This is an excerpt from a report made to the Aviation Safety Reporting System. The narrative is written by the pilot, rather than FAA or NTSB officials. To maintain anonymity, many details, such as aircraft model or airport, are often scrubbed from the reports.
After making a radio call that I was departing ZZZ towards the north, I took off northbound in the PA-18-150 on straight floats. I had one student on board with me training for his seaplane rating and no other souls on board.
As we began our climb out on departure, I noticed the PT-17 over the airport on a western heading and heard his radio call that he intended to enter the pattern. He appeared to be about 1,000 feet, which would put that aircraft 500 feet below the FAA’s recommended midfield altitude when entering the pattern. The pilot of the PT-17 began turning left on a downwind earlier than I expected. It also became clear, with this action, that the pilot of the PT-17 was using the alternate downwind entry from midfield as opposed to the FAA’s advised entry of a teardrop.
The course the PT-17 was turning towards appeared to put them on course to pass over the top of me as I departed northbound. I assumed they didn’t see me, so I started a turn roughly 30° to the right and made a radio call that I had the PT-17 in sight and we were no longer a factor for each other.
By the time we passed each other, my PA-18-150 was 500 feet below the PT-17 and 500-1,000 feet away laterally. The pilot of the PT-17 broadcasted on the radio, “I would call that a factor.”
I told him my name and invited him to discuss it further if he wanted and he invited me to his office.
Myself and my student had the aircraft in sight the entire time and I took action to not only remain well below them but also move laterally so we didn’t pass directly underneath them. The PA-18-150 has excellent forward visibility and a window along the top of the cockpit making my upward visibility fantastic as well.
In my and my student’s opinion, we were far from interfering with the PT-17 or causing any concern of being too close.
However, it has become clear that the PT-17 pilot mistakenly believes we passed very close to and directly underneath them, though he also claims his visibility is greatly impaired by the PT-17 airframe.
One thing that could have assuaged the PT-17 pilot’s concern would be for them to cross midfield at the FAA’s recommended altitude, which would have put them 500 feet higher than they were. That would have given them a full 1,000 feet clearance from the departing PA-18-150.
On my end, perhaps I could have leveled off or even descended, though I have concerns about buzzing the houses/road traffic off my departure end and remaining low over a congested area with few to no emergency options.
The PT-17’s radio call also sounded angry/sarcastic. Instead of pursuing further conversation with him to try and solve the negative interaction, I should have continued without further engagement. Though it was my intention to deescalate, it had the opposite affect and I wish I hadn’t pursued further conversation.
Primary Problem: Procedure
ACN: 2002981
Sounds to me as though the PT-17 pilot showed up in the pattern and then expected everyone to just get the hell out of his way!
I noticed that NORDO operations are not discussed here. I recognize that this was not at issue in this article, but it is worth discussing.
Those of us who fly vintage airplanes know that the “head on a swivel”, “see and be seen” practices are paramount for safely flying in the traffic pattern (whether on the radio or not). Radio-trained pilots tend to forget that there are NORDO’s out there and are perfectly legal traffic pattern participants. So it has become expected (by me) that we NORDO’s are likely NOT “seen” by all. Hand-held radios help this a lot. ADS-B also helps. But the reality is radio communication is not required at non-tower airports. And not all airplanes are ADS-B equipped.
The solution to this problem is NOT to require all to have ADSB and use comm radios. This is not a viable option for many antique airplanes.
The solution IS for ALL PILOTS to LOOK, SEE, & BE SEEN! Ensure visual separation.
AMEN!
The SMART pilot, no matter which Recommended Procedure is used, would keep his head on a swivel when within five miles of any airport unless in IFR conditions. I am an ATP rated pilot with 11,036 hours since 1958, and only one near miss that I know of. Too many pilots get totally absorbed in the cockpit when in VFR traffic patterns. Remember you can’t avoid a problem if you aren’t looking!
So true!
I imagine the following will ignite some passions: Good.
This incident, like so many others covered in GA News, highlights an increasingly dangerous scenario occurring more and more at nontowered airports: Mid-airs & NMACs resulting from pilots not complying with FAA-recognized, recommended, and/or required practices.
With many airports becoming absolutely overwhelmed with flight training activities, it’s critical that we all at least attempt to operate off of the ‘same sheet’. That means adhering to guidance published by the FAA…unless there is a reason you can not.
Contrary to popular opinion, there are a lot of smart folks working for the FAA. Some are even fairly good pilots. Maybe not as good as you or me…but, at any rate…
To proclaim that an FAA-recommended procedure, or preferred method, is inherently “dangerous”, is just ignorant. It may not be as convenient, or as efficient, as your own personal practice; but if you think it’s dangerous, maybe you are doing it wrong. Or, as mentioned elsewhere in these Comments, you didn’t read all the “Notes, Warnings, and Cautions” the FAA includes with their recommendations.
I cringe when I read something that starts with “Well, I always….”, or “I never…”, or “IMHO….you should (fill in the blank)”, and it advocates for something completely at odds with published FAA recommendations, FARs, and in some cases, the Airman Certification Standards. (I hope any PPL candidates reading it will know the difference.)
If you think your nontowered airport tactics, techniques and/or procedures are ‘better’, or safer, than the FAA’s, please formally submit them for approval, publication, and dissemination, so the rest of us can take advantage of them. At the very least, I’ll know where to look for you in the traffic pattern.
