Listening to http://audio.liveatc.net:8012/kjfk_app_final , I hear a
lot of instructions from the tower to follow other traffic, but the
pilots don't always know what aircraft they're following. It sounds
like the tower expects them to be able to recognize an airplane (type,
airline, etc.) from two miles away. Is that possible?

Marc

"Marc Adler" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Listening to http://audio.liveatc.net:8012/kjfk_app_final , I hear a
> lot of instructions from the tower to follow other traffic, but the
> pilots don't always know what aircraft they're following. It sounds
> like the tower expects them to be able to recognize an airplane (type,
> airline, etc.) from two miles away. Is that possible?
>
> Marc
>

There usually isn't more that one aircraft at say your 11 o'clock two miles.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> There usually isn't more that one aircraft at say your 11 o'clock two miles.

The pilots say things like "See traffic at 12 o'clock, but can't tell
if it's a regional carrier or not. Please advise." This sounds like the
pilot is expecting to be able to recognize the plane.

Marc

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
> There usually isn't more that one aircraft at say your 11 o'clock two
> miles.

In a relatively busy airspace, there may well be more than one aircraft
close enough to the 11 o'clock at two miles for there to be a question.
Clock directions are very low precision, due to the facts that there's 30
degrees between each direction, ATC doesn't actually know your heading, and
all of the traffic is constantly in motion.

"Marc Adler" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> There usually isn't more that one aircraft at say your 11 o'clock two
>> miles.
>
> The pilots say things like "See traffic at 12 o'clock, but can't tell
> if it's a regional carrier or not. Please advise." This sounds like the
> pilot is expecting to be able to recognize the plane.
>
> Marc
>

He probably can't tell if it is a regional jet or a corporate jet. You'd be
amazed what you can see from two miles in the air.

"Marc Adler" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The pilots say things like "See traffic at 12 o'clock, but can't tell
> if it's a regional carrier or not. Please advise." This sounds like the
> pilot is expecting to be able to recognize the plane.

At two miles, it's usually the case that one can recognize the general type
of aircraft. Distinguishing a twin turboprop from a single-engined piston
plane, for example. But it's dependent on a variety of things, including
the pilot's own vision (only required to be corrected to 20/40) and ambient
conditions (whether the called traffic is viewed against the sky or ground,
current visibility, position of the sun, etc.). Two miles is certainly
getting toward the edge of reliable identification.

Generally speaking, a clarification request from ATC such as what you've
heard resolves the question. A pilot can go ahead and proceed following the
traffic they believe to be the correct traffic, and with the request for
clarification ATC knows to keep an eye on things and make sure the pilot is
following the traffic they expected them to (if ATC has a radar display,
this can be done quite easily).

Pete

On 20 Sep 2006 12:53:20 -0700, "Marc Adler" >
wrote:

>Listening to http://audio.liveatc.net:8012/kjfk_app_final , I hear a
>lot of instructions from the tower to follow other traffic, but the
>pilots don't always know what aircraft they're following. It sounds
>like the tower expects them to be able to recognize an airplane (type,
>airline, etc.) from two miles away. Is that possible?
>
>Marc


On my first cross country heading into our 1st destination I was
advised by the controller to watch for a Tomahawk crossing our path.
The instructor asked me if I saw it & I pointed at a plane in the
right spot with a T tail.

He (rather dryly) remarked that what I was pointing was actually a DC9
:).


H.

In article . com>,
"Marc Adler" > wrote:

> Listening to http://audio.liveatc.net:8012/kjfk_app_final , I hear a
> lot of instructions from the tower to follow other traffic, but the
> pilots don't always know what aircraft they're following. It sounds
> like the tower expects them to be able to recognize an airplane (type,
> airline, etc.) from two miles away. Is that possible?

In most cases, there is usually a lag between when the radar illuminated
by the radar and when the processed image is displayed on the radar
screen. Hence, when the controller calls traffic, the traffic has
actually moved to a different position when you look where you were
told. Depending on the speed, altitude and distance, you may or may not
find it in your field of view.

Marc Adler wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> There usually isn't more that one aircraft at say your 11 o'clock two miles.
>
> The pilots say things like "See traffic at 12 o'clock, but can't tell
> if it's a regional carrier or not. Please advise." This sounds like the
> pilot is expecting to be able to recognize the plane.
>
> Marc

I can say that I've never said or heard anything like that. Like Gig
pointed out, there usually aren't multiple planes in the same
coordinates in the air. If I see my traffic where ATC says it is, I
don't really care what kind of plane it is. Obviously, if ATC says I'm
following a 737 on final and all I see in front of my is a Citation, I'm
going to question ATC (where IS that 737?), but it's generally not an issue.

