|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The NTSB recently released its final report (NTSB ERA22FA318) on a midair collision involving a turbine-powered Piper PA46 (JetProp DLX) and a Cessna 172 at North Vegas Airport (KVGT) in July 2022. Four people aboard the two aircraft died.
This tragedy haunts me. I briefly met the owners of the Piper JetProp the day before the midair. They were among about 50 PA46 owners at a safety meeting at Coeur d’Alene, Idaho (KCOE) where I gave a presentation. I didn’t get to know them—we just exchanged pleasantries. But the next day….
The NTSB analysis cites several factors, including the high speed of the Piper as it descended from the north over the airport’s parallel runways and flew a sweeping approach to runway 30L. The speedy low-wing airplane overshot the base-to-final turn and collided with the Cessna, which was doing pattern work on the shorter parallel runway 30R.
The big lesson that I take from this event, and a similar midair at Watsonville, California (KWVI), also in 2022 (NTSB WPR22FA309), is managing speed in the vicinity of airports. We fly high-performance (at least for GA) aircraft because we want to go fast. But there are times when we need to slow down—both our knots and the pace of our procedures.
I made the tables below (download PDF here) to show how much time is required to reach the airport from 10, 5, and 3 nm at various speeds (assuming no wind). If you’re flying a VFR pattern, you’d enter a downwind at about 0.75 nm from the airport, but you get the point.
| NM | KIAS | NM/Min | Min | Min:Secs |
| 10 | 180 | 3.0 | 3.3 | 03:20 |
| 10 | 170 | 2.8 | 3.5 | 03:32 |
| 10 | 160 | 2.7 | 3.8 | 03:45 |
| 10 | 150 | 2.5 | 4.0 | 04:00 |
| 10 | 140 | 2.3 | 4.3 | 04:17 |
| 10 | 130 | 2.2 | 4.6 | 04:37 |
| 10 | 120 | 2.0 | 5.0 | 05:00 |
| 10 | 110 | 1.8 | 5.5 | 05:27 |
| 10 | 100 | 1.7 | 6.0 | 06:00 |
| NM | KIAS | NM/Min | Min | Min:Secs |
| 5 | 180 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 01:40 |
| 5 | 170 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 01:46 |
| 5 | 160 | 2.7 | 1.9 | 01:52 |
| 5 | 150 | 2.5 | 2.0 | 02:00 |
| 5 | 140 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 02:09 |
| 5 | 130 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 02:18 |
| 5 | 120 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 02:30 |
| 5 | 110 | 1.8 | 2.7 | 02:44 |
| 5 | 100 | 1.7 | 3.0 | 03:00 |
| NM | KIAS | NM/Min | Min | Min:Secs |
| 3 | 180 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 01:00 |
| 3 | 170 | 2.8 | 1.1 | 01:04 |
| 3 | 160 | 2.7 | 1.1 | 01:07 |
| 3 | 150 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 01:12 |
| 3 | 140 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 01:17 |
| 3 | 130 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 01:23 |
| 3 | 120 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 01:30 |
| 3 | 110 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 01:38 |
| 3 | 100 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 01:48 |
For example, from 10 nm at 180 KIAS, you reach the airport in 03:20 (min:sec). If you decelerate to reach the 10 nm mark at 120 KIAS and continue at that speed, the remaining time to the airport is 05:00. Staying fast all the way to the pattern saves 01:40.
Perhaps a 5 nm starting point is more reasonable. At 180 KIAS, you arrive at the airport in 01:40. Reduce speed to 120 KIAS, and you cover the final 5 nm in 02:30. Maintaining 180 KIAS all the way in saves 01:10.
Assume that you arrive 3 nm from airport at 180 KIAS. At that speed, you need just 01:00 to get to the airport. Decelerate to arrive at the 3 nm mark at 120 KIAS, however, and the time remaining is 01:30. Going fast until downwind saves 30 seconds.
Of course, if you’re flying at one of the higher speeds in the table, you’d probably be decelerating as you get closer to the pattern. Those more mathematically talented than I can adjust the formulas accordingly.
Double the velocity and the turn radius quadruples or cut it in half and the turn radius goes down by a factor of four.
