Fly In - day after reflection on idiots in pattern

Salty said:
Ok, so you're correcting you're heading by 45 degrees. Being pedantic doesn't allow you to make distinctions like this. You cannot "correct your heading" to the right, without making a right turn. You know that.

Either you can't make any distinctions in types of turns or you can. You're the one saying no distinctions are allowed.
Click to expand...

In that case, it's a go around. A 45 degree correction means you've got a gust of around 60 knots crosswind. And actually you can correct to the right without making a turn. I'll let you figure out how since you're so smart.

I'm also not the one being pedantic.
You keep using that word. I do no' think it means what you think it means.
 
EdFred said:
In that case, it's a go around. A 45 degree correction means you've got a gust of around 60 knots crosswind. And actually you can correct to the right without making a turn. I'll let you figure out how since you're so smart.

I'm also not the one being pedantic.
You keep using that word. I do no' think it means what you think it means.
Click to expand...
You are overly concerned with the meaning of right turn as written in the reg. To me, that's being pedantic. You are choosing to define it narrowly to fit your world view, but then object when I define it even more narrowly. For some reason you can't see that you're making a judgement call on how far to narrow it. In most people opinion (including the Faa) your judgement on this one is faulty.

You can accept an exception to get around my example (slipping or calling it a "course correction"), but for some reason you can't find a way around the difference between a pattern turn and the entry on the 45 as the FAA and most everyone else has.
 
Salty said:
You are overly concerned with the meaning of right turn as written in the reg. To me, that's being pedantic. You are choosing to define it narrowly to fit your world view, but then object when I define it even more narrowly. For some reason you can't see that you're making a judgement call on how far to narrow it. In most people opinion (including the Faa) your judgement on this one is faulty.
Click to expand...

I have no concern with the "meaning" of a right turn. You are incorrect with your assessment. Faulty assessments lead to faulty judgments. In this case, both are on your end.
 
EdFred said:
I have no concern with the "meaning" of a right turn. You are incorrect with your assessment. Faulty assessments lead to faulty judgments. In this case, both are on your end.
Click to expand...
Rant on brother! The entire world is made of fools. :D
 
Is this thread circling the drain to the right or to the left? ;)
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
So we agree. Ignore the written regulation. Snot a big deal.
Click to expand...

In the case of turning from the 45 to downwind, making a teardrop entry, or correcting your path in the pattern, it is not a big deal because that's how it's recommend to be done by the FAA. You know that.

In terms of other maneuvering around an airport to enter the pattern, no. It is a big deal because it's unsafe. That regulation exists to generally create a clockwise flow (left traffic) around an airport. That's good for safety, but it obviously does not cover all situations.

You're being pedantic and it's tiresome. You know it and I know it.

As I've said before, I think this should be shared with the Chief Counsel. They obviously are missing out on your brilliance and you should correct them. Tell them they need to update that regulation because people violate it on almost every flight to a non-towered airport.
 
Last edited:
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Common sense, FAA style: If your buddy pays for gas after you take him/her for a ride and you log the time, that is a violation of the compensation rules.

View attachment 78682

:)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure your example is ok with the Faa even if you don't log.

It don't say squat about logging.
(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
Click to expand...
 
Salty said:
I'm not sure your example is ok with the Faa even if you don't log.

It don't say squat about logging.
Click to expand...
On flights for which the pilot does not pay the expenses, the Chief Counsel's office wrote that compensation could be avoided by not logging the time.

Harrington Letter

"If these pilots are not paying the costs of operating the aircraft while ferrying the aircraft then the building up of flight time would be considered compensation. To avoid compensation, these pilots could either not log the flight time or they could log the flight time while bearing the full cost, including fue land oil, for ferrying the aircraft."​
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
I'm not sure your example is ok with the Faa even if you don't log.

It don't say squat about logging.
Click to expand...

In a Chief Counsel letter that was addressed. A CC letter also said that you need a commercial and 2nd class medical for pro-rata reimbursement. More evidence of not knowing their ass from a hole in the ground.
 
Palmpilot said:
On flights for which the pilot does not pay the expenses, the Chief Counsel's office wrote that compensation could be avoided by not logging the time.

Harrington Letter
Click to expand...
Maybe you're right, but I'm not seeing it in that link. It would certainly contradict the FAR
 
Salty said:
Maybe you're right, but I'm not seeing it in that link. It would certainly contradict the FAR
Click to expand...
I have added a cut-and-paste of the specific passage. (It's at the end of the third full paragraph on the second page of the letter.)
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
I have added a cut-and-paste of the specific passage. (It's at the end of the third full paragraph on the second page of the letter.)
Click to expand...
That's ferrying an aircraft to a charity event. Not taking your buddy for a flight.
 
bflynn said:
In the case of turning from the 45 to downwind, making a teardrop entry, or correcting your path in the pattern, it is not a big deal because that's how it's recommend to be done by the FAA. You know that.
Click to expand...
Yes I do.
But, what is recommended by the FAA directly contradicts the actual regulations (both right turns and who has the right of way). You know that too. Right?
 
Palmpilot said:
I have added a cut-and-paste of the specific passage. (It's at the end of the third full paragraph on the second page of the letter.)
Click to expand...
By the way, the "flight time is compensation" doctrine is not in the FAR either.
 
<sigh> Where is the case number against a pilot who merely let a buddy(s) chip in on the expenses for a hamburger flight? Show it too me.
Oh, and BTW how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Except that the FAA has busted pilots who made a right turn to final. So the FAA obviously doesn't buy the "you aren't in the pattern" argument for the direction of turns in the vicinity (at least when they want to violate someone for whatever reason).
Click to expand...

That's just wrong... Turning inbound for a straight in is not even flying a pattern.
 
Just in case anyone forgot, THIS is why GA is dying.

I could get someone super pumped about flying, take them up, letting them fly, etc, but after they read to MAYBE page two of this thread they’d probably be like “F’ this I’ll just ride my my bicycle for fun” lol
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top