Unfamiliar Airport Entry pattern

[sevenstrokeroll]

Recently, I had the pleasure of chatting with a fellow ppruner coming to America to do some flying.

I asked him if he had ever learned: THE UNFAMILIAR AIRPORT ENTRY PATTERN.

He hadn't.

so...have you guys heard of it....if not I'll describe it later.

[flybymike]

Is this an entry to the "circuit" of an unfamiliar airport, or is it an entry to an airport with which one may be familiar but where one is using an unfamiliar entry procedure?

[sevenstrokeroll]

it is a method of entering the traffic pattern of an airport you are not familiar with.

[Jan Olieslagers]

And is it a recommendation, or a rule? In either case, issued by whom? ICAO?

[L'aviateur]

I should imagine its similar to the UK overhead join whereby you overfly the field at for instance 2000 agl and take time to assimilate the situation, view the airfield from above, look at the traffic pattern, observe the windsock, runway in use and signals etc. Followed by a descent outside the circuit/pattern before joining.

[500 above]

There is some good reading here for non FAA pilots;

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...m/aim0403.html

This explains joins at 45 to the downwind etc. which European pilots may not be familiar with. Most GA pilots in Europe are familiar with traffic pattern indicators/signal squares/nordo procedures etc.

Any questions should be asked upon the ground briefing of the BFR/checkout etc. there are some not so subtle differences to flying in Europe.

[KKoran]

It's not a rule. I assume he's referring to a procedure (technique) he was taught.

[Jan Olieslagers]

..and as I read the weblink given, it is an FAA-only thing anyway. A nice starter for fireside discussions, perhaps, but factually irrelevant here in Europe.

Yet I am curious about the "wind cone" and the "segmented circle", two concepts that were never mentioned in my training, nor can I recall ever seeing something that could perhaps look alike. Not even in MSFS, US-centric as that may be.

Funny OTOH they seem to have "Class B, Class C, and Class D surface areas" in the USoA - I always believed these classifications apply to airspace rather than to surface... a matter of semantics, probably.

[MarkerInbound]

Yes, semantics, they're talking about the area where that level of airspace touches the ground, not the higher and larger rings. My house is under Class B airspace which extends from 4000 MSL to 11000 MSL. But standing on my roof I'm in Class E airspace. However I am in the "vail" of the Class B.

[sevenstrokeroll]

just amazing at what people are saying

you could have said: nope, never heard of it...then I would explain it

you could have said: we have it and don't give a flying F@#$%^& what you have to say.

you could explain it to me and I could offer my knowledge.

so...imagine you are flying along to an airport you have never been to before...you have checked your paper chart and see that it is either controlled or uncontrolled.

let's say its uncontrolled.

and you know the field elevation from your chart...you have pattern information on some charts. (right or standard)

or....circle the airfield at least 500' above the highest pattern altitude (piston is usually 1000', turbine is 1500'_) look down at the segmented circle...it gives you wind information. traffic pattern indicators, runway in use or wind sock (and some may even know what a light on the windsock means)

I wish I could draw it here, but I can't...so, let's pretend the runway is 36, field elevation is sea level and you determine that standard pattern (left hand pattern or circuit for those of the european way of life).

make a radio call, and report circling field at 2000'.

fly runway heading after your circle

turn 90 degrees in direction of traffic pattern (LEFT in this example) (heading 270 in this example) (that's why there is a 90 degree tick on the DG)

fly this heading until clear of pattern and start descent to pattern altitude.

turn to runway heading (360 in this example)...note the 135 degree position on the DG (that's the third tick, 45/90/135)...remember this heading.

turn to the heading you are remembering and you are set up on a 45 degree entry to left downwind runway three six...make CTAF reports on the radio. then turn to 180 degrees and you are on downwind.

a minute on each heading should keep you clear of traffic pattern and keep you close to the airport so you don't get lost.

always clear beneath you prior to descending.


the same thing can be done at a controlled field, with the overflight/circle done outside of the airport traffic area/controlled airspace. report to tower overhead at 3000plus feet for landing, planning to descend for left 45 entry into left downwind for 36.

this may or may not be a regular course of study for modern pilots.

when we used to navigate by DR and Pilotage (no gps or vor) we flew from airport to airport and once over the destination we would use this procedure .

maybe you do it in europe, maybe you don't...maybe you depend on radar vectors to base or final...or maybe you know every field you fly to so you know how to enter base or downwind without help.

or maybe, someday you will be flying in the middle of the far west in the USA...we paint the name of the airport on the taxiway in huge letters to help vfr pilots know where they are...you circle, read the name of the airport, do the procedure and handle things like a pro.

happy landings

[rgsaero]

Well, sevenstrokeroll, I can't see anything in your excellent rendition which differs radically between what I've been doing in UK and Europe for the last 20 years and what you chaps do in the US of A!

Just 20 years ago for the NFT (Nav Test) in Uk for the grant of a licence we always had to go to an "unfamiliar" a/f, and many of those had "air/ground" radio or none so one had to join overhead and fly the "pattern" in your terminology. And it helped if you had worked out before you arrived how you might join that so as not to mess with other traffic.

I suspect that a big problem nowadays it that most students fly to or from "controlled" environments so expect to be told what to do! From the Brit perspective, if that's what you've been used to it can be very difficult, even dangerous, when flying to France where by and large no-one talks to anyone and if they do it's in French!!!

[Jan Olieslagers]

Sorry for your disappointment, it is obvious you have some information you deem worthwhile or even important, and wish to share it. Sincere gratitude!

