Was I "that guy"?

[EdFred]

You just cleared the area. There's nobody going around. The leg is yours. But if it makes you feel better (I know you won't) procede away from the field then reappear at TPA.

dtuuri

Wrong answer. I have entered a "straight in" upwind leg quite a few times when trying to fit in with traffic. (I'm not that guy that calls final 10 miles out and expects everyone to get out of the way. In the time it takes you to make your 270 degree descending turn, I'm going to be where you are descending into.

 

[Palmpilot]

I don't think there's any pattern entry one could name that would not have the potential for conflict with other traffic. Of course there are pros and cons of every method.

 

[EdFred]

I don't think there's any pattern entry one could name that would not have the potential for conflict with other traffic. Of course there are pros and cons of every method.

I know that, you know that, Jesse knows that, six hundred thousand and some change other pilots less one know that. That guy thinks no one is ever on upwind, it is always his for the taking.

 

[dtuuri]

Wrong answer. I have entered a "straight in" upwind leg quite a few times when trying to fit in with traffic. (I'm not that guy that calls final 10 miles out and expects everyone to get out of the way. In the time it takes you to make your 270 degree descending turn, I'm going to be where you are descending into.

What goes up has to come down sooner or later, better to do it like I said on the non-busy side of the field after clearing the descent path with a turn that continuously keeps on clearing during the descent.

None of us like the teardrop/ampersign maneuver on the downwind leg side, so what's your recommendation for transitioning from circling above the pattern?

dtuuri

 

[EdFred]

There is no circling above the pattern. I am at pattern altitude before I am within 2nm of the airport. I have already figured out the wind and runway usage by that time, no need to descend into anyone.

 

[dtuuri]

There is no circling above the pattern. I am at pattern altitude before I am within 2nm of the airport. I have already figured out the wind and runway usage by that time, no need to descend into anyone.

I see. A 50/50 mix of clairvoyance and arrogance.

dtuuri

 

[EdFred]

Wow, you are just all full of wrong today. Look, listen, look, and look again. It's not that hard to figure out for some of us.

 

[asechrest]

After a complete review of this thread and all of the potential pattern entries, and after deep thought and deliberation in concert with my attorney, my ferret Ralph, and my Rastafarian spiritual advisor, I have come up with what I believe to be the safest pattern entry yet seen in the aviation world. It took many years as a licensed pilot (~1) and countless flight hours (<100) to devise this entry, and I will now share it with you with the ultimate goal of saving your life. Yes, I care about you so much that I will forgo the limitless financial benefits that would come with patenting and then licensing this pattern entry to other pilots. Pilots are (mostly) people too, and I want to save. their. lives.

Consider this: there is nary a single pattern entry that doesn't put you in potential conflict with traffic in the air. Whether it's the Ampersand Entry, the Modified Ampersand Entry, the Pattern Altitude Midfield Crosswind Entry, the Double Treble Clef Two-Four Time Signature Entry, or Version The Second of the Zoom Climb And Then Descending Graveyard Spiral Entry, there is always the potential for in-air conflicts with other traffic.

In these days of modern technology, where the metal landing calculator is as ubiquitous as abacuses (abaci?) once were, there is no excuse for science having failed to devise a pattern entry that guarantees -- or your money back (to your estate)! -- that no traffic conflict will ever arise.
And so, I am pleased to present my hard work to you: The All-weather Subterranean Surface (A.S.S.) Entry.



Gaze on that entry diagram for just a moment. Marvel at the simplicity; the clean lines; the subtly aggressive stance. No difficult math. No geometry. Not a 45 degree angle in the entire place.

The concept is simple: The pattern is dangerous. Real dangerous. Without delving too much into a subject that requires a graduate-level lecture to convey, the pattern is where metal objects come dangerously close to each other for the purposes of hurtling themselves from the air and toward the ground in a terrifying display of insanity that makes children cry and causes seals to be clubbed.

