Getting Pattern Direction in flight

Sometimes I wonder if we make things just too difficult. The diversion part of my checkride was probably one of the easier parts if not the easiest part of the ride. You are doing a X-country and following your progress on the "chart." I used old fashion paper, but an electronic version is no different. DPE says OMG blah blah blah, time to divert. You know approximately where you are because you have good situational awareness. You look at you chart and it should not be too difficult to find where the nearest airport is that fulfills the criteria of the divert. The chart tells you which way to travel, about how far it is, the traffic pattern, whether there is a tower, and the appropriate frequencies. I doubt anyone will be busted if the TPA is 850 and you fly 1000.
 
danhagan said:
I know this was intended for GPS only, but for others out there:

Last year on a night flight (short XC) I got a faint "wiff" of smoke in the cockpit. As I shed all non-essential electrical, my ALT enunciator lit up for a split second followed by a much larger amount of smoke entering the cockpit (I was now 10 miles to landing and over an interstate highway). I was able to get off a single "AC in distress, ALT failure, smoke in the cockpit 10 north inbound -as two CBP helos were practicing auto-rotations over the approach threshold). Within seconds of that ALT light and short radio transmit, my battery overloaded and all electrical was gone for good. The bolts holding the front and rear case of the ALT sheared, the ALT rotated on its bracket and the pulley froze (causing the smoke from the belt). My handheld was on the rear floor in my flight bag, but the headset adapter would have to be fished out (I didn't). On final, the helos didn't move and I had navaigate around them and land mid-field.

Lessons Learned:

1. Keep the headset adapter ON the handheld on night flights, not just in the bag close by.
2. Glad I had several of the hat lights available. Have an Iphone APP for lighting as well as a backup to the backups.
3. I had heard millions of times you'll have about 30-60 minutes once the ALT fails before the battery follows suit. Now am aware that the ALT may take it out simultaneously ... the battery didn't explode, but it was definitely fried.
4. Moderate smoke in the cockpit at night is NOT fun.
5. Glad I have a Halon fire extinguisher within reach if necessary.

EDIT: Probably should be #1 above
6. After an event like this, when you get home .... Your family is going to smell the event well before you get a chance to shower. If the spouse is skittish about flying, get cleaned up BEFORE heading home at a friends.
Click to expand...
During this were you concerned if the traffic pattern was right or left? Just kidding, but this was what I was trying to refer to with my earlier post in this thread.
Even if the GPS system is down in your area as one post indicated, a tablet with its own battery source should still provide valuable information regarding airports around you (provided you know where you are). A handheld radio (if accessible) would be a good backup at a time like described here.
 
douglas393 said:
I doubt anyone will be busted if the TPA is 850 and you fly 1000.
Click to expand...

Usually not, but here's a counterexample.

The left pattern for KHWD 28L is directly underneath the extended centerline of KOAK 29, roughly 6 miles from the threshold. That means airliner traffic on the 3 deg ILS is at 1500 feet counting the threshold crossing height, over the crosswind leg. If you're flying around at 1000, you're going to cause go-arounds at Oakland. And you're going to expose yourself to wake turbulence. TPA is 600.

KHWD airspace is a bit weird. According to the chart, it is BOTH Class D and within the KOAK Class E surface area. It's very close to the Class C surface area as well; most of us do early crosswind turns to avoid that and to increase clearance with the airliners somewhat.

Usually, if there is a nonstandard TPA, there is a reason for it. KPAO bayside TPA is 800. Why? There is a missed approach hold for KSJC above it at 2100.
 
Just a suggestion, before you take your check ride, know what everything on the sectional means. Your oral will almost certainly include the DPE pointing at things on the chart and asking you what they mean.

SixPapaCharlie said:
cool, so at KGDJ, I see RP14 which I never noticed before. Thanks for that tip.
Click to expand...
 
If you divert to an uncontrolled field, just fly over the field and look for the segmented circle. If it has an unconventional right hand pattern it will be noted there. Simple. But never let your guard down. I've flown into smaller airports and found unlicensed folks flying ultralights, and even a powered parachute once, against the published pattern.
 
Ron Levy said:
Don't bet on it. I know examiners who divert you to the airport where they want to do the takeoffs and landings.
Click to expand...

My PP ride I was diverted to a field and "lost" my engine on downwind. Yes, you can wind up going to the airport you are diverted to. We didn't land, but we did go there.
 
Ron Levy said:
I think you should review the definition of the term "Emergency". In pretty much any plane I know with an electrical system, I believe a complete electrical failure would cause me to be "concerned about safety and of requiring timely but not immediate assistance", and that meets the official definition of an "emergency".

