Consider the following FARs,
§ 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G
airspace.
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 ....

AND
91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
(a) General. ... each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace
must comply with ... §§91.126 and 91.127.

The question could be asked, how do you join the pattern, since when
attempting same you are obviously "approaching to land at an airport"

Now, AIM 4-3-3. Traffic Patterns Provides some recommendations:

http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap4/4-3-1

with "(See FIG 4-3-2)".

Now interestingly, this figure shows a 45 degree right turn to join
the downwind, with the example stating:
"Enter pattern in level flight, abeam the midpoint of the runway."

However, and this is the quandary, the AIM example recommends a
procedure that seems to be against the FAR about left turns when
"approaching to land".

Can it be that joining the pattern is not considered as "approaching
to land", and hence, mandatory left turns are not required?

Because if so, a pilot can be on a RIGHT base, thus join the circuit
turning to final, and thus avoid the whole idea of a left traffic
pattern, and the "all turns to the left when approaching to land" FAR.

Loopholes, anyone?

Stan

Don't forget Advisory Circular 90-66A when collecting information.

At a Class D airport, you will follow the controller's instructions....might
be right base, might be left base, might be straight in to the
downwind...only the controller knows for sure, and you can always question
his/her instructions and get something you want instead of what they want,
consistent with safety. So quoting regs with regard to Class D is an
exercise in futility. And you ignored that part of 91.126 relating to visual
markings and right turns...that's cheating on your part.

I'm sure that there are "joining the pattern" incidents somewhere in the US
every day, but for most of us it is not a quandary.

Bob Gardner



> wrote in message
...
> Consider the following FARs,
> § 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G
> airspace.
> 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 ....
>
> AND
> 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
> (a) General. ... each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace
> must comply with ... §§91.126 and 91.127.
>
> The question could be asked, how do you join the pattern, since when
> attempting same you are obviously "approaching to land at an airport"
>
> Now, AIM 4-3-3. Traffic Patterns Provides some recommendations:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap4/4-3-1
>
> with "(See FIG 4-3-2)".
>
> Now interestingly, this figure shows a 45 degree right turn to join
> the downwind, with the example stating:
> "Enter pattern in level flight, abeam the midpoint of the runway."
>
> However, and this is the quandary, the AIM example recommends a
> procedure that seems to be against the FAR about left turns when
> "approaching to land".
>
> Can it be that joining the pattern is not considered as "approaching
> to land", and hence, mandatory left turns are not required?
>
> Because if so, a pilot can be on a RIGHT base, thus join the circuit
> turning to final, and thus avoid the whole idea of a left traffic
> pattern, and the "all turns to the left when approaching to land" FAR.
>
> Loopholes, anyone?
>
> Stan
>
>

In article >,
wrote:

> Consider the following FARs,
> § 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G
> airspace.
> 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 ....

This is one of those perennial questions. If you take the regulation at
face value, it is nonsensical. I think the only way to have it make
sense is to interpret "approaching to land" as "already in the pattern".
Of course you're going to make a right turn onto downwind in a left
pattern if you're approaching on the 45.

I think all they're really trying to say is "If there's no published
pattern direction for the airport, use left traffic. If there is, do
what's published."

Since you posted this to r.a.ifr, I guess it's fair game to consider
circling approaches. If the weather is good enough that there might be
VFR traffic, obey the published VFR traffic pattern. If the SIAP
contains circling limitations, obey those. Above all, use common sense
and keep a good traffic watch.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > Consider the following FARs,
> > § 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G
> > airspace.
> > 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 ....
>
> This is one of those perennial questions. If you take the regulation at
> face value, it is nonsensical. I think the only way to have it make
> sense is to interpret "approaching to land" as "already in the pattern".
> Of course you're going to make a right turn onto downwind in a left
> pattern if you're approaching on the 45.
>
> I think all they're really trying to say is "If there's no published
> pattern direction for the airport, use left traffic. If there is, do
> what's published."

Of course there's always the 45-degree zealots
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Hi Matt.
John Deakin's Pelican article you brought up had just the point I was
considering, Here's a snip

"In fact, I can make a very good case that the classic 45-degree entry
is itself a violation of the FARs, since it is ALWAYS in the opposite
direction to the established flow of traffic. Since it is the final
turn onto the downwind leg, it must certainly be in the "vicinity" of
the airport, and therefore covered by the above regs"

thus, even the 45 degree right turn on downwind should be considered a
violation of the FARs
Stan
>
>Of course there's always the 45-degree zealots
>http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html

Bob, is AC 90-66a available on line? As it is "advisory", I take it
that it is similar to the aim recommended procedures, but not
regulatory as in FARs?

I was referring to non towered, and where pattern direction was clear,
I'm assuming left for simplicity.

The quandary is, the aim recommends a 45 degree RIGHT turn to join the
pattern, whereas the fars say all turns to the LEFT when approaching
to land.

If it is argued that joining the circuit via the RIGHT turn is
approaching to land, then the AIM is in conflict with the FARs.

If it is argued that joining the circuit via the RIGHT turn is NOT
approaching to land, then is should be permissable to join short final
via a RIGHT turn also. And hence a Right base where left pattern is
in effect would be permissible.

Thus the quandary
Stan

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:18:58 -0800, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>Don't forget Advisory Circular 90-66A when collecting information.
>
>At a Class D airport, you will follow the controller's instructions....might
utility. And you ignored that part of 91.126 relating to visual
>markings and right turns...that's cheating on your part.
>

>Bob Gardner
>
> wrote in message
...
>> Consider the following FARs,
>> § 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G
>> airspace.
>> 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 ....
>>
>> AND
>> 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
>> (a) General. ... each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace
>> must comply with ... §§91.126 and 91.127.
>>
>> The question could be asked, how do you join the pattern, since when
>> attempting same you are obviously "approaching to land at an airport"
>>
>> Now, AIM 4-3-3. Traffic Patterns Provides some recommendations:
>>
>> http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap4/4-3-1
>>
>> with "(See FIG 4-3-2)".
>>
>> Now interestingly, this figure shows a 45 degree right turn to join
>> the downwind, with the example stating:
>> "Enter pattern in level flight, abeam the midpoint of the runway."
>>
>> However, and this is the quandary, the AIM example recommends a
>> procedure that seems to be against the FAR about left turns when
>> "approaching to land".
>>
>> Can it be that joining the pattern is not considered as "approaching
>> to land", and hence, mandatory left turns are not required?
>>
>> Because if so, a pilot can be on a RIGHT base, thus join the circuit
>> turning to final, and thus avoid the whole idea of a left traffic
>> pattern, and the "all turns to the left when approaching to land" FAR.
>>
>> Loopholes, anyone?
>>
>> Stan
>>
>>
>

Thanks, Roy
As I've just posted to Bob, if "approaching to land" means "already in
the pattern", then I could do a 90 degree right turn onto short final,
where left pattern is in effect.