"Marc Adler" > wrote in news:1158781999.937045.277410
@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Listening to http://audio.liveatc.net:8012/kjfk_app_final , I hear a
> lot of instructions from the tower to follow other traffic, but the
> pilots don't always know what aircraft they're following. It sounds
> like the tower expects them to be able to recognize an airplane (type,
> airline, etc.) from two miles away. Is that possible?
>
> Marc
>

You're listening to what seems to be a frequency for ATC on JFK Airport's
Final Approach.

Typically, when the weather is clear, pilots are instructed to follow
other traffic on a "visual approach", meaning (without getting into too
much detail) that they can visually see the traffic they are instructed to
follow, until they can see the runway they are landing on. On a clear day,
with only a few planes in "line" this is not a difficult problem. If tower
tells you you're #2 behind an RJ on a 3 mile final, and you're 5 miles
out, it's pretty easy to know where to look for the RJ, and that you are
looking for a jet, even if you don't know an RJ from a Hawker.

Sometimes, though, when it is really clear, and traffic is being routed in
from multiple directions, a plane coming in from an "angle" may be
instructed to "cut in" between two other planes for their turn. So if you
are "#3 behind a hawker" you may see only one plane in front of you when
you expect to see 2, and you may see #4 coming in (sometimes it's hard to
judge distance up there) and wonder if you're supposed to fit in behind
him or in front of him...

Did you miss a little plane on short final and you are supposed to cut in?
Or do you need to slow down a bit or curve around a bit to make sure to
space yourself behind that guy on the left?

Better to ask than to wonder...

Marc Adler wrote:
> Listening to http://audio.liveatc.net:8012/kjfk_app_final , I hear a
> lot of instructions from the tower to follow other traffic, but the
> pilots don't always know what aircraft they're following. It sounds
> like the tower expects them to be able to recognize an airplane (type,
> airline, etc.) from two miles away. Is that possible?

When it gets busy, anything can happen. Once, years ago I called the
tower returning to my home airport - and was told I was number 5 to
land. I looked and looked, but could
only see two planes - one on final and one presumably ahead of me on
downwind - about a mile out. So I followed him, and he just kept going
and going. Finally I decided
that he was leaving the area, and turned base (about a mile past the
end of the runway). Then I looked to the right, and guess what? This
guy had also turned base - probably two miles out. Then I saw another
plane also on base - coming from the opposite direction! All this and
nothing that would have alerted me to the fact that the controller was
running simultaneous left and right traffic on the same runway.
The opposing traffic was a bit further out than me, so I cut the corner
to final and
landed without incident - other than that the controller was surprised
to see me in that sequence.

Another time I joined the pattern at a busy airport and was told to
follow the plane ahead.
This I did until on final, without another word from the tower. Finally
I asked if I was cleared to land - and was told to switch to the other
(parallel) runway at the last
possible moment. The controller had completely forgotten about me.

Just last weekend I joined the pattern at a busy uncontrolled field.
Everything would have been fine, except that a string of ultralights
came in from the side at about half
pattern altitude and cut into traffic to land - almost in formation.
They did have radios,
and announced themselves. However it was still quite a surprise. The
last in the string went right under me. I extended my pattern to avoid
conflict (announcing that I was doing so). My reward was to have the
guy behind me in the pattern cut in and appear ahead of me on final. I
of course went around.

Fun and games. Sometimes it gets pretty crazy out there.

David Johnson

Judah wrote:

> Better to ask than to wonder...

And they do. It's all very cordial, too. It's interesting to listen to.
Yesterday a flight not schedule to land at JFK asked permission to
because of a medical emergency. The controller made the appropriate
changes in the approach to let him cut in line, as it were, and
explained to the other pilots what was happening. (I assume they heard
what was going on, though, since they were all on the same frequency.)
The controller asked what the emergency was, and the pilot said they
were looking in to it, but probably wouldn't find out until on the
ground because the "patient" didn't speak any English.

