Traffic pattern question: do you ever...

[Clark1961]

Well, if you just want to disagree without a rebuttal to my argument, maybe someone else would care to try? I'll even parse it with room to comment:

Good luck!

 

[dtuuri]

An overflight of the approach end, likewise, for an overhead pattern with a continuous left or right hand turn to final works very well, and is a pattern I've very commonly used when flying to the airport VFR on fires. Direct at traffic pattern altitude to the numbers at cruise speed, then a descending turn to the numbers to land to load and return, is safe, compliant, effective, and puts me in a position to see other traffic.

That's not what the NTSB thinks about what you do, make that "still do". I'd have thought you guys would have learned your lesson:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/501264/FOREST-SERVICE-SAFETY-CALLED-IMPROVED.html​

Then again, maybe nobody really knows what you do.

dtuuri

 

[Henning]

That's not what the NSTB thinks about what you do, make that "still do". I'd have thought you guys would have learned your lesson:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/501264/FOREST-SERVICE-SAFETY-CALLED-IMPROVED.html​

Then again, maybe nobody really knows what you do.

dtuuri

But...but... The RV drivers said the overhead break is the bitchinest way to do it...

 

[DouglasBader]

That's not what the NSTB thinks about what you do, make that "still do". I'd have thought you guys would have learned your lesson:

You guys? Which you guys would that be?

You've referred to a popular media article from 1996 involving a midair in California, when the policy was to be off the radio when out of the fire traffic area. The USFS pilot was still on the radio, still working the fire when he approached the airfield.

Crossing over the airfield had nothing to do with the incident. Failure to pay attention and follow policy and procedure certainly did, however.

How would you know what the NTSB thinks about what I do? Then again, why should I care? The NTSB isn't paying my wage.

Neither are you.

The article you cited, incidentally, states that "Since the crash, the Forest Service has agreed to comply with federal law that outlaws 360-degree approaches at airports with no control towers, like the one in Ramona, Llorente said."

There is not now, nor has there ever been such a law, and the USFS did not then and does not now prohibit an overhead approach.

The Contract states that crews will fly a traffic pattern, and we do. The overhead is a traffic pattern, and is prescribed in the AIM. It's safe, acceptable, proper, and provides one of the best views of other traffic in the pattern of any that can be flown.

Then again, so does a mid field crosswind.

Next thing, perhaps you'll rally against the straight-in approach too?

Then again, maybe nobody really knows what you do.

I do.

My employer does, who pays my wage.

The government does, who pays my employer.

That's good enough.

 

[dtuuri]

The overhead is a traffic pattern, and is prescribed in the AIM.

Before I get on with business, I imagine you're having a good time laughing off my crazy ideas on pattern behavior. It occurs to me your employer is deserving of a good laugh too. How about sending your boss a link to the article--and one to this thread too?

On to business. What passage in the AIM gives a pilot authority to change the traffic pattern to an overhead break?

dtuuri

 

[Palmpilot]

What passage in the AIM gives a pilot authority to change the traffic pattern to an overhead break?

4-4-1b

..."The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft"...​

 

[dtuuri]

4-4-1b

..."The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft"...​

Troll.

dtuuri

 

[Henning]

4-4-1b

..."The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft"...​

You can look at that one of two ways, a double edged sword or a really long rope with which to hang yourself, y'all stay safe now and don't you worry about me, we'll never be in conflict, I'll see to it.

 

[DouglasBader]

My employer couldn't care less about this thread. My employer is quite aware of the mishap at Ramona, however, as is everyone in the industry. You're only 16 years behind.

On to business. What passage in the AIM gives a pilot authority to change the traffic pattern to an overhead break?

The AIM isn't a regulation and grants no authority. Nothing in the AIM prevents an overhead approach. I said nothing about an overhead break.

An overhead approach to landing isn't a change in a traffic pattern at all. A left hand pattern flown from overhead hasn't altered anything and allows the person performing that entry to blend quite seamlessly with other traffic.

