CFIs across the nation do their best to instill in their students and clients a realization that safety is truly in their hands. It’s our role in the system.
Often the reality is our students and clients are loathe to read the reams of information and guidance that comes from the FAA annually. So CFIs do the reading for them. Then we try to impart that knowledge during our lessons or flight reviews.
The problem is that some CFIs — a small percentage to be sure — have a very different attitude toward flight. They take the “hey watch this” approach. An attitude that is mimicked by dumb-ass, ground-pounding kids on a tear when they match this level of ineptitude with their “hold my beer” antics.
Fortunately, none of this is intentional. It is the truly rare bird who sets out to cause mayhem. The vast majority of poor habits and shockingly bad decision-making come from plain old myopia. The offenders simply don’t think past the limits of their own cockpit. Consideration for others is just not part of their reality.
Inconsiderate behavior without malice is still inconsiderate behavior. The line of reason that extends from inconsiderate to unsafe is quite short, I assure you.
None of us is immune from this malady. We’re all human. And as humans we are flawed. Just as a politician who stays in office too long is nudged toward misbehavior over time, pilots can be a bit too full of themselves. By adopting the belief that “I am so talented I couldn’t possibly be wrong,” we are virtually guaranteeing that we will indeed be the perpetrator of misery in the skies at some point.
Consider these simple but classic examples.
Anyone who flies in and out of non-towered airports has heard the phrase “any traffic in the area please advise,” on the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF). It’s an innocent question posed by pilots who are hoping someone will share pertinent airport traffic information. Of course, that exact information could be ascertained by simply listening on the frequency. That requires the extra step of pre-planning your arrival or departure, however. So why bother?
It’s interesting to note that this line is the one self-announce sentence the FAA specifically states we should not use. It doesn’t recommend we limit its use to specific situations. The FAA doesn’t even imply that it isn’t the best use of the local bandwidth. The FAA actually says, in writing, this radio call “should not be used under any condition.”
That would seem to be an emphatic enough statement to stop the unnecessary chatter. But it has not. Pilots continue to make a call the feds have told us not to in clear, unambiguous language.
Is that ego? Laziness? A lack of familiarity with the standards we’re expected to follow?
Not one pilot who is guilty of making this call thinks of themselves as a bad person or a negative influence. Yet, in some sense they are.
Those of us who stand in front of safety seminar crowds do our best to bring solid, well-documented information to the masses. Many of us actually enjoy that pursuit. Although virtually all of us have had the experience of a member of the audience doing their best to derail the presentation by forcefully explaining why their personal method of operation is superior to the one the FAA recommends.
Ironically, the boldest of these offenders tend to come from the ranks of our best trained, most respected pilots: Former military fliers.
These folks are amazing. They have talent. They’ve been trained by the best to be the best. They often have insight and knowledge that can be of real benefit to the rest of us. But they are human. And as humans they can sometimes over-estimate the value of their skill when applied to a new and very different environment.
The overhead break is a great example of this. When flying a heavy, fast, super-maneuverable fighter jet in a military environment, it is perfectly reasonable to fly an overhead break to dissipate energy and provide safe spacing of aircraft while landing.
In the civilian world, that can be a problem. Not because the overhead break is flawed, but rather because it’s being flown in the wrong place.
That student pilot in the pattern is joined by a whole slew of civilian pilots doing their best to remain well spaced and safe as they approach to land. They enter the pattern on a 45° angle to the downwind, with the intention of flying downwind, base, and final.
This is the standard procedure. They’re doing what they’ve been taught and what is expected of them.
Then, to the amazement of no one and the consternation of all, a former military fighter pilot zips into the pattern on what looks like a long straight-in approach — a procedure the civilians know the FAA does not recommend to a non-towered airport. The former military pilot overflies the approach end of the runway, possibly with one or two buddies stretched out in an echelon formation.
