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.
I was doing pattern work with my commercial student at Moton Field (06A) in Tuskegee, Alabama.
When initial contact was made with Aircraft Y, my student and I were on final getting ready to do a touch and go.
Aircraft Y asked us what our intentions were after the touch and go and we verified with him that we were going to be remaining left-closed traffic.
As we touched down and got back up in the air again, we began our climb to pattern altitude.
As we were climbing out on the upwind leg, I noticed that Aircraft Y was just to our 2 o’clock a few miles out and 1,500 feet above us (according to TCAS).
The TCAS showed us that he was descending in our general direction and quickly.
Over the CTAF I asked the individual in Aircraft Y if he had upwind traffic in sight.
He said no, but continued descending towards the upwind leg, with the goal of entering the downwind.
At this point I saw that Aircraft Y was on a collision course with us and descending into us.
Upon realizing that Aircraft Y was not going to change its course, I told my student that I had controls and took evasive action to avoid a collision. I made a turn to the right and started a descent.
As I lifted the wing in the turn, I saw Aircraft Y pass over us around 150 feet above us. Aircraft Y then continued into the downwind leg.
The pilot of Aircraft Y did not acknowledge us after that point.
Aircraft Y’s entry into the pattern was not legal. Per the FAA, entries into the traffic pattern must be over mid-field into the downwind or on the 45 into the downwind.
Crossing over the upwind leg while there is traffic is not only illegal, but is very dangerous. I am certain that the evasive action taken prevented the collision of the two aircraft.
Primary Problem: Human Factors
ACN: 2030085
I find it interesting that our northern neighbor, Canada , has very different VFR , non-tower pattern procedures…. allowing pattern entry from all ‘corners’, except crosswind.!
See; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/files/migrated/tp11541e.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjep8zM9oqFAxVlMDQIHcLpDKkQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0AtX8cxX6yH3OrGVeuFi7l
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/files/migrated/tp11541e.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjep8zM9oqFAxVlMDQIHcLpDKkQFnoECB4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0AtX8cxX6yH3OrGVeuFi7l
And, they have ‘Mandatory Frequency’ airports, where radio use is mandatory near and in the pattern.
Entering down wind from a 45 simply affords the LONGEST TIME the entering pilot has to view the traffic on down wind. Just simple grownup logic, not regulation.
The worst idea that has come from the FAA in the last decade is the mid-field entry to the pattern from over the runway. I don’t know of any ATC that would approve a head on collision with entering on the 45 traffic, and a pilot can never be certain that no one else is in the pattern. Every midair collision has at least one pilot who doesn’t see another one. Regardless of regulations or suggestions, the standard entry on the 45 is the only safe way since all pilots know that is the standard entry. Defensive flying always.
Mid-field entries to the downwind are, in fact, the standard and recommended method of entry to the downwind in many jurisdictions outside the USA. They can be done very safely when the entry is accomplished by flying over the mid-length area of the runway to make a left turn onto downwind at the mid-downwind position.
Some will say the mid-field entry provides the newly-arriving aircraft with more opportunities to see the aircraft which might already be on the downwind.
Note this entry is made from the “dead” side of the runway, the side of the runway opposite to that being used for the downwind leg.
The idea behind the mid-field entry is that descents should occur on the “dead” side of the runway, thus descending traffic is geographically separated from traffic already at pattern altitude. This “descent in a safe place” is a far safer concept than descending on the same side as the downwind leg, especially since some pilots fly a downwind tight to the runway and others fly a 747 downwind, a mile or two from the runway centerline.
Historically, the mid-field entry has proven very safe in the jurisdictions where it is used. The issue highlighted in this particular report was not the downwind join point but rather the point where the incoming aircraft chose to make their descent.
These experiences in the pattern to me point out a couple of things. Pilots need to fly defensively. Recommended procedures are good, but don’t over-depend on them. Always be ready to take whatever action is necessary to insure you own safety. And second, discussions are beneficial but will they adequately address questionable actions of a pilot as in this report. Well, this is a good example of why N-numbers are supposed to be used. Report the incident to the local FSDO and let the proper authority determine whether 91.13 was violated or whether some other action should be taken.
I think GAN periodically publishes non-towered airport ASRS reports just to stir things up.
They know these always trigger entertaining discussions that usually come down to the same points of contention between what is “recommended” and what is “required”.
AC 90-66C, along with the AIM & AFH, outline the FAA’s recommended “standards” to fly safely at non-towered fields. To operate otherwise is at your own, and others, peril …but it is not illegal.