 

[Palmpilot]

You can look at that one of two ways, a double edged sword or a really long rope with which to hang yourself, y'all stay safe now and don't you worry about me, we'll never be in conflict, I'll see to it.

I'm not taking any position on whether the overhead 360 is a good approach, but other than direction of turns when approaching to land, I don't know of any FAA regulation or publication that says you MUST fly a particular type of pattern.

 

[dtuuri]

The overhead is a traffic pattern, and is prescribed in the AIM.

The AIM isn't a regulation and grants no authority.

Then why do you cite it above as your authorization?

Nothing in the AIM prevents an overhead approach.

It appears you wouldn't care if it did, unless it suits you to cite it.

Actually, the AIM refers to an "overhead maneuver pattern" which is "developed" for "aircraft" (plural) where there is an operational need--an Air Force Base comes to mind. I don't doubt that fighting forest fires reasonably justifies developing such a pattern, but that isn't an ad-hoc decision that can be made by a pilot. Only the airport owner can agree to that and then take responsible steps to inform the public that a non-standard pattern is being used.

Btw, you aren't doing anything to change my opinion that entering traffic patterns as you admit to is rooted in arrogance. Not once have you mentioned how your actions help other planes spot you in time to avoid a collision. Only ever talk about you. You do this or you do that or you can see better... never mention how it might impact (pardon the pun) someone else.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

I don't know of any FAA regulation or publication that says you MUST fly a particular type of pattern.

You will be judged by what a reasonable and prudent pilot would do.

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

You will be judged by what a reasonable and prudent pilot would do.

No, you'll be judged by an Administrative Law Judge. The basis on which you will be judged is what the regulations say, and the regulations are silent on this issue. You can enter any of the legs of the pattern, including the upwind leg, and that's essentially what an "overhead pattern" is.

 

[Palmpilot]

Then why do you cite it above as your authorization?

You asked him "What passage in the AIM gives a pilot authority to change the traffic pattern to an overhead break," and now you're asking why he's citing the AIM.

I don't doubt that fighting forest fires reasonably justifies developing such a pattern, but that isn't an ad-hoc decision that can be made by a pilot.

Why not? What regulation, case law, or published guidance prohibits a pilot from choosing how to make the approach to landing, as long as all turns are made in the specified direction?

Only the airport owner can agree to that and then take responsible steps to inform the public that a non-standard pattern is being used.

Other than specifying the direction of turns, what regulation, case law, or published guidance gives the airport operator that authority?

 

[Velocity173]

No, you'll be judged by an Administrative Law Judge. The basis on which you will be judged is what the regulations say, and the regulations are silent on this issue. You can enter any of the legs of the pattern, including the upwind leg, and that's essentially what an "overhead pattern" is.

Exactly! It's common knowledge that entry into a pattern is a RECOMMENDATION by the AIM and NOT regulatory. Just as entry in to holding is a recommended procedure. I was astonished when a few months back a couple of guys in AOPA went at it over this. The guy saying you must enter a pattern based on the AIM doesn't have a leg to stand on. If that was the case then all IFR aircraft on a visual straight in or instrument approach would have to bust off and enter the downwind. Or as brought up above any aircraft doing the overhead would be wrong. Yes the overhead was created for an operational need but it is still a safe way to enter the pattern for anyone. I have an operational need to enter the pattern and the overhead is as easy as any other way.

 

[dtuuri]

No, you'll be judged by an Administrative Law Judge. The basis on which you will be judged is what the regulations say...

Sorry, they use "reasonable and prudent" all the time:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...00/interpretations/data/interps/2009/Bell.pdf

http://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei....,cf.osb&fp=6a4a8970a0528163&biw=1024&bih=507​

...and the regulations are silent on this issue.

So, you don't agree with me that "Part 91.126(b) was written with the idea of merging aircraft gently into a traffic flow around an airport, so they each have time to see and avoid the others..."?

And that, "...all aircraft would need to turn in the same direction and all aircraft would need to avoid flight over the airport"?

You can enter... the upwind leg, and that's essentially what an "overhead pattern" is.

