Useful Sebsite

F

ferrari-tech

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
189
Display Name
Display name:
ferrari-tech
I found this a couple of weeks, ago, good web site especially if flying into an unknown airport.
I've used it a couple of times and found it very handy for visual reference points.

Seems to be mostly SoCal at the moment ( which is fine for me :lol:), but looks like they are adding content all the time .

http://www.landingpatterns.com/
 
That was kind of cool. But whooda thunkit? The only airport in the Eastern United States is in my back yard: Daytona Beach.
 
Doesn't seem that useful to me.

There used to be a paper guide to California airports around. You could get all that information in a 30 second study of the two pages on any particular airport, including local procedures, for all wind conditions. Not just specific conditions for when that video was shot. And it doesn't take 5 minutes of watching.

That's how you knew what landmarks to overfly at Big Bear with a west wind, and that noise abatement really wants the pattern kinda wide so you don't overfly town. That you enter the area over the dam, and the 45 into the pattern intersects the ski area, for instance.

Inspecting the video for Palo Alto, it violates every single noise abatement instruction. The right pattern has a 20 deg right turn after takeoff, and the terrible B-52 left pattern was so far out that noise abatement requires 1500 (across US 101) MSL minimum, but TPA is 1000. It would help if they pointed out the Bird House, Duck Pond and Golf Course, all of which are used in traffic calls.

They also seemed to freak out about Moffett. Moffett and Palo Alto often use each other's airspace. You would be making a huge error to turn base early in a right pattern for 31 to avoid Moffett airspace, when instructed to extend. And that wind tunnel might shake your bootie a bit, but it's really not a problem unless you're stupid-low.
 
The site is rather slow loading for me. Also "CFI in the Sky" Colleen doesn't repeat the question before answering it, so I have no idea what was asked or how the answer relates. Other than that, it seems to be 75% entertainment and 25% educational. I suppose if you are an extremely visual learner it would help out.
 
MAKG1 said:
Doesn't seem that useful to me....Inspecting the video for Palo Alto, it violates every single noise abatement instruction. The right pattern has a 20 deg right turn after takeoff, and the terrible B-52 left pattern was so far out that noise abatement requires 1500 (across US 101) MSL minimum, but TPA is 1000. It would help if they pointed out the Bird House, Duck Pond and Golf Course, all of which are used in traffic calls.
Click to expand...
asicer said:
...it seems to be 75% entertainment and 25% educational. I suppose if you are an extremely visual learner it would help out.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. I watched three videos and all of them seemed to just go through the AF/D and in one she mentioned, "We are doing the straight in to runway 25" and then she immediately says, "Straight ins to runway 25 are not recommended"

I'd rather do my own airport study with legal forms of information like AF/Ds
 
The LandingPatterns website is a great place to get information that is not clear or not available on the charts or AFD. The website allows pilots who do know a lot about an airspace to add their insights to the information that is given on the videos. Flying to new airports ( especially complex airspace ) can cause some confusion upon arrival. Most midair accidents happen within 5 miles of an airport and usually it is due to being overtaken by another aircraft. This is often combined with unfamiliarity of the airspace and it sadly it can result in fatalities. Noise sensitive areas are often mentioned in the AFD but rarely clarified as to their exact location or dimension. Reporting points are normally local affairs - that are sometimes listed on the chart - but not always. If you know local details of an airspace then it only makes sense to share them and their site gives you a place to add your two cents where it is relevant. Pilots have always helped each other learn and we need to keep that tradition alive. They are doing a good thing - lets help them succeed for everyones benefit and safety.
 
funflyer said:
The LandingPatterns website is a great place to get information that is not clear or not available on the charts or AFD. The website allows pilots who do know a lot about an airspace to add their insights to the information that is given on the videos. Flying to new airports ( especially complex airspace ) can cause some confusion upon arrival. Most midair accidents happen within 5 miles of an airport and usually it is due to being overtaken by another aircraft. This is often combined with unfamiliarity of the airspace and it sadly it can result in fatalities. Noise sensitive areas are often mentioned in the AFD but rarely clarified as to their exact location or dimension. Reporting points are normally local affairs - that are sometimes listed on the chart - but not always. If you know local details of an airspace then it only makes sense to share them and their site gives you a place to add your two cents where it is relevant. Pilots have always helped each other learn and we need to keep that tradition alive. They are doing a good thing - lets help them succeed for everyones benefit and safety.
Click to expand...