That said, I am afraid your info might well be useful in the US, and in countries that have similar flying conditions (Canada, possibly?) but it isn't really in Western Europe.Unless of course to those that intend to cross the pond for some pleasure flying.

Here in Europe, there can be no fixed recipe, the airspace is too congested and aerodromes are too different. Some will insist on joining overhead, others will expressly forbid that. Round here, one really has to prepare flights. Knowing the rules and habits and ceremonial of each field is just one important factor, there's several more, language issues for a beginning.

Also, please be aware that if the standard circuit is left hand that is not a European thing, it comes from ICAO. Of which the US happens to be a member.

One shouldn't count on radio either. Even if 99% of planes do have radio, including the light ones that you'd call an LSA, there's no obligation outside controlled airspace. Some nasty situations have been known where the possible presence of NORDO planes was ignored.

Finally, if you'll excuse me for tutoring: starting your phrases with a capital would do them a power of good, at least in their looks. And, d'ya know, it is really no good offering answers to people that haven't asked.

Again, gratitude for your good intentions, and happy flying!

[riverrock83]

I think I prefer overhead joins...

[Jan Olieslagers]

Except where gliders are winch-launched, perhaps. Those cables tend to be nasty, very strong and very invisible, or so I am told.

Edit: at paradropping fields, overhead joins might well have undesired effects, too.

[GeeWhizz]

I must confess its been a hard to refrain from posting here against the insinuation that pilots are incapable of joining a circuit and landing at an airfield never before visited. Surely the reason for gaining a license is to visit unfamiliar places as well as take in the local scenery around our homes?

Even if I were to divert to an aerodrome that I didn't have charts for I'm sure I'd cope using a standard overhead join, with perhaps some guess work after landing. Might not please everyone but it'd be some kind of urgent situation for this to occur thereby mitigating any perceived ignorance.

An overhead join isn't too dissimilar from the Strokers description above. Other than its less waffly and a tighter circuit. Something perhaps the yanks could learn from too.

Edit: As an addition I think there's something much more satisfying in flying a more concise join/approach and landing. Left/right base or straight in can feel good if it goes smoothly.

Overhead joins also wastes another 5 mins over the landing spot that one is paying for when it could be better invested hacking through a headwind on a subsequent flight. For the hour builders, putting every minute to a better use than dithering in and around the circuit seems to make more sense. Even at unfamiliar airports this holds true providing the visibility is reasonable and wind direction available (radio or sock).

Lastly by any kind of logical navigation we should know almost where we are, even if uncertain of position or possibly even when lost (emergency?). There is no need for airport names to be printed on taxiways.

[2 sheds]

Overhead joins also wastes another 5 mins over the landing spot that one is paying for when it could be better invested hacking through a headwind on a subsequent flight. For the hour builders, putting every minute to a better use than dithering in and around the circuit seems to make more sense. Even at unfamiliar airports this holds true providing the visibility is reasonable and wind direction available (radio or sock).

However, having a good view of the circuit from above before joining might just prevent getting into uncomfortable proximity with another aircraft.

2 s

[sevenstrokeroll]

Like I said:

I offered this because when I spoke to a ppruner, he didn't know what it was, so I offered some information.

AS a CFIIMEIATPMEL and earned a good living in aviation for over 32 years I wanted to give back to all those private pilots who seem to be learning the unimportant things first.

Someone has actually indicated I should use capital letters more often. at the start of the computer revolution it was considered COOL to not use caps for the reason that it slowed typing down.

so...use what I have offered, or don't. Read the name of the airport on the taxiway or not.

Call it circuit, or RT or stop by the pub and have some warm beer.

But some of you guys who are lurkers might have just learned something.

good luck...happy landings... and do just what you are told to do by nameless, faceless controllers in their bullet proof bunkers.

maybe watch a few episodes of SKY KING might make pilots out of you all

[riverrock83]

SSR - appologies for my tongue in cheek post.
Interesting that googling didn't bring up any other mentions of a pattern by that name. My very limited understanding is that in the USA there is no standard way to get from circling over the runway (to view airfield information / signals square) to join (via the US standard 45 deg join). Essentially you are supposed to stay outside the traffic pattern (circuit) until you can join at 45 deg (even though technically you can join at any point into the pattern).

I suppose what I don't understand is that you may well end up leaving the ATZ in this procedure and the limited protection that this brings. There is also no obvious call when you are outbound from the overhead. There is also a potential conflict with aircraft taking off, especially if they do a 45 deg turn out in the circuit direction after take off...

The British overhead join means you stay close the airfield (good for engine failures!) and save fuel. You can also maintain visual contact with other aircraft in the circuit (you don't have your back to them). It is also rare for a taking off plane to be at circuit height by the crosswind join point.

Although I couldn't find your pattern name, your description appears to match this website under a different name:
Transitioning to the Pattern

which has this pic:

[riverrock83]

Reading again I realise you are going perpendicular away from the runway rather than at 45 degrees so some of my comments don't fully make sense. However - since I found another example pretty quickly, this suggests it isn't standard which brings its own problems?

[sevenstrokeroll]

the forty five entry is to the midfield...the forty five departure is from the departure end (and a bit more)...this makes the procedure even MORE valuble for avoiding traffic.

a picture would be better, but I cannot do it by computer.

and no, the transitioning to pattern article is not what I am getting at. indeed, seeing that is one way to descend into departing traffic

the method I've described reduces the chance of collision.

why not try drawing it out....with the first turn done midfield after viewing the segmented circle