Baloney.

dtuuri

 

[Palmpilot]

That's it - Dtuuri has played the 'baloney' card - the argument is settled!

 

[vintage cessna]

That's it - Dtuuri has played the 'baloney' card - the argument is settled!

I always thought it was "bologna".

 

[Everskyward]

So, you don't agree with me that "Part 91.126(b) was written with the idea of merging aircraft gently into a traffic flow around an airport, so they each have time to see and avoid the others..."?

And that, "...all aircraft would need to turn in the same direction and all aircraft would need to avoid flight over the airport"?

I don't see anything about pattern entries, "merging gently", or prohibitions against overflying the airport in this reg.

§ 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.

(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.

(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace—

(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and

(2) Each pilot of a helicopter or a powered parachute must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft.

 

[dtuuri]

You asked him "What passage in the AIM gives a pilot authority to change the traffic pattern to an overhead break," and now you're asking why he's citing the AIM.

He cited it as an authority, then I asked what AIM passage grants a pilot the right to change the established pattern, then he said the AIM has no authority. Your confusiuon confuses me.

Why not? What regulation, case law, or published guidance prohibits a pilot from choosing how to make the approach to landing, as long as all turns are made in the specified direction?

So, you're good with this then?

​

Other than specifying the direction of turns, what regulation, case law, or published guidance gives the airport operator that authority?

It's mentioned in AC 90.66A, IIRC. Probably lots of other places too.

dtuuri

 

[Velocity173]

That's it - Dtuuri has played the 'baloney' card - the argument is settled!

Yeah, I've noticed a trend with him. It seems everyone else can discuss aviation matters in an intelligent manner without trying to out do or demean someone else but yet he can't. If I wanted to hear wanna be experts trash talk other people, well I'd go to YouTube!

 

[DouglasBader]

Actually, the AIM refers to an "overhead maneuver pattern" which is "developed" for "aircraft" (plural) where there is an operational need--an Air Force Base comes to mind.

The operational need is to land. You show me an uncontrolled airport that dictates that all traffic will enter on the 45 to the left downwind. Have you ever seen this prescribed in an authoritative document for that airfield, such as the AFD? I surely haven't.

You show me an airport which dictates that the traffic pattern will be flown as depicted in the AIM (whereas the AIM specifically states that what's shown is an example). You won't find it.

If one requests a particular entry from a controlled field and is cleared, then you've nothing with which to argue. Take it up with the controller.

I don't doubt that fighting forest fires reasonably justifies developing such a pattern, but that isn't an ad-hoc decision that can be made by a pilot. Only the airport owner can agree to that and then take responsible steps to inform the public that a non-standard pattern is being used.

You wouldn't really know what's appropriate in a firefighting operation, but then it's not about "developing" a pattern. Flying an overhead to the runway is every bit as legitimate as flying a midfield crosswind. It has nothing to do with fires, and it does't matter if one is flying an air tanker or a Cessna 172 on the way to the latest hundred dollar hamburger. It's still appropriate. Show me where it's prohibited. You can't.

A midfield crosswind is not a nonstandard pattern. An entry to the downwind or base from over the numbers isn't nonstandard, either. A crosswind over midfield is still a crosswind. A crosswind from over the numbers is still a crosswind. Whether one enters the downwind on a 45 in a right turn from outside the airport, or from a left turn from over the airport is really immaterial. Either way can be done safely, and is done every day safely.

Which "airport owner" sets up and publishes a particular pattern entry or departure? Do you check with an airport "owner" before flying to a public use, uncontrolled field? Do you check with the "owner" after landing? Do you approach the "owner" to ask what's standard and what's not at that location, or what entry the "owner" has prescribed? Do "owners" prescribe entries and departures from the traffic pattern at public-use, uncontrolled fields? Generally not.

Then why do you cite it above as your authorization?

I did not cite the AIM as an authority or an authorization. You did. I need no authorization to enter a midfield crosswind, or to approach overhead the numbers. I don't need your permission, that of the USFS, or the airport "owner" at a public use, uncontrolled field, and I certainly don't need your permission or the AIM as an "authorization" at a controlled field. I simply give the controller my intent or request and proceed from there.