So if a RIGHT turn is permitted by the FARs onto downwind, then so
must a RIGHT turn onto final (where left traffic in effect).

Hence the quandary

StanOn Mon, 03 Jan 2005 19:26:27 -0500, Roy Smith >
wrote:

>In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> Consider the following FARs,
>> § 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G
>> airspace.
>> 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 ....
>
>This is one of those perennial questions. If you take the regulation at
>face value, it is nonsensical. I think the only way to have it make
>sense is to interpret "approaching to land" as "already in the pattern".
>Of course you're going to make a right turn onto downwind in a left
>pattern if you're approaching on the 45.
>
>I think all they're really trying to say is "If there's no published
>pattern direction for the airport, use left traffic. If there is, do
>what's published."
>
>Since you posted this to r.a.ifr, I guess it's fair game to consider
>circling approaches. If the weather is good enough that there might be
>VFR traffic, obey the published VFR traffic pattern. If the SIAP
>contains circling limitations, obey those. Above all, use common sense
>and keep a good traffic watch.

<<So if a RIGHT turn is permitted by the FARs onto downwind, then so
must a RIGHT turn onto final (where left traffic in effect).Hence the
quandary>>

There is no quandary.

The 45 right-turn entry into downwind is recommended by the AIM and
would not be so if it had ever been held to be illegal.

Once in the pattern, left turns are mandatory unless the stated ground
signals exist, if it's an untowered airport.

What's so hard about this?

<<then I could do a 90 degree right turn onto short final,
where left pattern is in effect. >>

No, you couldn't. Pilots have been violated for this and it has been
upheld by the NTSB. You would have to intercept final at a
"considerable" distance from the runway in order to not be "in the
pattern." The distance depends on what type of airplane you're
flying.

In article >,
wrote:

> Thanks, Roy
> As I've just posted to Bob, if "approaching to land" means "already in
> the pattern", then I could do a 90 degree right turn onto short final,
> where left pattern is in effect.
>
> So if a RIGHT turn is permitted by the FARs onto downwind, then so
> must a RIGHT turn onto final (where left traffic in effect).
>
> Hence the quandary

Well, like I said, you need to apply common sense. Somebody just posted
about this instrument approach:

http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0413/00379LDBCA.PDF

Let's say you're coming in from San Marcus. What are you supposed to do
when you reach KOAKS? You make a (gasp) right turn onto final. Surely
you're "approaching to land", since you're flying an approach procedure.
Are you going to worry that the runway may have a left traffic pattern and
therefore 91.126 won't let you make a right turn? Of course not.

You need to apply common sense. If you're going to look for
inconsistencies and stupidities in the FARs, you'll spend your whole life
getting hung up on stuff like this.

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks, Roy
>>As I've just posted to Bob, if "approaching to land" means "already in
>>the pattern", then I could do a 90 degree right turn onto short final,
>>where left pattern is in effect.
>>
>>So if a RIGHT turn is permitted by the FARs onto downwind, then so
>>must a RIGHT turn onto final (where left traffic in effect).
>>
>>Hence the quandary
>
>
> Well, like I said, you need to apply common sense. Somebody just posted
> about this instrument approach:
>
> http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0413/00379LDBCA.PDF
>
> Let's say you're coming in from San Marcus. What are you supposed to do
> when you reach KOAKS? You make a (gasp) right turn onto final. Surely
> you're "approaching to land", since you're flying an approach procedure.
> Are you going to worry that the runway may have a left traffic pattern and
> therefore 91.126 won't let you make a right turn? Of course not.
>
> You need to apply common sense. If you're going to look for
> inconsistencies and stupidities in the FARs, you'll spend your whole life
> getting hung up on stuff like this.

Well said, Roy. Experience brings confidence and judgment. Reliance
on rigid reading of laws is just the start.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, like I said, you need to apply common sense. Somebody just posted
> about this instrument approach:
>
> http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0413/00379LDBCA.PDF
>
> Let's say you're coming in from San Marcus. What are you supposed to do
> when you reach KOAKS? You make a (gasp) right turn onto final. Surely
> you're "approaching to land", since you're flying an approach procedure.
> Are you going to worry that the runway may have a left traffic pattern and
> therefore 91.126 won't let you make a right turn? Of course not.
>
> You need to apply common sense. If you're going to look for
> inconsistencies and stupidities in the FARs, you'll spend your whole life
> getting hung up on stuff like this.
>

§ 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.


If an IAP requires a right turn to the final approach course you're clearly
"otherwise authorized or required".

Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>(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.
>
>
>If an IAP requires a right turn to the final approach course you're clearly
>"otherwise authorized or required".

True enough. And making a right turn from the 45 to left downwind is
just as clearly required.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> True enough. And making a right turn from the 45 to left downwind is
> just as clearly required.
>

Not so. The IAP requires a right turn, but there is no requirement to make
a 45 degree turn to enter a downwind leg.

Let me make sure I understand this. The FAA wrote the rules, and the FAA
wrote the AIM. Therefore, the FAA must have determined that which is in the
AIM complied with the rules... until the FAA changes it's mind. So sayeth
the FAA. :-)

My understanding is that all of this "advisory" literature (the AIM, the
Advisory Circulars, etc.) are supposed to advise you of a way (but not,
necessarily, the only way) to comply with the regulations. I know of cases
where people have been hauled in for "violations" only to be let off because
they pointed out an advisory that explicitly said that they could do what
they were accused of.

All that being said, I still think the Canadian method (mid-field
crosswinds) is better.

Just my two cents.

-Rob
"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
...
> <<So if a RIGHT turn is permitted by the FARs onto downwind, then so
> must a RIGHT turn onto final (where left traffic in effect).Hence the
> quandary>>
>
> There is no quandary.
>
> The 45 right-turn entry into downwind is recommended by the AIM and
> would not be so if it had ever been held to be illegal.
>
> Once in the pattern, left turns are mandatory unless the stated ground
> signals exist, if it's an untowered airport.
>
> What's so hard about this?
>
> <<then I could do a 90 degree right turn onto short final,
> where left pattern is in effect. >>
>
> No, you couldn't. Pilots have been violated for this and it has been
> upheld by the NTSB. You would have to intercept final at a
> "considerable" distance from the runway in order to not be "in the
> pattern." The distance depends on what type of airplane you're
> flying.
>

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:14:57 -0500, "Rob Montgomery" >
wrote:

>Let me make sure I understand this. The FAA wrote the rules, and the FAA
>wrote the AIM. Therefore, the FAA must have determined that which is in the
>AIM complied with the rules... until the FAA changes it's mind. So sayeth
>the FAA. :-)


Or, more precisely, one hand of the FAA wrote the rules, while another
hand of the FAA wrote the AIM, and sometimes, the left hand doesn't
know what the right hand is doing.