Listening to airports in non-English speaking countries is interesting,
too, because you get a chance to listen to Bulgarian controllers
speaking English to Italian pilots, say. And in Amsterdam you sometimes
can't tell if the controllers are speaking Dutch or English, because
their accents are so thick, and some Dutch and English numbers sound
alike (vijv, seks, seven, nijn, etc.) There was one female controller
who would say hello in the language of whatever nationality the airline
was - konnichi wa for JAL, bonjour for Air France, etc. That was ground
control, and it was interesting to hear pilots actually getting lost
and having to be rerouted to the runway.

Marc

Dave wrote:

> Fun and games. Sometimes it gets pretty crazy out there.

Sounds like scary fun and games.

Incidentally, is altitude the only factor keeping departing planes from
hitting planes entering the pattern on the crosswind leg?

Marc

"Marc Adler" > wrote in news:1158934139.228246.309560
@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> Dave wrote:
>
>> Fun and games. Sometimes it gets pretty crazy out there.
>
> Sounds like scary fun and games.
>
> Incidentally, is altitude the only factor keeping departing planes from
> hitting planes entering the pattern on the crosswind leg?
>
> Marc

Officially, the rule is that planes are supposed to enter the pattern only on
the downwind leg and coming in on a 45* angle for maximum visibility. You can
"avoid" entering the pattern by flying a straight-in approach (ie: be on
Final) but entering on a Crosswind is not authorized.

Typically, I think most pilots who need to get to the other side of the
runway for the pattern fly over the runway and pattern by about 500', make
sure there is no one on the downwind, and then loop around as they drop
altitude to enter the pattern on a 45* angle as recommended.

I'm not sure that everyone follows the rules, but I'm pretty sure that
everyone certainly keeps their eyes open...

Judah wrote
> You can "avoid" entering the pattern by flying a straight-in
> approach (ie: be on Final) but entering on a Crosswind is
> not authorized.

Where is that stated?

Bob Moore

Bob Moore > wrote in
. 122:

> Judah wrote
>> You can "avoid" entering the pattern by flying a straight-in
>> approach (ie: be on Final) but entering on a Crosswind is
>> not authorized.
>
> Where is that stated?
>
> Bob Moore

You're right. I should have said not recommended in the AIM, Advisory
Circular No.90-66A, or the Pilot/Controller Glossary...

Sorry for the error.

"Judah" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Officially, the rule is that planes are supposed to enter the pattern only
> on
> the downwind leg and coming in on a 45* angle for maximum visibility. You
> can
> "avoid" entering the pattern by flying a straight-in approach (ie: be on
> Final) but entering on a Crosswind is not authorized.
>

Entering on a crosswind requires no authorization.

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> You're right. I should have said not recommended in the AIM, Advisory
> Circular No.90-66A, or the Pilot/Controller Glossary...
>
> Sorry for the error.
>

Where is it stated in the AIM, Advisory Circular No.90-66A, or the
Pilot/Controller Glossary, that entering on a crosswind is not authorized?

Judah wrote
> You're right. I should have said not recommended in the AIM, Advisory
> Circular No.90-66A, or the Pilot/Controller Glossary...

Judah...who-ever you are....you seem to be out of your league
in this newsgroup.

Robert R. Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
Certificate # 1450645
CFI ASEL IA
PanAm (retired)

T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote in
:

> Judah > wrote:
....
>>You can
>>"avoid" entering the pattern by flying a straight-in approach (ie: be on
>>Final) but entering on a Crosswind is not authorized.
>
> This is incorrect.

You're right. I should have said not recommended in the AIM, Advisory
Circular No.90-66A, or the Pilot/Controller Glossary... I must have had
Procedure Turns on the brain.

>>Typically, I think most pilots who need to get to the other side of the
>>runway for the pattern fly over the runway and pattern by about 500',
>>make sure there is no one on the downwind, and then loop around as they
>>drop altitude to enter the pattern on a 45* angle as recommended.
>
> I don't see this much. It requires extra flying around in
> the vicinity of the airport and descending near the area
> where other planes are regularly entering the pattern at an
> altitude below you. My personal opinion is that it's
> riskier than the crosswind approach and its main benefit is
> that if you use this on a flight test no instructor or DPE
> can really fault you.


I'm surprised you don't see it much. I believe it is SUBSTANTIALLY LESS risky
than the Crosswind Approach, especially for those of us flying low-wing
planes who might miss a high-wing NORDO pilot who might take off as we are
coming in, or be departing the pattern from the upwind leg as recommended in
the AIM. It is also in line with Section 8 of Advisory Circular No. 90-66A
which states:

"8. RECOMMENDED STANDARD TRAFFIC PATTERN.
....
a. Prior to entering the traffic pattern at an airport without an operating
control tower, aircraft should avoid the flow of traffic until established
on the entry leg.
....
b, Arriving aircraft should be at the appropriate traffic pattern altitude
before entering the traffic pattern. Entry to the downwind leg should be
at a 45-degree angle abeam the midpoint of the runway."