I didn't cite an "authorization" because I don't need one. Neither does the AIM provide one. The AIM is not an authorization.

Btw, you aren't doing anything to change my opinion that entering traffic patterns as you admit to is rooted in arrogance. Not once have you mentioned how your actions help other planes spot you in time to avoid a collision. Only ever talk about you. You do this or you do that or you can see better... never mention how it might impact (pardon the pun) someone else.

I'm doing nothing to change your opinion because I don't' care about your opinion. It carries no authority, and it means nothing to me when I fly a traffic pattern. Quite honestly, I have never, not once stopped to think in the course of any given day, "What Would dtuuri Do?" I just don't.

I don't need to "admit" anything. A simple statement of fact suffices. Yes, I fly a midfield crosswind, and I do it frequently. Yes, I do overhead arrivals to a runway. Yes, I enter on the downwind, extended downwind, upwind, base, and horror of horrors...I fly straight-in approaches to land...all over the world!!!

Imagine that.

Now you've accused me of not stopping to think how it might impact anyone else, when I very specifically noted that entering the traffic pattern in the way I do allows me to see other traffic best, and to blend with other traffic that might be using that airport or runway. That's not really failing to stop to think how it might impact others; it's going out of my way to ensure that I blend with others. Therefore, your assertion is a bald-face lie.

You've demanded to know (rather accused; you don't really want to know) what I do about making myself more visible to others. I can't be sure of being seen by others: I do ensure that I see and avoid other traffic. Therefore, when I state what I do, I state it in the first person. I don't tell you what to do, I don't tell you what you think. I don't tell you what you see. I tell you what I do, what I think and what I see, because I can speak for myself. I don't need to misquote and make up references as you do, nor cite imaginary authority where it doesn't' exist and isn't required.

Yes, I fly in order to see and avoid other traffic, and I do that whether I'm in an Air Tractor AT802 or a Boeing 747, whether it's a Learjet 35 or a Cessna 172. All have different needs, and often different arrivals; even different traffic patterns and traffic pattern altitudes and procedures when arriving at the same airport. Some are higher, some are wider, some are faster, some are more direct, some are straight-in. What all share in common, and what I do regardless of what I'm flying (and where) is see and avoid other traffic, and I operate the aircraft in the safest, most efficient way to accomplish that.

The 45 to the downwind is not always that way.

Flying some other way to the airport is not "developing" a new traffic pattern.

Where I am to fly all turns to the left, a pattern which does so is in compliance with the regulation. What source dictates that I do otherwise?

He cited it as an authority, then I asked what AIM passage grants a pilot the right to change the established pattern, then he said the AIM has no authority.

Again, I did not cite the AIM as an authority. I don't need an authority to enter the traffic pattern in accordance with the regulation.

You appealed to the AIM as an authority, not me. Put words in your own mouth.

 

[Irish_Armada]

Thanks all for your responses. I get now that there's no golden rule and that whatever leads to the safest outcome given the particular situation is probably the best. Thanks for the discussion --don't know where else I could get one this in depth.

 

[Everskyward]

Thanks all for your responses. I get now that there's no golden rule and that whatever leads to the safest outcome given the particular situation is probably the best. Thanks for the discussion --don't know where else I could get one this in depth.

Exactly. Isn't it nice that the FAA has not said "THOU SHALT ENTER THE PATTERN IN THIS MANNER"? I know there are some who would rather have things in unambiguous black and white, and others who want to impose their way on everyone else, but in the end it's really it's up to you.

 

[Henning]

You will be judged by what a reasonable and prudent pilot would do.

dtuuri

Yep, prudent airman standard is same fo prudent mariner.

 

[Velocity173]

Yep, no SHALL in any of that. Here's another good quote for ya duturri. "However it is recognized that other traffic patterns may already be in common use at some airports or that special circumstances or conditions exist that may prevent the use of the standard traffic pattern."

