Final approach observations & technique for non-towered airports

[FastEddieB]

I've had occasion to view quite a few landing videos over the past few days.

 

Three things strike me about most of them:

 

1) The final approach leg seems very long to me, and,

 

2) The final approach angle seems kinda shallow, leading to,

 

3) An awful lot of power is used to "drive" the plane down that shallow final approach.

 

I learned a particular way to approach a non-towered airport. Let me give an example:

 

Let's say I'm approaching an airport with a 3,000' elevation and the wind is favoring RWY5. Terrain is not a major factor, and I'm approaching from the SW, pretty close to a heading of 050º. IOW, I'm perfectly lined up for a straight in approach to RWY 5.

 

What I would do in virtually all cases is overfly the center of the airport about 500' above pattern altitude - in this case I'd aim for 4,500'. I'd look DOWN at the airport and environs from overhead. This lets me:

 

1) Check out the wind sock from the best angle (above),

 

2) Look for wildlife* or debris or aircraft or vehicles on the runway, and,

 

3) Look for traffic from above, much easier than trying to spot traffic from the same altitude.

 

I would then circle just NW of the airport, just clear of the pattern and descend to a left downwind at roughly 45º (assuming a standard pattern). I would then turn base when the numbers were about 45º to my left rear, and fly a low- or no-power final approach, staying very close to the airport.

 

This is how I was taught, and there are sources (AIM, etc.) that outline this approach. It's how I teach my students. Its not legally required, and I can see lots of pilots would just come straight in in the case listed above. I find the standard pattern also seems to make the final approach easier to judge and the landing easier to make.

 

Just my .02, of course, but thought I'd put it out there.

 

And, just curious, how many here would go straight in and how many would set up some kind of pattern?

 

 

 

 

*This is NOT Photoshopped:

 

 

In all honesty, he was not there on my overhead pass over Copperhill, TN, and I simply landed long to avoid him (in a Cirrus). Just wanted to point out the sort of thing you might be looking for on the runway!

[207WF]

I was taught similar, but 1,000' above the runway on the overflight. Never saw a horse! WF

[FastEddieB]

I was taught similar, but 1,000' above the runway on the overflight.

 

The problem there is you're crossing the airport at roughly pattern altitude. That would seem to set up a higher possibility of a midair.

 

Dontcha think?

[Jim]

When you say you overfly the airport, are you parallel or perpendicular to the runway? There's lots of skydiving in my neck of the woods and it's usually impossible to overfly perpendicular because of drop zones to one side or the other.

[FastEddieB]

When you say you overfly the airport, are you parallel or perpendicular to the runway?

 

For me its just dependent on what direction I'm coming from - I usually don't change course to cross at any particular angle.

 

Though drop zones might influence that!

[FlyingMonkey]

Eddie, many airports have a second pattern altitude 500-800 ft higher than TPA for jets and fast movers. You probably fly a much tighter pattern than they do, but beware!

[FastEddieB]

Eddie, many airports have a second pattern altitude 500-800 ft higher than TPA for jets and fast movers. You probably fly a much tighter pattern than they do, but beware!

 

Thanks for the reminder.

 

It seems that at non-towered airports around here, the jets and fast movers usually just come straight in, whether doing an instrument procedure or not. But you make a good point and I'll be even a little MORE vigilant having been reminded of that.

 

And I thought of a #4 reason not to do an extended final - the number of times one plane has descended on another, usually, but not always a low wing onto a high wing.

[Doug G.]

I always overfly at pattern +500'. My angle of crossing is determined by two things - 1) my direction of approach modified by, 2) where the windsock is so I can spot it. I then turn and put about 2 nm between myself and the airport before before I turn to descend and enter the pattern on a 45 deg downwind centered on the runway. I also probably make more radio calls than most. I'll admit I am less than a year from being a student and am still practicing what I was taught.

[FastEddieB]

I always overfly at pattern +500'. My angle of crossing is determined by two things - 1) my direction of approach modified by, 2) where the windsock is so I can spot it. I then turn and put about 2 nm between myself and the airport before before I turn to descend and enter the pattern on a 45 deg downwind centered on the runway. I also probably make more radio calls than most. I'll admit I am less than a year from being a student and am still practicing what I was taught.

 

Good for you.

 

Absolutely no reason not to continue good practices throughout your flying career. I learned some of my procedures over 30 years ago and they still hold me in good stead.

 

I probably don't go out a full 2 nm before descending, but it is a good idea to be at pattern altitude before you enter the downwind at a 45º angle. IOW, try very hard not to descend into the pattern from above.