Some noise abatement -- actually quite a bit -- is in the A/FD.

From Palo Alto:

NOISE SENSITIVE AREA SE THRU W OF ARPT. RCMD ACFT LNDG AT PALO ALTO ARPT FLY AT OR ABOVE 1500 FT UNTIL CROSSING THE BAYSHORE FREEWAY. RCMD ACFT DEP RY 31 TURN 10 DEG RIGHT AFTER TKOF UNTIL REACHING DUMBARTON AUTO BRIDGE.
Click to expand...

They broke all those "recommendations" and it's a good bet the Tower got at least two complaints from that video.
 
MAKG1 said:
Doesn't seem that useful to me.

There used to be a paper guide to California airports around. You could get all that information in a 30 second study of the two pages on any particular airport, including local procedures, for all wind conditions. Not just specific conditions for when that video was shot. And it doesn't take 5 minutes of watching.

That's how you knew what landmarks to overfly at Big Bear with a west wind, and that noise abatement really wants the pattern kinda wide so you don't overfly town. That you enter the area over the dam, and the 45 into the pattern intersects the ski area, for instance.

Inspecting the video for Palo Alto, it violates every single noise abatement instruction. The right pattern has a 20 deg right turn after takeoff, and the terrible B-52 left pattern was so far out that noise abatement requires 1500 (across US 101) MSL minimum, but TPA is 1000. It would help if they pointed out the Bird House, Duck Pond and Golf Course, all of which are used in traffic calls.

They also seemed to freak out about Moffett. Moffett and Palo Alto often use each other's airspace. You would be making a huge error to turn base early in a right pattern for 31 to avoid Moffett airspace, when instructed to extend. And that wind tunnel might shake your bootie a bit, but it's really not a problem unless you're stupid-low.
Click to expand...


Don't believe any one said it was faultless...But I found it a useful visual reference for when I flew into a busy "new to me" airport last week.

We cant all be perfect, the link was sent to me by a good friend who fly's a 747-800 for a living.. He liked it but what could he possibly know :dunno:
 
way to slowwwww.
I clicked off the site after more than a minute waiting for a video to load.
 
ferrari-tech said:
Don't believe any one said it was faultless...But I found it a useful visual reference for when I flew into a busy "new to me" airport last week.

We cant all be perfect, the link was sent to me by a good friend who fly's a 747-800 for a living.. He liked it but what could he possibly know :dunno:
Click to expand...

I gotta see your buddy land a 747-8 at Palo Alto.

I don't think the gear will fit on the runway. It's only 70 feet wide.

That site seems like a real good way to get bad advice. You would do better to read the A/FD.

It's nice to get a feel for an airport you haven't been to before, but you simply have to have some quality control for it to be useful. You can't tell me ahead of time which videos are useful and which are crap.

And, sorry, flying an airliner for a living is irrelevant to this. If he uses the website for his professional flying, he's almost certainly violating his OpSpec.

Enjoy the pretty pictures, but let's not make them into more than they are.

It's stupid-expensive for what it is, but I think this is what you're looking for. There is a somewhat cheaper paper version.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
That site seems like a real good way to get bad advice. You would do better to read the A/FD.

It's nice to get a feel for an airport you haven't been to before, but you simply have to have some quality control for it to be useful.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:


They got the TPA for KMYF wrong...
 
MAKG1 said:
And, sorry, flying an airliner for a living is irrelevant to this. If he uses the website for his professional flying, he's almost certainly violating his OpSpec.

.
Click to expand...

Well he does aerobatics in his Christen Eagle on his days off...so who knows...


As stated I used it purely for a visual reference to an area I had never been to..
 
MAKG1 said:
You would do better to read the A/FD.
Click to expand...

Not everything is in the A/FD, like for example the "no weekend touch&go" at KHAF that's posted at the runway boundary (if someone is coming in from another airport to do a touch & go how are they ever going to see the sign?).
 
asicer said:
Not everything is in the A/FD, like for example the "no weekend touch&go" at KHAF that's posted at the runway boundary (if someone is coming in from another airport to do a touch & go how are they ever going to see the sign?).
Click to expand...

No one said the A/FD was complete, though that used to be in it.

All I said was that it was better than the website, which it is.