Unless, of course, you don't think the possibility of an impending electrical fire in flight would concern you.

Further, there are plenty of ways to communicate this to the folks on the ground besides the aircraft's radios, and even if there weren't, it would still be an emergency allowing you to deviate per 14 CFR 91.3(b) from the Part 91 flight rules to the extent necessary to deal with it.
Click to expand...

Exactly correct. If I have a complete electrical failure (though almost impossible in my aircraft), I've probably lost my gear/flaps and may have a fire which, in my mind, is an emergency and I would declare it as so.
 
MAKG1 said:
A complete electrical failure is also not an emergency unless it's in IMC, and you might have trouble declaring by shouting as loud as you can...
Click to expand...
And even then, not always. I've had a complete failure in IMC, and just descended below the scud and followed a river to a near uncontrolled field.

To the OP:
As most said, you'll most likely never even get to the diversion airport. For the most part, the DPE wants to see you turn on course and tell him how far, how long, which direction, how much fuel, ect... Once you show him that you're now established and know you'd be able to make it, that's all he needs to see.

That being said, they may make it work out that you divert to an nearby airport, and that's the one he want's to use for the specialty landings. If that's the case, it's probably gonna be pretty close to your departure, and you've probably done lot's of training there.

When something such as an emergency, diversion, ect happens, the most important thing is that you do something. It may very well be something different than he would've done, but it shows that you're aware and thinking things through.
 
Ron Levy said:
I think you should review the definition of the term "Emergency". In pretty much any plane I know with an electrical system, I believe a complete electrical failure would cause me to be "concerned about safety and of requiring timely but not immediate assistance", and that meets the official definition of an "emergency".

Unless, of course, you don't think the possibility of an impending electrical fire in flight would concern you.
Click to expand...
Real world example:

I was taking a potential new student on a discovery flight. On the way back to my Class D home base, I listened to the ATIS but when I called in, I received no response. Eventually, even the ATIS faded out as I switched radios. Complete loss of communications. Then, I could hear something over the Comms - the local AM radio station that one could normally hear - except that it didn't come over the ADF in the airplane but the VHF Comm.

I tried to get the Tower's attention for light gun signals but never did. So I entered the pattern, landed, and pulled off the runway. Still no signals, so I taxied back to the FBO.

Three other background items: My home base was one of the busiest Class D airports in the US. While I was in the pattern, the airport was turned around, so I landed on the runway opposite to the direction of traffic, where a corporate just had just taxied on the the runway at the opposite end. Finally, this was at the very height of the runway incursion focus (a year later the FSDO did a program on runway incursions and I definitely recognized one of the described incidents). Definitely a recipe for an enforcement action.

The call from the FSDO came the next day. I explained to the inspector what had happened and that I didn't divert to another airport because I was concerned that the weird way the radios acted was the sign of an electrical problem and that the next thing I might notice was the smell of burning insulation. That what wasn't at that point an "emergency" would soon become one. The inspector said, "let me kick this around and I'll call you back this afternoon." That afternoon I was asked to send in a letter explaining what I told the inspector and to specifically mention that I thought it was an emergency situation and that they would close the matter without further action.

So apparently, concerns with an electrical failure met my FSDO's definition of "emergency" at least as much as it did mine.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Do they now allow IPads on checkrides?
Click to expand...

To my knowledge, they always did. But the examiner could "fail" them at any time, so you had better be ready to use something else. And sometimes they would fail on their own (overheat) or be unreadable in bright daylight.

It seems conventional to use these things for IR checkrides. HOWEVER, one of my colleagues discovered a very interesting and somewhat scary pitfall. During an instrument lesson under the hood in an Archer, a real gusty front came through. Finishing up the lesson, they made a GPS approach into KPAO and encountered a 25 knot gusty crosswind. The iPad, mounted on a kneeboard, prevented full aileron, and full aileron was necessary for that crosswind. Now, the solution is kinda obvious, but I'd hate to discover that during an upset or somesuch. And of course that isn't unique to an iPad, but rather any large kneeboard. And it's good practice to verify full range of motion right before engine start, as well as during run-up.

He was talking about adjusting the seat on downwind after a go-around. I would have just diverted. I don't like screwing with seats in flight.
 
midlifeflyer said:
So apparently, concerns with an electrical failure met my FSDO's definition of "emergency" at least as much as it did mine.
Click to expand...
I would point out that a lot of people seem to think "emergency" means what the FAA defines as "distress," not the true definition of "emergency" which is either "distress" or the lesser level of "urgency." For those confused by that, here are the official FAA definitions of all three:

EMERGENCY- A distress or an urgency condition.
DISTRESS- A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and of requiring immediate assistance.
URGENCY- A condition of being concerned about safety and of requiring timely but not immediate assistance; a potential distress condition.
Click to expand...