They bank hard, seeking the perch. They fly a 180° arc that puts them on final in 1, 2, 3 order. Their sporty civilian aircraft gleam in the sun as each pilot relives the gallantry of their youth at the controls of turbine-powered beasts of the air.
Unfortunately, none of the civilian-trained pilots have any idea what’s going on. At a towered airport there would have been a request and approval to fly the break. At a non-towered airport there’s just confusion and concern among the non-military trained pilots who are now concentrated on avoiding a collision rather than flying a stable pattern.
Nobody needs this kind of excitement in their life.
Our egos can get us into a whole lot of trouble in life. When we climb into an aircraft however, our natural inclination to be all that we can be can clash with the intentions of others — especially if the mission we’re flying and the procedures we’re using are a complete mystery to our aeronautical peers.
Hopefully, there are enough good, capable, dedicated CFIs in the system to get the cowboys to settle down and play nice with their fellow pilots. That’s my hope, anyway.
Wondering what’s wrong with general aviation, read the litany of comments and rote thinking 🤔
Boy, what a great topic. I have flown professionally in USAF, GA, Part 135, Part 141, CFI, and locally for the past 28 years at KFFC which with the single runway is currently the 3rd busiest airport in the State of GA! We have no tower. We have a huge amount of corporate jet traffic, 3 flight schools, very large group of professional pilots flying RV aircraft, numerous WW-II warbirds including Corsair, P-51, Dauntless, T-6,s, P-63, etc!
During COVID the RV squadron started fly in up to 15ship formation flights every evening weather permitting doing aerial sky writing to support the local hospitals morale! They continue to fly many many 6/8/10/12 ship formations for sporting events, funerals, etc! Our local huge student pilot body are aware and understand “formation overhead recovery!” Schools prefer that operation because putting 12-15 aircraft in trail on the 45, downwind and final word close the pattern for longer than they want to orbit and dodge each other! 45, downwind does not work mixing high performance WW-II aircraft with school trainers! Corporate jets can’t mix with C-172 flown by first solo pilots! We know that learning to fly with the full spectrum of aircraft is a great learning experience for students and could save their bacon one day! We “cooperate and graduate and have our heads on a swivel for the occasional who comes in unannounced flying the wrong traffic pattern because they had their head
This article, and the one two weeks ago, certainly got a lot of people thinking about flight safety, which is a great thing. Thanks, Jamie.
I operate from a very busy, small, single runway airport that does training for a local college flight program, Air Camp USA, a program that trains all USAF flight doctors (where all CFIs must be ex-military), plus our robust Aeroclub. We see a lot of busy patterns and a lot of different patterns (overhead, 45-entry, straight-in, & teardrop). I have seven years in Flight Safety to include analyzing smoking holes and writing findings/causes/recommendations.
Over the past 3 years, I’ve witnessed at least 3-4 of what I’ll call “close call” situations (not quite reaching the realm of Near Mid-Air Collisions). All included straight-ins where limited, or lack of, communication was a factor. I believe better guidance in AC 90-66 could help mitigate (but not completely eliminate) this mid-air potential. Thankfully, AC 90-66C clearly says to radio your intentions using position and distance from the airport (para 9.11.1 and sub paragraphs). The AC also provides two examples of when to self-announce on CTAF: para 9.11.1 says to call at 8 to 10 miles out while the sample radio call in para 9.11.1.5 states 6 miles from landing. Nowhere does the AC comment about making any additional aircraft position radio calls. Making a CTAF call at this time, puts a Category A aircraft making their last recommended radio calls 4 to 7 minutes from touchdown. Contrary to this, para 9.11.2 recommends aircraft already established in the traffic pattern make radio calls turning downwind, base, and final: Thus, VFR pattern aircraft are recommended to make at least THREE radio calls in the last 3 to 7minutes of flight. Maybe we need to modify AC 90-66 to clearly state that straight-in traffic should make radio calls every minute on final??