Yeah, that's pretty much the authorization allowing us to deviate from the pattern in the AIM. Notice all the shoulds and recommended procedures in the AIM. In the air traffic controller community and most professional aviation communities, we are intimately familiar with wording.

Shall-means a procedure is mandatory.

Should-means a procedure is recommended.

I've seen the overhead used literally hundreds if not thousands of times in 8 yrs of military ATC without a single incident. Just because something isn't in the "recommended" pattern entry doesn't mean it isn't safe or a "common use at some airports."

 

[DouglasBader]

It's mentioned in AC 90.66A, IIRC.

The AC in AC 90.66A means advisory circular.

That advisory circular does nothing to prohibit or discourage a midfield crosswind, or even an overhead approach to landing. Neither does it discourage a straight-in arrival.

You're not going to appeal to the advisory circular as a source of authority either, are you?

 

[Palmpilot]

He cited it as an authority, then I asked what AIM passage grants a pilot the right to change the established pattern, then he said the AIM has no authority. Your confusiuon confuses me.

You have the sequence of events mixed up. He didn't mention the AIM until AFTER you asked that question.

So, you're good with this then?

View attachment 26770​

Depends on the circumstances. I would not do it myself unless it would not create a traffic conflict and I had a reason to. I can say that I'm not a fan of crossing midfield at pattern altitude in the U.S., because it is not the norm here, and it dramatically increases the closure rate with traffic entering from the other side. However, what I would personally do, or what I personally think is wise in any given situation, does not determine what pilots are allowed to do, so I don't see the relevance of your question to the issue of whether the type of pattern entry is "an ad-hoc decision that can be made by a pilot."

It's mentioned in AC 90.66A, IIRC. Probably lots of other places too.

I see where it says "Airport owners and operators, in coordination with the FAA, are responsible for establishing traffic patterns," but I don't see anything that compels pilots to use any particular type of pattern entry other than the regulation concerning direction of turns. On the contrary, the AC says the FAA "encourages" pilots to use the standard pattern, which is not consistent with the idea that pilots aren't allowed to decide for themselves what type of pattern entry to use.

 

[dtuuri]

You have the sequence of events mixed up. He didn't mention the AIM until AFTER you asked that question.

He cited the AIM in post #85, so I asked what passage in #86.

"...I don't see the relevance of your question to the issue of whether the type of pattern entry is "an ad-hoc decision that can be made by a pilot."

The rule (91.126(b)), taken literally, would allow such a flight path as I drew, but is obviously not good practice. My point is they never meant just "left turns", which allows such ridiculous interpretations, they meant leftward in a flow that goes around the field in a uniform approach to it.

I see where it says "Airport owners and operators, in coordination with the FAA, are responsible for establishing traffic patterns," but I don't see anything that compels pilots to use any particular type of pattern entry other than the regulation concerning direction of turns.

In full context, it says (my em):

"e. The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard
traffic pattern. However, for those pilots who choose
to execute a straight-in approach, maneuvering for
and execution of the approach should be completed
so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and
departing traffic. Therefore, pilots operating in the
traffic pattern should be alert at all times to
aircraft executing straight-in approaches."​

They're distinguishing a full standard pattern from an acceptable straight-in approach, they're not saying an ad-hoc, non-standard pattern instead of the established one is acceptable.

On the contrary, the AC says the FAA "encourages" pilots to use the standard pattern, which is not consistent with the idea that pilots aren't allowed to decide for themselves what type of pattern entry to use.

The standard pattern of AC 90-66A is rectangular in shape and goes around the airport with no defined legs crossing over it. A straight-in approach is conceded. Other non-standard patterns, right turns for example, are acknowledged. But nowhere does it imply pilots can change the established pattern by simply calling it a fancy 'entry'.

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

Sorry, they use "reasonable and prudent" all the time:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...00/interpretations/data/interps/2009/Bell.pdf
​

Yes, the FAA does use that phrase in some cases, such as the icing issue covered by the Bell interpretation, but not on this point. See Administrator v. Boardman, among others.

So, you don't agree with me that "Part 91.126(b) was written with the idea of merging aircraft gently into a traffic flow around an airport, so they each have time to see and avoid the others..."?