Presumably, if one enters the downwind from a crosswind, it will be at a 90
degree angle about 1/4 mile past the end of the runway, not at a 45 degree
angle abeam the midpoint of the runway.

>>I'm not sure that everyone follows the rules, but I'm pretty sure that
>>everyone certainly keeps their eyes open...
>
> And the spots I look the hardest are: 1) on entry to the 45
> to make sure someone in a low wing is not descending onto
> me, 2) at the turn to downwind to coordinate the crosswind
> and 45 entry traffic, with a glance back up the downwind for
> long downwind entry traffic , and 3) a look to the right at
> the base to final turn to see the straight in crowd and
> those who fly patterns 2 miles out.

Good places to look, but what about departing traffic?
I think if you enter the downwind at a 45 to the midpoint, you might save
yourself a little extra work/risk as compared with a Crosswind entry.
Especially since you don't seem to be looking for it... Certainly worth an
extra two minutes or so to fly a nice safe teardrop.

While the AIM's advice is indeed not mandatory, it certainly is pretty good
advice...

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
21...
> Judah...who-ever you are....you seem to be out of your league
> in this newsgroup.

Why? Because he admitted he made a mistake? Yeah, I guess that is looked
down on around here.

> Robert R. Moore
> ATP B-707 B-727
> Certificate # 1450645
> CFI ASEL IA
> PanAm (retired)

Too bad none of those letters and numbers included training in common
courtesy.

Peter Duniho wrote
> > Too bad none of those letters and numbers included training in common
> courtesy.

Somebody with no name and no credentials comes on a newsgroup
populated with numerous professional pilots and ATC personal
and starts spewing forth a bunch of bull**** suposedly based
on the AIM and ACs deserves courtesy?

At least Mxsmanic tells us up front that he is a FlightSim guy
and knows nothing about which he speaks.

Juda makes false statements about the contents of the AIM in
an attempt to bolster his position in the discussion and got
caught.

Bob Moore

Bob Moore wrote
> ATC personal

"personnel"

Bob Moore

Show me those "Official rules"

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

> Officially, the rule is that planes are supposed to enter the pattern only
> on
> the downwind leg and coming in on a 45* angle for maximum visibility. You
> can
> "avoid" entering the pattern by flying a straight-in approach (ie: be on
> Final) but entering on a Crosswind is not authorized.
>
> Typically, I think most pilots who need to get to the other side of the
> runway for the pattern fly over the runway and pattern by about 500', make
> sure there is no one on the downwind, and then loop around as they drop
> altitude to enter the pattern on a 45* angle as recommended.
>
> I'm not sure that everyone follows the rules, but I'm pretty sure that
> everyone certainly keeps their eyes open...
>

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> Somebody with no name and no credentials comes on a newsgroup
> populated with numerous professional pilots and ATC personal
> and starts spewing forth a bunch of bull**** suposedly based
> on the AIM and ACs deserves courtesy?

Lots of people post without full credentials. So what? It's not like
anyone is bothering to check to see whether you are the actual "Bob Moore"
you claim to be. You are no more "identified" here than anyone else, even
those posting without real names.

It's not like Judah is the first person to post incorrect information to
this newsgroup. One distinguishing factor is that he is one of the few
people to actually *admit* to having posted incorrect information. Most
people here would sooner die than admit an error. When's the last time you
admitted to making a mistake?

So, yes...I think he deserves some courtesy.

> At least Mxsmanic tells us up front that he is a FlightSim guy
> and knows nothing about which he speaks.

No, actually he has NEVER admitted to knowing nothing about which he speaks,
in spite of the fact that much of the time he clearly is in that state.
I'll take Judah's posts over those of Mxsmanic any day.

> Juda makes false statements about the contents of the AIM in
> an attempt to bolster his position in the discussion and got
> caught.

Where do you get that? He made one incorrect statement, and the moment you
asked him about it, he clarified that "authorized" was the wrong word to
use. Hardly the work of a sociopathic liar.