So what’s our intrepid pilot to do? Avoid the pattern, that’s what. That’s right, avoid the pattern altogether. Patterns are for housewives and interior decorators (no offense to either). In fact, the entire air around the airport is dangerous as well as a confirmed carcinogen. And by using the A.S.S. Entry, you can avoid it completely by coming in from BELOW the airport, right to the parking spot at the ramp or your FBO of choice. While everyone else rains death and destruction from above, you're comfortably tying your plane down and satisfying your OCD by repositioning the prop horizontal (with a broken p lead). And if that doesn’t convince you, let’s give this a try:

Pros:
• Avoid the pattern (remember, pattern = death)
• Avoid the air completely
• Make money on the side by working subterranean pipeline patrol (consult Ron Levy for FAR guidance)
• Never die

Cons:
• If you don’t use the A.S.S. Entry you will die
• You may never use other pattern entries again, and they’ll get lonely
• Sometimes gold nuggets will get lodged in your plane’s fresh air vents

But you need details. And you’re probably asking: “How can I join the Space Age and avoid certain destruction with the A.S.S. Entry?” I knew you’d ask that because I have stellar perceptive skills, and so, at great expense to myself and to the American taxpayers, I have worked closely with Jeppeson and Sporty’s Pilot Shop to offer a detailed guidebook for nearly free (4 easy payments of $19.95). That’s less than $0.009 cents an hour and is considered free in most jurisdictions. The guidebook is spiral-bound on repurposed news paper (Go Green!), printed in full grayscale, and assembled from Chinese parts right here in the US of A. And if you’re on Medicare, the A.S.S. Entry Guidebook may be available at no cost to you.

But wait, there’s more. Act now and receive a free gift: a Custom-made CPVC Aviation Wheel Chock. An accompanying wheel chock is available for the reduced price of only $19.95.

Keep your eyes peeled for the A.S.S. Entry guidebook to hit the market next month. Your life depends on it. And I guarantee you probably won’t be disappointed.

 

[eetrojan]

 

[Clark1961]

No, I said "Looks like" because you offered it in this discussion about fixed-wing traffic at uncontrolled airports. You provided the anectote as though it were pertinent, apparently it's not.

dtuuri

No one said anything about them interfering with fixed-wing traffic so you did make an unfounded assumption. No big deal on your part but it does demonstrate your propensity to jump to unfounded conclusions.

 

[retailguy]

If you can't raise a specific objection for debate, you can take your insults over to Ed who's sitting on an egg--and sit on him!

dtuuri

I stand by what I said, anyone who honestly believes that they "control the discussion" is either 12 years old or an idiot. Your choice.

I feel sorry for the pilots you train. If all I had to learn from was you, I'd be doing something else.

 

[Palmpilot]

I stand by what I said, anyone who honestly believes that they "control the discussion" is either 12 years old or an idiot. Your choice.

I feel sorry for the pilots you train. If all I had to learn from was you, I'd be doing something else.

I don't agree with everything he says, but I've learned some useful things from him.

 

[RyanB]

Dont beat yourself up over it, we all make plenty of mistakes, best thing to do is learn from each one of them and try to make the next one better. Chances are the DPE will not even remember you when it comes time for your ride. Don't sweat it man and fly safe!

 

[dtuuri]

No one said anything about them interfering with fixed-wing traffic...

Then why post it then? Just trying to grab some attention?

...so you did make an unfounded assumption. No big deal on your part but it does demonstrate your propensity to jump to unfounded conclusions.

Let me spell it out for ya: I qualified my post by saying "It looks like". Why would I feel the need to add the qualifier rather than just say "It did violate Pt 91" if I was really assuming that it did? Answer: Because YOU made the post and didn't specify enough detail to draw any firm conclusion.

The fact that you have concluded I jump to conclusions, when I didn't, reverses the tables--YOU were the conclusion jumper. Now please go annoy somebody else, like maybe Retail guy. Or go sniff some petroleum products. Or anything.

dtuuri

 

[Clark1961]

Then why post it then? Just trying to grab some attention?


Let me spell it out for ya: I qualified my post by saying "It looks like". Why would I feel the need to add the qualifier rather than just say "It did violate Pt 91" if I was really assuming that it did? Answer: Because YOU made the post and didn't specify enough detail to draw any firm conclusion.

