Foreflight TPA different than A/FD
- Thread starter Jason608
- Start date
I have heard that reported about a few airports now, the error is in the database FF uses, not the AFD.
For the most part it's a non issue, either you see traffic and visually match altitude close enough, or there is no traffic and nobody is going to much care if you are a couple hundred foot off.
Jason608
Pre-takeoff checklist
KFFZ is my home airport as well. I am still working on nailing the traffic pattern so I pulled up FF and mapped out ALT/Speeds/Direction around the track before taking off at 6:15am this morning. Then looked at my kneeboard notes and noticed the discrepancy. At least I knew not to rely solely on FF.
Last edited:
Jason608
Pre-takeoff checklist
Did not notice that, thanks. Instead I emailed my CFI.
Every source of information contains a disclaimer, "This is not intended to be used as a sole source of information and may contain errors..." somewhere on/in it for a reason.
dmspilot
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 6,191
- Display Name
Display name:
DISPLAY NAME
I recently flew into an airport that had a 1400' AGL TPA listed in the A/FD. When I landed and asked the people at the airport why it was so high, no one had any idea what I was talking about. Someone said they usually use 1000' AGL. The "Virginia Airport Directory" and the "Flight Guide" also listed different TPA's. So I got 4 different numbers from 4 difference sources.
Last edited:
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
Isn't the A/FD the "official, published" TPA?
dans2992
En-Route
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 4,070
- Display Name
Display name:
Dans2992
AustinPilot
Pre-takeoff checklist
Looks like this data comes from the FAA NASR dataset. They have the TPA listed at 1308' AGL.
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
Not only foreflight but AOPA also. Most of the airports in my area have TPAs lists wrong ar AOPA. And most is not an exaggeration.
I called AOPA about it once and they told me it'd take a call from the airport mgr to get them to change it. Really? The airport Mgr knows more than the A/FD? Really? Most mgrs at the small airports around here aren't even pilots.
TPAs are the most screwed up thing in aviation.
I called AOPA about it once and they told me it'd take a call from the airport mgr to get them to change it. Really? The airport Mgr knows more than the A/FD? Really? Most mgrs at the small airports around here aren't even pilots.
TPAs are the most screwed up thing in aviation.
Jason608
Pre-takeoff checklist
I'm flying the 172's at Classic Air. Working towards the check ride in may or June.
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
I think so; and FF gives you direct access to the A/FD page for that airport. For KFFZ, the TPA section says "see remarks". The remarks say "TPA - 2400 (1006) for light acft, 2900 (1506) for large and turbine-powered acft, 1900 (506) for rotorcraft."
Just send a note to team@foreflight.com to report the weird 2702 MSL pattern altitude. That's 1308' above airport elevation. I can't figure out any math from the numbers above that would convolute to that number.
Another reason to check the AFD! I would contact FF and tell them about this discrepancy.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
It is.
dans2992
En-Route
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 4,070
- Display Name
Display name:
Dans2992
Cool. I've been thinking about getting checked out in their Seneca to start building some more multi hours, but I keep trying to decide if it's worth it to build multi hours or not....
it's not cheap.
Cool. I've been thinking about getting checked out in their Seneca to start building some more multi hours, but I keep trying to decide if it's worth it to build multi hours or not....
Building multi time with no intention of a flying job, or future use of a twin you need those hours in to rent, is not worth while. If you are going to buy a twin, just wait and build your time in it. The cost of the time building you do in another airframe will not completely offset the initial premium hit in your airframe, so the first 100 hours will end up costing you more if you did some or all of them in another plane.
Having a multi rating is valuable so you can take advantage of low cost/free multi time opportunities that present themselves. Multi time building of its own accord has little to no value unless you are going for employment minimums..
Last edited:
write-stuff
En-Route
My company created Kindle-based charts some years back and I recall this same issue. I think it was because TPA is not always reported in the same field in the FAA database. Sloppy data.
Dr. O
Pattern Altitude
This is just another way for the FAA to screw a pilot into the ground if they feel like it.
If the FAA was subject to the civilian courts this would not be happening.
You certainly cannot have town managers declaring that the local police will use a different speed limit on the highway going through town than what the highway signs say - yet that is what the FAA is claiming the airport managers can do. Our airport manager refuses to even set foot in a plane.
Now, to my ancient brain I look at the field altitude on the chart, add 1000 feet and that is the pattern altitude I fly.
If the FAA was subject to the civilian courts this would not be happening.
You certainly cannot have town managers declaring that the local police will use a different speed limit on the highway going through town than what the highway signs say - yet that is what the FAA is claiming the airport managers can do. Our airport manager refuses to even set foot in a plane.
Now, to my ancient brain I look at the field altitude on the chart, add 1000 feet and that is the pattern altitude I fly.
oldShar
Cleared for Takeoff
AirNav has it covered:
"Pattern altitude: 2702 ft. MSL
TPA FOR LIGHT ACFT 1006 FT AGL; TPA FOR LARGE & TURBINE-POWERED ACFT 1506 FT AGL; TPA 506 FT AGL FOR ROTORCRAFT."
"Pattern altitude: 2702 ft. MSL
TPA FOR LIGHT ACFT 1006 FT AGL; TPA FOR LARGE & TURBINE-POWERED ACFT 1506 FT AGL; TPA 506 FT AGL FOR ROTORCRAFT."
oldShar
Cleared for Takeoff
Dude, your paranoia is palpable and completely unwarranted. The FAA is not out there creating traps in which to catch people, holy ****ing ****.