Pete

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> You're right. I should have said not recommended in the AIM, Advisory
>> Circular No.90-66A, or the Pilot/Controller Glossary...
>>
>> Sorry for the error.
>>
>
> Where is it stated in the AIM, Advisory Circular No.90-66A, or the
> Pilot/Controller Glossary, that entering on a crosswind is not authorized?

It's not. I thought my correction was pretty clear. Entering on a Crosswind
is not recommended in the AIM, Advisory Circular No.90-66A, or the
Pilot/Controller Glossary. In fact, entering on a Crosswind is not discussed
at all in any aviation source that I have ever been exposed to, nor has it
been recommended to me by any CFI that I have flown with, or any other
aviator that I have talked to. Entering on a Crosswind has never been
recommended to me by anyone other than some guy on a newsgroup who didn't
even get flamed for it.

Entering at a 45* angle to the downwind, however, is recommended in the AIM,
in Advisory Circular No.90-66A, AND in the Pilot/Controller Glossary.
Entering on a "VFR Straight In" is discussed as well in the P/CG.

While these sources are indeed advisory in nature, certainly it's better
advice than the advice from a Newsgroup to enter on a Crosswind, which I have
not seen documented ANYWHERE else, nor do I personally believe to be safer
than entering as advised in the quoted sources.

Bob Moore > wrote in
21:

> Judah wrote
>> You're right. I should have said not recommended in the AIM, Advisory
>> Circular No.90-66A, or the Pilot/Controller Glossary...
>
> Judah...who-ever you are....you seem to be out of your league
> in this newsgroup.
>
> Robert R. Moore
> ATP B-707 B-727
> Certificate # 1450645
> CFI ASEL IA
> PanAm (retired)

I appreciate the compliment. But I am just an ordinary pilot like many of the
other regular readers and posters to this newsgroup. I don't believe myself
to be above any of them.

Some of the trolls, perhaps. But even a troll has a mother.

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> It's not. I thought my correction was pretty clear.
>

Sorry, it was. I meant to write, " Where is it stated in the AIM, Advisory
Circular No.90-66A, or the Pilot/Controller Glossary, that entering on a
crosswind is not recommended?"


>
> Entering on a Crosswind
> is not recommended in the AIM, Advisory Circular No.90-66A, or the
> Pilot/Controller Glossary. In fact, entering on a Crosswind is not
> discussed
> at all in any aviation source that I have ever been exposed to, nor has it
> been recommended to me by any CFI that I have flown with, or any other
> aviator that I have talked to. Entering on a Crosswind has never been
> recommended to me by anyone other than some guy on a newsgroup who didn't
> even get flamed for it.
>
> Entering at a 45* angle to the downwind, however, is recommended in the
> AIM,
> in Advisory Circular No.90-66A, AND in the Pilot/Controller Glossary.
> Entering on a "VFR Straight In" is discussed as well in the P/CG.
>
> While these sources are indeed advisory in nature, certainly it's better
> advice than the advice from a Newsgroup to enter on a Crosswind, which I
> have
> not seen documented ANYWHERE else, nor do I personally believe to be safer
> than entering as advised in the quoted sources.
>

Why do you personally believe it not to be safer than entering as advised in
the quoted sources?

Bob Moore > wrote in
. 122:

> Somebody with no name and no credentials comes on a newsgroup
> populated with numerous professional pilots and ATC personal
> and starts spewing forth a bunch of bull**** suposedly based
> on the AIM and ACs deserves courtesy?

I expected that someone with YOUR credentials would not require a complete
and thorough explanation of my mistake and my sources for my position. So I
saved the full-length version for the response to Todd Patist who, unlike
yourself, I did not recognize as a regular poster on this newsgroup.

Apparently, even with your credentials, you are fallible as all us regular
folk.

Unless you know somewhere in the AIM, ACs or P/CG (or anywhere else) that
recommends a Crosswind entry into a VFR pattern?

I've not seen it or heard of it, but I am certainly not a scholar in every
FAA document produced. Of course, I'm only an IR PP ASEL, not a CFI, ATP,
retired-RAF, Delta pilot, or even DE...

> Juda makes false statements about the contents of the AIM in
> an attempt to bolster his position in the discussion and got
> caught.

My name is spelled Judah. Apparently, even you make mistakes on this
newsgroup. While you corrected your "ATC Personal" error, you didn't find it
necessary to correct the typo you made in my name.