"Rob Montgomery" > wrote in message
...
>
> Let me make sure I understand this. The FAA wrote the rules, and the FAA
> wrote the AIM. Therefore, the FAA must have determined that which is in
> the AIM complied with the rules... until the FAA changes it's mind. So
> sayeth the FAA. :-)
>

The 45 degree turn to downwind violates the letter of the law regardless
what the FAA sayeth.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>
> The 45 degree turn to downwind violates the letter of the law regardless
> what the FAA sayeth.
>

Which letter of which law?

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which letter of which law?
>

The letter b. FAR 91.126(b) to be specific.

Y'All,
How come no one has considered as one way to make a right 90-degree turn is
to make a left-270. Of course if it were a perfect world everyone would be
left handed and in their right mind.

Was working with a little first grader on her math book last week.
Never realized how many ways the words left and right could be used.
Consider: There are seven birds on a branch. Three left. How
many are left?


Gene Whitt

I think the whole question is a tempest in a teapot. Who is going to cite
the "offending" pilot for making a right turn to enter left traffic from the
45?

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message
...
> Bob, is AC 90-66a available on line? As it is "advisory", I take it
> that it is similar to the aim recommended procedures, but not
> regulatory as in FARs?
>
> I was referring to non towered, and where pattern direction was clear,
> I'm assuming left for simplicity.
>
> The quandary is, the aim recommends a 45 degree RIGHT turn to join the
> pattern, whereas the fars say all turns to the LEFT when approaching
> to land.
>
> If it is argued that joining the circuit via the RIGHT turn is
> approaching to land, then the AIM is in conflict with the FARs.
>
> If it is argued that joining the circuit via the RIGHT turn is NOT
> approaching to land, then is should be permissable to join short final
> via a RIGHT turn also. And hence a Right base where left pattern is
> in effect would be permissible.
>
> Thus the quandary
> Stan
>
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:18:58 -0800, "Bob Gardner" >
> wrote:
>
>>Don't forget Advisory Circular 90-66A when collecting information.
>>
>>At a Class D airport, you will follow the controller's
>>instructions....might
> utility. And you ignored that part of 91.126 relating to visual
>>markings and right turns...that's cheating on your part.
>>
>
>>Bob Gardner
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>> Consider the following FARs,
>>> § 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G
>>> airspace.
>>> 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 ....
>>>
>>> AND
>>> 91.129 Operations in Class D airspace.
>>> (a) General. ... each person operating an aircraft in Class D airspace
>>> must comply with ... §§91.126 and 91.127.
>>>
>>> The question could be asked, how do you join the pattern, since when
>>> attempting same you are obviously "approaching to land at an airport"
>>>
>>> Now, AIM 4-3-3. Traffic Patterns Provides some recommendations:
>>>
>>> http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/aim/Chap4/4-3-1
>>>
>>> with "(See FIG 4-3-2)".
>>>
>>> Now interestingly, this figure shows a 45 degree right turn to join
>>> the downwind, with the example stating:
>>> "Enter pattern in level flight, abeam the midpoint of the runway."
>>>
>>> However, and this is the quandary, the AIM example recommends a
>>> procedure that seems to be against the FAR about left turns when
>>> "approaching to land".
>>>
>>> Can it be that joining the pattern is not considered as "approaching
>>> to land", and hence, mandatory left turns are not required?
>>>
>>> Because if so, a pilot can be on a RIGHT base, thus join the circuit
>>> turning to final, and thus avoid the whole idea of a left traffic
>>> pattern, and the "all turns to the left when approaching to land" FAR.
>>>
>>> Loopholes, anyone?
>>>
>>> Stan
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Gene Whitt ) wrote:

> There are seven birds on a branch. Three left. How
> many are left?

Three, of course! Four right.

--
Peter
Left handed, right minded.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Which letter of which law?
> >
>
> The letter b. FAR 91.126(b) to be specific.
>
>
The question, which you snipped: "The 45 degree turn to downwind violates
the letter of the law regardless
what the FAA sayeth." violates which law? FAR 91.126(b) make no reference to
angle of entry, nor direction of turn to ENTER the pattern flow regardless
of angle.


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Gene Whitt" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Y'All,
> How come no one has considered as one way to make a right 90-degree turn
is
> to make a left-270. Of course if it were a perfect world everyone would
be
> left handed and in their right mind.
>
> Was working with a little first grader on her math book last week.
> Never realized how many ways the words left and right could be used.
> Consider: There are seven birds on a branch. Three left. How
> many are left?
>
>
"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left."

Sorry.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Gene Whitt ) wrote:
>
> > There are seven birds on a branch. Three left. How
> > many are left?
>
> Three, of course! Four right.
>
> --
> Peter
> Left handed, right minded.

Three left, three right, one center.

Matt
Ham handed
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>
>I think the whole question is a tempest in a teapot. Who is going to cite
>the "offending" pilot for making a right turn to enter left traffic from
>the 45?
>

Nobody.

In article >,
Matt Barrow > wrote:
>
>"Gene Whitt" > wrote in message
k.net...
>> Y'All,
>> How come no one has considered as one way to make a right 90-degree turn
>is
>> to make a left-270. Of course if it were a perfect world everyone would
>be
>> left handed and in their right mind.
>>
>> Was working with a little first grader on her math book last week.
>> Never realized how many ways the words left and right could be used.
>> Consider: There are seven birds on a branch. Three left. How
>> many are left?
>>
>>
>"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left."

Only in a Eucidean geometry.


>
>Sorry.
>
>
>--
>Matt
>---------------------
>Matthew W. Barrow
>Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
>Montrose, CO
>
>
>

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 08:58:40 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Roy
>> As I've just posted to Bob, if "approaching to land" means "already in
>> the pattern", then I could do a 90 degree right turn onto short final,
>> where left pattern is in effect.
>>
>> So if a RIGHT turn is permitted by the FARs onto downwind, then so
>> must a RIGHT turn onto final (where left traffic in effect).
>>
>> Hence the quandary
>
>Well, like I said, you need to apply common sense. Somebody just posted
>about this instrument approach:
We are comparing two FAA books. Where does common sense come in there?

In the real world, yet, but not when comparing direct FAA statements
..
>
>http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0413/00379LDBCA.PDF
>
>Let's say you're coming in from San Marcus. What are you supposed to do
>when you reach KOAKS? You make a (gasp) right turn onto final. Surely
>you're "approaching to land", since you're flying an approach procedure.
>Are you going to worry that the runway may have a left traffic pattern and
>therefore 91.126 won't let you make a right turn? Of course not.

They already got this one with the, "Unless otherwise state". <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>You need to apply common sense. If you're going to look for
>inconsistencies and stupidities in the FARs, you'll spend your whole life
>getting hung up on stuff like this.

Roy Smith wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
>
>>(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.
>>
>>
>>If an IAP requires a right turn to the final approach course you're clearly
>>"otherwise authorized or required".
>
>
> True enough. And making a right turn from the 45 to left downwind is
> just as clearly required.