Another area of contention is who has right-of-way on “final.” 91.113 states “the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach.” The best definition I can find says final approach is after the Final Approach Fix, typically 4-5 nm from touchdown. To me, 91.113 could be argued that (although AC 90-66 para 9.11.1 and 9.11.3 say straight-ins do not have priority) a straight-in on 4 mile “final approach” (typically at 1200’ AGL) has right-of-way over a plane at 800 to 1000’ AGL turning downwind to base. I would love to get some clarification in FAA documents.
For safety, the FAA’s recommended alternate VFR traffic pattern entries have drawbacks. The direct entry offers little to no capability to adjust pattern for spacing. The “teardrop” entry requires a descending turn with the airport not visible, and many pilots turn way too soon—possibly pilots do not see (or choose to ignore) the “fine print” in the photo on page A-5 to fly 2 nm, descend, and THEN turn.
The FAA also does not recognize an upwind entry. This allows the pilot a great view the entire landing environment, to include departing aircraft. The pilot can then adjust the easily crosswind turn to fit with existing traffic.
Steve Krog wrote an excellent article about teardrop and upwind entries that can be found at https://www.cubair.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/May2022.pdf.
As for the Overhead pattern: CFIs should definitely expose their students to all types of patterns—not to teach them how to fly it, but to teach them what it is. Overheads, like the upwind entry, allow the pilot infinite flexibility to fit in with other traffic in the pattern. The pitchout is not an aggressive move, as alluded to in Jamie’s article. When flying initial at 350 Kts, you pitchout at 60 degrees bank to bleed airspeed to 250 on an appropriately spaced downwind. Flying initial at about 140 knots only requires 30 degrees bank to arrive at an appropriately spaced downwind at around 90 knots. If there are other planes in the pattern, adjust the “break” (I.e., turn to crosswind/downwind) point to fit in.
Maybe, in the interest of safety, it is time to lobby the FAA to expand their guidance.
Thanks to all for the great discussion.
P.s, I also religiously use ADS-B IN for big picture situational awareness (catches 90% of traffic) while keeping my head on a swivel.
2017 research conducted by The University or North Dakota, in partnership with AOPA and the Air Safety Institute concluded that an overhead circular approach and landing does reduce the risk of loss of control in Landing/Go-around situations. The study cited runway over-shoot and subsequent aerodynamic stall risks as relevant to the findings. What that study, and those procedures published by the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force, doesn’t address is how to integrate the overhead or any other non-standard approach into a traffic pattern considered “standard” by other users. If safety is the desired outcome, agreement between all users must be assured.
Look out the effing window and fit yourself in with the traffic flow! If you have a radio use it!
“Then, to the amazement of no one and the consternation of all, a former military fighter pilot zips into the pattern on what looks like a long straight-in approach — a procedure the civilians know the FAA does not recommend to a non-towered airport. The former military pilot overflies the approach end of the runway, possibly with one or two buddies stretched out in an echelon formation.“
Sounds like you’ve been to KFFC, south of Atl, recently. I’ve been cut off in the pattern, once as I was on 1/2 mile final, by the mostly airline/military types who apparently also have no radios in their airplanes, painted in their old squadron colors.
Being an airline type myself, it’s an embarrassment.
There are a number of RV pilots here in NoCal that practice and perform formation flights
and will do an overhead break to land at an airport that I frequent.
They do sometimes disrupt the other aircraft in the pattern.
But, it seems, most times , they time their arrival when the pattern is empty of maybe 1 aircraft.
The overhead pattern is a recognized maneuver in the AIM (Paragraph 5-4-27) and AC-90-66C, and is a standard procedure when bringing a formation (civilian or military) into a traffic pattern.
