I was listening recently to "The Finer Points" podcast with Jason Miller. I'm a fan of his work and find I learn some really meaningful things by listening regularly.
But I have to disagree with one of the points he makes in his most recent podcast episode called "Shed a Tear for Me." The episode deals with the proper way to enter the traffic pattern at an airport without a control tower and, as you might suspect, gives special attention to what is commonly called the "teardrop" entry to the pattern. It is Jason's take on the use of this term in radio calls that I disagree with. More on that in a minute.
But first, recall that a teardrop entry describes an entry into the pattern when you are approaching an un-towered field from the side opposite of the one where the traffic pattern is flown. For example, imagine an airport with a runway that runs due north/south. If landing to the south, you are landing on 18. If landing to the north, you are landing on 36. Let's assume runway 18 is being used and the airport has a standard left turn traffic flow. This means the pattern will be flown on the east side of the runway. An aircraft approaching the airport from the west will therefore overfly the field above the traffic pattern altitude (TPA). I, like Jason, would recommend that overflight be flown at 1,000 ft. above the "piston" pattern if turbine traffic uses the airport, otherwise 500 ft. is satisfactory. After overflying the field, the pilot would fly at least two miles to the east of the field and then turn back (thus forming the teardrop shape as seen from above) to the northwest on a 45° intercept for the downwind leg of the pattern:
When I fly this entry, my first call over the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) goes something like this: "Minuteman traffic, N123AB is ten miles west of the field. I'll be flying over the runway midfield at around 2,000 ft and then complete a teardrop turn to a 45° entry to the left downwind for runway 18, Minuteman traffic." I'll make position reports several more times before landing.
I'll use the teardrop entry when the pattern is busy. If it's not, I'll often do a direct entry to the downwind. That looks something like this:
In Jason's podcast, he covers both types of entry (both of which are recommended by the FAA). But for reasons he doesn't make quite clear, he notes that using the language "teardrop entry" while reporting your intentions is "sloppy." He seems to make the case that the only relevant piece of information is that you are going to be entering the downwind on a 45° intercept. How you got to that point is somewhat irrelevant.
But I disagree. Here's why. Imagine a scenario where I'm approaching the field from the southeast. At some point, usually about five miles from the airport, I will point my nose at the center of the field on a 45° intercept to the downwind. If another plane is also approaching from that direction, of course I care about what that pilot's intentions are and need to "see and avoid" them. But a plane flying the same rough heading as me in the same direction is less of a collision hazard - especially if each plane is accurately reporting their distance from the field - than a plane flying a different heading on its way to the same point in the sky. This is because in the latter scenario, the closure rates between the two aircraft are going to be higher and the "teardrop" plane's relatively steep turn means there's a good possibility that at some point the pilot of that plane won't be able to see me (because turns always make it harder to see planes at similar altitude due to obscuration by the wing or ceiling of the cabin).
A pilot reporting a teardrop entry, therefore, gives me much more information than somebody reporting that they are approaching from the west and planning to maneuver to enter the 45° entry to the downwind.
While it's important to keep CTAF radio calls concise, the more descriptive you can be, the better. When making a teardrop entry to the pattern and reporting your plans using "teardrop" in your radio call, you provide meaningful information to others in the area that helps them paint an image in their head of the location of aircraft in and around the pattern. This increases everybody's situational awareness and that can't help but make our flying safer.
Patrick Mullane is a private pilot and author of Mullane's Guide to Learning to Fly: Deep Dives Into Select Topics For Today's Student Pilot. He is also the author of The Father, Son, and Holy Shuttle: Growing Up An Astronaut's Kid In The Glorious 80s. His books can be puchased on this website or on Amazon.