I don't see it as being required. Authorized, yes, but I don't know of
any FAR that requires it. I enter the pattern on a 45 if it is
convenient. If I'm approaching from the upwind side of the field, I
overfly above pattern altitude a couple hundred feet, check the wind
indicator to confirm proper runway, look to the right for other traffic
in or entering the pattern, and then make a descending left turn into
the downwind leg. I've read arguments for and against the 45 entry and
I just don't see that either way is clearly preferable to the other.
There are vulnerabilities either way.


Matt

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Roy Smith wrote:
>
> > Steven P. McNicoll > wrote:
> >
> >>(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.
> >>
> >>
> >>If an IAP requires a right turn to the final approach course you're clearly
> >>"otherwise authorized or required".
> >
> >
> > True enough. And making a right turn from the 45 to left downwind is
> > just as clearly required.
>
> I don't see it as being required. Authorized, yes, but I don't know of
> any FAR that requires it. I enter the pattern on a 45 if it is
> convenient.

I think you mis-parsed my statement. What I meant was "If you are on
the 45, and you want to turn onto left downwind, it is required that you
make a right turn". I did not mean to imply that you are required to
make a 45 entry.

> What I meant was "If you are on
> the 45, and you want to turn onto left downwind, it is required that you
> make a right turn".

No it's not. What is required is that you end up pointing 45 degrees
to the right. You can do this by turning left 315 degrees. Of course
it makes only almost as much sense as doing 270 degree turns instead
of a 90 the other way.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> The question, which you snipped: "The 45 degree turn to downwind violates
> the letter of the law regardless
> what the FAA sayeth." violates which law?
>

Actually, the question was "Which letter of which law?" I did not snip it.


>
> FAR 91.126(b) make no reference to angle of entry, nor direction of turn
> to
> ENTER the pattern flow regardless of angle.
>

Right, it says only that when approaching to land at an airport without an
operating control tower an airplane must make all turns to the left. ALL
turns. Thus the right turn to enter left downwind violates the letter of
the law.

So, how far out are you when you start "approaching the airport to land"? 45
to a downwind? Further out? I'll play. Maybe the answer is that all turns
for the entire flight must be made in the appropriate direction.

Obviously, the law states what the law states. But, by definition, legalease
is never the whole picture. That's the purpose of the AIM. (Not always the
result, but the purpose.)

Just my two cents.

-Rob

btw. Hasn't this discussion been had a few times already?
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> The question, which you snipped: "The 45 degree turn to downwind
>> violates
>> the letter of the law regardless
>> what the FAA sayeth." violates which law?
>>
>
> Actually, the question was "Which letter of which law?" I did not snip
> it.
>
>
>>
>> FAR 91.126(b) make no reference to angle of entry, nor direction of turn
>> to
>> ENTER the pattern flow regardless of angle.
>>
>
> Right, it says only that when approaching to land at an airport without an
> operating control tower an airplane must make all turns to the left. ALL
> turns. Thus the right turn to enter left downwind violates the letter of
> the law.
>

Y'All
Two wrongs do not make a right, however two Wrights make
airplanes.

Note to all: All airplane jokes are over you head.

gene

Dear Matt,

One day you are going to get violated for that. The AIM provides for
just two entries into the traffic pattern (non-towered airport):
straight in and on the 45. The FAA considers doing anything else to be
a violation of good safe operating procedure, and they *do* prosecute
for it under "careless and reckless operation"--and you will loose.

(I do not recommend the straight-in, but it is ok per the AIM.)

The only two ways out of the pattern (uncontrolled airport) are
straight out, and a standard (45 deg turn) in the same direction as the
traffic pattern, executed at the point you would make the crosswind
turn if you were staying in the pattern.

The idea that the AIM is 'not the only way' to comply is a pit awaiting
the unwary. The FAA expects you to abide by the AIM traffic pattern
entry & exit procedures unless there is some compelling reason to do
otherwise. Definition of compelling will be established by the NTSB
judge at your (very expensive) hearing. And your judgment will not
carry much weight there.

There is an airport near me for which there exists a compelling reason:
Santa Paula has a mountain where the 45 would be. There, special
procedures area published for this non-controlled airport, such that
downwind entries and exits are allowed.

If you are approaching an uncontrolled field from an IFR approach, and
the conditions are VFR below the ceiling, you are expected to break off
of the final and enter the traffic pattern according to the standard
procedures, or as published, dovetailing in with the normal VFR
traffic. Making a right turn onto final when left traffic is standard
is once again setting yourself up to get violated if a fed sees it.

If you are arriving IFR at an uncontrolled field and the weather is
such that you cannot execute the pattern in VMC, you do not have to
worry about the pattern and can do anything you want consistent with
the normal requirements for straight in or circling approaches. The
assumption here is that if the weather is that bad, nobody is going to
be VFR in the pattern anyway.

None of this matters if a tower is in operation; there you can do
anything you want as long as the tower authorizes it and it is not
unsafe. Your right turn onto final at an airport where a left pattern
is published is just fine... as long as the tower authorizes it.

Be careful, tho: whenever the tower calls for you to 'enter left (or
right) traffic, runway x,' he is expecting you to go out to and enter
on the 45. A lot of people just do a downwind entry after receiving
that clearance, and if they notice it you have put your neck in the
noose.
Gene
CFI, CFII, MEI, ASC, Remedial Instruction Program Instructor

"Rob Montgomery" > wrote in message
...
>
> So, how far out are you when you start "approaching the airport to land"?

I don't know, but if you're at a point in flight where you are maneuvering
for the purpose of putting the airplane on the ground, then you are
"approaching the airport to land".

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Be careful, tho: whenever the tower calls for you to 'enter left (or
> right) traffic, runway x,' he is expecting you to go out to and enter
> on the 45.
>

What do you base that on?

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 00:25:12 -0500, "Rob Montgomery" >
wrote:

>Obviously, the law states what the law states. But, by definition, legalease
>is never the whole picture. That's the purpose of the AIM


the purpose of the AIM is to keep pilots lounges filled on Saturday
mornings with pilots arguing over what it really says.

On 4 Jan 2005 23:48:17 -0800, wrote:

>Dear Matt,
>
>One day you are going to get violated for that. The AIM provides for
>just two entries into the traffic pattern (non-towered airport):
>straight in and on the 45. The FAA considers doing anything else to be
>a violation of good safe operating procedure, and they *do* prosecute
>for it under "careless and reckless operation"--and you will loose


do you have a specific example of where this has actually happened?

Greg, Gene, Roy, Steven, or anyone out there:

Is there a database or such anywhere that lists the violations that
have occurred over the past month, or year, or 10 years?

I've heard plenty that "others have been violated for that" , or "you
can get violated for that", over such items as:

"incorrectly entering the circuit"
"landing below vis limits, but not below rvr limits"
"departing without required obstacle clearance gradients"
"not having a weight and balance prepared"

Now before Steven or others join in to tell me the above are not
violations of the FARs, I've just said that that is what I've "read".
Mostly news group.

