@@SteelTallon Since Teardrop wasn't good enough, I guess we need to call it a "Jason-sized Teardrop" now. It's the same maneuver, just needs to be bigger, sadder, and a bit angrier.
As a DPE, I see this done incorrectly FAR too often and have, on occasion, issued a Disapproval b/c it compromised safety. One of the problems, in addition to the FAAs stated 500 foot "buffer", is depicting a path 2 miles beyond the downwind leg. The issue here is that the downwind leg is an undefined distance from the runway. Yes, it's 'usually' around 3/4 mile or so, but it's not "always" 3/4 mile. My recommendation during debriefs (and when I'm acting as a CFI) is to fly at least THREE miles from the runway before beginning the turn back. Nice to see someone addressing this. Now, please tackle the issue of misidentifying the "departure leg" as the "upwind leg"!!!!
Having a problem with the word teardrop is odd to me. The overfly to 45 entry if done correctly is shaped like a teardrop! It’s the perfect name for it. I was always taught to fly a minimum 3 miles from the runway before starting my decent and turn. What’s so hard about this and how does ditching the name fix the problem? If people are not flying out far enough, that’s hardly a nomenclature problem. It’s a training problem
Believe it or not, despite what he said in the video, it's quite odd to the guy in the video too. You can catch his freudian slip at 9:08. Not making a point, just simply and authentically using "teardrop" as an accurate description of the entry.
I agree. The video title made it seem like he was against the teardrop procedure altogether (which is why I clicked), but really the issue is semantics, not the procedure. He makes good points about the procedure itself though.
i also don't understand what his issue is with the word teardrop. My theory is that he's misinterpreting Tear-DROP as in a drop in altitude maybe. Like you're dropping into the pattern. But obviously it's about the shape of the flight path.
Teardrop is the best thing to call it hands down because that’s what everyone is being taught, and if I hear someone announce “overflying midfield at 1500 and we’ll be doing a teardrop entry to enter on the 45 for left downwind” I know exactly what to look for. I’ve never heard it called anything but the teardrop
Concur. Same shape as a 'teardrop' holding pattern entry. Ok, 1000' above TPA vs. FAA 500 makes sense, and yeah, descending 1000' encourages you to get far enough away too. But, c'mon - it is a teardrop shaped maneuver, and the word communicates fairly precisely what the pilot's intentions are.
Yep, agreed. I'm with Jason on the 1000' over mid-point of the runway, and with allowing enough time and space to be properly positioned to enter the downwind. But reporting to other traffic that I'm performing a right teardrop to enter the left downwind tells them exactly what I'm doing and where I'm going to be. And I appreciate it when others report the same.
Why even make a radio call at all? If you are 1000' above TPA, you are not even a factor and by the time you make the "teardrop" turn and descent, you are well beyond the airport vicinity anyways.
I do the mid field entry frequently if the airport is not busy. At busy non-towered airports I just do a 45 degree entry. Taking time to fit my C414A in with slower aircraft just makes sense. When I fly King Airs I don’t bully the smaller aircraft. Communicating intentions and working out how to fit in with different performing aircraft is critical to safety. It’s easy to miss traffic visually.
@@caiolinnertel8777 Tbh, while I promote the FAA preferred methods, I can't help but feel a bit grateful towards the King Airs, twins, and also jet aircraft who dispense with the pattern-entry semantics and shoot a straight-in approach (er... I mean, RNAV) so the rest of us flying 20-40knots slower in and around the pattern can adjust our down-wind to quite easily accommodate them.
My local nontowered airport has both right and left patterns with one runway and parallel helicopter training. We have 1,000 separation for flyovers setting up for left or right teardrops. One flight I was entering a 45 when a helicopter was taking off under me at the same time an airplane was crossing midfield over me. I stayed in my 45downwind maintaining 500 above traffic pattern and 500 below clearance until the helicopter was clear from under me and entry traffic was cleared above me. This made me a big believer of 1,000!
With all due respect, this video has a clickbait title and the point you’re trying to make is just semantics. You’re not saying not to fly the teardrop pattern, just to not call it a “teardrop“. What’s the alternative you’re proposing? If I say “crossing midfield for a teardrop entry to downwind 35”, everyone knows what my intentions are. Saying anything else would just make the radio call longer. I do agree that most pilots don’t fly far enough out and that descending into the pattern is a problem. But if you’re just proposing to use more words than necessary while flying the procedure, I have to respectfully disagree.
You are crossing over the field above the pattern, leaving the pattern area, then descending to TPA, before turning to a 45 to a left downwind. At that point, you are in the pattern. What’s there to say except you are on the 45 to a left downwind?
@@royernest7740 I'm fairly confident the commenter is just saying that he's just describing his intended course reversal to enter the 45 downwind. His suggestion seems accurate that it's a heck of a lot shorter and timely communication than describing a trip beyond the pattern to return to the pattern on the preferred 45 entry.
@@CFI-King Agreed on the clickbait comment, but that's pretty status quo for his stuff. I've asked YT to stop recommending his stuff, but it seems to forget that every 6mo or so.
@@royernest7740 yes, you still need to make a call when you’re entering entering the pattern - you would just say you’re on the 45 to downwind. But when you’re crossing over midfield, the clearest way to broadcast your intentions is to include the word teardrop, in my opinion.
I love the Finer Points, way better and often straight to the “point” compared to other aviation TH-cam content out there. This is the first video I’ve seen that isn’t worth the data center space it’s saved on. Why is the word “teardrop” a problem again? He literally never argued why just said he doesn’t like it. It’s perfectly valid to say “fly out further from the pattern” or “don’t make a descending turn”. Perhaps the best maneuver is to descend _while_ flying out further straight, and then make the teardrop turn into the 45 entry. But this is still a teardrop!
Thanks. I know what I said, and I meant to say it. I suppose I’ll have to make a part two to further clarify the point thank you. As an exercise though you should draw a line that represents the runway and imagine a student pilot crosses it not perpendicular but already at a 45° angle which is so very common then fly out and teardrop. Where do you end up on the 45? No, on the downwind. if you didn’t have the teardrop procedure in your mind it would’ve worked fine. It is truly the language we need to quit.
I'm renaming the (overhead) "teardrop" entry to left traffic the "Zoolander" entry, in honor of Derek Zoolander, who makes a right-270 to turn left, and because he works on a type of runway. Even though it's teardrop-shaped, and most pilots are calling it a teardrop entry, and using clear, precise abbreviated language to call a teardrop a teardrop, that isn't good enough for you. It will now be the "Zoolander" entry to clear up all confusion. Just to stay consistent, the overhead left turn to a right-pattern is the "Reverse Zoolander."
I tend to use the 1000' above TPA method at airports I am less familiar with and the midfield at TPA for those places I go to more often as I want additional time at the former to get configured. I tend to go out at least 3 miles before I maneuver and often as many as 5 depending on terrain. If I've never been there before, I use Foreflight to mark a waypoint that is on a 3-5 mile 45 to the downwind so that I have a place to navigate to that eliminates the wind factor that you spoke of.
The purpose of crossing midfield 500ft above TPA is to check for wind and traffic so when you make the turn inbound to join the 45 you should have noticed all potential conflicts. If the pattern is busy, I will continue flying until well clear of the airport (3nm). Also, I always use my home airport as destination on my GPS when going to the practice area because it helps in case of emergency for me to tell ATC where I am relative to my airport. I also use the distance information when overflying to ensure we fly well clear of the pattern. When the distance goes to zero (midfield), I go another 2 miles so I know I won’t have any issues descending while turning.
One comment. The standard entry taught in Canada is the midfield crossing at circuit hight if one knows the wind, or 500ft above circuit (pattern), to check the sock if not sure. So, for you US based pilots, IF you hear a ‘Charlie’ callsign, expect a midfield crossing. Although many Canadians will eventually learn the 45 entry, since the midfield is an approved entry in the US, this is likely what your Canadian brother and sister aviators will do. And for US aviators flying in Canada, if you do the 45, nobody will know what you are doing and that might cause problems.
Was just about to say the same thing. If unsure of the wind crossing 500 ft above circuit height to the dead side of the circuit, to then fly a teardrop and do a midfield downwind entry is our standard entry at uncontrolled fields. I always thought the teardrop on the dead side made more sense. Always have to remember the “45 entry” when flying in the states…
Some Mild Maneuvering "Pilots' get confused if making more than 90 degree turns. Dan G is one of them. Big mouth anti turn donkey. This is a good exercise for you.. Do it.. Don be a Mild Maneuvers Missy..
Interesting, and agreed. But the most preferred way here in Australia, even safer in my view than in the USA, is to overfly the field at 2,000’ AGL to the dead or non-circuit side (we say circuit, you say pattern) then descend to circuit height to join the circuit crosswind a little to the left of the threshold, then turn downwind. This gives even more time for reconnaissance, situational awareness and listening for other radio calls. What do you think? Cheers.
If someone is climbing out with a high rate of climb (sometimes this is a noise abatement procedure), wouldn't another pilot joining on the crosswind over the threshold require the departing pilot to look out for traffic above them as they takeoff? I'm trying to visualize how this works safely.
@@audiotek103 yeah, that’s probably why here Australia they say, and show on the diagrams, joining crosswind about three quarters of the way along the runway, ie between mid runway and the crosswind threshold - I should have mentioned that. Cheers.
Like that…very similar to how we approach uncontrolled fields in Canada…all maneuvering on the dead side of the circuit and crossing field at 500’ above circuit height on the initial pass before the teardrop and direct midfield entry to the downwind.
2:08 Option B is what I was taught here in Canada, and is the standard entry at a non-towered & non-MF aerodrome, if there is an AWOS or you know from traffic what runway is in use.
In Australia, this "teardrop" manoeuver does not exist for class G airports. I would go so far to say that it could be against regulation to do this in Australia for the reason stated as pilots don't leave the circuit far enough. The way in Australia, it is highly recommended to stay at least 500ft above circuit height (however I never overfly below 1000ft above circuit height) fly back over to the dead side, and then decend on the dead side. Once you reach circuit height, then you will turn midfield crosswind and join downwind as normal. I know I'm the foreigner talking here but that is what is taught and drummed into Australian pilots.
It is great to hear from people in other countries. Thanks for letting us know. I'm wondering, if you descend on the no traffic side, and then join the crosswind from that side, how do you avoid traffic that is departing the runway at high climb speeds? Another question came up as I was thinking through this. In certain areas the pattern side is decided to avoid lower overflying of noise sensitive areas (residential areas, or other) or to avoid terrain. If it is standard to descend on the no traffic side how do you avoid those concerns? I like to think through how/why things happen in different scenarios as it helps me learn better.
@@audiotek103in regards to higher performance aircraft, you might have to decide to turn midfield cross wind closer to the runway threshold. This isn't always the best option, as you cut your downwind shorter. Otherwise, you may just have to coordinate with the other aircraft. In regards to noise abatements, in Australia this is generally targeted for training aircraft conducting circuits, and hence left and right traffic patterns come into play.