 

Thinking back to those long, drawn out (IMHO) final approaches, watch the pilot's head in the videos. Is it on a swivel? Looking straight up and straight down periodically? If not, see photos below from a Google search "high wing low wing".

 

The radio calls are great, and I make a lot as well. But is everyone making calls on the same frequency? How many forgot they turned down the volume? Or are still on 121.5? Or in a J3 Cub with no radio? Best to assume there may be some just not talking as well.

 

 

 

 

[Dan Kent]

Eddie,

I too am less than a year from receiving my sport pilot's license, so this is a learning experience for me. I guess I don't completely understand your description.

 

After you cross mid runway do you then execute a 225 degree right hand turn (according to your scenario) so that you then lose 500 feet of altitude and approach midfield at 45 degrees for a left downwind?

 

I guess what I would have done is probably flown north at pattern altitude until I was wide of the pattern and far enough downwind so my turn to the 45 degree entry would take me to mid runway to turn downwind. On the 45 is when I look for the wind sock and check the runway and pattern.

[FastEddieB]

I guess I don't completely understand your description.

 

After you cross mid runway do you then execute a 225 degree right hand turn (according to your scenario) so that you then lose 500 feet of altitude and approach midfield at 45 degrees for a left downwind?

 

Trying to visualize it, I'd make a left turn to angle away from the airport to the NW, then a descending left turn to join the pattern about midfield at about a 45º angle.

 

I'll try to make a very rough sketch on my iPad later and post it.

 

I guess what I would have done is probably flown north at pattern altitude until I was wide of the pattern and far enough downwind so my turn to the 45 degree entry would take me to mid runway to turn downwind. On the 45 is when I look for the wind sock and check the runway and pattern.

 

I just find it easier to make out the windsock and direction indicators and runway numbers and the like from above, but if they're clear on downwind, that's fine.

[FastEddieB]

I'll try to make a very rough sketch on my iPad later and post it.

 

 

Was easier just to sketch it out and scan it:

 

 

This is NOT engraved in stone nor the only way to do this. It is, however, how I would teach it and how I do it in real life.

 

I feel pretty strongly that its a lot safer than doing a straight in.

[Dan Kent]

Was easier just to sketch it out and scan it:

 

 

This is NOT engraved in stone nor the only way to do this. It is, however, how I would teach it and how I do it in real life.

 

I feel pretty strongly that its a lot safer than doing a straight in.

 

Thanks Eddie, I've got it now. I was thinking in right angles (crossing perpendicular to the runway). I was taught never ever straight in (unless of course a tower is directing you).

[Ed Cesnalis]

Thanks Eddie, I've got it now. I was thinking in right angles (crossing perpendicular to the runway). I was taught never ever straight in (unless of course a tower is directing you).

 

 

Eddie,

 

I would not fly the approach in your diagram because I would be in conflict with the strait in traffic. My home field has mostly strait in traffic and they do not fly this approach at TPA but rather descending from 10+ miles out.

 

In stead, if I wanted to over fly I would follow the red track that I added to your drawing. The idea is to avoid faster strait in traffic ( that might still be talking to center ) from descending into me while tracking the runway extended center-line inbound.

 

If you were wondering my red line is not strait due to birds.

 

[Roger Lee]

Hi Ed (charlie tango)

Your whole setup is different than most. High field elevation, high mounts surrounding the field and crazy ass winds. Fo the normal people Eddie's pattern entry would be okay.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Hi Ed (charlie tango)

Your whole setup is different than most. High field elevation, high mounts surrounding the field and crazy ass winds. Fo the normal people Eddie's pattern entry would be okay.

 

Technically it would be ok because it is not in conflict with the pattern but in the real world you are absolutely in conflict with traffic fliying a strait in, descending approach. I think its a better idea to be aware of this conflict and do things like discuss it and avoid it rather than just announce that it is ok.

 

 

 

[FastEddieB]

Technically it would be ok because it is not in conflict with the pattern but in the real world you are absolutely in conflict with traffic fliying a strait in, descending approach. I think its a better idea to be aware of this conflict and do things like discuss it and avoid it rather than just announce that it is ok.

 

Well...

 

First off, it's somewhat rare to be tracking to the airport exactly on runway heading. I set up that hypothetical only to show that even if I were lined up perfectly with RWY5, I would still not do a straight in approach.

 

And secondly, my drawing was meant to show a slight diversion to the right, avoiding straight in traffic.