As a former military pilot, I train pilots through the FAST (Formation and Safety Training) program, an FAA-sanctioned organization. When returning to a non-towered airport, we brief that we will only “come up initial” when appropriate to the level of activity in the traffic pattern, to avoid conflicts or otherwise inconveniencing other pilots. If the situation is not appropriate for an overhead, we break the formation up prior to pattern entry, or, if just a two-ship formation, an alternative is to enter on downwind and take spacing when turning to base. Safety is paramount, and I can see no reason for a single ship general aviation aircraft to fly the overhead pattern, except to spiral down over the field in an engine-out situation.
For more info, see: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/february/flight-training-magazine/technique-overhead-approach
I used to love the overhead pattern/break in my military flying days. As the OP said, it’s great for energy management and it’s an efficient way to get a lot of aircraft to the runway in a short time – particularly at training bases. The idea of using it at a non-towered GA airport is frankly scary. For the lesser experienced pilots in the pattern, it disrupts the flow and confuses those not familiar with it. It should be especially frightening to those actually flying it. My airplane is perfectly capable of executing a high G break over the runway, but the idea of being belly up to possible downwind traffic for 180° scares the %$## out of me. Ditto for a constant 180° turn to final, with no opportunity to check for other aircraft on final or on an IAP. It’s what you don’t see that will kill you (and the other pilot)!
As a ham radio licensee and previously a radio operator (RTO) in Vietnam I may be overly sensitive to use of the radio. One issue successfully planted in my brain was the need for brevity when transmitting.
As a corporate pilot and flight instructor, I visited many airports. I became aware of pilots everywhere saying, “Any traffic in the area, please advise.” My neighborhood, mid-north Indiana, has a number of airports within radio range, operating on the same frequency. Imagine a sunny Sunday afternoon: If each person flying the pattern transmitted that catchy, mindless phrase, and repeated it at each turn in the pattern, the radio frequency would be as busy as clearance delivery at Boston Logan Airport during rush hour.
In the fall of 98, the AIM added the statement that the phrase was not to be broadcast. So, subsequent to that, I was especially perturbed by flight students at colleges, and professional pilots at uncontrolled airports, using that phrase. I would sometimes respond, “Aircraft seeking advice over xxyyzz airport, read the AIM.”
Additionally, I’ve owned and operated an Aeronca Chief since 1977, and and often have flown with no radio. When I hear a jet jockey announce, “Xxyyzz traffic, Citation aabbcc on a 5 mile straight in final to runway 27, any traffic in the area please advise,” I envision a pilot with his head down, counting on anyone in his way to cry out.
Sorry for the rant. I mean no offense to anyone. It just needs to be understood that if you simply announce your position, any party that hears you and is a factor will likewise announce.
Great points!
I still hear that call so frequently, that it has started to become an innocuous background noise, and that in itself is dangerous.
It reminds of a real-world “There I Was” incident I had recently involving inapproriate(?) radio calls…
I was out for a sightseeing trip with a friend; a very experienced, very well-respected CFI, and soon-to-be DPE.
It was a beautiful, clear-and-a-million VFR day, and there wasn’t another airplane anywhere near our usually extremely busy Class D airspace.
When the run-up was complete, I pulled up to the Runway XX hold short line and told the tower that Cessna 123TC was “Ready for Takeoff”.
The controller cleared me for takeoff…I acknowledged that I was “cleared for takeoff” and off we went.
After we got outside the Delta airspace boundary, and things had settled into routine, my friend looked at me incredulously and said:
“You know you’re not supposed to say ‘Ready for Takeoff’ …You are supposed to use the word ‘Departure’. You only use the word “takeoff” when you’re acknowledging their takeoff clearance, otherwise it is too confusing. Do you want to cause another Tenerife?”
Well, no, I obviously don’t want to cause another Tenerife.