So, if you've lost electrics while VFR, you're not necessarily in "imminent danger" (i.e., in "distress") but you really should be "concerned about safety" (i.e., in an "urgency" situation), and thus have an "emergency" as the FAA defines the term. That means you can take advantage of everything the regulations and ATC allow in an "emergency", including what Mark did. Note that the Inspector kind of fed Mark this point when he telling Mark that although Mark originally seemed to feel it was not an "emergency," it was in fact an "emergency", so Mark's actions in violation of several Part 91 flight rules were legally justified. As Groucho used to say, "Say the magic word..." except in this case you don't win $100, you just avoid an enforcement action.

Of course, it also means you fall under the FAA requirement to comply with 14 CFR 91.7(b) to discontinue the flight in your electrically unairworthy aircraft, but that's another story.
 
Last edited:
While I see your argument for a sudden loss of electrics, I really don't for an alternator failure. If the alternator stops charging, you'll lose your electrics one by one as you brown out and the battery discharges, but you're exceedingly unlikely to suffer an electrical fire from that. If it isn't making noises or funny smells, why not proceed on?

Most alternator failures are due to rectifier faults. You can lose one diode and barely (or not) notice the difference -- charging will just be a bit slower than it used to be. If you lose two, you won't charge adequately. That just means you get unrectified power to the battery, not an overload; the three diodes are out of phase, which is why losses in there give you lower mean voltage (and when it's below battery voltage, the battery discharges). The battery itself performs a rectification function for downstream components.
 
Last edited:
If I am PIC, an emergency is what I deem to be one, and I believe that is my right per regulation. Now, if at the end of the day, it is investigated and I am deemed to have overstated the emerency, I will be more than happy to deal with it, but I will make no apologies to anyone should something occur while flying that is so much out of the ordinary that I feel a need to declare it an emergency. Everything, I have read about declaring emergencies, and everything I have been taught, is that the FAA would prefer an emergency be declared than not be declared. I have read about many accidents that occured partly because an emergency was not declared, and cannot think of one where an accident occurred because an emergency was declared.
 
MAKG1 said:
While I see your argument for a sudden loss of electrics, I really don't for an alternator failure. If the alternator stops charging, you'll lose your electrics one by one as you brown out and the battery discharges, but you're exceedingly unlikely to suffer an electrical fire from that. If it isn't making noises or funny smells, why not proceed on?

Most alternator failures are due to rectifier faults. You can lose one diode and barely (or not) notice the difference -- charging will just be a bit slower than it used to be. If you lose two, you won't charge adequately. That just means you get unrectified power to the battery, not an overload; the three diodes are out of phase, which is why losses in there give you lower mean voltage (and when it's below battery voltage, the battery discharges). The battery itself performs a rectification function for downstream components.
Click to expand...

Most of us do not have your inate ability to determine the reason for an alternator failure while flying. If mine fails I am finding the closest airport I can safely fly into, before a small problem potentially becomes a big problem. I am very much a fan of being on the ground wishing I was in the air, than being in the air wishing I was on the ground.
 
douglas393 said:
Most of us do not have your inate ability to determine the reason for an alternator failure while flying. If mine fails I am finding the closest airport I can safely fly into, before a small problem potentially becomes a big problem. I am very much a fan of being on the ground wishing I was in the air, than being in the air wishing I was on the ground.
Click to expand...

Because, when you land in the middle of nowhere due to a nonemergency, with no services, and then determine that your belt broke, you cannot legally take off again. And even if you could, now your battery is dead and you would have to hand prop by yourself. Now you're stuck. And if you think that can't be life threatening on its own, you haven't thought it through. No food, no water, no heat, no radio, no cell phone service....and this is not at ALL a rare thing for an isolated airport. Some of those things you can prepare for, but an unplanned winter night in an isolated airport is a survival situation.

This can be a way to turn a nonemergency into an emergency.

Now, if there happens to be a major airport below you, that's another story. You can get it fixed and be on your way -- or at least find someplace warm to camp out. But to say you always land at the nearest airport where you can make a safe landing....well, that's not always a good idea.
 
MAKG1 said:
Because, when you land in the middle of nowhere due to a nonemergency, with no services, and then determine that your belt broke, you cannot legally take off again.


but an unplanned winter night in an isolated airport is a survival situation.
Click to expand...

So if you lose electrical power at night you're just going to romp along like nothing happened?
 