The fact that you have concluded I jump to conclusions, when I didn't, reverses the tables--YOU were the conclusion jumper. Now please go annoy somebody else, like maybe Retail guy. Or go sniff some petroleum products. Or anything.

dtuuri

May as well call yourself "SpinDave" since that is what you try to do. You jumped to a conclusion by saying that it "looked like" (your words) when you had no clue. Take the lesson to heart and try to move forward a better man. Or not, it's your choice.

 

[retailguy]

I don't agree with everything he says, but I've learned some useful things from him.

That's great Richard. If you ever visit us here in Houston, just be careful on these fancy manuevers. I can think of a half dozen non towered airports here in Houston that if you tried these things, you'd either violate the Class Bravo's for IAH and Hobby for both too large of turns, or altitude, and several airports where you would violate the airspace for the I-10 corridor which is a major way we route GA air traffic through the city.

Maybe in those cases you could do something really crazy such as a midfield cross to a left downwind and efficiently get the heck out of the way.

I suppose in Ohio you've got plenty of room for this stuff, and you probably don't have 6 or 7 planes to contend with either. I dunno.

Fly safe my california friend.

 

[dtuuri]

I can think of a half dozen non towered airports here in Houston that if you tried these things, you'd either violate the Class Bravo's for IAH and Hobby for both too large of turns, or altitude, and several airports where you would violate the airspace for the I-10 corridor which is a major way we route GA air traffic through the city.
...
I suppose in Ohio you've got plenty of room for this stuff, and you probably don't have 6 or 7 planes to contend with either. I dunno.

I've never said there are no exceptions to rules. Houston's satellite airports aren't typical of most airport traffic patterns, though. This discussion isn't about Houston or Cable, it's about standard procedures. The more standardized procedures are, the better the chances of avoiding a midair collision. I hope you would at least agree with me on that.

dtuuri

 

[MAKG1]

Believe me, Richard is well experienced with crowded airspace.

I'm amazed at just how bad the tone has gotten in this thread. Please watch who you (plural) attack and why.

 

[retailguy]

Believe me, Richard is well experienced with crowded airspace.

I'm amazed at just how bad the tone has gotten in this thread. Please watch who you (plural) attack and why.

I believe you. I wasn't attacking Richard at all. I remain bewildered by the tone here as well. Don't dare question the CFI. That's what I take from it.

 

[retailguy]

I've never said there are no exceptions to rules. Houston's satellite airports aren't typical of most airport traffic patterns, though. This discussion isn't about Houston or Cable, it's about standard procedures. The more standardized procedures are, the better the chances of avoiding a midair collision. I hope you would at least agree with me on that.

dtuuri

My read says that a lot of very experienced pilots have been talking about "standard procedures" and you've told them they were abject fools and needed you to "set them straight". Until this post I didn't see you compromising or admitting exceptions anywhere. You just passionately argued with them.

I agree with you about standardized procedures, and I see a midfield crossing a TPA as one of those standard procedures that helps with midair avoidance if done properly. Not doing it properly is bad technique that guys like you need to fix, not eliminate.

You could have the greatest procedure in the whole world and a pilot with bad technique could make that dangerous.

 

[dtuuri]

My read says that a lot of very experienced pilots have been talking about "standard procedures" and you've told them they were abject fools and needed you to "set them straight".

Fools? Attempted murderers maybe. Have you read and are you willing to concede the limitations of see and avoid exposed by the Morris Study? Do you not also see that two aircraft could be exactly nose to nose doing the same maneuver if each pilot has a different notion of the runway in use? Is it not intuitive to merge slower, in concentric orbits than at harsh angles?

Until this post I didn't see you compromising or admitting exceptions anywhere. You just passionately argued with them.

It takes two to argue. They were arguing with me too, except offered no facts supporting their contentions, just repeating misguided dogma.

I agree with you about standardized procedures, and I see a midfield crossing a TPA as one of those standard procedures that helps with midair avoidance if done properly.

There is no midfield crossing procedure ever mentioned in any FAA publication I've ever seen--and I've been around this science for over 50 years, most of that professionally involved.

Not doing it properly is bad technique that guys like you need to fix, not eliminate.

At places like Cable, where there isn't a better option and where the exceptions are published, it's ok, it's "proper". Not at other places.

