Pattern altitude

coloradobluesky

coloradobluesky

En-Route
Gone West
Joined
Mar 19, 2014
Messages
3,621
Location
Colorado
Display Name
Display name:
coloradobluesky
We were talking about pattern altitudes. They aren't mandatory according to this circular dated 8/26/93.

AC90-66A it says:

2, CANCELLATION. AC 90-66, Recommended Standard Traffic Patterns for Airplane Operations at Uncontrolled Airports, dated February 27,1975, is cancelled,

8,c
It is RECOMMENDED that airplanes observe a lOOO-foot above ground level (AGL) traffic pattern altitude. Large and turbine-powered airplanes should enter the traffic pattern at an altitude of 1,500 feet AGL or 500 feet above the established pattern altitude. A pilot may vary the size of the traffic pattern depending on the aircraft’s performance characteristics.

Just thought I'd pass it along.
Anyone know of anything more recent?
Are there any test questions on this subject?

Then there is the AFD (chart supplement sectional) information. Not sure how that fits in.
 
Last edited:
I usually just look at what's published for the airport - if it's "non-standard", I figure there's a local reason, and I go along with it, to be at the same altitude the other traffic is using. . .
 
That Advisory Circular is consistent with the AIM which says "(1,000 AGL is recommended pattern altitude unless established otherwise.)" See Figs. 4-3-2 and 4-3-3.

I think the Chart Supplement is where it may be officially "established otherwise" and then is mandatory.
 
Last edited:
My airport is 331' and TPA is 1500'. I have always wondered why, but never asked.
 
Funny PAJN (Juneau, AK) normally uses rwy 08. From my normal repot in point (class D) that puts me on a right base for runway 08. Unless you are coming in from the East, the tower gives you a straight in or enter on a right base for rwy 08. Pattern altitude is 1000ft, it us to be 800ft. Pattern altitude for turbines is 1500ft
 
Does publishing pattern altitude in AFD (now called chart supplement) make them Mandatory (for airports without towers).
 
The next question is are patterns mandatory. The only mention of patterns in the regs applies to special flight rules.
 
Well straight in is legal.

The reason this came up was we were discussing how having pilots at different altitude is safer from collisions.
 
coloradobluesky said:
...The reason this came up was we were discussing how having pilots at different altitude is safer from collisions.
Click to expand...
Unless you have a low wing airplane above a high wing airplane.
 
Someone suggested all low wings come in below pattern altitude and all high wings come in above pattern altitude, at random altitudes.

Take a typical example. RV calls in and says he's 5 miles to the west. You are coming in 5 miles to the south. Neither is sure where the other will be when you both get there at about the same time. Solution, pick a non-standard altitude (and announce it). If PA is recommended and not mandatory, its legal.
 
JonH said:
My airport is 331' and TPA is 1500'. I have always wondered why, but never asked.
Click to expand...
Who knows. My base is 164" and TPA is 1099' as opposed to 1164' I basically use 1200' anyway. The 1000' above airport elevation remains a good rule, as noted in the AIM. If there is ever a problem pertaining to this issue, the FAA will use the AIM as a standard regardless of the cancelled AC.
 
Our airport has a declared TPA of 800' AGL. Why, I have no idea.
 
Quite a few years ago I ended up talking on the phone to the FAA AF/D manager with a question about a TPA discrepancy. She told me that they simply published whatever the airport manager gives them. If they get nothing, they don't publish a TPA.

If it is still this loose, I don't see how it can be regulatory.
 
I just base it off the airport elevation for pattern ops, if I'm coming in to land it's just however it works out.
 
I kind of like everyone at the same pattern altitude - makes spotting traffic easier, if we're all (more or less) in the same horizontal plane. But that's subjective, and I could be wrong. Generally speaking, if you're gonna merge aluminum, it's gonna be at or near an uncontrolled field.
 
Sundancer said:
I kind of like everyone at the same pattern altitude - makes spotting traffic easier, if we're all (more or less) in the same horizontal plane. But that's subjective, and I could be wrong. Generally speaking, if you're gonna merge aluminum, it's gonna be at or near an uncontrolled field.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that, there have been some oops at towered ones too
 
I wonder if the FARs have anything to say about operating in the vicinity of airports?
 
Larry in TN said:
I wonder if the FARs have anything to say about operating in the vicinity of airports?
Click to expand...
Again, it says nothing about traffic patterns or pattern altitudes. The only mention of traffic patterns only applies to special patterns set up under part 93 which doesn't apply at most places. The only thing the regs say is that you make turns to the left unless indicated otherwise.
 