No, I do not. I believe it was written to keep people from running into each other on the turn to final.

And that, "...all aircraft would need to turn in the same direction

While in the pattern? Yes, I'd agree with that.

and all aircraft would need to avoid flight over the airport"?

Too broad a statement with which to agree or disagree.

 

[dtuuri]

I believe it was written to keep people from running into each other on the turn to final.

Well, the rule's been in place since probably longer ago than Marconi invented the radio. Back then, airports didn't have runways, per se, they were open fields, so you could always land into the wind (a procedure Mcfly would appreciate). While approaching to land, there was no way to know beforehand where final was.

dtuuri

 

[EppyGA]

I always thought it was "bologna".

Depends on whether you're talking about meat or BS.

 

[poadeleted20]

Well, the rule's been in place since probably longer ago than Marconi invented the radio.

I'm pretty certain that's not true -- not by a long shot.

 

[dtuuri]

I'm pretty certain that's not true -- not by a long shot.

Did ya know Marconi Airport is in... Bologna?

It's a fact.

dtuuri

 

[Palmpilot]

He cited the AIM in post #85, so I asked what passage in #86.

Oops, you're right. However, the fact that he mentioned that the overhead was in the AIM does not tell us whether he considers it necessary for it to be in the AIM in order for the pilot to have the option of doing it. He later made it clear that he does not.

The rule (91.126(b)), taken literally, would allow such a flight path as I drew, but is obviously not good practice. My point is they never meant just "left turns", which allows such ridiculous interpretations, they meant leftward in a flow that goes around the field in a uniform approach to it.

As a standard practice the loops you drew would be silly, but I can imagine circumstances where they could be made necessary by traffic, or if the pilot were having trouble spotting the airport. In any case, your opinions and mine about what constitutes good practice are not legally binding on other pilots.

In full context, it says (my em):

"e. The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard
traffic pattern. However, for those pilots who choose
to execute a straight-in approach, maneuvering for
and execution of the approach should be completed
so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and
departing traffic. Therefore, pilots operating in the
traffic pattern should be alert at all times to
aircraft executing straight-in approaches."​

They're distinguishing a full standard pattern from an acceptable straight-in approach, they're not saying an ad-hoc, non-standard pattern instead of the established one is acceptable.

I think it's a stretch to assume that the above means that the straight-in is the only exception allowed, especially since the AC uses the word "recommended" many times, and only uses the word "must" once (where it says helicopters must avoid the flow of fixed-wing traffic).

The standard pattern of AC 90-66A is rectangular in shape and goes around the airport with no defined legs crossing over it. A straight-in approach is conceded. Other non-standard patterns, right turns for example, are acknowledged. But nowhere does it imply pilots can change the established pattern by simply calling it a fancy 'entry'.

"Subject: RECOMMENDED STANDARD TRAFFIC
PAiTERNS AND PRACTICES FOR
AERONAUTICAL OPERATIONS AT
AIRPORTS WITHOUT OPERATING
CONTROL TOWERS" [emphasis added]​

It's not plausible to assume that the only allowable entires are those specifically mentioned or shown in the AC. Furthermore, the standard pattern is shown in Appendix I, which only shows two entries, the "45" and the straight-in. If other entries were prohibited in the absence of being established by the airport owner or operator, then the entry YOU recommend would be prohibited.

I have no opinion on whether the overhead entry that Doug uses is wise or unwise. I'm just saying that it's his decision to make.

 

[dtuuri]

...the AC uses the word "recommended" many times, and only uses the word "must" once (where it says helicopters must avoid the flow of fixed-wing traffic).

I looked up every darn one. Only one possibly speaks to the pilots, the rest to management. In the one instance possibly addressing pilots it refers to a recommended altitude of 1,000' AGL. But then, in the key to the diagram, it makes it clear that another "established" altitude would take precedence, so they weren't talking to pilots after all.