You can get noise abatement procedures off the airport website. That's pretty common. This took me about a minute to find.

http://publicworks.smcgov.org/sites/publicworks.smcgov.org/files/HAF NAP FINAL Arial.pdf

Can you imagine defending yourself from a bust with "but some random website said I could do it!"

The video I spot checked very definitely broke every noise abatement rule that was in the A/FD, and flew two very sloppy patterns at PAO. So I will trust it for exactly nothing. And I suggest others do the same.
 
Last edited:
I went to the website and watched the Palo Alto video and the TPA was wrong for the East side of the Airport. I contacted the website and they were quick to let me know that the video would be taken down until it could it would be addressed. In my communication with them about the criticisms here on POA they said " We are always happy to get better videos from local pilots who know an airspace in more detail than we do." I asked about their arrival over noise sensitive areas and they told me " Our arrival was flown per the towers instructions". They went on to say " We have filmed over 200 airports in CA and we naturally understand that people will find faults with our content from time to time. It is our intent to be accurate and we do our best to cross check our information but we are only human. In reality any pilot who films themselves this much will quickly realize that they are far from perfect -in spite of their opinion of themselves. With this many airports under our belt we have also come to realize that the ADF is incorrect from time to time. Even the Fed Govt with all their resources and mandates fail at perfection. If our friends at Pilots Of America wish to contact us we are always willing to listen to their advice. It is our sincere hopes that they join us to help improve our information because aviation is a community and we all need each other"

I did notice that the video was taken down and I appreciated their quick response and humble reply. I agree that it would be more helpful to give them the correct information when you have it - instead of just complaining that they are wrong... Wisdom elevates and pride destroys.
 
Yes, all true.

And it still misses the point that I can learn much more from the A/FD or other sources than that website. They didn't just miss one thing. They got most of the local details wrong.

For the record, with over 250 hours at that airport, I have NEVER heard a single instruction from Tower to remain outside 101 for downwind. That's an excuse. They were told to make left traffic.

The idea of having anyone contribute a video depending on the public to find bugs just isn't a very good one. Especially when there are much better sources out there.
 
MAKG1 said:
Yes, all true.

And it still misses the point that I can learn much more from the A/FD or other sources than that website. They didn't just miss one thing. They got most of the local details wrong.

For the record, with over 250 hours at that airport, I have NEVER heard a single instruction from Tower to remain outside 101 for downwind. That's an excuse. They were told to make left traffic.

The idea of having anyone contribute a video depending on the public to find bugs just isn't a very good one. Especially when there are much better sources out there.
Click to expand...


As you're the smartest person in the room, I wait with baited breath for your new website/app with this sort of content that we all know will be perfect and flawless :popcorn:
 
MAKG1 said:
No one said the A/FD was complete, though that used to be in it.

All I said was that it was better than the website, which it is.

You can get noise abatement procedures off the airport website. That's pretty common. This took me about a minute to find.

http://publicworks.smcgov.org/sites/publicworks.smcgov.org/files/HAF NAP FINAL Arial.pdf

Can you imagine defending yourself from a bust with "but some random website said I could do it!"

The video I spot checked very definitely broke every noise abatement rule that was in the A/FD, and flew two very sloppy patterns at PAO. So I will trust it for exactly nothing. And I suggest others do the same.
Click to expand...

A bust?!

For what "recommended" noise stuff?
Non standard TPA?

Please show me the FAR that's busting.



Despite some flaws, I found it a nicely put together site, videos loaded well for me and were good quality, the graphics she used were really nice and the concept is great.

Personally I just check NOTAMS, add 1k - 1500 to field elevation, depending on what I'm flying, and go off the info on my chart.
 
James331 said:
A bust?!

For what "recommended" noise stuff?
Non standard TPA?

Please show me the FAR that's busting.
Click to expand...

Recommended noise abatement does not bust a FAR, but it does generate complaints that make it that much harder for us locals to continue to have an airport.

Trying to avoid Moffett airspace like that website told you to, when instructed to extend into it (and this is VERY common), is a violation of 14 CFR 91.123(b).

These guys do mean well, but it's just a huge error to assume all information is good information. A VERY cursory spot check found more mistakes and omissions than good information. This is not trustworthy.

Would YOU trust a website where the first place you look is completely mangled? Should you?