 

But admittedly pilots are in the habit of making all sorts of different arrivals, which mostly work out most of the time. I try to plan mine to be as safe as possible regardless of what the other guy does.

 

But whatever works!

[Roger Lee]

Hi Ed (CT),

The correct way is to enter at a 45 on downwind verses a long straight in especially if there is traffic. Most airports frown on people on long finals when there is traffic. Technically if a guy was on a long final and others are in the pattern then the long final guy really isn't in the pattern and should yield to planes already in the patten. If you are too far out you aren't in the pattern, your just approaching no matter what the pilot says. i.e. I'm on a 7 mile final, isn't considered in the pattern for most small airports if others are already in the pattern. I big jet may be different, but most of us aren't competing with 747's. Certainly people do enter small airports from all over, but that really isn't the way it is taught in the books.

[Roger Lee]

P.s. Eddie,

Those pilots that landed on top of the others and stayed there must be pretty skillful. I couldn't have pulled that off without flopping all over the ground.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Roger,

 

I know 45 to downwind is correct/best/recommended. I also know that pilots announcing a 7 mi final isn't yet in the pattern.

 

My point is that to approach along the runway's extended center line does put you in conflict with pilots that do long strait ins, pilots that often just changed frequencies and have no awareness of who is in the area.

 

You can continue to point out that I fly from a mountain strip or that correct entry is a 45 or that it is ok to use Eddie's approach but none of those things erase the concern that there is an inherent traffic conflict with this approach to un-controlled fields where pilots do long strait ins.

 

PS This same approach also puts you in conflict with departing traffic on 23.

[FastEddieB]

PS This same approach also puts you in conflict with departing traffic on 23.

 

I'm fully open to suggestions, but that sounds like a reach.

 

You would only be in conflict with traffic departing 23 with an on course heading of about 230º - everyone else is going to go ahead and turn on course one way or another once they get a bit of altitude.

 

Right?

[Ed Cesnalis]

I'm fully open to suggestions, but that sounds like a reach.

 

You would only be in conflict with traffic departing 23 with an on course heading of about 230º - everyone else is going to go ahead and turn on course one way or another once the get a bit of altitude.

 

Right?

 

Right, sometimes.

 

In my CT after departing it can take up to 1 hour before I can turn on course due to terrain.

 

I'm thinking of 2 nearby fields, Mammoth/Yosemite and Minden, NV. In both cases I am inclined to use the opposing runway to the strait in traffic and in both cases the strait in traffic and opposing outbound traffic are funneled into the same corridor due to the opposing entrance to this corridor being a mountain pass plus some or both sides of the corridor are bordered by high or very high terrain.

 

In other words, if you are going to depart Mammoth in this manner your course is very likely to the Los Angeles area which is like 190 degrees but to the south the terrain exceeds 13,000' so instead you depart on an easterly heading opposing most of the traffic that is strait in for 27.

 

The attachment is my view out the right window when on short final for 9. My options are limited due to terrain.

[FastEddieB]

Maybe the exception proves the rule?

 

At many airports the exact same thing applies, but its a heading other than runway heading that's needed for terrain clearance.

 

Yours is a rather specific individual situation. And clearly, there's no one-size-fits-all method of arriving and departing every airport.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Maybe the exception proves the rule?

 

At many airports the exact same thing applies, but its a heading other than runway heading that's needed for terrain clearance.

 

Yours is a rather specific individual situation. And clearly, there's no one-size-fits-all method of arriving and departing every airport.

 

It may not be real common especially in the east but it is not a specific individual situation.

 

 

 

This is South Lake Tahoe from the north and one of my favorite approaches is to approach from the south which means descending a windy canyon with no view of the airport . You can see HWY 50 to Sacramento in the photo and I always enjoy looking up at the cars on my way in.

 

SLT isn't the best visual example but there is commonality where terrain both discourages turning on course as well as the runway aligns with the departure / arrival corridor. The reason for the commonality is that very high terrain tends to meet low terrain along a the base of a slope to a ridge line that is likely to be parallel to the runway.

[Doug G.]

I would add that I descend to the pattern +500 altitude the same way I would on a final approach. I announce my intentions 5nm out, and as I am about to cross over the airport. I still watch and listen to the local frequency. I do not know of a way to be safer. Straight in I am fairly likely to be the slowest, and I am depending on others to see me, on the 45 downwind I have the opportunity to see anyone else on approach and time my base turn accordingly.

CT I'm curious what kind of approach you do at SLT when you need to see the windsock? Doesn't look like that task is quite as easy as the small airports I usually visit.

Doug