I agree with the 1000 AGL plus 500 or 1500 AGL Entry but the logic used, allows for Pain in my training. My CFI and I just can't agree, insists on 500 above the "little guys pattern" Don't call it a teardrop, I get that, point taken, however as is pointed out, the "big guys pattern" is 1500 AGL so technically I should be 1500 + 500 = 1000 AGL over the top of the pattern, then begin the descent for 3 Miles, level off at Pattern, then turn into the 45. Having the wing block my view in a turn is why I don't like Cessnas but with the Piper in the right turn at pattern, swaps that issue, so great care to be exercised, so I agree a descending Right turn might be problematic. My heartburn is "What do you call a Pattern"? My CFI says it confuses people and they don't know where to look KGXY is a zoo and I frequently find myself staring at the guy doing a midfield crossover at pattern way too close in a congested pattern. I've ditched the habit of calling it an overhead teardrop at KLMO because I constantly get questioned "What's That"? (I think they are just being snarky) since I have no humor I rarely respond. I think what really needs to be cleared up is (What exactly does the FAA mean by Pattern)?. I'm a CFI in training about to do the checkride so I want to do the right thing.
If you state, “Overflying midfield at XXXX ft for teardrop entry to runway XX” then that tells everyone what they need to know. Seems to work very well at our non-towered airport. It gives your height above pattern altitude, position and intent.
Some Mild Maneuvering "Pilots' get confused if making more than 90 degree turns. Dan G. is one of them. Big mouth anti turn donkey. This is a good exercise for you.. Do it.. Don be a Mild Maneuvers Missy..
I had a bonanza catching me in my piper crossing mid field. I called tear drop for left traffic so he could just cross mid field and enter left downwind. Worked well.
Advocated pattern entry in Australia is 500-1000ft overfly, descend on the dead/inactive side of the patrern and join crosswind or mid-crosswind. With appropriate CTAF calls. Wasnt even aware of the teardrop entry to need to avoid it 😅
Interesting. Now that I have much more experience flying into both towered and non-towered airports, I can relate to what you're teaching much better. As for the linguistics of it, "teardrop" has always been a mental construct for me. I know the difference between a teardrop entry and a direct entry into downwind. It never translated to my position calls. When I plan a "teardrop" entry I state my altitude when overflying the runway and announce that I'm outbound to establish the 45 degree pattern entry. If I'm going directly from above the airport into downwind, I announce it as such. There are different factors for me that relate to the pattern entry decision. If it's an unfamiliar airport I usually elect to do a pass overhead with a 45 degree entry so I can get a good visual concept of the layout. The downside to that is that spotting the windsock can be very difficult from an altitude of 1000' above the pattern. That can also affect my decision of which type of pattern altitude I choose. When in doubt, I will overfly 1000' above, depart the traffic pattern and determine whether I feel I'm safe in making a 45 degree entry or whether I should make a lower approach directly to downwind to make sure I can see the windsock to confirm the direction of the wind.
The idea of doing a midfield downwind entry, honestly, scares the hell out of me considering some of the crazy-busy uncontrolled fields I've flown into on a busy Sunday. Charter planes, jumpers, towed gliders, GA aircraft. It would feel borderline irresponsible to just blasting across a field with all that traffic at TPA and just hop into the downwind.
The situation you’re describing isn’t where the direct entry is intended to be used. That’s probably why it would feel weird trying to squeeze in between a Cherokee and a Citation.
@@VictoryAviation Agreed. I was never even taught that midfield entry. This video is the first I heard of it. Just seems best to spend an extra 5 min to set up the downwind entry WELL away from the pattern to give time to evaluate the traffic instead of pushing in.
@@azychek It just depends on several factors. If you’re able to safely work into the pattern, great. If not, cross midfield and then fly back inbound. Even then it doesn’t guarantee you won’t have to make adjustments or fly another 360 before working in.
I agree 100%. Calling this teardrop has resulted in a maneuver entirely too close to the downwind. Radio calls such as “crossing midfield” (just as if you were overflying the airfield going somewhere else, at 1000 feet above TPA), go out at least two miles, THEN turn back towards the airfield, make a “45 degree for left downwind runway…” radio call (just as if you coming from that way from the start.) Some Instructors are teaching this teardrop to be done as if it was a steep turn 360 in the downwind leg to get established.
@@8literbeater You don’t have to yell at me…. Just kidding. I think students are being taught a “teardrop” like that of one in a holding pattern. Looking at either from a Birds Eye view, the pattern is indeed a teardrop. In a holding pattern, it’s a standard rate turn until established. I think students are being taught as soon as you cross the downwind leg, do a standard rate turn to get into the downwind; instead of doing the actual teardrop shape of going out a couple miles then teardropping into the 45 downwind. If that makes any sense? So perhaps what I said above may not have been worded correctly, but I hope this helps what I’m saying.
@@PropFlier I will agree that there is plenty of bad instruction going on out there. If CFIs and pilots and students can't read the instructions that explain how to properly do the arrival, I don't think complaining about what we call it is the solution.
Ah, this is probably where a lot of the confusion and heartburn come from. Some idiots think it’s like an almost idle power 270 or overhead break directly into the downwind, and opportunity to feel like a Top Gun pilot? That’s just poor instructing and poor learning. That meaning is not baked into the term at all. There is a teardrop hold entry, and it doesn’t descend, and there’s a teardrop ILS procedure turn, that doesn’t descend. It’s not a Sierra Hotel break, kiddies.
“Tear drop” entry is fine, you’re not descending into the downwind, you’re descending to the 45. You should complete your descent by the completion of the turn. If you can’t then you need to practice more, not change phaseology.
I’ve been taught to only overfly with adequate separation (1k feet above pattern) and enter at the 45 with a teardrop. I think we should all aim to be as predictable as possible in our airmanship so as to promote better, safety conscious practices in high risk areas. Some have very little regard for SOP and other pilots using the airport and there’s really just no place for that. (Entering straight into the base, straight in approaches etc.)
I completely agree. My issue was just with the word teardrop if you don’t cross the runway perpendicular, then a teardrop maneuver if it’s in your mind will put you directly on the downwind. I think it’s best for Pilot to just understand. They need to get on that 45 and maneuver with as much predictability as possible without ending up in the wrong spot.
@@TheFinerPoints that’s a great point and something I’ve never really considered before. I’m going to have to keep that in my mind next time I’m enter an untowered traffic pattern.
My instructor taught me the teardrop pattern following a 500’ midfield crossing. On my checkride my DPE said not to do the teardrop because it takes too long. After my PPL was achieved my second instructor I got for my instrument rating said NO! NO! NO! If you cross midfield 500’ above pattern altitude and do a teardrop pattern you will be on a head-on collision course to crash into him in his turbo-prop. Very dangerous maneuver! Never did it again.
For the teardrop entry, I taught to fly 1000’ above TPA. For the radio call after already making a 10 mile call, it’d be something like “xyz traffic, Cherokee 123 is over the field at 2000’ maneuvering to the southwest for a 45 degree entry, left traffic runway 27”
2:50 ABSOLUTELY agree. My Primary flight instructor scolded me for being so high more than once. Coming in over the field at 2,000AGl "You can barely even see the wind sock, get lower"... I'm like 15 hours in at this point. But I knew TPA is 800AGL or 1,000', pilots are often more than 50-100ft off this mark. And larger twins and turboprops are frequently around, and fly a 1,500' TPA. So 2,000' seemed the only rational choice to me. There is ONE OTHER pattern than makes a lot of sense, especially for very high performance aircraft approaching around 250KTAS. And that is 1,500'AGL on runway heading, into an overhead-break scrub the speed with G and descend to TPA on the downwind. Turboprops at 1,500' are already descending on base to final, so they will slip under with plenty of room to spare. And this is well above the ILS or PAPI glideslope several miles out.
Also note: IF over-flown at 2,000'AGL, AND the descent is not initiated until flying out PAST the downwind leg, approximately 1/2 mile abeam the runway. Then the "teardrop" style 270-degree turn should not be a factor for other pilots safety. As long as it involves descending straight ahead for another 1/2 mile and giving plenty of time on the 45 at TPA to observe other traffic. The big flash of the upper wing surface making the right-hand turn a mile or two out in front of someone on the cross-wind leg will give them plenty of warning you're maneuvering into their future flight path.
I prompted a debate on this topic on the FB page “Airplanes and Coffee”. Never expected such a heated debate. 1000 above pattern is what I teach and have been taught. THANK YOU for making this video!!!
I agree about NOT using the term “teardrop” Teardrop is used for an entry into a holding pattern. When you roll out you are on the inbound course. Using it in an airport traffic pattern could (and I have seen it done” imply rolling out on downwind rather than on a 45 entry.
I understand what you're saying. Yes, typically if you were overflying midfield at TPA you are going for a 45 DW entry over the field, and overflying midfield 1500agl (or 2000 in your case) you are passing the pattern 3 miles and "teardropin" in. But I've seen so many times pilots over fly 1500 and 45/drop right into DW in front of me. Its wrong, but they do it. I like the verbiage teardrop so I know and I'm ready for what the others intentions are or aren't... For the 1000' over TPA, yes it would be nice... But lots of our non-towereds are under B or C shelves that don't allow that, including my airport. All our 1500' TPA's airplanes are coming in through B or C airspace and are on a straight in RNAV or something like that, never doing a traffic pattern. It's different everywhere though.
My instructor once told me that 1500' was too high; that's the TPA for jets and I didnt need to go out so far when crossing midfield. This left me more confused, so I just avoid it and circle around until I'm on the 45° for downwind.
I feel like TFP forgets it doesn't need more than a couple hundred above above other traffic to miss them. If military is Overhead break at 500' above PA, but we're 500 above that, the only thing we're doing is making it harder for eye to spot any traffic in the standard pattern. Basically, looking down is bad, you are trying to see a dark spot on a dark background, while if we are looking out, we see a dark spot on a skyline.
If the word "teardrop" being used to describe an entry to the pattern is "nonsense", why did the guy in the video use it to describe just that at 9:09 ? He wasn't trying to make a point when he said it, either. It was genuine and appropriate. You might even call it, a Freudian Slip.
These seem like great points, although my home airport (S50 - Auburn Municipal) presents a lot of challenges or exceptions to the points here, I think. For one thing, the runway is left traffic on RWY 35 and right traffic on RWY 17, so unless you enter pattern on mid-field (which the airport or FAA doesn't want you to do), there is high terrain (a large hill with residential homes) about 1 mile west of the airport that you fly above and then descend into the downwind. On top of that, just 1 mile west of the airport has a class Bravo shelf that starts at 1800 MSL so you overfly at 1,500 and stay there for a long time during the turn towards downwind entry at 45 degress. I guess B airspace above a Class E/G airport is always going to make things way more complicated and I expect that's more a norm these days with a lot of pilots living around busy airspaces abutting controlled airspace. And then there's the helicopters that do things like take off from the taxiway upwind and parallel towards you while you are on final, and the G1000 is throwing traffic alerts. Maybe it's a bad place to train or a good place to train, depending on how you look at it.
It just says pattern altitude. But hears the thing, just because you're a piston doesn't make 1500 NOT a pattern altitude. So fly it at 2000 since that's 500ft above pattern altitude (1000-1500)
It DOES say 500 above the pattern altitude, but it ALSO says if it is known that there are turbines operating at that airport that you should go to 1000 feet above to avoid the turbine TPA. He just omitted that part, or he's not as well read as he should be when making a TH-cam video.