But I’m not sure how telling my local tower controller that I’m “Ready for Takeoff”, while holding short, could lead to another horrific accident like that one, involving two 747s operating at a jammed-packed ‘divert’ airport that had no parallel taxiway, a single runway, and extremely foggy conditions? Certainly, radio coms were a major factor in that tragedy, exacerbated by the fact that the KLM crew’s native language was Dutch, the Pan Am crew’s was English, and it was Spanish for the air traffic controller. But there was an extensive list of other issues as well…
However, in the spirit of Full Disclosure:
I started taking flying lessons at Seattle’s Boeing Field in 1977, the same year as that accident. As far as I can recall, I’ve used the phrase “Ready for Takeoff’, along with any other pertinent, but truncated information deemed necessary, for every takeoff I’ve ever made from a towered airport, military and civilian, including on every check ride and ‘phase check’ I’ve taken, or given. Yet, I’ve never been denied a takeoff clearance, or given a phone number to call, because of my verbiage. Have I just been lucky? (In my defense, I do use the word “departing” when I’m taking off from a non-towered airport.)
Anyway, when we landed, I did go back and peruse the latest AIM, cover-to-cover and it’s true: In all the examples of a “real world dialogue” between a controller and an airplane (See Ch 4) , the FAA uses the word “departure”…not “takeoff.”
But, unlike the unequivocal direction in the AIM to NOT use the phrase “Any traffic in the area, please advise”; I could not find a similar admonishment saying, “Do not use the phrase Ready for Takeoff…It will cause another Tenerife.”
If it is buried in there, I can’t find it.
So, my apologies, if I taught you to fly, and you caught heck for telling the tower you were “Ready for Takeoff”.
I guess I missed the memo?
Just so you know, the belief that you’re not supposed to say “Ready for takeoff,” is a total myth. The reply to next person who tells you that should be, “Citation needed.” You are totally correct. I too have perused the AIM. Such an admonition is not there. I did find a “NOTE:” in the FAA air traffic control manual (FAA Order JO 7110.65) under Departure Procedures pertaining to wake turbulence separation that says, “NOTE- A request for takeoff does not initiate a waiver request.”
I was a USAF air traffic controller in 1977 when the Tenerife accident happened. We got sufficiently drilled into us, the importance of using proper phraseology. That whole “don’t say takeoff” thing applied to air traffic controllers, not pilots.
GA has too many mavericks when it comes to patterns. They straight in, overhead approach, join on base, land and take off down-wind or who knows what else. Far too many of these same GA pilots have either no radio or don’t bother to transmit what they are doing or planning on doing. There are a few airports that I call wild-west airports that anytime you go there you know you will see something different and sometimes dangerous. I try to avoid them if at all possible. (The real exception is airports in mountainous terrain where special arrivals and departures are necessary, I am NOT talking about those)
Simple truth is we are not going to get everyone on the same page, we can aim for 90% to follow but that last 10%, either through ignorance, arrogance or ineptitude will remain. Best we keep your eyes and ears working well when near those pilots. I will ask, those who know one of the 10% to at least talk with them one on one about WHY being more standard is helpful.
The new 50 hour new private pilot landing at your airport most likely has no idea what an Overhead Approach is nor what the Final Approach Fix is on a simulated Instrument Approach. If they trained at a urban airport they may not even know people don’t have ADS-B Out or have No radio at all.
Agree. Pilots on an instrument approach are urged to use direction and distance from the specific runway so a new pilot will understand the potential hazard. Another confusing factor is what to call the initial leg from the runway – both ‘upwind’ and ‘departure’ are terms commonly used but some pilots were only taught one and never heard of the other for the leg that starts at rotation. And ‘upwind’ can be confused with the leg at pattern altitude which parallels the runway in the direction of landing opposite the downwind side. It all requires careful position reporting.
There was a time when the left crosswind midfield entry was acceptable. Is that not the case anymore?
Yes, Rob. The FAA does stipulate the midfield entry does exist. The refer to the 45 degree entry as the, “Preferred method.” The midfield entry is noted to be the “Alternate method.”