I use the standard published pattern in a regular airplane. If I fly a Cub or breezy and never get above 300 foot I use that as my pattern altitude. I never thought about flying slow and low at 250-300 and climbing to 1000 to enter the pattern. Heck I owned my Cub 3 years and never had it to 1000 feet :)
 
JonH said:
My airport is 331' and TPA is 1500'. I have always wondered why, but never asked.
Click to expand...
Probably terrain. If there are hills next to the airport, TPA needs to be higher to clear them adequately.

Noise abatement is another possibility.
 
Yep, noise abatement is a common rationale.
 
I was going into St George Utah last month, and a Southwest flight calls out "On final"... I was about to enter downwind so asked where they were... his response at 12.5k decending.... so off I went to make space for a bigger plane than me that was on final from way up there straight in .... Uncontrolled airport.. mixing 737's and little Cherokee's is interesting!.
 
Glenn D said:
I was going into St George Utah last month, and a Southwest flight calls out "On final"... I was about to enter downwind so asked where they were... his response at 12.5k decending.... so off I went to make space for a bigger plane than me that was on final from way up there straight in .... Uncontrolled airport.. mixing 737's and little Cherokee's is interesting!.
Click to expand...

Huh? At 12500, he has to be at least 4-5 minutes out. You should be able to get down and out of his way in time. He has 10,000 feet to descend.
 
MAKG1 said:
Huh? At 12500, he has to be at least 4-5 minutes out. You should be able to get down and out of his way in time. He has 10,000 feet to descend.
Click to expand...


See 91.113 g. The plane on final had the right of way. The rule doesn't say how long a final. It also specifically forbids the plane at lower altitude from cutting inside the plane on final.
 
Half Fast said:
See 91.113 g. The plane on final had the right of way. The rule doesn't say how long a final. It also specifically forbids the plane at lower altitude from cutting inside the plane on final.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Under VFR, final approach would be defined as
At the end of the last procedure turn, base turn or inbound turn of a racetrack procedure, if specified
Click to expand...
Saying I'm on final 400 miles from an airport doesn't reserve the runway for your personal use for an hour.
 
Yielding the right of way doesn't mean you can't land a head of him, you just can't do something that would require him to change his speed/direction. Do you wait at a stop sign if you see a car a mile down the road?
 
Guys, I'm just quoting what the rule says:

(g)Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
Click to expand...

The plane on final wasn't 400 miles away; it was on a legitimate (albeit comparitively long) final, maybe 5 minutes out. Depending upon where the other aircraft was (says he was "about to enter" the downwind) and what speed he was flying, he may have been two or three minutes from touchdown himself. Perhaps not enough time to clear the runway for the plane on final before forcing a go-around.

The rule seems pretty clear.
 
Half Fast said:
Guys, I'm just quoting what the rule says:



The plane on final wasn't 400 miles away; it was on a legitimate (albeit comparitively long) final, maybe 5 minutes out. Depending upon where the other aircraft was (says he was "about to enter" the downwind) and what speed he was flying, he may have been two or three minutes from touchdown himself. Perhaps not enough time to clear the runway for the plane on final before forcing a go-around.

The rule seems pretty clear.
Click to expand...
It says the plane on final has the right-of-way. It DOESN'T say that having the right-of-way means that no one can fly in front of him regardless of distance. You have only violated right-of-way if you turn in front of him close enough so that he has to alter his speed, altitude, or course to avoid you.
 
Palmpilot said:
You have only violated right-of-way if you turn in front of him close enough so that he has to alter his speed, altitude, or course to avoid you.
Click to expand...

Are you certain that wouldn't have been the case? Would the Cherokee have had time to land and clear the runway before the 737 would have needed to make a go-around decision?

I don't know. The Cherokee wasn't in the pattern yet; how far ahead of the 737 would the landing have been? Sounds to me like Glenn made a conservative and good decision to yield.
 
Half Fast said:
Are you certain that wouldn't have been the case? Would the Cherokee have had time to land and clear the runway before the 737 would have needed to make a go-around decision?
Click to expand...
I'm definitely not certain of that, because I don't know where on downwind he was, and I don't know how long it would take him to get on the ground and off the runway. I'm just explaining what the criterion is, as I understand it.

I don't know. The Cherokee wasn't in the pattern yet; how far ahead of the 737 would the landing have been? Sounds to me like Glenn made a conservative and good decision to yield.
Click to expand...

If the pilot of the plane that does not have right-of-way is not certain, then I agree that he should play it safe and land behind the plane that is already on final, or alternatively he could make an accurate position report and ask the pilot on final if there would be time for him to land first.
 
Not that long ago, I heard an aircraft call "over the airport, 6500', downwind for 27 landing" and he was cleared by ATC. Turned out to be a military Hawk on a training flight.
 
When I had a funny noise on takeoff and made a precautionary landing, I went all the way around the pattern at Oakland, from taking the runway to leaving it after landing, in 5 minutes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top