Cirrus stall spin?

A Cirrus stall spin thread wouldn't be complete without :

 
dtuuri said:
I thought you said the PHAK and FTH said the same thing, no?

dtuuri
Click to expand...
No, I never said that anywhere in this thread. In fact I haven't mentioned the PHAK at all, and it hasn't been called the FTH in a long time. For what it's worth, the PHAK says the same thing that the AFH says (the 300 foot statement).

Your statement was that this was all a bunch of opinion. I posted a black-and-white quote from an AC showing that it's fact, not opinion. If you can't accept that what an AC says is fact, I don't know what to tell you.
 
dmspilot said:
Does the AIM have to justify and explain every procedure? Is there a section in the AIM explaining why a standard pattern is to the left? No, it just says that it is.
Click to expand...
All aircraft approaching to land, in the vicinity of an airport, must make all turns to the left per FAR. Seems no explanation is needed.

So now that I've checked out the verbiage in the AFH and PHAK, it is in compliance with the AIM after all. It doesn't repeat the AC language. So, in this case, the "opinion" is from the author of the AC. Given that pattern altitude is +/- 100 feet and a turn onto crosswind takes, say, a half minute, unless the plane has literally stopped climbing it ought to make the AC's author happy enough. One thing that makes no sense is waiting to be at exactly pattern altitude before turning downwind. A tailwind on crosswind would make the rectangular pattern an irregular pentagon.

dtuuri
 
ZeroPapaGolf said:
No, I never said that anywhere in this thread. In fact I haven't mentioned the PHAK at all, and it hasn't been called the FTH in a long time. For what it's worth, the PHAK says the same thing that the AFH says (the 300 foot statement).
Click to expand...
I already corrected the old reference, but thanks for the catch.

You said this, right?
ZeroPapaGolf said:
Airplane Flying Handbook page 7-4.

Also, AC 90-66A says:

h. Airplanes remaining in the traffic pattern should not commence a turn to the crosswind leg until beyond the departure end of the runway and within 300 feet below traffic pattern altitude, with the pilot ensuring that the turn to downwind leg will be made at the traffic pattern altitude.
Click to expand...
I thought you meant the language was the same in the AFH, that's why you only made the single verbatim quote. I only added my observation lately that they each seem to be getting opinionated.

ZeroPapaGolf said:
Your statement was that this was all a bunch of opinion. I posted a black-and-white quote from an AC showing that it's fact, not opinion. If you can't accept that what an AC says is fact, I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...
See my recent post above.

dtuuri
 
mtnflyr said:
Downwind turn shouldn't be made till your at pattern altitude? It seems a lot of people posting above me have never experienced high density altitude.
Click to expand...
Or flown a Cub. You want me to fly a two mile wide pattern at 60?
 
dtuuri said:
All aircraft approaching to land, in the vicinity of an airport, must make all turns to the left per FAR. Seems no explanation is needed.
Click to expand...

And where is the FAR explained? If you don't like that example, I could think of hundreds more.
 
dmspilot said:
And where is the FAR explained? If you don't like that example, I could think of hundreds more.
Click to expand...
I'm not warming up to this duel. AFAIK, the AIM has never said the turn from crosswind to downwind should be at pattern altitude, neither before nor after the publication of AC 90-66A. Which has higher priority in your mind, the current AIM or a 24 year old AC which isn't "binding on the public" according to the Advisory Circular Checklist? The AIM has an entire chapter on Airport Operations. If the statement in the AC is valid the author has had plenty of time to update the AIM. On the other hand, climbing straight out to pattern altitude, while more expensive for non-government flyers, would comply with the current AIM also. I just think "within 300 ft." is close enough. I'll hedge that opinion pending the investigation into the Arrow/Luscombe mid-air down in McKinney,Texas though. I'd like to know where the Luscombe began the crosswind.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
Which has higher priority in your mind, the current AIM or a 24 year old AC
Click to expand...

Which has higher priority would only be a concern if they contained conflicting information. They don't.
 
dmspilot said:
Which has higher priority would only be a concern if they contained conflicting information. They don't.
Click to expand...
They don't say the same thing. They have different meanings. The AIM only specifies the first turn, the AC adds another requirement. That "add-on" mutates the rectangular shape of the pattern, which can't be a good thing.

dtuuri
 
Sam D said:
Silly me. I keep clicking on this thread to see if there's any new news on the Petaluma crash.

You guys almost done here?
Click to expand...
Think of it as a station identification break. There's no news on the NTSB website.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
They don't say the same thing. They have different meanings. The AIM only specifies the first turn, the AC adds another requirement. That "add-on" mutates the rectangular shape of the pattern, which can't be a good thing.
Click to expand...

You are having trouble distinguishing between a definition of a term, a procedure, and an explanation of the reason for the procedure.

The AC does not mutate the pattern. The conflict is in your head.
 
Last edited:
noobJohn said:
A Cirrus stall spin thread wouldn't be complete without :

Click to expand...

I had known that pilot for most of my life. He was the local Veterinarian and a friend. Actually, my plane is in his old hangar. Kind of creepy now that I think about it. RIP, Bronc and Joe.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top