I tend to think of this as analogous to when your mom told you she would prefer it you took the trash out. Alternatively, you could lay on the couch and watch TV. When dad gets home we were likely to find out what “prefer” actually meant.
The alternative here is to avoid flying across the extended centerline of a runway. Let’s think for a second what not having this midfield entry would or could imply. The following is what I see all the time at my home airport where midfield entries are prohibited due to skydive operations:
A pilot coming from the opposite side of the pattern flies around the airport to get to the 45. The pilot flies over the approach end or departure end of the runway crossing the extended centerline and starts a decent to pattern altitude. They end up interfering with base to final or departure to crosswind traffic. Or instrument approach straight in.
The safest place to cross at an airport is midfield. Go to any sectional of a class B airport with a low transition route. You don’t see the routes transition anywhere except over the middle of the field.
This is not a Alternative with a negative connotation. It is an alternative and safer method to the 45 from the side of the airport that doesn’t make sence to fly around to the 45.
“The former military pilot overflies the approach end of the runway, possibly with one or two buddies stretched out in an echelon formation.”
Nope— you come up initial in fingertip formation.
Exactly my point, Some pilot. I was trained as a civilian and got pretty good at knowing the civilian rules and recommendations. The military version is largely a mystery to me (and others who trained in the civilian world) because we haven’t been exposed to it the way military pilots have been.
In a military environment, fly like a military pilot. In a non-towered civilian environment, fly like a civilian. It’s really not that hard to do the safe thing.
We use a “standard overhead join” in Europe… it’s is taught as standard practice for approaches to non towered airports… seems to work fine…
Hi Jamie,
I’m going to assume, based on the timing and topic, that this is aimed at me, given the controversy I’ve apparently started with my response to your article last week.
If it isn’t in response to my comments, then I’ll humbly apologize; but you’ve got to admit, it’s an otherwise amazing coincidence, especially given your description of the…”offenders”?
However, if it is true, then we clearly got derailed somewhere: My point was if we had to go back to Ground Zero and invent a new FAA-approved ‘standard’ VFR pattern entry procedure, that was acceptable to everybody, wouldn’t it be a lot simpler to just pick a common point out in space and drive straight to the airport?
If so, a procedure that does that has already been in use, by the military, for a long time. But it could prove beneficial to a much broader user group (us) than just those aging “youth” at the controls of their “turbine-powered beasts of the air”.
My topic was “pattern entries”, not how you MUST fly your airplane in the pattern when you get there. Maybe that got lost in translation?
Regardless, let’s clear things up for the audience first:
Yes, I am a former military pilot, and I like to think I still have talent, but I also have enough real-world experience to keep me humble and prevent me from over-estimating the value of my skill. I dedicated my career to being the best I could be because the consequences of not being the best in that environment are extremely detrimental to your health and that of others.
As far as operating in a “new and different environment”: I was a 1,000 hour CFI before I joined the Air Force, an instructor pilot and examiner throughout my USAF career, and I’ve continued to be an active CFI since I retired…I think I’m pretty well up to speed with the “current” environment.
I’ve “stood in front of” many safety seminar crowds and taught lots of flight instructor refresher clinics. But I’ve also done, and said, enough dumb things, to ensure my ego stays in check.
Sadly, I don’t have access to a “sporty aircraft that gleams in the sun”, but I do enjoy flying my club’s 1970 Cessna 150L, 1967 Cessna 172H, and 1997 Cessna 182S. I keep asking Santa for that Extra 300, but ‘No Joy’ so far.
I don’t teach my students the “overhead approach” method and I don’t fly it myself, because it is NOT the “standard”. I also agree it won’t work, as it should, unless EVERYONE adheres to it…as the standard.
How is that working out for us today, with our current “standard(s)”? Seems like I encounter a wide variety of traffic pattern “tactics, techniques, and procedures” at my local non-towered airports.