MAKG1 said:
Because, when you land in the middle of nowhere due to a nonemergency, with no services, and then determine that your belt broke, you cannot legally take off again. And even if you could, now your battery is dead and you would have to hand prop by yourself. Now you're stuck. And if you think that can't be life threatening on its own, you haven't thought it through. No food, no water, no heat, no radio, no cell phone service....and this is not at ALL a rare thing for an isolated airport. Some of those things you can prepare for, but an unplanned winter night in an isolated airport is a survival situation.
Click to expand...
If you think that is what we are suggesting, your reading comprehension skills are not up to the task. If you're just exaggerating in order to justify your own position, it's totally overblown.

The FAA and NTSB are on record as saying they will not second-guess a pilot who treats an abnormal condition as an emergency and takes advantage of the assistance available to emergency aircraft. OTOH, the FAA has barbecued pilots who ignore a malfunctioning aircraft's symptoms and continue the flight beyond the first suitable airport.

So, have you ever seen what happens when an alternator throws a belt? Once you've analyzed the situation, you should take appropriate action. You could have a serious problem developing pretty fast after you lose power from the alternator. Or the problem could snowball and develop into an electrical fire. The place to be evaluating the damage is on the ground, not in the air. Of course, if there's no evidence that a distress condition has developed, there's no reason to just plant the plane in the first farmer's field you can see, and nobody's saying you should. But to overfly a suitable airport in order to reach "a major airport" is inappropriate in such a situation. To use the NTSB's words:
...we have interpreted section 91.7(b) as requiring -- upon the occurrence of an unairworthy condition -- a landing "at the first available point consistent with the safe operation of that aircraft." Administrator v. Genereaux, 4 NTSB 1245, 1247 (1984), (quoting the law judge's initial decision); Administrator v. Halbert, NTSB Order No. EA-3628 at 5 (1992).
...

Our decision in this case does not represent any retreat from our view, expressed in Halbert, that section 91.7(b) does not allow a pilot to choose the "best point available consistent with the safe operation of the aircraft," but rather requires a landing at the first available location consistent with such operation.​
Click to expand...
Therefore, continuing a flight beyond the first suitable airport (that is, one at which you can land safely, not one which has a nice hotel for the night) after cockpit indications show loss of alternator function will, I firmly believe, be treated by the FAA in the latter manner.
 
Ron Levy said:
That means you can take advantage of everything the regulations and ATC allow in an "emergency", including what Mark did. Note that the Inspector kind of fed Mark this point when he telling Mark that although Mark originally seemed to feel it was not an "emergency," it was in fact an "emergency", so Mark's actions in violation of several Part 91 flight rules were legally justified.
Click to expand...
No "kind of." He very clearly and unequivocally told me to state in my letter it was an emergency.
 
Bill Jennings said:
So if you lose electrical power at night you're just going to romp along like nothing happened?
Click to expand...

Well, that's the first anyone has mentioned flying at night. You're never going to find an unlit airport at night anyway with no lights and no radio, so it might as well not be there. If you need to land in a field due to an emergency, that's all unchanged.

Ron, you're not reading either. The statement was "I'd rather be on the ground." without qualification. No, there is qualification, and the situation requires consideration of actual circumstances.

That's entirely separate from what the FAA thinks. When dealing with emergencies and potential emergencies, you can guess what they can suck. My only point here is not to overreact. Not every indicator light is instant death. Sometimes you can treat it as so without consequence, and sometimes the consequence of overreaction is significant.

I witnessed a pilot have a gear extension fault in a Lake, at PAO (I was on the ground, watching). The gear doors didn't open. He declared an emergency, rolled fire trucks, and prepared to land immediately on the runway, gear up. He was PIC, it was his call, right? Gear failures can cause lots of nastiness, including electrical and/or hydraulic fires. You tell me, was that sensible? Sure, it was legal. That's not the question.

Fortunately, someone talked some sense into him and he landed in the Bay like he should have in the first place.

I once had a carb ice encounter on takeoff, after a long wait at the run-up line. The engine stumbled at 400 AGL. That could have been for a huge number of reasons; I thought it was a mag failing (it wasn't). Should I have landed in the mud straight ahead? I was still making power and could climb without significant vibration, so I went around the pattern. But the engine could have thrown a rod in the next 5 seconds for all I knew.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Ron, you're not reading either. The statement was "I'd rather be on the ground." without qualification. No, there is qualification, and the situation requires consideration of actual circumstances.