Perhaps that makes you a deviant and I should flame you for it too.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> So, yes...I think he deserves some courtesy.
<snip>
> Where do you get that? He made one incorrect statement, and the moment
> you asked him about it, he clarified that "authorized" was the wrong
> word to use. Hardly the work of a sociopathic liar.
>
> Pete

What is this newsgroup coming to?

First you and Jay are agreeing, and now you and I?

:)

Seriously, though, I appreciate the courtesy...

Thanks.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
ink.net:

>
> "Judah" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> It's not. I thought my correction was pretty clear.
>>
>
> Sorry, it was. I meant to write, " Where is it stated in the AIM,
> Advisory Circular No.90-66A, or the Pilot/Controller Glossary, that
> entering on a crosswind is not recommended?"

Huh? You're playing word games. The absence of a recommendation is the
absence of a recommendation. This is not an approach plate.

Where is a Crosswind entry recommended?

> Why do you personally believe it not to be safer than entering as
> advised in the quoted sources?

Because I used to assume that most pilots do their best to fly according
to the recommendations made in the official sources, even when they are
not regulated, and violations are not punitive. I additionally assumed
that the recommendations were made for improved safety. I assumed based on
this that at an uncontrolled field in VFR conditions, most planes will be
at or near the same altitude and in the same direction on the downwind
leg. I have read and experienced that maximum visibility is found between
planes at or near the same altitude. My minimal understanding of physics
would allow me to deduce that two planes flying in the same direction have
more reaction time than if two planes flying in opposite directions, or
even perpendicular to one another. More reaction time, in my opinion,
would seem to be an enhancement to safety.

During an entry to the crosswind leg, however, one would cross the
departure end of the runway, presumably at or near pattern altitude. The
AIM, in line 8 of the example of section 4-3-3 specifically recommends
against penetrating the departure path of an active runway, yet entering
on a Crosswind leg would seem to do so. Section 4-3-3 also recommends that
departure be made straight out or at a 45* angle from the upwind leg.
Because different planes climb at different speeds, and since there are no
specific recommendations as to what altitude to be at before beginning
your 45* departure turn, it would seem very challenging to identify a
plane in the upwind or on departure as you enter the crosswind, as it
would likely be at a different altitude than you.

Furthermore, it would seem to me that fewer planes will be in a position
to pose a risk to you in the downwind entry than in the crosswind entry.
The risk is identical for both entries with respect to other planes coming
in on the same entry, as well as other planes coming in on a straight-in
final approach. Both planes also have a nearly equal risk of planes
already on the downwind (you still may have traffic in front of you when
turning downwind from a crosswind). In the crosswind entry, you have
additional risk for traffic that departs prior to the downwind leg, ie:
that departs straight out or at a 45* angle to the upwind leg. You also
have additional risk from planes that do a go around, and are displaced
from the threshold of the runway as they climb out. The latter two are
lower risk to a plane on a 45* downwind entry, at least with respect to
the pattern.

If everyone is following the recommendations of the AIM, it would seem to
me that the recommendation of the AIM is the safest method for entry into
a VFR traffic pattern.

Based on this thread, not to mention the vehemence with which I have been
flamed for my opinions, however, I am starting to suspect that there are
many pilots who don't follow the AIM recommendations, so I guess all bets
are off. I'm also starting to wonder how many people might violate CFR
Regulations if it might save them 2 minutes and they felt they wouldn't
get caught.

Heck! Why even have a traffic pattern? Just plop right down on the runway
from wherever you are? Wait! Why use the runway? There's a taxiway that's
right in line with your flight path - just land on that? Hey - the parking
ramp is deep enough that you could make it with a good short-field
approach - just pull right into your spot! Those helicopters do it all the
time, I bet you can too!

"karl gruber" > wrote in
:

> Show me those "Official rules"

Official recommendations. For the rest of the rantings, follow the thread.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
nk.net:

> Entering on a crosswind requires no authorization.

Nor is it recommended in any FAA publication that I am aware of.

Entering on a 45-degree angle to the Downwind leg requires no authorization
either, but it is recommended in the "Aeronautical Information Manual,
Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and ATC Procedures" in Chapter 4,
Section 3.

Details can be found at the following link:

http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap4/aim0403.html

Judah > wrote in news:Xns984782555B8C4Judahnospamnet@
69.28.186.158:

> that departs straight out or at a 45* angle to the upwind leg. You also
> have additional risk from planes that do a go around, and are displaced
> from the threshold of the runway as they climb out. The latter two are

correction: displaced from the centerline

I will try to prepare better for the incoming flames for my error.