And thus I ask, any list of violations that one can peruse, or web
site that lists enforcement actions, that we can use as a guide as to
what the FAA is really enforcing?

Stan

been regulations that those who were found to be in violationOn Tue,
04 Jan 2005 13:52:55 GMT, Greg Esres > wrote:


>
><<then I could do a 90 degree right turn onto short final,
>where left pattern is in effect. >>
>
>No, you couldn't. Pilots have been violated for this and it has been
>upheld by the NTSB.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 12:33:59 GMT, wrote:

>And thus I ask, any list of violations that one can peruse, or web
>site that lists enforcement actions, that we can use as a guide as to
>what the FAA is really enforcing?
>
>Stan


This newsgroup has a wealth of experienced pilots.

I would be interested to know how many are personally acquainted with
another pilot, or have themselves been involved in some kind of
enforcement action, be it revocation, suspension, fine, or simply
remedial action.

I'm talking here about personal experience, not 2nd or 3rd hand
accounts of some infraction, or some news account or ng story.

First hand accounts only, please, your own or personally acquainted
with another pilot actually involved.

Bob Gardner wrote:

> I'm sure that there are "joining the pattern" incidents somewhere in the US
> every day, but for most of us it is not a quandary.
>
Oddly enough, joining on downwind, by whatever method rarely leads to accidents.
Most midairs in the patter occur on final.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The question, which you snipped: "The 45 degree turn to downwind
violates
> > the letter of the law regardless
> > what the FAA sayeth." violates which law?
> >
>

> Actually, the question was "Which letter of which law?" I did not snip
it.
And the statement was: "The 45 degree turn to downwind violates the letter
of the law regardless what the FAA sayeth"

Do you have such a hard time with reading comprehension, are do you just
enjoying being an asshole? You seem to play the role of parrot; I suppose
being a bureaucrat of sort is an approprate career for you.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Rob Montgomery" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So, how far out are you when you start "approaching the airport to
land"?
>
> I don't know, but if you're at a point in flight where you are maneuvering
> for the purpose of putting the airplane on the ground, then you are
> "approaching the airport to land".
>
Start a slow descent 200 miles out and your are, technically, "approaching
the airport to land".

I'm sure my communications skills are a bit ragged, but man-oh-man,
McNicoll, you really need to get your ego out of your anus.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Y'All,
Gene is right about the possibility of the FAA types being hiding in the
weeds at your local airport.

I landed at Albany, OR about 20 years ago becasue of weather.
Fellow pilot gave me a ride into town and told me his story.

Seem he owned an American Yankee Trainer. He took a lady friend for a ride
and decided to give her a thrill. Thrill consisted of making a low pass
down the runway prior to landing. And he did it and the FAA was watching
and listening.

The FAA approach to improving his flying was to ground him for
90-days. The charge was flying within 500' of another aircraft.
This aircraft happened to be taxiing on a parallel taxiway to the
runway being buzzed.

Pilot compounded his problem by announcing on the CTAF that
he was going to make a low pass down the runway.

My opinion that the situation could've and should've been handled
differently.

Gene Whitt

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> And the statement was: "The 45 degree turn to downwind violates the letter
> of the law regardless what the FAA sayeth"
>

Good. You've learned the diffeence between a question and a statement. I'm
glad to see we're making progress.


>
> Do you have such a hard time with reading comprehension, are do you just
> enjoying being an asshole?
>

Funny, I was questioning your reading ability. What do you believe I did
not comprehend?


>
> You seem to play the role of parrot; I suppose
> being a bureaucrat of sort is an approprate career for you.
>

You are a remarkably poor judge of character.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Start a slow descent 200 miles out and your are, technically, "approaching
> the airport to land".
>

Absurd. Start a slow descent 200 miles out and you only dempnstrate poor
technique.


>
> I'm sure my communications skills are a bit ragged, but man-oh-man,
> McNicoll, you really need to get your ego out of your anus.
>

So an ignorant jerk thinks I have my head up my ass. I'm okay with that.

"Gene Whitt" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Pilot compounded his problem by announcing on the CTAF that
> he was going to make a low pass down the runway.
>
> My opinion that the situation could've and should've been handled
> differently.
>

The pilot probably compounded his problem by not "exhibiting a sufficiently
compliant attitude", in the words of an FAA inspector to me.

"Gene Whitt" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Y'All,
> Gene is right about the possibility of the FAA types being hiding in the
> weeds at your local airport.
>
> I landed at Albany, OR about 20 years ago becasue of weather.
> Fellow pilot gave me a ride into town and told me his story.
>
> Seem he owned an American Yankee Trainer. He took a lady friend for a
> ride and decided to give her a thrill. Thrill consisted of making a low
> pass down the runway prior to landing. And he did it and the FAA was
> watching and listening.
>
> The FAA approach to improving his flying was to ground him for
> 90-days. The charge was flying within 500' of another aircraft.
> This aircraft happened to be taxiing on a parallel taxiway to the
> runway being buzzed.
>

So he wasn't charged with violating any FAR?


>
> Pilot compounded his problem by announcing on the CTAF that
> he was going to make a low pass down the runway.
>

How could announcing one's intentions compound the problem? Is that not the
purpose of the CTAF?


>
> My opinion that the situation could've and should've been handled
> differently.
>

Only by the FAA, the pilot handled it perfectly.

Gene Whitt wrote:

>
> The FAA approach to improving his flying was to ground him for
> 90-days. The charge was flying within 500' of another aircraft.
> This aircraft happened to be taxiing on a parallel taxiway to the
> runway being buzzed.
>
There's no rule that you can't get within 500' of another aircraft.
However, you can't get within 500' of a person on the ground unless
you're landing.

This isn't an isolated bust. They got a lear pilot making a low pass
on the same charge. Low passes aren't "a lower altitude necessary for
landing" so you better make sure you maintain the minimum altitudes.

500' is plenty low for a low pass.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Start a slow descent 200 miles out and your are, technically,
"approaching
> > the airport to land".
> >
>
> Absurd. Start a slow descent 200 miles out and you only dempnstrate poor
> technique.

When at FL290 and descending to 2,000 it's like coasting a long way
downhill.

> So an ignorant jerk thinks I have my head up my ass. I'm okay with that.

And what is my "ignorance"? I'll bet your are oaky with that. Few people
here make as much apparent effort to be a prick as you seemingly do.

Look in the mirror! Numerous people ask you civil question and you spout
like a pompous windbag. The question becomes whether your comprehension
skills are lacking or your delicate ego is so over-inflated. My guess is the
latter.

Grow up, junior. And shove that ego up your backside.

BTW, large transports, airliners and high flying turbine equipment
frequently begin their descents 200 miles out when having a tailwind. So
who's ignorant and a jerk, huh Sparky?

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > And the statement was: "The 45 degree turn to downwind violates the
letter
> > of the law regardless what the FAA sayeth"
> >
>
> Good. You've learned the diffeence between a question and a statement.
I'm
> glad to see we're making progress.