Awesome video! I really like the concept of using this as a little reconnaissance mission looking below and out for traffic. Almost goes without saying, but if you can, look behind you too if you have adsb/ForeFlight up, just in case someone else was thinking the same.. Last year on my private checkride, I did my reconnaissance five or so miles out when my examiner asked me to divert to a popular non towered airport. Everything looked great, with only a few in the pattern this was exactly how I’ve practiced with my instructor several times. I briefed that we will cross midfield 500 above to join downwind. However, as we were crossing the field to join… jet traffic from behind us, passed above, going fast enough to even cut someone else off in the downwind base turn. The Cessna in front of me immediately departed and so did I. I started getting worried a mile away from the field and even made additional calls, but I’m certain the jet ignored and definitely didn’t see us. My DPE shared some choice words and i learned first hand how to do a report that day.
The entry at TPA on the dead side and join the pattern is called a 'mid-field crosswind join' in Australia, and is the preferred join here. I wasn't aware the FAA had the equivalent of that until this video. I guess we'd make a 'mid-field crosswind' join radio earlier to give people's a heads up
I've stopped using "teardrop" for over a year after picking it up when hearing others refer to it. Also, great point on flying away from the traffic pattern to clear yourself of traffic....especially since a lot of schools are teaching extra long patterns (maybe another topic for you).
@@VictoryAviation I call prior to crossing the runway "Piper xxx midfield Crosswind xxxx feet" and the after I reposition on the 45 entry 2-3 miles out, "Piper XXX 3 miles 45 entry for downwind runway xx..." Crosswind call optional depending on traffic and radio congestion.
@@VictoryAviation it depends. I try to balance radio coms w awareness. Ultimately I try to let those on radios know my intentions and try to minimize maneuvering near the traffic pattern. We also have a lot of student who fly in my area so it takes additional awareness and communication. Hope that helps. -A reformed “teardrop” guy
Another good reason for maintaining a good chunk of extra altitude is that if you are going to be motoring along for 2 minutes heading AWAY from the airport then if anything happens with your engine you will be firmly out of gliding distance in most aircraft when you didn't need to be. Putting it into the trees short of the airport would be a needless mistake.
Main downside with being that high is that it’s near impossible for me to make out the windsock at 2k agl, fine if winds are calm but if variable at smaller airports I find it very helpful to see what winds are doing directly
So your trying to rewrite faa bulletins? 1500 is way too high. 1000 is standard and works well. Midfield downwind is called midfield crosswind. Midfield downwind is for 45 degree midfield entry. Teardrop is FAR compliant. For visibility reasons.
I’ve never heard midfield crosswind, and I fly almost every single day for work. It makes sense. I just never remember hearing the term in over 2000 hours of flying. I’ve heard crossing midfield a ton, but not midfield crosswind. Where does the FAA refer to that term?
Oh my god look how many comments say they descend while turning! Tear drop schmear drop. The real problem is pilots doing a descending turn onto the 45.
2000' AGL and assuming a 3 degree descent rate at 90 knots (approx. 450 FPM) will cover 2+ minutes or 3+ NM to 1000' AGL. You want to be at pattern altitude say 2 miles out (don't want to descend into the pattern). So that's about 5 NM from DOWNWIND after you've turned around toward the downwind before descending. Descending in the turn to the 45 downwind entry (approx. 135 degrees) will shave maybe half that distance depending on bank angle. Is the sight picture for collision avoidance any better in a level turn than in a descending turn back toward the pattern? Hopefully my math is reasonably close.
@@eds.173 Math & numbers aside, the circular says “descend then turn.” I’d suggest that there is no sight picture when one aircraft descends onto another, like the Dallas air show crash.
It is difficult to see other traffic that is below you in the teardrop. I hear plenty of people try the teardrop and it just causes confusion because it’s hard to find the plane and the pilot reports are not accurate. I can see very well when entering midfield.
If I understand you correctly, you suggest overflying midfield at 1000' instead of 500' above pattern altitude, while also suggesting overflying midfield at pattern altitude. Some people are even suggesting the "teardrop" is dangerous. If people turn in too quick, they are dangerous, not the maneuver. I was taught to overfly midfield 1000' above the pattern, travel two and a half to three miles beyond the pattern, perform a standard rate turn "teardrop" which allows losing the extra 1000' to enter the downwind on the 45 at pattern altitude. I can't possibly see how this is more dangerous than crossing midfield at pattern altitude and entering the downwind at a 90, which is going to be tight at standard rate bank, rolling level basically just as you get abeam the numbers. I get this is going to get you on the ground quicker, but that doesn't make it safer. Let's say I'm entering the downwind on a 45, and you're entering at a 90 from midfield, we're almost head on. If I bank right into the downwind and you bank left into the downwind, we're belly to belly entering the downwind, at basically the same location at the same altitude, unable to see each other. However, if I'm entering on a 45 at pattern altitude, and you overfly midfield at 1000' above and perform a "teardrop", we have safe separation. How is this not a much safer entry for both of us?
Crossing midfield you would yield to anyone on downwind or the 45 entry. Coordinate with the other aircraft, the flow should be established before crossing the runway. In that situation a possible climb to cross above the pattern would be needed to deconflict. Turning and losing visual with an aircraft on your tail is putting that flight in a much riskier position.
The AFH does say to fly higher than the turbine altitude if such aircraft are present, and to descend to pattern altitude THEN turn inbound when making the not-a-teardrop entry. So pretty much no disagreement at all. (?)
Love. LOVE your content. That’s why I’ve subscribed. As a pilot in SoCal, F70, every time I’ve entered the pattern from the opposite side of the pattern, 500’ just seems too low. Especially if I hear other pilots in the pattern. Same when I fly to Catalina. I’d rather be 1000’ above PTA. Why not!? And then when I’m 2 miles past mid field, it still feels too close. And regarding the term ‘teardrop’; I always use the term “45 degree entry into the left/right downwind”. I’m definitely taking your advice on this topic. My CFI drilled AC 90-66C into my head. Now I’m seeing that some of those instructions could be minimums. We as aviators should err on the side of caution and safety.
@@RetreadPhotoWhat? A 45 degree entry is a 45 degree entry. The FAA is very clear on what this means. If someone is making two left hand 45 degree turns, that’s a 90° turn my friend 😅
As I think about the second option which is to fly at pattern altitude and the turn left into the downwind traffic, I’m wondering where you are going to go if there happens to be a plane on the downwind to your right and at your altitude?
The most direct pattern entry that traffic permits is the best way to enter a pattern. Unnecessary turns creates congestion. If you are overflying the field to enter on the 45, that airport is probably busy af. That "teardrop" turn needs to be made to time your way into the pattern.
This maneuver will be promoted and taught by the newbies until there is a midair. Look at the FlightAware arrivals at a busy nontowered airport. Most that use this entry are descending into the pattern while making a right turn to join the downwind. Beautiful setup for a Piper -Cessna midair. If this is such a great pattern entry, why doesn’t ATC use it at controlled airports? I believe the stats bear out that most small GA midair’s occur day VFR within 3 miles of an airport. Left turns only in the nontowered pattern (unless right traffic), please.
Jason: I’d not only like to see is get rid of the word teardrop, but get rid of this procedure altogether because (like you said) most don’t fly out far enough! My first experience with this was someone announcing they would teardrop into the downwind while I was coming in to enter directly on a 45 entry and next thing I see is them coming right at me and essentially flying upwind on the downwind side of the pattern! I think any turn in the wrong direction to other traffic flow makes no sense!
AFH 8-4 states that if turbine aircraft operate at the airport then 1000 ft above traffic pattern is recommended, or 2000ft AGL. I agree that this should just be the standard though as it can be unclear if turbine aircraft use the field.
I wouldn’t call crossing over at midfield to maneuver onto the downwind a “midfield downwind entry” as this is a term typically used when traffic is entering at a 45 to downwind. I would call this a “midfield crosswind entry” to join left downwind for RWY 25. This would eliminate confusion for others who may be looking for me.
I simply call it as "crossing over midfield entering downwind for X". The debate to me is less important as to what the appropriate entry is, than it is to understand what each other is doing and ensure our own safety.
I think both of those calls are too ambiguous for untowered airport ops. I teach my students to always make it crystal clear exactly where you are and what your intentions are; i.e. "crossing over midfield at 1,000, joining left downwind 25".
Recently, I crossed midfield and entered a left downwind, turning about a half mile behind traffic already on downwind. The other pilot, a CFI at Lift Academy, chewed me out on frequency for making a "non-standard pattern entry." There are too few flight instructors, yet too many bad ones.
I'm a little confused at the problem with teardrop as well. Everyone knows what that means, easy language to understand and that is the most important part of aviation language is that it's simple and easy to understand. IDK, I think it's fine, agree some people probably don't do it far enough away from the pattern though. Crossing midfield is my preferred method anyway at uncontrolled airports, especially if I'm not familiar with them.
Thanks for the 1000 above TPA remarks. That's what I learned also but then 500 became acceptable. Doesn't seem as safe. Somehow I'm not familiar with your midfield downwind terminology. I think I've heard it as midfield crosswind for L(R) downwind XX. That emphasizes that it will be a crosswind entry and that it's at midfield rather than crosswind across the departure end. Anyway, when announcing downwind, base, whatever, I think one should precede it with direction, such as left downwind left base, etc. Some will say it ties up the frequency needlessly, but really it's just one additional, one syllable word.
Thank you for this vid. I have seen several youtube personalities who are CFI's continue to not only use the words teardrop but actually doing them very close to the pattern. Even had a little argument with one from Houston area. Your explanation was perfect......get a few or several miles away from the pattern before you turn head on into a plane. Well done
OMG I REALLY NEEDED THIS! Im taking my commertial in Brazil and our rules are basically the same as the FAAs but my CFIs are so often confused and make me confused when it comes to this. When I pointed about the 500ft above being unsafe they told me that I should do this because the regulations say so. I really think the VFR regulations are sooo unclear in general when the IFR stuff is usualy cristal clear. Now I know its not just me that has an objection to it. You should really start thinking about doing some regulatory work with the FAA would be awesome to have someone like you there. I often feel regulations in GA are so confusing and hard to look up too, these agencies are so hard to reach to them that I have often found myself lost and without reliable guidance when I have doubts about how to do things, everyone just answers me a different thing everytime, it is so frustrating.
I don't know about option 2, too much potential for conflict. Instructing 5,000 hours for foreign airlines in CA and AZ we used a variation of option 1. Works great - except begin descent after 1 mile, after 2 miles turn 90 degrees upwind, 1 mile then turn to the downwind with a 135 degree turn. This gives you a 45 degree entry midfield at TPA and allows clearing before turns. No "teardrop." I also agree with the 1,000 above TPA to fly overhead.
in regards to the overfly 500' I was taught it is overly the highest TPA of 500'. Does not mean overfly 500' above your TPA but 500 above the highest published
What would midfield be except for “overhead?”. If you’re not overhead, then you’re occupying the runway. I don’t see how that term clarifies anything. Keep it straight to the point: “Crossing midfield, direct entry, left downwind, runway 36” Everyone using “to”, and “for” could eliminate those as well. They don’t provide any benefit, yet they can and have caused confusion since those terms can be mistaken for numbers.
