exceptions. In emergencies, all bets are off. Expect somebody didn’t get the word !
Many years ago, when the FAA gave airports the option of a 1000’ pattern versus the old 800’ I was disappointed they left the 800’ as an option. Confusing. I thought it would be best to just make them all the same. Finally they are.
I disagree on the use of aircraft paint colors when announcing position. When was anyone able to read an N-number on another aircraft while flying. Paint and airplane type can serve a definite purpose. When flying in the mountains, pilots announce positions with airplane type and color.
As for the large aircraft distinction I believe it would mean aircraft over 12,500# weight. Their 1500’ AGL patterns would indicate anyone overflying the airport to reverse and enter the downwind should overfly at 2000’ AGL.
The mid field entry just about insures a mid air collision. At the busiest time now you have to worry about a head on collision being “legal”. Much better to say the 45 is the only advised entry to the pattern and leave it at that
How does one determine which is the “calm wind ” runway? On cross countries a calm wind condition can be broadcast on ASOS or if no help from other aircraft already in the pattern then visually checking the sock, how does the flying pilot determine which is the calm wind runway. How does one get this info if ASOS does not tell one, or other flying aircraft are not making radio calls on the Unicom freq. and this info is NOT PRINTED on the airport diagram or any other source.
Prior to pattern entry I noted the AWOS giving calm wind. But, no calm wind runway. Next step, starting at 5 miles out giving all proper radio calls on Unicom. No other aircraft was heard . Over flew the airport at PATTERN alt. + 500 feet and observed the wind sock as being limp.
All this being said I selected a runway which required a full pattern and standard radio calls.
On landing roll out another aircraft was on landing roll out IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION! We both navigated to right and cleared each other by a wide margin. From what I could garner after the event was “calm wind landing runway was arrived at by how?? By local word of mouth!!This was a very dangerous situation! I was told that I had selected the wrong calm wind runway! But this was not printed nor any radio calls made from other aircraft or Unicom. All of this with the landing airport had a Fly In going on!!
So–why does every airport not have a “calm wind” runway designated? A few do, but most do not!
The calm wind runway, if designated, is in the Supplement (A/FD) for the airport.
The other way to determine it is to call the airport manager’s office or FBO, if there is one.
This is a significant safety issue without a clear resolution. The A/FD is a ‘Catch 22’ incomplete response. VFR chart info should be reviewed if this AC is to be followed.
The tetrahedron is a landing direction indicator when tied down. The wind sock is the wind indicator.
http://tfmlearning.faa.gov/Publications/ATpubs/ATC/atc0305.html
“3-5-1. SELECTION
a. Except where a “runway use” program is in effect, use the runway most nearly aligned with the wind when 5 knots or more or the “calm wind” runway when less than 5 knots (set tetrahedron accordingly) unless use of another runway: “
Chart Supplement is the correct answer. There is no catch-22, look up what catch -22 means, and look up the calm wind runway in the chart supplement. Aversion to looking things up bodes ill for your 91.103 chops.
If there is a fly in going on, the sponsoring organization should provide an advisory radio operation. That is what out EAA chapter has always done.
Better; but still the wild, wild west when it comes to Midfield Traffic Pattern entry.
The Supplement to AIM, Para 4-3-3 and PHAK Chap 14, Para 11.3 Traffic Pattern Entry continues to avoid clarity and further enhances misunderstanding.
There are 2 TPA figures and explanations. Figure 1, which is titled Preferred Entry When Crossing Midfield, states aircraft should cross midfield 500’ above TPA, fly 2nm beyond the downwind leg, descend to TPA during this 2 mile leg, then when at TPA, perform a right 360 and enter the pattern.
The Alternate Entry is to cross midfield at TPA, yield to Traffic in the pattern, and enter the downwind.
Safety is only enhanced when Advisories or Regulations are designed to avoid confusion. Pilots are safest when everyone in the pattern knows what to expect from the other aircraft. The Preferred Entry only adds to the possible number of positions of other aircraft when a pilot is approaching the 45 entry.
Then, to make matters worse, the Supplement advises larger aircraft, ( high wing, twins and above I suspect) to maintain 500’ above smaller (low winged) aircraft.
Doing away with the confusing (to pilots in or approaching the pattern on a normal entry) overhead turning traffic by making the Alternate Midfield Entry the ONLY midfield entry and putting everyone at the same 1000’ Pattern altitude, would promote safety, eliminate confusing cross traffic and help avoid the dangerous “high wing/low wing” conflict. Knowing where to expect other aircraft is an equally important part of see and avoid, particularly when student pilots are in the pattern. Maybe the next Supplement will make TPAs less “wooly”.
I managed to reverse the low winged large aircraft with the high winged slow aircraft in my comment.
Sorry to possibly confuse the issue even more.
RH
A good change, but the Supplement for Bryant (O57) still lists the TPA as 700’. Most folks don’t check the Supplement. Hopefully, the AC (which I haven’t read yet) will mention referencing the Supplement for TPA variations, if that is the FAA’s intent.
I haven’t been there in a while, but PWA has parallel runways 18-36 L&R 18R is the shorter runway and all traffic is on the west side of the runways because the city is on the eastside. 18R/36L uses 600 feet TPA and 18L/36R uses 1,000.
The tower is in operation but they always assumed that pilots knew the altitude when they were assigned the runway.
With the Internet, pilots can check airport diagrams and notes.
Agree. All of the pattern and TPA information you mention is in the current Chart Supplement either associated with the individual runway near the top of the section or in the remarks, where it has always been. Reviewing the Chart Supplement is one of the most fundamental tasks there is in complying with 91.103 and in my opinion failing to review this information is a critical omission. The expectation by ATC for pilots to know this information is no different than in quite a few other situations (ATIS, SIDS, STARS, special event arrival procedures, etc) where the information is published, pilots can review it before the flight, and ATC then doesn’t have to repeat it to every pilot.