...It's not plausible to assume that the only allowable entires are those specifically mentioned or shown in the AC. Furthermore, the standard pattern is shown in Appendix I, which only shows two entries, the "45" and the straight-in. If other entries were prohibited in the absence of being established by the airport owner or operator, then the entry YOU recommend would be prohibited.

My emphasis is always on the intention of 91.126(b) which only makes sense if aircraft do not overfly the airport directly. All diagrams put out by the FAA, past and present, show flight paths around not over and the written definition of a crosswind leg is "beyond the departure end of the runway".

I don't quibble with "entries" made to the rectangular pattern on various legs or corners as long as they circumnavigate the airport on the way to the other side. The danger of making a suicide dash across traffic should be self-evident to reasonable people. Offering up a justification for that kind of dangerous flying by twisting the only reasonable interpretation of the rule in a way that could allow it doesn't do anybody any good.


There have been well over 600 page views since I asked for a point by point rebuttal. The fact there have been no takers tells me the defense of the practice is all about arrogance, as I thought.

dtuuri

 

[Palmpilot]

I looked up every darn one. Only one possibly speaks to the the pilots, the rest to management. In the one instance possibly addressing pilots it refers to a recommended altitude of 1,000' AGL. But then, in the key to the diagram, it makes it clear that another "established" altitude would take precedence, so they weren't talking to pilots after all.

I think you're making some assumptions there, but how is that line of reasoning even relevant? Is it your position that the only pilot actions that are legal are ones that are specifically mentioned in ACs?

My emphasis is always on the intention of 91.126(b) which only makes sense if aircraft do not overfly the airport directly.

Your emphasis appears to be on your OPINION of what the intention of 91.126(b) is.

All diagrams put out by the FAA, past and present, show flight paths around not over and the written definition of a crosswind leg is "beyond the departure end of the runway".

Is there a diagram put out by the FAA that shows the flight path that you recommend?

I don't quibble with "entries" made to the rectangular pattern on various legs or corners as long as they circumnavigate the airport on the way to the other side.

That seems pretty arbitrary, since you're claiming that the absence of Doug's entry methods from the AC means that they are not allowed.

The danger of making a suicide dash across traffic should be self-evident to reasonable people. Offering up a justification for that kind of dangerous flying by twisting the only reasonable interpretation of the rule in a way that could allow it doesn't do anybody any good.



There have been well over 600 page views since I asked for a point by point rebuttal. The fact there have been no takers tells me the defense of the practice is all about arrogance, as I thought.

Apparently my mind-reading skills are not as good as yours.

 

[DouglasBader]

I looked up every darn one.

Wow.

There have been well over 600 page views since I asked for a point by point rebuttal. The fact there have been no takers tells me the defense of the practice is all about arrogance, as I thought.

Your points have been addressed. That you cannot understand is not the fault of the 600 viewers.

 

[dtuuri]

Is it your position that the only pilot actions that are legal are ones that are specifically mentioned in ACs?

No.

Your emphasis appears to be on your OPINION of what the intention of 91.126(b) is.

It is a fact that it is your opinion that that is my opinion, but that is not a fact.

Is there a diagram put out by the FAA that shows the flight path that you recommend?

Correction: Part 91.126(b) recommends. Here's one showing where the pattern legs are. If you join (enter) it--you won't cross the airport. Every pilot knows it's common for aircraft to be circling an airport in accordance with 91.126(b) (and this diagram) for any of several legitimate reasons. Blasting through at right angles to their flight paths is just plain irresponsible.

​

That seems pretty arbitrary, since you're claiming that the absence of Doug's entry methods from the AC means that they are not allowed.

That's not what I'm claiming. He's not just 'entering' the traffic pattern--he demolishes it and makes it over in a new form to his personal liking.

dtuuri

 

[DrMack]

On a recent IFR flight to T82 I was vectored onto a heading of 270 for a visual approach to 14 which is a right hand pattern for noise abatement. When the airport came into view it was dead ahead and I was pointed straight at midfield. So I announced my intention on the CTAF to cross midfield at TPA and turned right on the downwind. I got the impression from the acknowledgements of my call that it is a routine there.