Is it because your farther from the pattern before turning back that it's no longer a teardrop? I'm not getting what the issue is with the word teardrop? What's it called then? The title makes me think flying over an airport is a bad idea.
@@zaphodbeeblebrox2911 Guy in video is a clickbait artist, so take it with a grain of salt. Just to confuse things further, review the part of the video at 9:07 where he has a freudian slip and authentically describes the entry as a "teardrop" turn himself without realizing he even did it. 😂
It's weird to me to have a problem with the word teardrop. I do like the point on being 1,000 feet above because I've never liked the idea of being at the same altitude as other traffic. We don't like traffic on collision courses so I'm not sure why it's basically encouraged by the FAA here.
I think a big problem with this nomenclature is there is noting else to replace it. You learn about "tear drop" 270° in instrument training that has stuck with CFI"s teaching this entry method to newer students. The FAA really needs to give these alternate pattern entry procedures a name that we can train to that removes all ambiguity.
I see it as two scenarios. Either you come (in this particular case) from the north and cross the runway and enter the pattern. Or you come from the south and enter the pattern (45 degrees). Why would you come from the north overfly the runway and continue south to make a righthand 180 turn to line up for entering the pattern when you could just do it after overflying the runway? I know flying is cool and all ...
I don’t think the FAA needs to change it to 1000ft. The way I interpret and teach it is that if you are approaching an uncontrolled airfield you listen and figure out what is going on in the pattern. If there is a jet the pattern the pattern altitude is 1500ft so 500ft above that is 2000ft. The current traffic pattern altitude is defined by the traffic. It’s not always 1000ft.
There’s theory and then there’s a full traffic pattern that you want to join. Instead of talking about what something is called much more emphasis should be placed on explaining which maneuver or which approach to joining will allow you to spot the traffic best before you join, or allow you to establish spacing for a join.
This is fantasy at my primary un-towered airport and several of the non-towered airports in the area. TPA is 5600 feet. Airport is below class B with a floor of 6000 feet. Crossing midfield is done at 5900 feet to avoid busting the bravo space when any of us do this teardrop entry. Pattern is tight with quick pattern entry and landing with bravo space everywhere above and lateral at one end. Then there's the random "straight in" landings from speedy aircraft. Often we have to do 360's to exit and re-enter the pattern for adequate spacing. At several other area non-towered airports we have parachute flights every 10 minutes or so where we have to avoid mid-field crossing. I hardly know what to do when I'm at a non-towered airport with nobody else crowding into the pattern.
@@TheFinerPoints I fly out of U42 in Salt Lake City area. KSLC is north of us with their bravo space at various levels throughout the valley and of course we are surrounded by mountains that makes it challenging. It's an adventure for sure! :)
When I do the “teardrop” entry it doesn’t look anything like this example. I cross over the mid-field 500 above. Turn right to enter a left downwind. By the time I’m facing the runway again and descending I’m pretty much in line with the crosswind traffic but still turning toward the 45. I have a clear visual of upwind, crosswind, and downwind traffic. It’s a 3,650 foot runway.
I hate to imagine what someone would say if I were just reporting long final as I fly a practice instrument approach - because non IFR rated pilots usually have no idea what RNAV means
It's funny. On the first teardrop entry I planned as a student, I suggested to my CFI that 1000 ft above pattern altitude would seem more sensible than 500 ft above, given where turbine planes do their pattern, and he admonished me to stick to the AC and not come up with my own or listen to things found on the Internet...
Hi Jason, love your videos - please review 'Non-Towered Airports' in the Airplane Flying Handbook. I will paraphrase ' If large/turbine aircraft operate at the airport it is best to maintain 2,000 ft AGL' Also for the overfly clear of pattern, approximately 2 miles - This should practically set you 3 miles from the center of the airport. I can't find an issue with the recommendations in the airplane Flying handbook if done correctly and cautiously.
@@TheFinerPoints agreed, haven't seen that word. There's a general consensus around the term teardrop. Not sure why it's not identified by the FAA. I typically teach a 3 mile distance from the center of the airport before making that right hand turn. This allows plenty time and space for re-entery and avoid departing traffic.
I'm with the commenters here as well Jason, just because you don't call it a teardrop, doesn't mean it makes that shape in the sky. That's been the standard call for years, and you know it. Using the term "maneuvering to enter the 45" has absolutely no context as to where the aircraft is located relative to the traffic pattern. No need to overcomplicate things :)
Some Mild Maneuvering "Pilots' get confused if making more than 90 degree turns. Dan G. is one of them. Big mouth anti turn donkey. This is a good exercise for you.. Do it.. Don be a Mild Maneuvers Missy.. 1
In the UK we either join into the circuit on the relevant leg at 90 deg to previous leg, or 1000ft above circuit height, and descend to join cross wind at circuit height. Safer than US joins.
@@casilasgoaler Extend the leg you're joining backwards, so for example if you're joining the downwind, you join further back, before the crosswind intersects.
So... "crossing midfield..." then "on the 45..."? I do exactly what you're saying to do (a thousand feet and pass the airport by a good 2-3 miles), but I'm saying what you're telling me not to say. So what do I say on the radio here?
Nothing wrong with the teardrop maneuver to enter the pattern at a 45. You admitted don’t like the term Jason but that alone does not make it bad or unsafe. Everyone will have their unique way of flying that is plenty safe and should continue to do so AS LONG AS IT IS SAFE. You say we don’t use that word in aviation but we do use it in instrument flying. Set aside the personal feelings… teardrop is safe.
The dpe on my com single check ride hit on this for like 20 minutes on this. He was one of the original 737 demo pilots. There is no teardrop pattern entry. I don't think there is anything wrong with how it's performed, he seemed more bothered by what it was called. He preferred it being called "overflying midfield at x altitude and maneuvering to enter 45 degrees to the downwind"
People are focusing too much on the phraseology. Teardrop is the only term that describes the entry in a single word. If the issue is in execution that's a training problem not a problem with the phraseology.
Is the problem with "teardrop" the "drop" part? Meaning that you have people thinking that they have to drop altitude when executing the maneuver? Personally I've never thought that. To me it describes the shape of the pattern that I'm flying. It kinda looks like a teardrop.
DONT ENTER THE PATTERN AT MIDFIELD OPPOSITE THE DOWNWIND. When you turn the aircraft Left into the downwind , you are going BLIND to the traffic in the downwind. Watch the 2022 Dallas Airshow Disaster.
Technically speaking the aircraft overtaking has to give way and pass on the right. That means if you cut someone off entering a left downwind they will have to widen out or slow down. In practice you will be talking to the other person, you will have each other in sight and will deconflict accordingly. Worst case scenario climb and over fly the airspace and come back on the 45. The last time i had this exact scenario unfold we agreed the person in the downwind will conduct a short approach and i will extend my downwind. They slowed down and i spead up. Simple.
If you don't have time to steady down on the 45 entry in level flight and take a good look (see and be seen), it's too tight. If people try to mix and match the two, or fly the 45 still descending, their CFI needs to come down on them like a ton of bricks!
The issue is people descending blind into traffic. That is his basic point. It is unfortunately the way a lot of "really smart" people decide to do the 45-degree entry. See his follow-up video if it's unclear.
I like this guy but this video confuses me. If I overfly the field perpendicular to the downwind, (assuming I'm directly over mildfield) and then extend my course for 3 miles, and then turn 180 degrees, (as per 4:53), then I'm still perpendicular to the downwind leg...not at a 45 degree entry. So I have to either fly slightly offset from midfield to make the 45 turn work (which is bad because I have less chance to see runway obstructions or other traffic), or the turn I make has to be a shallow turn way more than 180 degrees...probably a 225 degree shallow turn to roll out on a 45 degree downwind intercept heading. This shallow turn forms a....you guessed it....a teardrop shape. Also, I'm not a huge fan of circling over airports unless it's an emergency. To me, circling 1000ft above TPA just sounds like a bad idea, especially if it's busy. The more planes doing NON TRAFFIC PATTERN STUFF in the close proximity of an airport is only going to increase the chances of a collision. Imagine everyone circling 2000ft trying to get in at the same time and trying to see each other before they go in. All high wings and low wings flying in circles is just a bad idea.
Teardrop is a good and accurate description. It is the term my flight instructor used and it is how I understand approaching from the opposite side of the pattern and merging into the 45 degree entry into the midfield point of the downwind leg. Terminology becomes obsolete when it is no longer being explained. If you explain why the maneuver is called a teardrop (because that is how the flight path looks when viewed from above) then your students and audience will also understand what it means.
Some Mild Maneuvering "Pilots' get confused if making more than 90 degree turns. Dan G. is one of them. Big mouth anti turn donkey. This is a good exercise for you.. Do it.. Dont be a Mild Maneuvers Missy..
Ok guys. Crossing midfield for a guitar pick entry 45 left downwind 25.
🤣
🤣🤣... I mean it looks like that too
TEARDROP TURN...
@@SteelTallon
Since Teardrop wasn't good enough, I guess we need to call it a "Jason-sized Teardrop" now. It's the same maneuver, just needs to be bigger, sadder, and a bit angrier.
As a DPE, I see this done incorrectly FAR too often and have, on occasion, issued a Disapproval b/c it compromised safety. One of the problems, in addition to the FAAs stated 500 foot "buffer", is depicting a path 2 miles beyond the downwind leg. The issue here is that the downwind leg is an undefined distance from the runway. Yes, it's 'usually' around 3/4 mile or so, but it's not "always" 3/4 mile. My recommendation during debriefs (and when I'm acting as a CFI) is to fly at least THREE miles from the runway before beginning the turn back. Nice to see someone addressing this.
Now, please tackle the issue of misidentifying the "departure leg" as the "upwind leg"!!!!
👌Awesome!
Having a problem with the word teardrop is odd to me. The overfly to 45 entry if done correctly is shaped like a teardrop! It’s the perfect name for it. I was always taught to fly a minimum 3 miles from the runway before starting my decent and turn.
What’s so hard about this and how does ditching the name fix the problem? If people are not flying out far enough, that’s hardly a nomenclature problem. It’s a training problem
I Agree
Correct
Believe it or not, despite what he said in the video, it's quite odd to the guy in the video too. You can catch his freudian slip at 9:08.
Not making a point, just simply and authentically using "teardrop" as an accurate description of the entry.
I agree. The video title made it seem like he was against the teardrop procedure altogether (which is why I clicked), but really the issue is semantics, not the procedure. He makes good points about the procedure itself though.
i also don't understand what his issue is with the word teardrop. My theory is that he's misinterpreting Tear-DROP as in a drop in altitude maybe. Like you're dropping into the pattern. But obviously it's about the shape of the flight path.
Teardrop is the best thing to call it hands down because that’s what everyone is being taught, and if I hear someone announce “overflying midfield at 1500 and we’ll be doing a teardrop entry to enter on the 45 for left downwind” I know exactly what to look for. I’ve never heard it called anything but the teardrop
Concur. Same shape as a 'teardrop' holding pattern entry. Ok, 1000' above TPA vs. FAA 500 makes sense, and yeah, descending 1000' encourages you to get far enough away too. But, c'mon - it is a teardrop shaped maneuver, and the word communicates fairly precisely what the pilot's intentions are.
