On the contrary, the total lack of incidents caused by crossing over midfield reinforces what common sense tells us: that minimizing the maneuvering time and not descending into TPA near the airport are things that lessen the risk of collisions. OTOH i've had plenty of times i had to move to avoid people doing odd turns just outside the dowwind.
again, there are lots of examples of accidents caused by running red lights. There are lots of accidents caused by maneuvering in the vicinoty of the traffic pattern. Please produce one example in the last half century of a collision involving an aircraft crossing mid-field at TPA.Running red lights ought to be a safe practice by that "common sense". Why spend time in an organized flow through an intersection?Although I agree about descents into TPA and weird maneuvering near the downwind.
dtuuri
At pattern altitude? In any event, if ATC is controlling the situation, it's a completely different story.
It doesn't matter. There have been plenty of close calls, which is enough to convince me. Most pilots don't do it, yet at least, because it's obviously unsafe. So the vocal impudent minority that does, ought not point to their small numbers as evidence of employment of a safe procedure.
I've observed the opposite, most pilots do do it because it is obviously the safest way to get from here to there. There is a vocal minority who insist on getting to the other side of the field to turn around and enter on a 45 from the outside. I almost never see anyone do that in the real world but at least on web boards those people seem to exist.
You can thank the so-called Air Safety Foundation for that. Without benefit of any scientific study they published recommended procedures at uncontrolled airports and many pilots took it to heart. When I first saw those, about the same time Bruce Landsberg showed up there, I thought it was a misprint and called the editor to have it corrected. I had been flying for decades at the time and often at busy, small uncontrolled airports where such shenanigans would be a serious safety issue and likely get the rengade thrown off the airport. Since then, the concept has spread like cancer. I aim to cure it.I've pretty much concluded that people will enter/leave the pattern any damned way they choose no matter regulations or conventions.
Keep your eyeballs on all of them and keep your distance until you understand where they are going.
Running red lights ought to be a safe practice by that "common sense". Why spend time in an organized flow through an intersection?
dtuuri
If someone is on downwind, it's a cross-cockpit, view-limited field of vision of a small cross-sectional area of an airplane approaching at relatively high closure rate while your scanning time is split between "checking the sock" and looking for airplanes also entering nearly head-on. You probably won't see anything in time. Have you seen the Morris study?
Bet they don't want you below about 2500 AGL, either.
I do -- ATC is making sure there are no conflicts with everybody doing different things. Ain't quite the same at Boondock Muni.
Where? Like AOC Mayo (Richard Gere), "you got no place else to go."
This! If you are in a complex hp, it also gives you a longer downwind to get all your ducks in a row without being in a rush.
I've been cut off in busy patterns enough times by stupid pilots performing stupid pattern entries to know that just because a lot of people do it does not make it right
It's not a recommendation, it's a regulation (14 CFR 91.126(b)), but yes, it's for in the pattern, not entering the pattern.
I guarantee that's the way the FAA reads it and intended it.
Guess the FAA is, too, as well as the NTSB. Plenty of case law on point, starting with Administrator v. Boardman and the various cases cited therein. You are quite without legal backing on this issue, but there is much to support the position against which you are arguing. Do the legal research and come back when you find something to support your argument.