This is an error by someone who created a database using a false assumption. If you would end up with a "Call the Tower" situation, it would end with the FAA collecting the source of the incorrect data from you, and giving you the correct data for future reference.
Yeah, pretty much. Even if there is no direct FAR reference, if you cause a problem, they will refrence the altitude excursion under "careless" per the AIM reference. Only Pt 137 operations have a specific exemption from entering at pattern altitude, and that comes with the stipulation its on us not to endanger those in the published pattern. Basically "do what you want, but you don't get to use the lower altitude to claim right of way."
Last edited:
acrophile
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- May 26, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Display Name
Display name:
acrophile
Does even the AIM tell us to use the TPAs given in the A/FD? I don't see it.
The AIM does mention that 1000' AGL is "recommended [...] unless otherwise established". It doesn't elaborate on where or how it is otherwise established, though. And when it comes to other AIM "recommendations"--such as how to enter the traffic pattern--it seems well established that doing otherwise is not inherently "careless" (even when doing otherwise isn't necessary for safety).
I'm not arguing against flying the A/FD's TPAs, of course. Just observing how weird it is that there's no regulation about it.
write-stuff
En-Route
The FAA always has their catchall, FAR 91.13.
A/FD is THE official reference that is refered to anywhere the FAA refers to pattern altitude.
airdale
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
airdale
I ran into a TPA discrepancy a number of years ago and ended up talking on the phone to the Section Chief whose troops were responsible for the AF/D.
She told me that the TPAs came from the airport managers and that FAA did basically nothing more than compile what they got. So any discrepancies had to be dealt with by the airport managers.
This was not a CYA type conversation at all. She was just telling me the process through which the book was compiled. And when you think about it, how could it be any other way? The FAA can't be out inspecting and doing detective work for every podunk airport in the country. Manpower-wise it would be impossible.
So this sort of begs the question about the AF/D being authoritative when it's just a compilation. I don't know the answer to that.
I still have that phone number but I don't want to post it publicly for every internet spider to find. Anyone who wants it, just PM me.
A related observation: Not picking on this thread, but I am often surprised by the questions people ask here on the forums when the questions could be so easily asked and answered with a simple phone call to the FAA. I probably call someone at the FAA once or twice a year with questions and always get quality service and good answers. I have yet to encounter an FAA employee that bites!
She told me that the TPAs came from the airport managers and that FAA did basically nothing more than compile what they got. So any discrepancies had to be dealt with by the airport managers.
This was not a CYA type conversation at all. She was just telling me the process through which the book was compiled. And when you think about it, how could it be any other way? The FAA can't be out inspecting and doing detective work for every podunk airport in the country. Manpower-wise it would be impossible.
So this sort of begs the question about the AF/D being authoritative when it's just a compilation. I don't know the answer to that.
I still have that phone number but I don't want to post it publicly for every internet spider to find. Anyone who wants it, just PM me.
A related observation: Not picking on this thread, but I am often surprised by the questions people ask here on the forums when the questions could be so easily asked and answered with a simple phone call to the FAA. I probably call someone at the FAA once or twice a year with questions and always get quality service and good answers. I have yet to encounter an FAA employee that bites!
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
The FAA publishes it, so it IS authoritative.
I've seen airports where the "local TPA" is 800', the local CFIs train that way, the local pilots fly that way, but there is nothing in the AF/D because nobody from the airport asked that it be published. So any transient pilot will treat it as 1000' since that's the default.
acrophile
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- May 26, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Display Name
Display name:
acrophile
Anywhere except in the CFRs that govern traffic patterns and in the AIM section on traffic patterns.
Those both refer to pattern altitude but fail to mention the A/FD.(Of course, the A/FD is what I abide by nonetheless.)
EDIT: Oops, sorry, just realized you probably meant "is *implicitly* referred to". Which would be my assumption too. Though I do think properly written regulations would make the reference explicit.
Last edited:
airdale
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,840
- Display Name
Display name:
airdale
According to this definition, yes: "able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable." But regulatory, no. It has not been through the rulemaking process. IANL, however.
WE DONT NEED A REGULATION FOR THIS.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 19,879
- Location
- Oakland, CA
- Display Name
Display name:
Bro do you even lift
acrophile
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- May 26, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Display Name
Display name:
acrophile
You can get an answer that way, but it may not be a correct one, and the FAA certainly isn't bound by what some random employee tells you over the phone.
acrophile
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- May 26, 2013
- Messages
- 760
- Display Name
Display name:
acrophile
So should the existing AIM "recommendation" to fly a TPA of 1000 AGL (unless "otherwise established" by an unmentioned source) be regarded as just as optional as the recommendation for pattern entry (on the 45 etc.)? It's widely accepted that pilots can disregard the entry recommendation for their convenience, even if safety does not so require. Should TPA adherence be like that too?
Or should flying the TPA (unless safety requires otherwise) be a de facto requirement, with regard to both pilot practices and enforcement policy--akin to the regulation requiring left turns in the pattern (unless otherwise established by well-specified sources)? If so, wouldn't it be more appropriate if it were an actual regulation, instead of a (partially unspecified) recommendation treated as a regulation?
eetrojan
Pattern Altitude
I recall at least one example story given here where the DPE failed a student on their PPL checkride because they didn't lookup TPA during a non-emergency diversion exercise.