Or just "airplane Nxxxx overflying midfield maneuvering for the 45 rwy xx"
Same
Yep, agreed. I'm with Jason on the 1000' over mid-point of the runway, and with allowing enough time and space to be properly positioned to enter the downwind. But reporting to other traffic that I'm performing a right teardrop to enter the left downwind tells them exactly what I'm doing and where I'm going to be. And I appreciate it when others report the same.
Why even make a radio call at all? If you are 1000' above TPA, you are not even a factor and by the time you make the "teardrop" turn and descent, you are well beyond the airport vicinity anyways.
I do the mid field entry frequently if the airport is not busy. At busy non-towered airports I just do a 45 degree entry. Taking time to fit my C414A in with slower aircraft just makes sense. When I fly King Airs I don’t bully the smaller aircraft. Communicating intentions and working out how to fit in with different performing aircraft is critical to safety. It’s easy to miss traffic visually.
@@caiolinnertel8777
Tbh, while I promote the FAA preferred methods, I can't help but feel a bit grateful towards the King Airs, twins, and also jet aircraft who dispense with the pattern-entry semantics and shoot a straight-in approach (er... I mean, RNAV) so the rest of us flying 20-40knots slower in and around the pattern can adjust our down-wind to quite easily accommodate them.
Bless you 😅
My local nontowered airport has both right and left patterns with one runway and parallel helicopter training.
We have 1,000 separation for flyovers setting up for left or right teardrops. One flight I was entering a 45 when a helicopter was taking off under me at the same time an airplane was crossing midfield over me. I stayed in my 45downwind maintaining 500 above traffic pattern and 500 below clearance until the helicopter was clear from under me and entry traffic was cleared above me. This made me a big believer of 1,000!
With all due respect, this video has a clickbait title and the point you’re trying to make is just semantics. You’re not saying not to fly the teardrop pattern, just to not call it a “teardrop“. What’s the alternative you’re proposing? If I say “crossing midfield for a teardrop entry to downwind 35”, everyone knows what my intentions are. Saying anything else would just make the radio call longer.
I do agree that most pilots don’t fly far enough out and that descending into the pattern is a problem. But if you’re just proposing to use more words than necessary while flying the procedure, I have to respectfully disagree.
You are crossing over the field above the pattern, leaving the pattern area, then descending to TPA, before turning to a 45 to a left downwind. At that point, you are in the pattern. What’s there to say except you are on the 45 to a left downwind?
@@royernest7740
I'm fairly confident the commenter is just saying that he's just describing his intended course reversal to enter the 45 downwind. His suggestion seems accurate that it's a heck of a lot shorter and timely communication than describing a trip beyond the pattern to return to the pattern on the preferred 45 entry.
@@CFI-King
Agreed on the clickbait comment, but that's pretty status quo for his stuff.
I've asked YT to stop recommending his stuff, but it seems to forget that every 6mo or so.
@@royernest7740 yes, you still need to make a call when you’re entering entering the pattern - you would just say you’re on the 45 to downwind. But when you’re crossing over midfield, the clearest way to broadcast your intentions is to include the word teardrop, in my opinion.
@@bt8469You don’t actually have to watch the free content he provides.
I love the Finer Points, way better and often straight to the “point” compared to other aviation TH-cam content out there. This is the first video I’ve seen that isn’t worth the data center space it’s saved on. Why is the word “teardrop” a problem again? He literally never argued why just said he doesn’t like it. It’s perfectly valid to say “fly out further from the pattern” or “don’t make a descending turn”. Perhaps the best maneuver is to descend _while_ flying out further straight, and then make the teardrop turn into the 45 entry. But this is still a teardrop!
Thanks. I know what I said, and I meant to say it. I suppose I’ll have to make a part two to further clarify the point thank you.
As an exercise though you should draw a line that represents the runway and imagine a student pilot crosses it not perpendicular but already at a 45° angle which is so very common then fly out and teardrop. Where do you end up on the 45? No, on the downwind. if you didn’t have the teardrop procedure in your mind it would’ve worked fine. It is truly the language we need to quit.
I'm renaming the (overhead) "teardrop" entry to left traffic the "Zoolander" entry, in honor of Derek Zoolander, who makes a right-270 to turn left, and because he works on a type of runway. Even though it's teardrop-shaped, and most pilots are calling it a teardrop entry, and using clear, precise abbreviated language to call a teardrop a teardrop, that isn't good enough for you.
It will now be the "Zoolander" entry to clear up all confusion.
Just to stay consistent, the overhead left turn to a right-pattern is the "Reverse Zoolander."
Ben Stiller enters chat.
It's not a 270 degree turn. It's a 225 degree turn, then after arriving back at the downwind leg, a 45 degree turn.
You are correct that the new non-towered AC doesn't mention teardrop. HOWEVER, it is certainly depicted in the example diagrams in the back.
I tend to use the 1000' above TPA method at airports I am less familiar with and the midfield at TPA for those places I go to more often as I want additional time at the former to get configured. I tend to go out at least 3 miles before I maneuver and often as many as 5 depending on terrain. If I've never been there before, I use Foreflight to mark a waypoint that is on a 3-5 mile 45 to the downwind so that I have a place to navigate to that eliminates the wind factor that you spoke of.
The purpose of crossing midfield 500ft above TPA is to check for wind and traffic so when you make the turn inbound to join the 45 you should have noticed all potential conflicts. If the pattern is busy, I will continue flying until well clear of the airport (3nm). Also, I always use my home airport as destination on my GPS when going to the practice area because it helps in case of emergency for me to tell ATC where I am relative to my airport. I also use the distance information when overflying to ensure we fly well clear of the pattern. When the distance goes to zero (midfield), I go another 2 miles so I know I won’t have any issues descending while turning.
One comment. The standard entry taught in Canada is the midfield crossing at circuit hight if one knows the wind, or 500ft above circuit (pattern), to check the sock if not sure. So, for you US based pilots, IF you hear a ‘Charlie’ callsign, expect a midfield crossing. Although many Canadians will eventually learn the 45 entry, since the midfield is an approved entry in the US, this is likely what your Canadian brother and sister aviators will do. And for US aviators flying in Canada, if you do the 45, nobody will know what you are doing and that might cause problems.
Thanks for this post. Good for U.S. pilots to know
Was just about to say the same thing. If unsure of the wind crossing 500 ft above circuit height to the dead side of the circuit, to then fly a teardrop and do a midfield downwind entry is our standard entry at uncontrolled fields. I always thought the teardrop on the dead side made more sense. Always have to remember the “45 entry” when flying in the states…
Some Mild Maneuvering "Pilots' get confused if making more than 90 degree turns. Dan G is one of them. Big mouth anti turn donkey. This is a good exercise for you.. Do it.. Don be a Mild Maneuvers Missy..
Stay posted- and check the next edition of the Transport Canada AIM on October 3, 2024.
Interesting, and agreed. But the most preferred way here in Australia, even safer in my view than in the USA, is to overfly the field at 2,000’ AGL to the dead or non-circuit side (we say circuit, you say pattern) then descend to circuit height to join the circuit crosswind a little to the left of the threshold, then turn downwind. This gives even more time for reconnaissance, situational awareness and listening for other radio calls. What do you think? Cheers.
If someone is climbing out with a high rate of climb (sometimes this is a noise abatement procedure), wouldn't another pilot joining on the crosswind over the threshold require the departing pilot to look out for traffic above them as they takeoff? I'm trying to visualize how this works safely.
@@audiotek103 yeah, that’s probably why here Australia they say, and show on the diagrams, joining crosswind about three quarters of the way along the runway, ie between mid runway and the crosswind threshold - I should have mentioned that. Cheers.
Like that…very similar to how we approach uncontrolled fields in Canada…all maneuvering on the dead side of the circuit and crossing field at 500’ above circuit height on the initial pass before the teardrop and direct midfield entry to the downwind.
2:08 Option B is what I was taught here in Canada, and is the standard entry at a non-towered & non-MF aerodrome, if there is an AWOS or you know from traffic what runway is in use.
In Australia, this "teardrop" manoeuver does not exist for class G airports. I would go so far to say that it could be against regulation to do this in Australia for the reason stated as pilots don't leave the circuit far enough. The way in Australia, it is highly recommended to stay at least 500ft above circuit height (however I never overfly below 1000ft above circuit height) fly back over to the dead side, and then decend on the dead side. Once you reach circuit height, then you will turn midfield crosswind and join downwind as normal. I know I'm the foreigner talking here but that is what is taught and drummed into Australian pilots.
It is great to hear from people in other countries. Thanks for letting us know. I'm wondering, if you descend on the no traffic side, and then join the crosswind from that side, how do you avoid traffic that is departing the runway at high climb speeds? Another question came up as I was thinking through this. In certain areas the pattern side is decided to avoid lower overflying of noise sensitive areas (residential areas, or other) or to avoid terrain. If it is standard to descend on the no traffic side how do you avoid those concerns? I like to think through how/why things happen in different scenarios as it helps me learn better.
@@audiotek103in regards to higher performance aircraft, you might have to decide to turn midfield cross wind closer to the runway threshold. This isn't always the best option, as you cut your downwind shorter. Otherwise, you may just have to coordinate with the other aircraft. In regards to noise abatements, in Australia this is generally targeted for training aircraft conducting circuits, and hence left and right traffic patterns come into play.
I agree with the 1000 AGL plus 500 or 1500 AGL Entry but the logic used, allows for Pain in my training. My CFI and I just can't agree, insists on 500 above the "little guys pattern" Don't call it a teardrop, I get that, point taken, however as is pointed out, the "big guys pattern" is 1500 AGL so technically I should be 1500 + 500 = 1000 AGL over the top of the pattern, then begin the descent for 3 Miles, level off at Pattern, then turn into the 45. Having the wing block my view in a turn is why I don't like Cessnas but with the Piper in the right turn at pattern, swaps that issue, so great care to be exercised, so I agree a descending Right turn might be problematic. My heartburn is "What do you call a Pattern"? My CFI says it confuses people and they don't know where to look KGXY is a zoo and I frequently find myself staring at the guy doing a midfield crossover at pattern way too close in a congested pattern. I've ditched the habit of calling it an overhead teardrop at KLMO because I constantly get questioned "What's That"? (I think they are just being snarky) since I have no humor I rarely respond. I think what really needs to be cleared up is (What exactly does the FAA mean by Pattern)?. I'm a CFI in training about to do the checkride so I want to do the right thing.
Definitely with you on 1000ft above pattern!
Seeing the windsock from 2,000 AGL can sometimes be challenging. Maybe I should use more Windex!
So is the FAA, he just omitted that part.
I always learn so much from you Jason. Thank you!!
If you state, “Overflying midfield at XXXX ft for teardrop entry to runway XX” then that tells everyone what they need to know. Seems to work very well at our non-towered airport. It gives your height above pattern altitude, position and intent.
Some Mild Maneuvering "Pilots' get confused if making more than 90 degree turns. Dan G. is one of them. Big mouth anti turn donkey. This is a good exercise for you.. Do it.. Don be a Mild Maneuvers Missy..
I had a bonanza catching me in my piper crossing mid field. I called tear drop for left traffic so he could just cross mid field and enter left downwind. Worked well.