OMG! This happened at Winter Heaven Airport? Did the seaplane takeoff from Lake Jessie and climb out in the opposite direction of the downwind leg to an active runway at Winter Heaven Airport, because that certainly sounds like what happened based on the PT-17 pilot’s response to this story. Please tell us this isn’t so because if it is, it’s time for Jack Brown’s Seaplane operation to relocate to another lake well clear of any airport.
FAA really blew it with the direct cross over to mid-field downwind. People get in conflict and point to a piece of paper that puts planes on the 45 and planes entering mid-pattern head on.
There is a caution to not cross at PA and turn downwind , IF there is traffic…
From FAA-H-8083-3C);
” [Figure 8-3A] An alternate method is to enter on a midfield crosswind at pattern altitude, carefully scan for traffic, announce intentions, and then turn downwind. [Figure 8-3B] This technique should not be used if the pattern is busy.”
This can be done safely if there is 45 traffic or traffic turning downwind.
Either slow and fall behind , or turn downwind early if the other traffic acknowledges.
If the pattern is really busy, 3-4 a/c, I’ll turn upwind on the opposite side, wide of the runway, and make a very wide [ 1-2 miles] turn to the 45 entry, adjusting for other traffic.
This is absurd.
We take an FAA recommendation and then start twisting it to mean something else to suit our purpose.
JimH did exactly that.
8-3B states, “If the pattern is busy”, not “if there is traffic” as JimH is rewriting it.
So please… follow the advisory and stop twisting it.
In addition, if the pattern is busy, the pattern is busy. There may not be room for another aircraft regardless of what entry you use.
Aanndd… it is not a mistake that there is a recommended crosswind entry, also, contrary to what Marc states.
Many airports do not and cannot allow the “teardrop” entry due to terrain or airspace restrictions. And a crosswind entry, unlike a “teardrop” entry, does not put one’s tail to the pattern traffic. That is, with a crosswind entry one can usually have all the pattern traffic in sight.
And also, the “teardrop” turn occurs a good distance away from the airport, not close to, or even on top-of, the pattern as many pilots (in my experience, anyway) are doing. I think the reason that the “teardrop” entry is becoming criticized is because it is being executed incorrectly.
And finally, don’t underestimate the number of operations that occur daily for GA. It is the majority of air traffic. 99.999% of these are performed safely without an ASRS writeup in a situation that others would want to write up as a “near-miss”.
The PT-17’s pilot sounds arrogant to me, as though ‘he’s there’ and everybody else can take notice and stay away. That’s how Silverback Gorillas behave to the lesser males in the pack. Someday he’ll get a well-deserved comeuppance, hopefully not with fire and smoke memorial services.
Regards/J
I was the instructor/pilot in the PT-17 mentioned. There was a mid air between a seaplane flying the opposite direction in the traffic pattern and a low wing Piper at this airport claiming the lives of four pilots not long before this incident, which is why I stated an aircraft flying opposite direction on the downwind was a factor. I have flown with a number of FAA inspectors and they all prefer the crossing mid field at pattern altitude entry.
The FAA does not have an “Advised” entry of a teardrop to downwind. In fact, the mid-field crosswind is listed as an “alternate” method.
In my experience, the “teardrop” entry to downwind is the most dangerous method the FAA has ever published. The reason being is that pilots do not fly past the traffic pattern the two miles recommended by the FAA before beginning their teardrop to pattern altitude so they can enter the downwind at a 45 at pattern altitude.
Every pilot I have observed using the teardrop entry has performed a teardrop to downwind, meaning they do not fly past the pattern and descend into the downwind, possibly on top of another aircraft.
The teardrop entry is something I will never use as it forces the pilot to “belly up” to traffic and is unnecessary maneuvering around a possibly congested traffic area.
Agree. Plus the teardrop has the added bonus of completely losing sight of any and all traffic in the pattern.
Agree 100%. I’ve flown with students trained by not so young instructors when they started to fly the teardrop as you described. I immediately took control, and got us away from airport to enter the pattern properly and safely. I asked them to NEVER do that again while I was in the aircraft. That pilot didn’t last a year before they perished.
Double and triple agree with these comments. Crosswind entries seem much safer due to traffic visibility, keeping the aircraft within a reasonable/safe landing/gliding distance of the runway, and too many pilots are doing a “teardrop” on top of the pattern.
None of the entries are necessarily safe – all have risks. The 45 mid-field downwind has a converging point at the beginning of the 45 degree leg and then is on a collision with downwind traffic. The overhead teardrop goes to the same 45 entry and risks, plus if the descent is not clear of the pattern has the descending hazard. The mid-field crosswind has a collision course with downwind traffic and is probably the most difficult of all of the maneuvers to turn to an escape route if necessary. The straight-in has a collision course with base traffic. All arrivals require that the pilot assure there is an adequate amount of room to enter the pattern. If that is done, all entries are viable.
AC 90-66C, Appx. A, page 4, indicates that doing a mid-field cross at PA and then turning downwind is ok. I’ve done this safely a number of times.
Passing over an aircraft that is taking off should have 800 ft or more vertical separation.
Unless it’s a jet taking off, then I would not cross mid-field, sine it can climb at a high rate and is probably on with ATC and not the ctaf.