Even though this AC only specifically references a few pertinent regulations (91.13, 91.113, & 91.126), there are several more that have non-towered airport ‘applications’. These include 14 CFR Parts 91.111, 91.117, 91.119 & even 91.127 (not all non-towered airports are in Class G airspace). To operate in violation of these is illegal.
Given these ‘official’ sources, are there any subjects still open to different interpretations?
Apparently: I’ve even seen folks argue that the right-hand turn you’ve got to make, in order to roll out on a mid-field left downwind from the “recommended 45-degree entry”…is “illegal…”
And, as noted many times:
The “upwind leg” and “departure leg”…are not the same thing.
Trivia: If you takeoff with a slight tailwind…for some reason…which is not illegal…are you departing on the “downwind leg”?
Not illegal. Maybe stupid, ignorant, unwise, unsafe, ill conceived, impolite, but not illegal. Cite the reg—so far as I know, the regs only mandate two things at a non-towered airport—direction of turns, and right of way.
And there is the rub. Every time the FAA makes suggestions instead of mandates to avoid the complaint of “overregulation,” some jackass proves that common sense isn’t so common. No idea why someone would feel it necessary to enter the pattern on upwind and while descending knowing there is an ascending aircraft on the same heading below him.
The FAA had already updated AC 90-66C on Non-Towered Airports Patterns regarding it’s disapproval of people claiming “straight-in” from five miles out & thinking they can scatter existing pattern traffic like chickens before a speeding car.
For the text-based thinking impaired, the FAA offers pictures of it’s ideal pattern traffic in appendix A &B of that document. Depart the pattern straight out or on a 45 between the runway heading f the crosswind heading. Enter the pattern downwind on the 45.
Departing traffic is segregated from arriving traffic. It is called a pattern because it is regular, predictable, repeating: a pattern.
Eventually, because some pilots can’t take the hint, think they know better than the regulators, just don’t care, or are smarter than the rest of us pilots, the FAA will be forced to codify pattern procedures into the regs. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
Apparently it doesn’t occur to you that straight in is monitoring and adjusting speed according to existing traffic. Or do you just prefer dramatic unfounded editorial garbage?
“Apparently it doesn’t occur to you that straight in is monitoring and adjusting speed according to existing traffic”.
Like this guy, who almost caused a midair?
Wrong on straight-ins, reread it again. The FAA discourages it but straight-ins are not illegal. I do a lot of instrument training and the vast majority of approaches are straight-in. By coordination with others in the pattern it usually works out. If not we will breakout. The deal with instrument approaches is at least getting to minimum altitude to fully benefit from the training. Fly safe!
“Disapproval” is not prohibition.
It seems pattern police have their own set of rules.
And, why do CFIs always take the controls instead of just letting the students make the course change?
Because some students are deer in headlights. But we try to give as much of a chance as we feel safe.
Because when the CFI is instructing they can be held directly responsible for any mishaps even if the student is PIC. The student may have also had a view limiting device on, just a guess but unless we know the whole story is it really our place to judge a decision about safety?
I think that 91.13, careless and reckless is appropriate.!
Why not fly aircraft Y more to the right to avoid the crosswind pattern, and enter the downwind . Or, better, fly about a mile out and make the 45 entry.
Either of these would take no more that a few minutes more of flying…!!
I must be ‘cornfused’ but it appears to me the CFI is calling departure leg up wind. Would someone please site a Reg that says crossing anywhere but mid field is illegal. I’m aware of using left turns and must use same pattern of traffic that is already established but other than that please reference a Reg. I’m not asking what ‘ you’ think is safe I’m asking what is illegal because I’m not a fan of some one saying something is illegal when it’s not.
AC 90-66 C appendix A & B illustrate departure from the pattern straight out or a 45 out of the crosswind. Arrivals 45 on the downwind. This has the effect of giving arriving aircraft & departing aircraft their own end of the runway, avoiding traffic conflicts both in the pattern & on the inbound & outbound tracts while climbing or descending.
Seems like a commonsense system, except to the “if it is not prohibited by the regulations, then it is permitted” crowd. “I gotta right” kills. Commonsense & cooperation saves when aircraft are in close proximity.
Please reference AC 90-66C, 8.2.1 “The FAA does not regulate traffic pattern entry, only traffic pattern flow.” The FAA does suggest various methods of pattern entry. There is nothing “illegal” that occurred in this event. Teaching requires knowledge.
FAA regulations only mandate the direction of turns at non-tower airports. Entries, altitudes and flow are simply recommended.