Advocated pattern entry in Australia is 500-1000ft overfly, descend on the dead/inactive side of the patrern and join crosswind or mid-crosswind. With appropriate CTAF calls.
Wasnt even aware of the teardrop entry to need to avoid it 😅
It’s the same in Canada, no 45’s here. The USA just has to be different with everything they do 😂
Interesting. Now that I have much more experience flying into both towered and non-towered airports, I can relate to what you're teaching much better. As for the linguistics of it, "teardrop" has always been a mental construct for me. I know the difference between a teardrop entry and a direct entry into downwind. It never translated to my position calls. When I plan a "teardrop" entry I state my altitude when overflying the runway and announce that I'm outbound to establish the 45 degree pattern entry. If I'm going directly from above the airport into downwind, I announce it as such. There are different factors for me that relate to the pattern entry decision. If it's an unfamiliar airport I usually elect to do a pass overhead with a 45 degree entry so I can get a good visual concept of the layout. The downside to that is that spotting the windsock can be very difficult from an altitude of 1000' above the pattern. That can also affect my decision of which type of pattern altitude I choose. When in doubt, I will overfly 1000' above, depart the traffic pattern and determine whether I feel I'm safe in making a 45 degree entry or whether I should make a lower approach directly to downwind to make sure I can see the windsock to confirm the direction of the wind.
The idea of doing a midfield downwind entry, honestly, scares the hell out of me considering some of the crazy-busy uncontrolled fields I've flown into on a busy Sunday. Charter planes, jumpers, towed gliders, GA aircraft. It would feel borderline irresponsible to just blasting across a field with all that traffic at TPA and just hop into the downwind.
The situation you’re describing isn’t where the direct entry is intended to be used. That’s probably why it would feel weird trying to squeeze in between a Cherokee and a Citation.
@@VictoryAviation Agreed. I was never even taught that midfield entry. This video is the first I heard of it. Just seems best to spend an extra 5 min to set up the downwind entry WELL away from the pattern to give time to evaluate the traffic instead of pushing in.
@@azychek It just depends on several factors. If you’re able to safely work into the pattern, great. If not, cross midfield and then fly back inbound. Even then it doesn’t guarantee you won’t have to make adjustments or fly another 360 before working in.
I agree 100%. Calling this teardrop has resulted in a maneuver entirely too close to the downwind. Radio calls such as “crossing midfield” (just as if you were overflying the airfield going somewhere else, at 1000 feet above TPA), go out at least two miles, THEN turn back towards the airfield, make a “45 degree for left downwind runway…” radio call (just as if you coming from that way from the start.) Some Instructors are teaching this teardrop to be done as if it was a steep turn 360 in the downwind leg to get established.
Maneuvering too close to the downwind had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with what it's called!
@@8literbeater You don’t have to yell at me…. Just kidding. I think students are being taught a “teardrop” like that of one in a holding pattern. Looking at either from a Birds Eye view, the pattern is indeed a teardrop. In a holding pattern, it’s a standard rate turn until established. I think students are being taught as soon as you cross the downwind leg, do a standard rate turn to get into the downwind; instead of doing the actual teardrop shape of going out a couple miles then teardropping into the 45 downwind. If that makes any sense? So perhaps what I said above may not have been worded correctly, but I hope this helps what I’m saying.
@@PropFlier I will agree that there is plenty of bad instruction going on out there. If CFIs and pilots and students can't read the instructions that explain how to properly do the arrival, I don't think complaining about what we call it is the solution.
Ah, this is probably where a lot of the confusion and heartburn come from. Some idiots think it’s like an almost idle power 270 or overhead break directly into the downwind, and opportunity to feel like a Top Gun pilot? That’s just poor instructing and poor learning. That meaning is not baked into the term at all. There is a teardrop hold entry, and it doesn’t descend, and there’s a teardrop ILS procedure turn, that doesn’t descend. It’s not a Sierra Hotel break, kiddies.
“Tear drop” entry is fine, you’re not descending into the downwind, you’re descending to the 45. You should complete your descent by the completion of the turn. If you can’t then you need to practice more, not change phaseology.
I’ve been taught to only overfly with adequate separation (1k feet above pattern) and enter at the 45 with a teardrop. I think we should all aim to be as predictable as possible in our airmanship so as to promote better, safety conscious practices in high risk areas. Some have very little regard for SOP and other pilots using the airport and there’s really just no place for that. (Entering straight into the base, straight in approaches etc.)
I completely agree. My issue was just with the word teardrop if you don’t cross the runway perpendicular, then a teardrop maneuver if it’s in your mind will put you directly on the downwind.
I think it’s best for Pilot to just understand. They need to get on that 45 and maneuver with as much predictability as possible without ending up in the wrong spot.
@@TheFinerPoints that’s a great point and something I’ve never really considered before. I’m going to have to keep that in my mind next time I’m enter an untowered traffic pattern.
My instructor taught me the teardrop pattern following a 500’ midfield crossing. On my checkride my DPE said not to do the teardrop because it takes too long. After my PPL was achieved my second instructor I got for my instrument rating said NO! NO! NO! If you cross midfield 500’ above pattern altitude and do a teardrop pattern you will be on a head-on collision course to crash into him in his turbo-prop. Very dangerous maneuver! Never did it again.
I was waiting for this to be about steep banks while low and slow (yawn). Glad this was a much more insightful video than I expected. Well done!
Excellent description and advice!!
For the teardrop entry, I taught to fly 1000’ above TPA. For the radio call after already making a 10 mile call, it’d be something like “xyz traffic, Cherokee 123 is over the field at 2000’ maneuvering to the southwest for a 45 degree entry, left traffic runway 27”
2:50 ABSOLUTELY agree.
My Primary flight instructor scolded me for being so high more than once. Coming in over the field at 2,000AGl "You can barely even see the wind sock, get lower"... I'm like 15 hours in at this point. But I knew TPA is 800AGL or 1,000', pilots are often more than 50-100ft off this mark. And larger twins and turboprops are frequently around, and fly a 1,500' TPA. So 2,000' seemed the only rational choice to me.
There is ONE OTHER pattern than makes a lot of sense, especially for very high performance aircraft approaching around 250KTAS.
And that is 1,500'AGL on runway heading, into an overhead-break scrub the speed with G and descend to TPA on the downwind.
Turboprops at 1,500' are already descending on base to final, so they will slip under with plenty of room to spare. And this is well above the ILS or PAPI glideslope several miles out.
Also note: IF over-flown at 2,000'AGL, AND the descent is not initiated until flying out PAST the downwind leg, approximately 1/2 mile abeam the runway. Then the "teardrop" style 270-degree turn should not be a factor for other pilots safety. As long as it involves descending straight ahead for another 1/2 mile and giving plenty of time on the 45 at TPA to observe other traffic.
The big flash of the upper wing surface making the right-hand turn a mile or two out in front of someone on the cross-wind leg will give them plenty of warning you're maneuvering into their future flight path.
I prompted a debate on this topic on the FB page “Airplanes and Coffee”. Never expected such a heated debate. 1000 above pattern is what I teach and have been taught. THANK YOU for making this video!!!
So it was you.
I agree about NOT using the term “teardrop” Teardrop is used for an entry into a holding pattern. When you roll out you are on the inbound course. Using it in an airport traffic pattern could (and I have seen it done” imply rolling out on downwind rather than on a 45 entry.
I understand what you're saying. Yes, typically if you were overflying midfield at TPA you are going for a 45 DW entry over the field, and overflying midfield 1500agl (or 2000 in your case) you are passing the pattern 3 miles and "teardropin" in. But I've seen so many times pilots over fly 1500 and 45/drop right into DW in front of me. Its wrong, but they do it. I like the verbiage teardrop so I know and I'm ready for what the others intentions are or aren't...
For the 1000' over TPA, yes it would be nice... But lots of our non-towereds are under B or C shelves that don't allow that, including my airport. All our 1500' TPA's airplanes are coming in through B or C airspace and are on a straight in RNAV or something like that, never doing a traffic pattern. It's different everywhere though.
My instructor once told me that 1500' was too high; that's the TPA for jets and I didnt need to go out so far when crossing midfield.
This left me more confused, so I just avoid it and circle around until I'm on the 45° for downwind.
I feel like TFP forgets it doesn't need more than a couple hundred above above other traffic to miss them. If military is Overhead break at 500' above PA, but we're 500 above that, the only thing we're doing is making it harder for eye to spot any traffic in the standard pattern. Basically, looking down is bad, you are trying to see a dark spot on a dark background, while if we are looking out, we see a dark spot on a skyline.
Very good video and a very important subject to address. Few people have addressed this teardrop entry nonsense! Thanks, Jason, for doing your part!
If the word "teardrop" being used to describe an entry to the pattern is "nonsense", why did the guy in the video use it to describe just that at 9:09 ?
He wasn't trying to make a point when he said it, either. It was genuine and appropriate. You might even call it, a Freudian Slip.
@@bt8469 I only know a forward slip and a side slip, how do I do a freudian slip?
@@RetreadPhoto
Touché!
I lol'd harder than I should have reading that. 🤣
These seem like great points, although my home airport (S50 - Auburn Municipal) presents a lot of challenges or exceptions to the points here, I think. For one thing, the runway is left traffic on RWY 35 and right traffic on RWY 17, so unless you enter pattern on mid-field (which the airport or FAA doesn't want you to do), there is high terrain (a large hill with residential homes) about 1 mile west of the airport that you fly above and then descend into the downwind. On top of that, just 1 mile west of the airport has a class Bravo shelf that starts at 1800 MSL so you overfly at 1,500 and stay there for a long time during the turn towards downwind entry at 45 degress. I guess B airspace above a Class E/G airport is always going to make things way more complicated and I expect that's more a norm these days with a lot of pilots living around busy airspaces abutting controlled airspace. And then there's the helicopters that do things like take off from the taxiway upwind and parallel towards you while you are on final, and the G1000 is throwing traffic alerts. Maybe it's a bad place to train or a good place to train, depending on how you look at it.
I am hoping the FAA Meant 500 ft above the highest (turbine) pattern.
That's how I have always performed this maneuver.
It just says pattern altitude. But hears the thing, just because you're a piston doesn't make 1500 NOT a pattern altitude. So fly it at 2000 since that's 500ft above pattern altitude (1000-1500)
It DOES say 500 above the pattern altitude, but it ALSO says if it is known that there are turbines operating at that airport that you should go to 1000 feet above to avoid the turbine TPA. He just omitted that part, or he's not as well read as he should be when making a TH-cam video.
Awesome video! I really like the concept of using this as a little reconnaissance mission looking below and out for traffic. Almost goes without saying, but if you can, look behind you too if you have adsb/ForeFlight up, just in case someone else was thinking the same..
Last year on my private checkride, I did my reconnaissance five or so miles out when my examiner asked me to divert to a popular non towered airport. Everything looked great, with only a few in the pattern this was exactly how I’ve practiced with my instructor several times. I briefed that we will cross midfield 500 above to join downwind. However, as we were crossing the field to join… jet traffic from behind us, passed above, going fast enough to even cut someone else off in the downwind base turn. The Cessna in front of me immediately departed and so did I. I started getting worried a mile away from the field and even made additional calls, but I’m certain the jet ignored and definitely didn’t see us. My DPE shared some choice words and i learned first hand how to do a report that day.