You could have the greatest procedure in the whole world and a pilot with bad technique could make that dangerous.

An example of what you mean? That sounds good, but without some factual details there's no way to agree or disagree. You can't put lipstick on a pig and make it a sound procedure.

dtuuri

 

[retailguy]

darnit. For a moment there I thought we were making progress. We aren't.

 

[Clark1961]

I believe you. I wasn't attacking Richard at all. I remain bewildered by the tone here as well. Don't dare question the CFI. That's what I take from it.

And there are several CFI's posting...and one former DPE who is here to correct everyone else's errors (to paraphrase)...Don Quixote comes to mind...those windmills are really bad 'round here...

 

[eetrojan]

An example of what you mean?

Dave, I suspect that retailguy is simply suggesting that you should use your extensive experience to, for example, teach new pilots (like me) who might choose to do a midfield crossing above TPA and then make a descending turn back to the 45 entry, to use the good technique of flying "well beyond the pattern” (or “vicinity,” or whatever), rather than insist that it’s tremendously dangerous because pilots will show bad technique by not having the patience to fly far enough to make it a safe procedure.

 

[retailguy]

And there are several CFI's posting...and one former DPE who is here to correct everyone else's errors (to paraphrase)...Don Quixote comes to mind...those windmills are really bad 'round here...

Yes, those CFI's probably have more time and experience than I will ever enjoy, and now they're "attempted murderers". I'm speechless, and that doesn't happen often.

 

[dtuuri]

Dave, I suspect that retailguy is simply suggesting that you should use your extensive experience to, for example, teach new pilots (like me) who might choose to do a midfield crossing above TPA and then make a descending turn back to the 45 entry, to use the good technique of flying "well beyond the pattern” (or “vicinity,” or whatever), rather than insist that it’s tremendously dangerous because pilots will show bad technique by not having the patience to fly far enough to make it a safe procedure.

If that's what he meant. I suspect he isn't supportive of the teardrop procedure, he's talking about the T-bone instead. If the airspace is as tight as he lets on the teardrop wouldn't work there unless you didn't go out far enough in which case it shouldn't be done. But he could have been making a general profound-sounding statement like, "Checking the fuel is good procedure, but misreading the gauge is bad technique."

What I want to know is how he figures a T-bone entry can be made standard procedure when the very same terrain/airspace restrictions that mandate the use of it in certain places also protect the procedure from traffic arriving from that direction? Most other places don't have such restricted arrivals.

dtuuri

 

[Palmpilot]

That's great Richard. If you ever visit us here in Houston, just be careful on these fancy manuevers. I can think of a half dozen non towered airports here in Houston that if you tried these things, you'd either violate the Class Bravo's for IAH and Hobby for both too large of turns, or altitude, and several airports where you would violate the airspace for the I-10 corridor which is a major way we route GA air traffic through the city.

Maybe in those cases you could do something really crazy such as a midfield cross to a left downwind and efficiently get the heck out of the way.

I suppose in Ohio you've got plenty of room for this stuff, and you probably don't have 6 or 7 planes to contend with either. I dunno.

Fly safe my california friend.

Did you miss the part where I said I don't agree with everything he says?

 

[dmspilot]

I agree with you about standardized procedures, and I see a midfield crossing a TPA as one of those standard procedures that helps with midair avoidance if done properly.

There is no midfield crossing procedure ever mentioned in any FAA publication I've ever seen--and I've been around this science for over 50 years, most of that professionally involved.

de facto standard

 

[dtuuri]

de facto standard

De facto standard?

What percentage of pilots actually do this?

What's the source for that?

What's the experience level of those pilots, especially at busy uncontrolled airports?

What's the required percentage to meet the definition of "de facto standard"?

Is this standard compatible with the FAA standard of entry (it isn't in Canada)?

Should two-way radio be mandatory (like where this entry is deemed compatible with the 45° entry in Canada)?

Are those who don't follow this de facto standard in violation?

If a dangerous de facto standard exists by reason of computer simulation or simple logic, should the FAA act proactively to stop it or wait for a midair collision first and then invoke 91.126 and 91.13, i.e., their usual approach?

dtuuri