Foreflight TPA different than A/FD

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.
Click to expand...

As a student I have found this forum helpful. The answer to my original question is pretty simple, the Foreflight database was wrong. Nothing that requires a FAA call, more about a support ticket to FF.
 
When in doubt, rely on the source document: A/FD. ForeFlight is a secondary source.

Bob Gardner
 
acrophile said:
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?
Click to expand...


No, we should just bloody well ****ing cooperate out of enlightened self interest and not individually believe that we should be able to do whatever in the **** we want all the time

Threads like this point out exactly how self entitled we are.
 
Henning said:
No, we should just bloody well ****ing cooperate out of enlightened self interest and not individually believe that we should be able to do whatever in the **** we want all the time

Threads like this point out exactly how self entitled we are.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you're throwing a buzzword tantrum over this.

Do you really think we should abolish traffic-pattern regulations and "just cooperate" instead?
 
acrophile said:
I have no idea why you're throwing a buzzword tantrum over this.

Do you really think we should abolish traffic-pattern regulations and "just cooperate" instead?
Click to expand...

That's ALL we have right now, and it works just ****ing fine. As has been pointed out, it is not specifically regulated. There is the assigned pattern altitude, cooperate with it or don't, up to you, but if you cause a problem, you will get your ass handed to you under 91.13. If there is no one else in the pattern, or you cause no problems operating at an odd height, no one will care. I've flown patterns at 100' no problems.

Simple as that, and that is exactly how it should remain.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
That's ALL we have right now, and it works just ****ing fine.
Click to expand...

That's all we have now with regard to *some* pattern conventions (entry, TPA), but not with regard to others (turn-direction, VASI-compliance), which are regulated. I was just wondering which category you thought TPA *should* be in. Which you've now calmed down enough to answer, so thank you.
 
acrophile said:
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.
Click to expand...
All true, but I can get a faster answer and one with a high probability of being right, by picking up the phone and calling the right FAA facility.

Forums are great fun and are fine when opinions are wanted or when a more reliable source of facts is unknown or not available. My favorite internet cartoon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you're_a_dog

Certainly you wouldn't argue that information directly from a knowledgeable FAA employee has a lower probability of being correct than a post from some random forum participant.
 
acrophile said:
That's all we have now with regard to *some* pattern conventions (entry, TPA), but not with regard to others (turn-direction, VASI-compliance), which are regulated. I was just wondering which category you thought TPA *should* be in. Which you've now calmed down enough to answer, so thank you.
Click to expand...

Exactly, what needs to be covered is covered, it's the people who think there is a problem that needs to be fixed because every last detail of everything they have to do isn't specifically addressed with regulation. They believe they have the right to introduce regulation to my actions because they don't want to have to think for themselves. That is the ultimate in self entitlement.
 
airdale said:
Certainly you wouldn't argue that information directly from a knowledgeable FAA employee has a lower probability of being correct than a post from some random forum participant.
Click to expand...

The FAA is the source of the conflict, though. Their digital source data does not match up with the printed A/FD.
 
Henning said:
They believe they have the right to introduce regulation to my actions because they don't want to have to think for themselves. That is the ultimate in self entitlement.
Click to expand...

That's gibberish. It takes at least as much thought for someone to propose a regulation requiring X than for them simply to do X themselves (regardless of whether the proposed regulation is a good idea or not).

And you have now officially diluted the "self entitlement" buzzword to the point of meaninglessness.
 
acrophile said:
That's gibberish. It takes at least as much thought for someone to propose a regulation requiring X than for them simply to do X themselves (regardless of whether the proposed regulation is a good idea or not).

And you have now officially diluted the "self entitlement" buzzword to the point of meaninglessness.
Click to expand...

Why does there need to be a regulation? It works perfectly fine without one.:dunno:
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Why does there need to be a regulation? It works perfectly fine without one.
Click to expand...

No one in this thread has said there needs to be a regulation to require flying at the official TPA.

But you yourself opined (post #28) that there "pretty much" IS such a regulation, enforced via 91.13.

I do think an explicit regulation is preferable to an unstated (but enforced) de facto one, because we should be able to see plainly what regulations we're held accountable for. And I do think if the A/FD is to be "authoritative" regarding TPA, even if TPA is just an official recommendation, then the A/FD should at least be mentioned in the official recommendation.

But neither of those positions implies I think flying at the TPA should be mandated by regulation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top