The entry at TPA on the dead side and join the pattern is called a 'mid-field crosswind join' in Australia, and is the preferred join here. I wasn't aware the FAA had the equivalent of that until this video. I guess we'd make a 'mid-field crosswind' join radio earlier to give people's a heads up
I've stopped using "teardrop" for over a year after picking it up when hearing others refer to it. Also, great point on flying away from the traffic pattern to clear yourself of traffic....especially since a lot of schools are teaching extra long patterns (maybe another topic for you).
So what does your radio call sound like by eliminating the term “teardrop”?
@@VictoryAviation I call prior to crossing the runway "Piper xxx midfield Crosswind xxxx feet" and the after I reposition on the 45 entry 2-3 miles out, "Piper XXX 3 miles 45 entry for downwind runway xx..." Crosswind call optional depending on traffic and radio congestion.
@@msabol01 That’s fair. So you just don’t mention that your intentions are to join the pattern until you’re inbound again?
@@VictoryAviation it depends. I try to balance radio coms w awareness. Ultimately I try to let those on radios know my intentions and try to minimize maneuvering near the traffic pattern. We also have a lot of student who fly in my area so it takes additional awareness and communication. Hope that helps. -A reformed “teardrop” guy
@@msabol01 Flying around students definitely adds complexity
I was taught 3 miles out, descending through the 180-220 turn
Great information! Thank you!
Another good reason for maintaining a good chunk of extra altitude is that if you are going to be motoring along for 2 minutes heading AWAY from the airport then if anything happens with your engine you will be firmly out of gliding distance in most aircraft when you didn't need to be. Putting it into the trees short of the airport would be a needless mistake.
Agree with the 1000 feet above fly over mainly because several pilots don't maintain TPA.
Main downside with being that high is that it’s near impossible for me to make out the windsock at 2k agl, fine if winds are calm but if variable at smaller airports I find it very helpful to see what winds are doing directly
I have never had a problem with that
@@TheFinerPoints Good to know.
So your trying to rewrite faa bulletins? 1500 is way too high. 1000 is standard and works well. Midfield downwind is called midfield crosswind. Midfield downwind is for 45 degree midfield entry. Teardrop is FAR compliant. For visibility reasons.
I’ve never heard midfield crosswind, and I fly almost every single day for work. It makes sense. I just never remember hearing the term in over 2000 hours of flying. I’ve heard crossing midfield a ton, but not midfield crosswind. Where does the FAA refer to that term?
Oh my god look how many comments say they descend while turning! Tear drop schmear drop. The real problem is pilots doing a descending turn onto the 45.
2000' AGL and assuming a 3 degree descent rate at 90 knots (approx. 450 FPM) will cover 2+ minutes or 3+ NM to 1000' AGL. You want to be at pattern altitude say 2 miles out (don't want to descend into the pattern). So that's about 5 NM from DOWNWIND after you've turned around toward the downwind before descending. Descending in the turn to the 45 downwind entry (approx. 135 degrees) will shave maybe half that distance depending on bank angle. Is the sight picture for collision avoidance any better in a level turn than in a descending turn back toward the pattern? Hopefully my math is reasonably close.
@@eds.173 Math & numbers aside, the circular says “descend then turn.” I’d suggest that there is no sight picture when one aircraft descends onto another, like the Dallas air show crash.
yet it usually ends up being a descending turn directly to downwind…
It is difficult to see other traffic that is below you in the teardrop. I hear plenty of people try the teardrop and it just causes confusion because it’s hard to find the plane and the pilot reports are not accurate. I can see very well when entering midfield.
@@bensamra346 If you descend into the 45 YOU DID IT WRONG..
If I understand you correctly, you suggest overflying midfield at 1000' instead of 500' above pattern altitude, while also suggesting overflying midfield at pattern altitude.
Some people are even suggesting the "teardrop" is dangerous. If people turn in too quick, they are dangerous, not the maneuver. I was taught to overfly midfield 1000' above the pattern, travel two and a half to three miles beyond the pattern, perform a standard rate turn "teardrop" which allows losing the extra 1000' to enter the downwind on the 45 at pattern altitude. I can't possibly see how this is more dangerous than crossing midfield at pattern altitude and entering the downwind at a 90, which is going to be tight at standard rate bank, rolling level basically just as you get abeam the numbers. I get this is going to get you on the ground quicker, but that doesn't make it safer.
Let's say I'm entering the downwind on a 45, and you're entering at a 90 from midfield, we're almost head on. If I bank right into the downwind and you bank left into the downwind, we're belly to belly entering the downwind, at basically the same location at the same altitude, unable to see each other. However, if I'm entering on a 45 at pattern altitude, and you overfly midfield at 1000' above and perform a "teardrop", we have safe separation. How is this not a much safer entry for both of us?
Crossing midfield you would yield
to anyone on downwind or the 45 entry. Coordinate with the other aircraft, the flow should be established before crossing the runway. In that situation a possible climb to cross above the pattern would be needed to deconflict. Turning and losing visual with an aircraft on your tail is putting that flight in a much riskier position.
The AFH does say to fly higher than the turbine altitude if such aircraft are present, and to descend to pattern altitude THEN turn inbound when making the not-a-teardrop entry. So pretty much no disagreement at all. (?)
Love. LOVE your content. That’s why I’ve subscribed. As a pilot in SoCal, F70, every time I’ve entered the pattern from the opposite side of the pattern, 500’ just seems too low. Especially if I hear other pilots in the pattern. Same when I fly to Catalina. I’d rather be 1000’ above PTA. Why not!? And then when I’m 2 miles past mid field, it still feels too close. And regarding the term ‘teardrop’; I always use the term “45 degree entry into the left/right downwind”. I’m definitely taking your advice on this topic. My CFI drilled AC 90-66C into my head. Now I’m seeing that some of those instructions could be minimums. We as aviators should err on the side of caution and safety.
But saying “45 degrees” can be interpreted as taking two 45 degree turns left, instead of a 270 degree turn to the right for an entry at 45 degrees.
@@RetreadPhotoWhat? A 45 degree entry is a 45 degree entry. The FAA is very clear on what this means. If someone is making two left hand 45 degree turns, that’s a 90° turn my friend 😅
As I think about the second option which is to fly at pattern altitude and the turn left into the downwind traffic, I’m wondering where you are going to go if there happens to be a plane on the downwind to your right and at your altitude?
The most direct pattern entry that traffic permits is the best way to enter a pattern. Unnecessary turns creates congestion. If you are overflying the field to enter on the 45, that airport is probably busy af. That "teardrop" turn needs to be made to time your way into the pattern.
This maneuver will be promoted and taught by the newbies until there is a midair. Look at the FlightAware arrivals at a busy nontowered airport. Most that use this entry are descending into the pattern while making a right turn to join the downwind. Beautiful setup for a Piper -Cessna midair. If this is such a great pattern entry, why doesn’t ATC use it at controlled airports? I believe the stats bear out that most small GA midair’s occur day VFR within 3 miles of an airport. Left turns only in the nontowered pattern (unless right traffic), please.
Jason: I’d not only like to see is get rid of the word teardrop, but get rid of this procedure altogether because (like you said) most don’t fly out far enough! My first experience with this was someone announcing they would teardrop into the downwind while I was coming in to enter directly on a 45 entry and next thing I see is them coming right at me and essentially flying upwind on the downwind side of the pattern! I think any turn in the wrong direction to other traffic flow makes no sense!
AFH 8-4 states that if turbine aircraft operate at the airport then 1000 ft above traffic pattern is recommended, or 2000ft AGL. I agree that this should just be the standard though as it can be unclear if turbine aircraft use the field.
I wouldn’t call crossing over at midfield to maneuver onto the downwind a “midfield downwind entry” as this is a term typically used when traffic is entering at a 45 to downwind. I would call this a “midfield crosswind entry” to join left downwind for RWY 25. This would eliminate confusion for others who may be looking for me.
Totally Correct
I simply call it as "crossing over midfield entering downwind for X". The debate to me is less important as to what the appropriate entry is, than it is to understand what each other is doing and ensure our own safety.
Teardrop is the best word to use for it. It’s a literal teardrop, he is just trippin cuz the FAA doesn’t use that particular word.
Crossing over midfield at Xx00 to enter lx/rt download runway XX
I think both of those calls are too ambiguous for untowered airport ops. I teach my students to always make it crystal clear exactly where you are and what your intentions are; i.e. "crossing over midfield at 1,000, joining left downwind 25".
Those patterns are design to make sure you have a large visibility on 180 degrees on the front of you, on the pattern, and see other planes.
I agree completely with 1000’ above TPA. But it looks like a teardrop, it acts like a teardrop, so it must be a teardrop!
Recently, I crossed midfield and entered a left downwind, turning about a half mile behind traffic already on downwind. The other pilot, a CFI at Lift Academy, chewed me out on frequency for making a "non-standard pattern entry." There are too few flight instructors, yet too many bad ones.
I'm a little confused at the problem with teardrop as well. Everyone knows what that means, easy language to understand and that is the most important part of aviation language is that it's simple and easy to understand. IDK, I think it's fine, agree some people probably don't do it far enough away from the pattern though. Crossing midfield is my preferred method anyway at uncontrolled airports, especially if I'm not familiar with them.
Thanks for the 1000 above TPA remarks. That's what I learned also but then 500 became acceptable. Doesn't seem as safe. Somehow I'm not familiar with your midfield downwind terminology. I think I've heard it as midfield crosswind for L(R) downwind XX. That emphasizes that it will be a crosswind entry and that it's at midfield rather than crosswind across the departure end. Anyway, when announcing downwind, base, whatever, I think one should precede it with direction, such as left downwind left base, etc. Some will say it ties up the frequency needlessly, but really it's just one additional, one syllable word.
I also refer to it as a midfield crosswind entry. That seems more descriptive and less ambiguous than midfield downwind.
Thank you for this vid. I have seen several youtube personalities who are CFI's continue to not only use the words teardrop but actually doing them very close to the pattern. Even had a little argument with one from Houston area. Your explanation was perfect......get a few or several miles away from the pattern before you turn head on into a plane. Well done
OMG I REALLY NEEDED THIS! Im taking my commertial in Brazil and our rules are basically the same as the FAAs but my CFIs are so often confused and make me confused when it comes to this. When I pointed about the 500ft above being unsafe they told me that I should do this because the regulations say so. I really think the VFR regulations are sooo unclear in general when the IFR stuff is usualy cristal clear. Now I know its not just me that has an objection to it. You should really start thinking about doing some regulatory work with the FAA would be awesome to have someone like you there. I often feel regulations in GA are so confusing and hard to look up too, these agencies are so hard to reach to them that I have often found myself lost and without reliable guidance when I have doubts about how to do things, everyone just answers me a different thing everytime, it is so frustrating.
I don't know about option 2, too much potential for conflict. Instructing 5,000 hours for foreign airlines in CA and AZ we used a variation of option 1. Works great - except begin descent after 1 mile, after 2 miles turn 90 degrees upwind, 1 mile then turn to the downwind with a 135 degree turn. This gives you a 45 degree entry midfield at TPA and allows clearing before turns. No "teardrop." I also agree with the 1,000 above TPA to fly overhead.