Stick in up your ass, ****bag.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

wrote:

>
> Be careful, tho: whenever the tower calls for you to 'enter left (or
> right) traffic, runway x,' he is expecting you to go out to and enter
> on the 45.

Good Lord, no. You enter the pattern directly from where ever you
happen to be.

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Gene Whitt wrote:
>>
>> The FAA approach to improving his flying was to ground him for
>> 90-days. The charge was flying within 500' of another aircraft.
>> This aircraft happened to be taxiing on a parallel taxiway to the
>> runway being buzzed.
>>
> There's no rule that you can't get within 500' of another aircraft.
> However, you can't get within 500' of a person on the ground unless
> you're landing.
>
> This isn't an isolated bust. They got a lear pilot making a low pass
> on the same charge. Low passes aren't "a lower altitude necessary for
> landing" so you better make sure you maintain the minimum altitudes.
>
> 500' is plenty low for a low pass.

Ron and Gene, can you point to any documentation of these enforcement
actions? I'd like to look at the details.

The AIM gives instructions for performing low approaches at both towered and
untowered airports (4-3-12). Although the AIM doesn't say explicitly what
altitude they're talking about, the AIM Pilot/Controller Glossary defines
"low approach" as a maneuver "over an airport or runway...where the pilot
intentionally does not make contact with the runway"; that phrasing
certainly suggests a much lower height than 500'. (The AIM also cites
practice precision approaches as an example of low approaches; there, too,
you would typically fly much lower than 500'.)

It's hard to see how the FAA could get away with busting a pilot for
following the procedures recommended in the AIM. So I'd be interested to see
if something else might have been going on in the cases you mention.

Thanks,
Gary

Gary Drescher wrote:

>
> The AIM gives instructions for performing low approaches at both towered and
> untowered airports (4-3-12).

http://www.alanarmstronglaw.com/1111.htm

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>>
>> The AIM gives instructions for performing low approaches at both towered
>> and untowered airports (4-3-12).
>
> http://www.alanarmstronglaw.com/1111.htm

Cool. Thanks for the reference!

--Gary

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Rob Montgomery" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>So, how far out are you when you start "approaching the airport to land"?
>
>
> I don't know, but if you're at a point in flight where you are maneuvering
> for the purpose of putting the airplane on the ground, then you are
> "approaching the airport to land".
>
>

I'm doing that from the time I take off. :-)


Matt

Gene Whitt wrote:

> Y'All,
> Gene is right about the possibility of the FAA types being hiding in the
> weeds at your local airport.
>
> I landed at Albany, OR about 20 years ago becasue of weather.
> Fellow pilot gave me a ride into town and told me his story.
>
> Seem he owned an American Yankee Trainer. He took a lady friend for a ride
> and decided to give her a thrill. Thrill consisted of making a low pass
> down the runway prior to landing. And he did it and the FAA was watching
> and listening.
>
> The FAA approach to improving his flying was to ground him for
> 90-days. The charge was flying within 500' of another aircraft.
> This aircraft happened to be taxiing on a parallel taxiway to the
> runway being buzzed.
>
> Pilot compounded his problem by announcing on the CTAF that
> he was going to make a low pass down the runway.
>
> My opinion that the situation could've and should've been handled
> differently.
>
> Gene Whitt
>
>

I agree the penalty was severe, but given the number of accidents due to
"buzzing", I don't think the incident should have been overlooked by the
FAA either.

Stupidity alone (for announcing his plans to buzz the airport) warrants
some penalty! :-)

Matt

Newps wrote:

>
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Be careful, tho: whenever the tower calls for you to 'enter left (or
>> right) traffic, runway x,' he is expecting you to go out to and enter
>> on the 45.
>
>
> Good Lord, no. You enter the pattern directly from where ever you
> happen to be.
>
>

That's what I've always done and have never yet had a tower controller
complain to either me or the FAA, at least not to my knowledge as the
FAA has never contacted me about my pattern entry technique.


Matt

Yes!

I just completed the Remedial Instruction Program on a pilot who
entered a traffic pattern at an uncontrolled field and did not abide by
the AIM-recommended entry.

It was his unlucky day, and there was a Fed at the field, and the rest
is history.

Gene

Gary,

To the best of my knowledge, the FAA does not release details of
enforcement actions. Their position is that information about a
particular action is between the FAA and the pilot, and due to privacy
and such is not releaseable to the public.

My personal knowledge comes from 10k+ flight hours, most of it as a
flight instructor, and 15yrs or so as a remedial instruction program
instructor. I know several people personally who have been involved in
enforcement actions in addition to the scores I have worked with under
the remedial instruction program.

The unfortunate reality is that wherever the law is ambiguous (and
those places are legion), said ambiguity is resolved at the judgment of
the NTSB judge at the hearing. Being a civil court, you have few
rights, and no presumption of innocence. Your testimony is held as
suspect as you are the respondent and therefore 'have a reason to lie,'
and the FAA inspector is considered to be an officer of the court.

If somebody wants to test their personal interpretation of an unclear
reg, be my guest, but leave me out of it. The system may not be what
is should be, nor what we would like it to be, but that doesn't change
it. The FAA inspector has a great deal of lattitude to decide what the
'law' is on the spot, and there mostly is precious little any of us can
do to the contrary.

Best way to deal with this kind of a system is to stay out of the
spotlight.

Gene

That is the way many people do it, and I have not yet heard of a case
where someone has been nailed for it. however, the guy who will turn
you in for it is probably not the tower controller, but an inspector.

It would be interesting for you to contact your tower personnel and ask
them this question and see if you get the same answer.

But my interpretation was told to me by an FAA inspector, one of the
types who would indeed file on you for it. If that happens, it will
not matter that you have been doing it for years and the tower said
nothing. The FAA's position is that if the tower wanted you to enter
on base, downwind, crosswind, they would have said so. Enter left
traffic means, in the minds of those FAA inspectors I have spoken with,
to go out and get on the 45 and enter the pattern like anybody else.

) wrote:

> I just completed the Remedial Instruction Program on a pilot who
> entered a traffic pattern at an uncontrolled field and did not abide by
> the AIM-recommended entry.

So, are you saying that if I am approaching an uncontrolled airport from
the opposite side and decide that it is safer for me to enter left
crosswind at TPA rather than cross over the airport and make a
descending 405 degree right turn in a high wing to the 45, a witnessing
FAA inspector has grounds to bust me and I will have to take remedial
training?

Hmmm...

--
Peter

> wrote in message
oups.com
>
> It would be interesting for you to contact your tower personnel and
> ask them this question and see if you get the same answer.

Scenario: Approaching KHGR (Hagerstown, MD) from vicinity of KMRB
(Martinsburg, WV - south of KHGR). Winds are 270@3 (obviously favoring RWY
27). Contact KHGR tower and hear "report 3 mile left base, runway 27."