That's entirely separate from what the FAA thinks. When dealing with emergencies and potential emergencies, you can guess what they can suck. My only point here is not to overreact. Not every indicator light is instant death. Sometimes you can treat it as so without consequence, and sometimes the consequence of overreaction is significant.
Click to expand...
I agree with not overreacting, but you suggested that electrical power loss or even alternator failure in flight is not an "emergency", and it is that to which I initially took exception.

In addition, while nobody said one should land immediately in some farmer's field, you said "But to say you always land at the nearest airport where you can make a safe landing....well, that's not always a good idea." You may not think it "a good idea," but as the FAA and NTSB said in the item I quoted above, it's the law.
 
Ron Levy said:
I agree with not overreacting, but you suggested that electrical power loss or even alternator failure in flight is not an "emergency", and it is that to which I initially took exception.

In addition, while nobody said one should land immediately in some farmer's field, you said "But to say you always land at the nearest airport where you can make a safe landing....well, that's not always a good idea." You may not think it "a good idea," but as the FAA and NTSB said in the item I quoted above, it's the law.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring some rather important qualifiers.

I did not say it's never a good idea. That would be wrong. I said it isn't always a good idea. That's true. I don't know how much time you've spent out west, but having your car break down in the summer in the middle of the desert can be a fatal experience -- and every year, there are several deaths from that. Quite a lot of easterners underestimate that. An airplane is only different if you know the airport below is attended. Some of them are shockingly isolated, and no, I'm not just talking about backcountry dirt strips.

When determining if a precautionary landing is necessary, the conditions into which you are landing are one of the variables to consider. No, they are not the only variable, and if you happen to be in an urban or suburban area, they aren't likely all that relevant. Don't take that further than I have. But not all flying is over mid-Atlantic sprawl.
 
MAKG1 said:
Now, if there happens to be a major airport below you, that's another story. You can get it fixed and be on your way -- or at least find someplace warm to camp out. But to say you always land at the nearest airport where you can make a safe landing....well, that's not always a good idea.
Click to expand...

Did not say nearest, said closest airport I can safely fly into. Thus the word safest in my post. Certainly, unless it is absolutely necessary, I am not going to land on some grass strip in the middle of nowhere, if a better alternative is available that I can make safely, but I am not going to overfly a perfectly good alternative to my destination either.
 
Ron Levy said:
And you're saying that was not an emergency? Or did I misunderstand you? :confused:
Click to expand...
Nope, you understood. I lost it shortly after takeoff, about 7 miles out. Therefore I know the cloud bases were about 1,000' below. I slowly descended, knowing fairly precisely where I was laterally as well as the terrain. I honestly wouldn't even consider it an "urgency" or "distress" situation, as there was no imminent danger; Obviously wouldn't be smart, but I could've theoretically cruised for 6 hours on altitude and heading without hitting anything before I got near the end of fuel...

Ron Levy said:
...So, if you've lost electrics while VFR, you're not necessarily in "imminent danger" (i.e., in "distress") but you really should be "concerned about safety" (i.e., in an "urgency" situation), and thus have an "emergency" as the FAA defines the term...
Click to expand...
So all of those A-HBs and Cubs and such all over the place that have never had an electrical system are all "in distress"?? In that case, why should they even take-off in such a dangerous aircraft...

MAKG1 said:
Well, that's the first anyone has mentioned flying at night. You're never going to find an unlit airport at night anyway with no lights and no radio, so it might as well not be there...
Click to expand...
Not always true. In my training, one instructor did a simulated electrical failure at night for practice. Since I was keeping track of my location on paper charts, I knew to follow a river, and when I came to a bridge, take a left, and the airport's right there. There's probably quite a few airports (except maybe in the mountains) that you can find via a river, lake, or road that has some lights. Just keep aware of your location and let your eyes adjust when you lose all lights, and you can generally see enough do do something like this. If that doesn't work, head towards a group of city lights that you know has a nearby airport. Using just a compass, you should be able to locate it just fine.
 
HighFlyingA380 said:
Nope, you understood. I lost it shortly after takeoff, about 7 miles out. Therefore I know the cloud bases were about 1,000' below. I slowly descended, knowing fairly precisely where I was laterally as well as the terrain. I honestly wouldn't even consider it an "urgency" or "distress" situation, as there was no imminent danger;
Click to expand...
Then your definition of "emergency" is your own, and not the same as the FAA's. If you're going to make up your own rules and ignore the FAA's, there's Nothing further to discuss.

So all of those A-HBs and Cubs and such all over the place that have never had an electrical system are all "in distress"?? In that case, why should they even take-off in such a dangerous aircraft...
Click to expand...
Not going to debate this with you if you're going to distort and exaggerate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top