I like this excellent explanation
in regards to the overfly 500' I was taught it is overly the highest TPA of 500'. Does not mean overfly 500' above your TPA but 500 above the highest published
Only thing I teach different is saying "overhead midfield directly entering the left downwind runway xx"
Yes, just like a sane pilot should do, just don't expect someone who's spent their life in the training environment to do that. 😂
What would midfield be except for “overhead?”. If you’re not overhead, then you’re occupying the runway. I don’t see how that term clarifies anything.
Keep it straight to the point:
“Crossing midfield, direct entry, left downwind, runway 36”
Everyone using “to”, and “for” could eliminate those as well. They don’t provide any benefit, yet they can and have caused confusion since those terms can be mistaken for numbers.
@@VictoryAviation
All good points!
Is it because your farther from the pattern before turning back that it's no longer a teardrop? I'm not getting what the issue is with the word teardrop? What's it called then? The title makes me think flying over an airport is a bad idea.
@@zaphodbeeblebrox2911
Guy in video is a clickbait artist, so take it with a grain of salt. Just to confuse things further, review the part of the video at 9:07 where he has a freudian slip and authentically describes the entry as a "teardrop" turn himself without realizing he even did it. 😂
It's weird to me to have a problem with the word teardrop. I do like the point on being 1,000 feet above because I've never liked the idea of being at the same altitude as other traffic. We don't like traffic on collision courses so I'm not sure why it's basically encouraged by the FAA here.
I think a big problem with this nomenclature is there is noting else to replace it. You learn about "tear drop" 270° in instrument training that has stuck with CFI"s teaching this entry method to newer students. The FAA really needs to give these alternate pattern entry procedures a name that we can train to that removes all ambiguity.
Same goes for "upwind"
I see it as two scenarios. Either you come (in this particular case) from the north and cross the runway and enter the pattern. Or you come from the south and enter the pattern (45 degrees).
Why would you come from the north overfly the runway and continue south to make a righthand 180 turn to line up for entering the pattern when you could just do it after overflying the runway?
I know flying is cool and all ...
I don’t think the FAA needs to change it to 1000ft. The way I interpret and teach it is that if you are approaching an uncontrolled airfield you listen and figure out what is going on in the pattern. If there is a jet the pattern the pattern altitude is 1500ft so 500ft above that is 2000ft. The current traffic pattern altitude is defined by the traffic. It’s not always 1000ft.
There’s theory and then there’s a full traffic pattern that you want to join. Instead of talking about what something is called much more emphasis should be placed on explaining which maneuver or which approach to joining will allow you to spot the traffic best before you join, or allow you to establish spacing for a join.
This is fantasy at my primary un-towered airport and several of the non-towered airports in the area. TPA is 5600 feet. Airport is below class B with a floor of 6000 feet. Crossing midfield is done at 5900 feet to avoid busting the bravo space when any of us do this teardrop entry. Pattern is tight with quick pattern entry and landing with bravo space everywhere above and lateral at one end. Then there's the random "straight in" landings from speedy aircraft. Often we have to do 360's to exit and re-enter the pattern for adequate spacing. At several other area non-towered airports we have parachute flights every 10 minutes or so where we have to avoid mid-field crossing. I hardly know what to do when I'm at a non-towered airport with nobody else crowding into the pattern.
Sounds like a nightmare, what airport?
@@TheFinerPoints I fly out of U42 in Salt Lake City area. KSLC is north of us with their bravo space at various levels throughout the valley and of course we are surrounded by mountains that makes it challenging. It's an adventure for sure! :)
When I do the “teardrop” entry it doesn’t look anything like this example. I cross over the mid-field 500 above. Turn right to enter a left downwind. By the time I’m facing the runway again and descending I’m pretty much in line with the crosswind traffic but still turning toward the 45. I have a clear visual of upwind, crosswind, and downwind traffic. It’s a 3,650 foot runway.
I hate to imagine what someone would say if I were just reporting long final as I fly a practice instrument approach - because non IFR rated pilots usually have no idea what RNAV means
Think the problem is usually aircraft in the pattern don't see each other. It's more often than not they don't see each other when pointed out by ATC.
It's funny. On the first teardrop entry I planned as a student, I suggested to my CFI that 1000 ft above pattern altitude would seem more sensible than 500 ft above, given where turbine planes do their pattern, and he admonished me to stick to the AC and not come up with my own or listen to things found on the Internet...
Maybe your CFI needs additional training?
@@ug700 In fairness, nobody ever got his credentials pulled for teaching by the book, or the AC.
Hi Jason, love your videos - please review 'Non-Towered Airports' in the Airplane Flying Handbook. I will paraphrase ' If large/turbine aircraft operate at the airport it is best to maintain 2,000 ft AGL'
Also for the overfly clear of pattern, approximately 2 miles - This should practically set you 3 miles from the center of the airport.
I can't find an issue with the recommendations in the airplane Flying handbook if done correctly and cautiously.
You’re right the FAA recommendations are good enough, but you’ll notice they never use the word “teardrop.”
@@TheFinerPoints agreed, haven't seen that word. There's a general consensus around the term teardrop. Not sure why it's not identified by the FAA. I typically teach a 3 mile distance from the center of the airport before making that right hand turn. This allows plenty time and space for re-entery and avoid departing traffic.
I'm with the commenters here as well Jason, just because you don't call it a teardrop, doesn't mean it makes that shape in the sky. That's been the standard call for years, and you know it.
Using the term "maneuvering to enter the 45" has absolutely no context as to where the aircraft is located relative to the traffic pattern. No need to overcomplicate things :)
Some Mild Maneuvering "Pilots' get confused if making more than 90 degree turns. Dan G. is one of them. Big mouth anti turn donkey. This is a good exercise for you.. Do it.. Don be a Mild Maneuvers Missy..
1
In the UK we either join into the circuit on the relevant leg at 90 deg to previous leg, or 1000ft above circuit height, and descend to join cross wind at circuit height. Safer than US joins.
Unless you try it here, and confuse the hell out of people. I’ve seen it happen.
What does relevant leg at 90* to previous leg mean? Genuinely trying to understand
@@casilasgoaler right angle, perpendicular.
@@casilasgoaler Extend the leg you're joining backwards, so for example if you're joining the downwind, you join further back, before the crosswind intersects.
So... "crossing midfield..." then "on the 45..."? I do exactly what you're saying to do (a thousand feet and pass the airport by a good 2-3 miles), but I'm saying what you're telling me not to say. So what do I say on the radio here?
Overhead Midfield to the 45 degree downwind
Nothing wrong with the teardrop maneuver to enter the pattern at a 45. You admitted don’t like the term Jason but that alone does not make it bad or unsafe. Everyone will have their unique way of flying that is plenty safe and should continue to do so AS LONG AS IT IS SAFE. You say we don’t use that word in aviation but we do use it in instrument flying. Set aside the personal feelings… teardrop is safe.
The dpe on my com single check ride hit on this for like 20 minutes on this. He was one of the original 737 demo pilots. There is no teardrop pattern entry. I don't think there is anything wrong with how it's performed, he seemed more bothered by what it was called. He preferred it being called "overflying midfield at x altitude and maneuvering to enter 45 degrees to the downwind"
People are focusing too much on the phraseology. Teardrop is the only term that describes the entry in a single word. If the issue is in execution that's a training problem not a problem with the phraseology.
IT IS A SQUARE TURN FOR YOU ?
I don't understand why you wouldn't enter the pattern on the crosswind leg instead of mid field downwind?
Too much risk of conflict with any departing traffic
If ur at midfield downwind ur in the same place reguardless of which side you came from
Is the problem with "teardrop" the "drop" part? Meaning that you have people thinking that they have to drop altitude when executing the maneuver? Personally I've never thought that. To me it describes the shape of the pattern that I'm flying. It kinda looks like a teardrop.
Hi Jason, love your channel. I'm a student and I'm wondering why it looked like you had your Altimeter set to QNH rather than QFE?
When crossing over the runway to enter the midfield downwind at pattern altitude, where do you go if you see traffic on the downwind already?
DONT ENTER THE PATTERN AT MIDFIELD OPPOSITE THE DOWNWIND. When you turn the aircraft Left into the downwind , you are going BLIND to the traffic in the downwind. Watch the 2022 Dallas Airshow Disaster.
you crash and die, which is why its a stupid technique that was obviously implemented by a government DEI hire
Technically speaking the aircraft overtaking has to give way and pass on the right. That means if you cut someone off entering a left downwind they will have to widen out or slow down. In practice you will be talking to the other person, you will have each other in sight and will deconflict accordingly. Worst case scenario climb and over fly the airspace and come back on the 45.
The last time i had this exact scenario unfold we agreed the person in the downwind will conduct a short approach and i will extend my downwind. They slowed down and i spead up. Simple.
If you can't dodge, dip, duck, dive, or dodge fast enough you go to the afterlife, and then Hoover makes a youtube video about you...
If you don't have time to steady down on the 45 entry in level flight and take a good look (see and be seen), it's too tight. If people try to mix and match the two, or fly the 45 still descending, their CFI needs to come down on them like a ton of bricks!
are you available for flight training PPL this year 2024?
teardrop is written to describe holding entries.
How do you watch the webinar this week? Or where?
I think it's in the description now.
The issue is people descending blind into traffic. That is his basic point. It is unfortunately the way a lot of "really smart" people decide to do the 45-degree entry. See his follow-up video if it's unclear.
Let's also stop referring to the upwind as the DEAD side of the pattern.
Good point here. There could be glider, helicopter or parachute ops on the other side.
I like this guy but this video confuses me.
If I overfly the field perpendicular to the downwind, (assuming I'm directly over mildfield) and then extend my course for 3 miles, and then turn 180 degrees, (as per 4:53), then I'm still perpendicular to the downwind leg...not at a 45 degree entry.
So I have to either fly slightly offset from midfield to make the 45 turn work (which is bad because I have less chance to see runway obstructions or other traffic), or the turn I make has to be a shallow turn way more than 180 degrees...probably a 225 degree shallow turn to roll out on a 45 degree downwind intercept heading. This shallow turn forms a....you guessed it....a teardrop shape.
Also, I'm not a huge fan of circling over airports unless it's an emergency. To me, circling 1000ft above TPA just sounds like a bad idea, especially if it's busy. The more planes doing NON TRAFFIC PATTERN STUFF in the close proximity of an airport is only going to increase the chances of a collision. Imagine everyone circling 2000ft trying to get in at the same time and trying to see each other before they go in. All high wings and low wings flying in circles is just a bad idea.
Teardrop is a good and accurate description. It is the term my flight instructor used and it is how I understand approaching from the opposite side of the pattern and merging into the 45 degree entry into the midfield point of the downwind leg. Terminology becomes obsolete when it is no longer being explained. If you explain why the maneuver is called a teardrop (because that is how the flight path looks when viewed from above) then your students and audience will also understand what it means.
Some Mild Maneuvering "Pilots' get confused if making more than 90 degree turns. Dan G. is one of them. Big mouth anti turn donkey. This is a good exercise for you.. Do it.. Dont be a Mild Maneuvers Missy..
But Can you make the field if engine lose letting down way out there? Mid fld better for that…..how far is down wind from runway?