Are you suggesting that the tower controller is expecting me to overfly the
airport, travel a few miles north of the field, enter the 45, perform a full
circuit just to get back to a 3 mile left base? The controller didn't make
any mention of pattern entry, only the reporting point.

> But my interpretation was told to me by an FAA inspector, one of the
> types who would indeed file on you for it.

I doubt any respectable inspector would use this as grounds for a complaint.

> Enter left
> traffic means, in the minds of those FAA inspectors I have spoken
> with, to go out and get on the 45 and enter the pattern like anybody
> else.

Not at a towered field. That's not "safe, orderly and expeditious" use of
the National Airspace System.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

wrote:
> That is the way many people do it, and I have not yet heard of a case
> where someone has been nailed for it. however, the guy who will turn
> you in for it is probably not the tower controller, but an inspector.

How would the inspector even know?


>
> It would be interesting for you to contact your tower personnel and ask
> them this question and see if you get the same answer.

So I says to myself..."Self, how do you want aircraft to enter the
pattern?" And I reply..."Enter from where ever you happen to be."
Thank you self.


>
> But my interpretation was told to me by an FAA inspector, one of the
> types who would indeed file on you for it. If that happens, it will
> not matter that you have been doing it for years and the tower said
> nothing. The FAA's position is that if the tower wanted you to enter
> on base, downwind, crosswind, they would have said so. Enter left
> traffic means, in the minds of those FAA inspectors I have spoken with,
> to go out and get on the 45 and enter the pattern like anybody else.

Baloney.

Newps > wrote in news:0PCdnbPEer9pj0LcRVn-
:

> How would the inspector even know?

Unfortunately he doesn't have to know - anything. Look at what happened
to Bob Hoover because of a couple of inspectors who knew nothing. An
inspector says you did something wrong, and it's up to you to prove you
didn't, and that's practically impossible to do, because you have to
convince the persons who said you did. Justice, fairness, and truth have
nothing to do with it at all.

--
Regards,

Stan

Newps wrote:

>
>
> wrote:
>
>> That is the way many people do it, and I have not yet heard of a case
>> where someone has been nailed for it. however, the guy who will turn
>> you in for it is probably not the tower controller, but an inspector.
>
>
> How would the inspector even know?
>
>
>>
>> It would be interesting for you to contact your tower personnel and ask
>> them this question and see if you get the same answer.
>
>
> So I says to myself..."Self, how do you want aircraft to enter the
> pattern?" And I reply..."Enter from where ever you happen to be." Thank
> you self.
>
>
>>
>> But my interpretation was told to me by an FAA inspector, one of the
>> types who would indeed file on you for it. If that happens, it will
>> not matter that you have been doing it for years and the tower said
>> nothing. The FAA's position is that if the tower wanted you to enter
>> on base, downwind, crosswind, they would have said so. Enter left
>> traffic means, in the minds of those FAA inspectors I have spoken with,
>> to go out and get on the 45 and enter the pattern like anybody else.
>
>
> Baloney.
>

Yes, but we all know (think Bob Hoover) that FAA inspectors can be
idiots and can do a lot of damage with no just cause at all.

I got wondering from the earlier post about these violations as to the
tolerance. For example, if I enter on a 44 or 46 degree angle, am I
open to violation? How about 40 or 50? Are these angles headings
relative to the runway or ground track? Inquiring minds want to know!

In 26 years of flying I've never heard anything as stupid as learning
that some people are actually being written up for this. I don't know
what part of the country the gentleman who posted this is from, but it
certainly isn't from anywhere near where I live. I know are few of the
FAA folks that come to our safety seminars and they are from the real world.


Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> I got wondering from the earlier post about these violations as to the
> tolerance. For example, if I enter on a 44 or 46 degree angle, am I
> open to violation? How about 40 or 50? Are these angles headings
> relative to the runway or ground track? Inquiring minds want to know!

Matt, I thought you were an engineer or something. Didn't they learn
you anything about measurement in school?

The inspector takes an FAA-standard ham sandwich, lays the long edge
(sliced diagonally) on the runway centerline and sights along the crust.
If there's daylight between the edge of the sandwich and the airplane,
you're toast (so to speak).

Where do you think the phrase, "That approach didn't cut the mustard,
young man!" came from?

> wrote in message
...
> Consider the following FARs,
> § 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G
> airspace.
> 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 ....
....
> The question could be asked, how do you join the pattern, since when
> attempting same you are obviously "approaching to land at an airport"

Some observations from a non-US perspective.

The wording in the FARs is almost identical to that in the ICAO Rules of the
Air, and the rules of almost every state. But standard joining technique
differs from state to state.

In the UK for example, a standard 'overhead' join is to arrive overhead the
airport at 1000 ft above the traffic pattern, and from that point on make
all turns in the direction of the pattern (i.e.usually left). The descent
to pattern altitude is made on the 'deadside' of the runway (i.e. opposite
the pattern), and the aircraft joins the pattern on a crosswind leg at the
upwind end of the runway. Things get a little difficult on the deadside if
some are turning right, some left.

I suspect the wording is preserved in that form because it avoids yet
another difference to international standards, but the interpretation varies
a little from state to state. The interpretation of 'approaching to land'
by the US authorities does not seem to preclude a right turn to *join* the
pattern.

Julian Scarfe

> In the UK for example, a standard 'overhead' join is to arrive overhead the
> airport at 1000 ft above the traffic pattern, and from that point on make
> all turns in the direction of the pattern (i.e.usually left). The descent
> to pattern altitude is made on the 'deadside' of the runway (i.e. opposite
> the pattern), and the aircraft joins the pattern on a crosswind leg at the
> upwind end of the runway.

So one normally crosses in front of oncoming traffic at pattern
altitude? (presumably the aircraft climbing out on takeoff hasn't yet
reached pattern altitude, but climb rates vary)

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Gene Whitt wrote:
>
>>
>> The FAA approach to improving his flying was to ground him for
>> 90-days. The charge was flying within 500' of another aircraft.
>> This aircraft happened to be taxiing on a parallel taxiway to the
>> runway being buzzed.
>>
> There's no rule that you can't get within 500' of another aircraft.
> However, you can't get within 500' of a person on the ground unless
> you're landing.

91.119(c) states that aircraft "may not be operated closer than 500 feet to
any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure." I would argue that an airplane
(on the ground, no less) is a vehicle.

>
> This isn't an isolated bust. They got a lear pilot making a low pass
> on the same charge. Low passes aren't "a lower altitude necessary for
> landing" so you better make sure you maintain the minimum altitudes.
>
> 500' is plenty low for a low pass.

But what about the "really low" passes that you can use to teach students to
flare? I admit that I can't remember a student not touching the runway
slightly, but I guess I'll stop announcing "low approach". :-)

-Rob

Peter,

The inspector will object to your assessment that it is safer. They do
expect you to cross over the field 500ft or so above TPA, go a mile or
more to the other side, do a right 235 deg descending turn and then
enter the pattern in level flight on the 45.