But the main point remains. What’s the rush? You’re saving at most a couple of minutes. More importantly, you’re cutting the time available to observe and adjust for other traffic, configure for landing, and communicate. And as the midair at KVGT reminds us, turn radius at a given bank angle is dependent on speed. In fact, as Catherine Cavagnaro explained in “Timid Turns” (AOPA Pilot, November 2024), “Double the velocity and the turn radius quadruples or cut it in half and the turn radius goes down by a factor of four.”
Our avionics don’t have a “speed anticipation marker” like the top-of-descent (TOD) label and blue altitude arcs on many moving maps that show us when to begin descents and at what point we’ll reach a target altitude. So to help pilots get a better sense of how much time they need to slow down in various situations, such as setting up to fly a VFR pattern or to configure for an instrument approach, I have them complete a simple exercise.
- Set up normal cruise power and configuration, preferably with autopilot ON in HDG and ALT modes. Flying with the AP on takes random human inputs out of the mix, but you should also hand-fly the maneuver.
- Start a timer, and then smoothly set your initial approach-level configuration, used in the terminal environment as you fly the initial and perhaps intermediate segments of an approach. In my Beechcraft A36, that’s typically about 18 in MP with the prop set 2300 or 2500 RPM, flaps and landing gear UP. This results in 120-125 KIAS level. The transition from normal cruise requires about 90 seconds. If you don’t have specific power settings in mind, try using the bottom of the green arc on the MP gauge or tachometer as a first approximation.
- Repeat the process, starting again at normal cruise, but at the appropriate speed, extending flaps and/or landing gear to your normal approach setting, again noting the time required to decelerate to your usual approach-level profile.
- Try the exercise again while establishing a descent at about 500 fpm as you would when planning to arrive at pattern altitude at least a couple miles from the airport, or when tracking a glideslope or glidepath.
The information you collect can help you know how much lead time you need to establish a stable profile for a particular situation. For example, if you’re complying with an ATC instruction to keep your speed up, the data help you anticipate when you need to slow down as the mileage to the FAF ticks down.
I’m fond of an adage attributed to the Roman emperor Augustus: Festina lente (literally “hasten slowly”). Webster’s expands the English definition to “proceed expeditiously but prudently,” wisdom to be followed at all times, but especially near airports.
- Managing Your Speed Near the Airport - March 12, 2025
Bruce, great article! I know your Bonanza has this (from watching your videos) but for anyone who flies with an avionics panel that allows for an ALONG TRACK OFFSET and VNAV, these two tools alone can get set you up perfectly to where you want to be when you begin to pull back power to enter the pattern on a simple VFR flight. You couple that with your charts above, you have all the tools necessary to manage your descent into a pattern entry without a lot of stress (which of course means you have time to settle on your traffic pattern speeds accordingly).
The other aspect to all of this is the traffic in the pattern itself and the relative speeds to keep separation. I can never understand reading reports of folks entering the pattern at like 120+ knots and then surprised they have to go around. It doesn’t make sense to me, particularly if you KNOW there is existing traffic in the pattern or about to enter it (closed traffic etc.).
Yes, if the boxes in your panel support using VNAV and along-track altitude constraints, those features can help you plan and fly an orderly descent to the pattern–or help you remind ATC when you need to start down. Setting and using VNAV constraints is part of my descent/approach workflow. In fact, taking care of that item is part of my cruise checklist. I set constraints after I’ve leveled off–or at the very latest as get within the approximate descent range of my destination. Perhaps that’s a topic for a separate article.
I note that your calculations regarding time taken to cover various distances from the airport include the statement “assuming no wind”, but you refer to IAS, not TAS. At higher elevation airports (KVGT is 2,205’AMSL) TAS will be higher, and the pilot needs to consider that as well. Ultimately it is groundspeed that determines the time taken to cover a specific distance from the airport, and pilots of higher performance aircraft should account for that.
It’s certainly true that TAS and GS are factors as you mentioned. But you can still use the chart–with TAS or GS as the units you choose–to see the key point. Namely, that speeding into the pattern doesn’t save significant time over a more methodical approach that gives you more time to get the gestalt of the pattern, complete essential checks, and better fit into the flow. As long as you use units consistently, the ratios don’t change. I chose IAS here because that’s what we pilots use most of the time to set up for approach and landing.