It's a nicely put together site for those with a lot of bandwidth, but it's all about the content. The content is pretty but flawed. It's fine for entertainment. It is not trustworthy for any navigational purpose.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Recommended noise abatement does not bust a FAR, but it does generate complaints that make it that much harder for us locals to continue to have an airport.

Trying to avoid Moffett airspace like that website told you to, when instructed to extend into it (and this is VERY common), is a violation of 14 CFR 91.123(b).

These guys do mean well, but it's just a huge error to assume all information is good information. A VERY cursory spot check found more mistakes and omissions than good information. This is not trustworthy.

Would YOU trust a website where the first place you look is completely mangled? Should you?

It's a nicely put together site for those with a lot of bandwidth, but it's all about the content. The content is pretty but flawed. It's fine for entertainment. It is not trustworthy for any navigational purpose.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's your browser but the website looked far from mangled on my device.

As far as busting airspace, that's something you should know as a student pilot, did the video tell you to violate airspace?
 
James331 said:
Maybe it's your browser but the website looked far from mangled on my device.

As far as busting airspace, that's something you should know as a student pilot, did the video tell you to violate airspace?
Click to expand...

No, it told you (incorrectly) not to. Made an old student pilot assumption that airspace is always controlled by the tower inside it. In fact, Palo Alto Tower frequently controls parts (up to about half) of Moffett's airspace. It's SO common that Palo Alto Tower announces when it ISN'T happening.

It's pretty serious when someone makes an early base turn in a crowded pattern to avoid airspace they have been instructed into for traffic sequencing.

I don't care if the image is mangled -- and it wasn't. The information was. That's what's important. Get your information from real sources, and look at the pretty pictures at the website as pretty pictures if that's your thing.
 
MAKG1 said:
No, it told you (incorrectly) not to. Made an old student pilot assumption that airspace is always controlled by the tower inside it. In fact, Palo Alto Tower frequently controls parts (up to about half) of Moffett's airspace. It's SO common that Palo Alto Tower announces when it ISN'T happening.

It's pretty serious when someone makes an early base turn in a crowded pattern to avoid airspace they have been instructed into for traffic sequencing.

I don't care if the image is mangled -- and it wasn't. The information was. That's what's important. Get your information from real sources, and look at the pretty pictures at the website as pretty pictures if that's your thing.
Click to expand...


I missed that, yeah that's not cool.

As far as real sources, for floatplane ops I get my info from all over, from standard aviation sources to buoys, webcams, home weather stations, boating countour maps, locals, etc

Just like with that, it's just a matter of judgement in filtering the good from the bad, and with a solid aviation foundation it isn't too hard to err on the side of saftey.
 
Last edited:
I am getting ready to fly to Salinas from Colorado for the AOPA fly in next weekend. I always like to look on YouTube at videos of people flying approaches into fields I haven't been to. The AFD is fine, but I like to see what the area and the field actually looks like on the approach. For that purpose, this site is actually nice. It has approaches into Henderson where I plan to stay overnight on the way as well as both Salinas and Monterey. I haven't decided which one I am going to park at. It also has Napa, where I am going to fly up to on the way home. So it may not be perfect, and it is slow to load, but I like the concept.

Carl
 
That Web site has ads. I wonder if some overzealous FAA inspector is going to bust any of its contributors for unauthorized commercial operations. ;)
 
funflyer said:
They are doing a good thing - lets help them succeed for everyones benefit and safety.
Click to expand...

Is this your site?

I get what the site is trying to do, but I generally will rely on primary sources of information like the AF/D and sectionals. Goodluck.
 
One of the problems with relying on vox populi for information is that inevitably, some of it will be incorrect.
 
Just watched the video for CRQ. Looks like it was taken recently since it shows the burned area from last years wildfires. However it shows a left pattern for 24, which is not the standard pattern (though it is often used when the tower is open). She even says it's a right pattern, right after saying they did a left pattern. Had they done the right pattern there are several useful landmarks, but none were shown. Heck, they didn't even show any for the left pattern.

I like the idea, and being able to see video of an approach is always helpful, but I think they could include a heck of a lot more info in the same amount of time, and it would certainly be better if they actually showed the proper procedures.
 
I remember a similar one that was promoted heavily 5 or 6 years ago. It requested videos made in the traffic patterns at various airports. I think I remember that they had a booth at SnF for a couple of years, but haven't seen or heard of that website since.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top