Crossing over the field and turning left into the downwind is something
they will file on you for. Entering on base, or downwind is something
they will file on you for.

You can, if you like, take a gamble that no fed is at the airport that
day, but that did not work out for the gentleman in the remedial
program.

If you get caught, you may or may not get offered the remedial program.
Requirements for that program are that 1) the violation was
inadvertent; 2) you admit guilt; and 3) you demonstrate a compliant
attitude.

The FAA is the sole arbiter in determining if you meet these three
requirements.

Depending on the mood of the inspector at your first interview, they
make take your position that 'my way is safer' as 1) willfill
violation, 2) denial of guilt, and/or 3) a non-compliant attitude.
(That you might think this unreasonable will not help.)

Once you are on that path, you need to plan on spending at least $5k
just to defend yourself in court, and you will still probably lose.

You could always appeal, but I understand that cost $15k and up. And
you would still most likely lose.

Why not just invest an additional two minutes of flight time and go
execute the 45 like the AIM says? Seems like a lot less trouble in the
long run.

Gene

John,

In the scenario you list (KHGR), you correctly state that the
controller issued a reporting instruction, and not a pattern entry
instruction. Given that, yes technically you should go over to the
other side and enter on the 45. However, the fact that he asked you to
report on 3 mi left base makes it pretty clear that a normal pattern is
not what he expects, because unless you are flying a B52, nowhere in a
normal pattern will you be on a 3 mile left base.

If a controller said that to me in the situation you present, I would
have a stong suspicion that he is confused as to where I am, or he
misspoke. That would be a great time to query the controller with
something like 'I am in position for a right base, is that what you
meant?' or some such. I have in fact done this many times, and the
controller almost universally replies with 'oh yeah sorry enter on
right base, cessna xxxx.'

Most inspectors are respectable. But, for a few, respectable is a
subordinate value to 'being right.' Once they have filed on you, they
do not want to suffer the embarrassment of being shown to have been
'wrong.' From that point forward they will resort to every dirty trick
in the book to 'get' you on *something.* They will twist the regs,
make up stuff, change the basis for the violation in the middle of the
conversation, etc.

Yes, at a towered field. If the controllers at your field are saying
"enter left traffic" and thereby mean "by whatever means and at
whatever point you feel is best," that's fine, but you really ought to
clairfy that with the tower manager before you assume that is their
meaning. If it is, you will never run into a problem at *that* tower.

I can tell you that at my home field there is a spot listed by the FAA
task force on preventing midairs at the location where the crosswind
meets the downwind, and it is identified as a 'hot spot' for NMACs
(Near Mid Air Collisions) in the local area. The task force manager
told me (personally) that the problem at this location was people
coming in from the south (lined up for a downwind entry) and
mis-interpreting the clearance "enter right traffic" in the manner that
you are doing. They drive on straight ahead and enter the downwind
instead of going out and entering on the 45. They have NMACs with
people who have been given a right crosswind departure by the tower.

If the tower intends for you to enter via any manner but the 45, he is
supposed to specify it. If he doesn't you are supposed to go do the
45. If there is any doubt, you need to get it clarified.
Regards,

Gene

Newps,

That you regard it as baloney does not change the FAA.
It also does not change how your enforcement case will come out.

Gene

wrote:
> Newps,
>
> That you regard it as baloney does not change the FAA.
> It also does not change how your enforcement case will come out.

There will be no enforcement case because you've got one guy over there
that doesn't know what's going on. We have pilot meetings with FSDO all
the time around here and traffic patterns are always a hot topic, as I
expect they are everywhere. There are no frowned upon traffic pattern
entries, as long as you make your turns in the proper direction, if you
make turns at all. And we have great FSDO guys here too. They teach
that the proper turn is only necessary for arrivals as per the FAR's. I
have flown with several of our inspectors on various flights like PACE.
To even suggest that entering on the crosswind at midfield at pattern
altitude would be a bustable offense is laughable. It's just as silly
as expecting somebody to fly away from the airport a couple of miles
just so they can reenter the pattern on a 45 to the downwind.

> > In the UK for example, a standard 'overhead' join is to arrive overhead
the
> > airport at 1000 ft above the traffic pattern, and from that point on
make
> > all turns in the direction of the pattern (i.e.usually left). The
descent
> > to pattern altitude is made on the 'deadside' of the runway (i.e.
opposite
> > the pattern), and the aircraft joins the pattern on a crosswind leg at
the
> > upwind end of the runway.

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>
> So one normally crosses in front of oncoming traffic at pattern
> altitude? (presumably the aircraft climbing out on takeoff hasn't yet
> reached pattern altitude, but climb rates vary)

Yes, the assumption is that departing traffic will not reach TPA by the end
of the runway. That may break for longer runways, but in the UK it's rare
to have very long runways without ATC to assist.

In effect, the merging happens at the point of the turn downwind, and
joining traffic should make adjustments to the crosswind leg to fit in with
traffic already in the pattern, which will usually be heading downwind from
further upwind.

Julian

Newps wrote:

>
>
> wrote:
>
>> Newps,
>>
>> That you regard it as baloney does not change the FAA.
>> It also does not change how your enforcement case will come out.
>
>
> There will be no enforcement case because you've got one guy over there
> that doesn't know what's going on. We have pilot meetings with FSDO all
> the time around here and traffic patterns are always a hot topic, as I
> expect they are everywhere. There are no frowned upon traffic pattern
> entries, as long as you make your turns in the proper direction, if you
> make turns at all. And we have great FSDO guys here too. They teach
> that the proper turn is only necessary for arrivals as per the FAR's. I
> have flown with several of our inspectors on various flights like PACE.
> To even suggest that entering on the crosswind at midfield at pattern
> altitude would be a bustable offense is laughable. It's just as silly
> as expecting somebody to fly away from the airport a couple of miles
> just so they can reenter the pattern on a 45 to the downwind.

That is the same with our FSDO. As we all know, however, FSDOs vary
greatly and some are out of touch with reality and only understand "the
book."


Matt

"Rob Montgomery" > wrote in message
...
>
> 91.119(c) states that aircraft "may not be operated closer than 500 feet
to
> any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure." I would argue that an airplane
> (on the ground, no less) is a vehicle.

That would make taxiing a bitch!!

>
> >
> > This isn't an isolated bust. They got a lear pilot making a low pass
> > on the same charge. Low passes aren't "a lower altitude necessary for
> > landing" so you better make sure you maintain the minimum altitudes.
> >
> > 500' is plenty low for a low pass.
>
> But what about the "really low" passes that you can use to teach students
to
> flare? I admit that I can't remember a student not touching the runway
> slightly, but I guess I'll stop announcing "low approach". :-)

Try clearing deer or elk from a runway by flying 500 feet AGL :~)


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

In article >, "Matt Barrow"
> writes:

>"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left."
>
>Sorry.

Chinese husband's lament when Chinese wife has Caucasian baby.

"Two Wongs don't make a White!"

Sorrier