Master energy management, until then your arrival is going to be as much a surprise to you as it is to everyone else in the pattern.
For the VFR environment go out and practice ground ref set ups, see the impact of higher altitudes on GS as well as significant deltas between upwind/downwind GS in high winds, emphasizing need to cross check IAS and not over rely on “ground rush” perception, but remember VMC is not a “heads down” environment…if you must be heads down to manage this, then file and fly the approach instead.
Great topic! At the uncontrolled airport I instruct at there’s a couple hot dogs who blaze their way into the pattern and sometimes cut established planes off. We also have jet traffic who we, or at least I do, extend for to let them in. I like your time table and will pass it along to CFIs at the flight school.
Thank you. We pilots often overestimate how much time we’re saving with various habits/techniques that also lead to rushing through or omitting important tasks.
Good recommendations. I fly a slow plane and I’m constantly on the lookout for being run over. A note on the Watsonville midair. The twin on a straight-in final was doing 180 kn when it hit the other plane just short of the runway threshold. For whatever reason the aircraft did not slow down at all and was not in a landing configuration doing. 180kts at 200ft just short of the treshold?
The NTSB final report on that midair doesn’t speculate about the intentions of the twin pilot. I suspect, however, that he might have set up for an overhead approach, described in AC 90-66C Non-Towered Airport Flight Operations:
“Overhead Approach. An overhead approach is normally performed by aerobatic or high-performance aircraft and involves a quick 180-degree turn and descent at the approach end of the runway before turning to land (described in the AIM, Paragraph 5-4-27, Overhead Approach Maneuver).”
What the AC and AIM 5-4-27 don’t mention, however, is that there’s no need fly an overhead approach at high speed (unless you’re in a military jet). You can the maneuver at normal pattern speed.
200′ agl sounds more like a pitch out than a set up for an overhead break (level high G turn to dissipate energy)
Nothing wrong with an overhead as long as it is either approved by tower or flown in a manner that doesn’t impede other pattern tfc.
I’ll never forget the first time I was in a slick twin, descending, and reduced power. The airspeed stayed pretty stable. I think my mind was still way back in the first two seat trainers in which I flew where a reduction in power reliably resulted in a significant reduction in speed no matter the line of flight. It’s not much different than driving a car. You need to look at your speed and understand how much distance your airplane needs to bleed it down. Some of the slicker airplanes just won’t do that until leveled out and the level out point may need to be much further out. It’s a critical part of the transition to the faster aircraft.
I fly a very slick Mooney M20S, and speed management approaching an airport is critical. Slowing an Mooney is a learned skill, and, ideally, should be done early and without speed brakes. Early in my ownership, I was way too fast, but since gaining experience, I have learned to throttle down at least 5 miles out. Get down to gear extension speed (140 kts) well before entering the pattern, and get down toward C172 pattern speeds or you’ll end up with unnecessary go-arounds.
Slowing down before getting in close is both safer and more courteous- and it may save your life.
What will you do in life with the extra two minutes at the end of the day? At the end of the year, even if you add it all up, what changed? Not at all worth the risk, lack of curiosity and the lives of all concerned. Selfish.
I once came in hot to an airport, but that was because I was trying to outrun a weather cell, and thought I would dump power and slip it in. Wrong. A go around happened anyway. Luckily no one was in the pattern at the time.
Traffic in the Berlin Corridor in the late ’60s was largely shared by British European Airways and PanAm. I was flying the BAC1-11 while PanAm had the faster B727. ATC was in the capable hands of the USAF, so cruising in the Central Corridor (restricted by the Soviets to FL100) we were asked by ATC for our speed, answer 333kts. Request please maintain speed as long as feasible., call when reducing. Answer Willco. Approaching Tempelhof I announced Beeline reducing speed.ATC What to? Reply, Zero or we hit the terminal with a terrible bump. The 727 was some 50kts faster than the BAC1-11 carried more passengers, had 3 crew paid more than BEA, however we became part of British Airways while PanAm is history.