The main point of my response to your article was that as far as a VFR pattern entry goes; flying up “initial” to get to the airport, is safe, easy, and it is efficient…at least more so than having to figure out the geometry required to enter the downwind leg, midfield…at a 45-degree angle. And you never have to turn your back to the traffic pattern.
My other point was there is NO requirement to execute the “overhead pattern” as if you were flying an F-15. Or leading a formation. There is NO requirement to pull a 9-G ‘break turn’, over the numbers, perform a level, 180-degree steep turn, roll out momentarily, drop your flaps & gear, then roll off the “perch” and hold a constant bank angle through a descending 180-degree turn, until you roll out just in time to flare. Yet, that is the impression many folks are left with.
OTOH, if you do opt to use a 180-degree turn…how is that less safe than a tower asking you to do a 360, for spacing, on downwind?
In fact, there is NO requirement to fly your airplane any differently than you would if you entered on “the preferred” 45. Or, if you “prefer”, the other “FAA accepted” method; a crosswind leg entry at midfield from the ‘other side’ of the runway.
BTW: Nothing like having two planes approaching the same runway, with one announcing they’re “on the 45”, and one “on a midfield crosswind”, both heading for the exact same spot on downwind…from opposite directions. Sometimes leads to some sticky Right-of-Way situations and “who’s gonna yield” decisions…assuming they see each other in the first place.
The overhead approach/pattern has gotten so much bad press, I doubt it will ever emerge again as a viable “standard” option by the FAA. But I’ll keep hoping; meanwhile, I’ll keep trying my darndest to keep those Cowboys at bay, although sometimes it feels like a losing battle.
Fly Safe, Everyone!
Tom
Tom, it’s not about you at all. It’s about all of us and AC90-66C. Our own personal opinions have little to do with the topic.
Can you imagine the carnage if every pilot flew every approach in whichever way they felt most appropriate, with no consideration for what the FAA had to say on the topic? We’re nearly there and I assure you, the outcome will not be good. If we wish to maintain the enviable level of privilege we have in general aviation, we would do well to start putting safety considerations ahead of our own egos.
I don’t personally do it except when teaching an engine emergency descent, but the overhead is not an arbitrary approach. It is included by the FAA under “other approaches”.
I can understand Jamie’s points about the overhead, but how relevant are they. Of all of the traffic pattern incidents and accidents that have occurred, how many were the result of an overhead. Zero that I can recall. Getting to the real problems would be more helpful rather than wasting time discussing a procedure that statistically isn’t really a problem.
As I mentioned in the other article, flying the recommended entry doesn’t guarantee anything because it itself can result in a converging conflict with downwind traffic. And that’s where the problem really lies. All I see is enter on the 45, enter on the 45, enter on the 45. There’s never even an explanation or warning that there may be traffic that just turned from the crosswind and will be occupying the space where the 45 intersects the downwind when you will. And even though you ‘followed all of the rules’, it is you who needs to take evasive action. That is what is missing – follow any of the procedures when conditions allow but understand also that things can change in an instant which may require a re-sequence or a timely adjustment to avoid unsafe spacing.
Great topic. I enter on the 45° when I’m on the close side of the runway pattern – I don’t like “turning my back to the traffic” – therefore, I enter on the crosswind when I’m on the far side of the runway pattern.
Both acceptable. The term “alternate” for the cross wind entry doesn’t imply more dangerous or risky. It means an alternative to the 45° method.
I lost a dear friend to a mid-air in just that scenario. He was entering on the 45, and an aircraft turning from crosswind to downwind struck his aircraft. Despite both pilots making pattern position radio calls, it still happened. I believe we all need to talk to each other more as needed to resolve potential conflicts.
We made a number of comments on your article last week,,,’ right of way’.
AC-90-66C and AIM 5-4-27 were mentioned.
I’ve experienced a number of straight-in conflicts and overhead breaks causing disruption of all the other aircraft in the pattern….both can be very dangerous experiences.!