Question: "Overhead Entry to Downwind?"

[Harry Shin]

Hi Guys,

My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69), called in on the 45 to
downwind and were just about to turn downwind when a flight of three
experimentals called in that they were set up for their "overhead entry".
They were flying above pattern altitude on the runway heading, proceeded to
make a diving 180 turn to downwind, inside our line.

Two of them jumped ahead of us, while the third resigned himself to
following our Citabria. I guess we really messed up their spectacular
approach and possible formation landing... (yawn)

So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
"approved"? Petaluma can get pretty busy on weekends, and I feel their
grandstanding lead to some concern and un-necessary avoidance manuevering...

Harry Shin
Citabria N5064K, Sonerai I 'a building

[Kyle Boatright]

"Harry Shin" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Guys,
>
> My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69), called in on the 45 to
> downwind and were just about to turn downwind when a flight of three
> experimentals called in that they were set up for their "overhead entry".
> They were flying above pattern altitude on the runway heading, proceeded
to
> make a diving 180 turn to downwind, inside our line.
>
> Two of them jumped ahead of us, while the third resigned himself to
> following our Citabria. I guess we really messed up their spectacular
> approach and possible formation landing... (yawn)
>
> So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
> "approved"? Petaluma can get pretty busy on weekends, and I feel their
> grandstanding lead to some concern and un-necessary avoidance
manuevering...
>
> Harry Shin
> Citabria N5064K, Sonerai I 'a building


The Overhead Entry is a "standard" procedure, although you don't see 'em
much except from the warbird and/or experimental crowd. I followed a long,
bitter discussion on this topic on the RV-list (a mail list for RV
builders/flyers), and the opinions on using the overhead approach were all
over the board, ranging from "We do it all the time and it is very safe" to
"It is a very dangerous procedure and should never be used.". In the end,
it comes down to common sense. If an overhead entry causes traffic problems
with other aircraft in the pattern, it shouldn't be used. Othewise, it is
fine (assuming you're keeping your eyes out, using common sense, and all the
other caveats that go with flying).

KB

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Harry Shin" > wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69), called in on the 45 to
> downwind and were just about to turn downwind when a flight of three
> experimentals called in that they were set up for their "overhead entry".
> They were flying above pattern altitude on the runway heading, proceeded to
> make a diving 180 turn to downwind, inside our line.
>
> Two of them jumped ahead of us, while the third resigned himself to
> following our Citabria. I guess we really messed up their spectacular
> approach and possible formation landing... (yawn)
>
> So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
> "approved"? Petaluma can get pretty busy on weekends, and I feel their
> grandstanding lead to some concern and un-necessary avoidance manuevering...
>
> Harry Shin
> Citabria N5064K, Sonerai I 'a building
>
>

It sounds as if the formation leader screwed up. He should have been
looking for other traffic and let you go ahead -- even to the point of
taking his formation around for another approach. Nor should he have
done a "diving break," which impairs his view of other traffic.

I regularly fly formation, with overhead breaks to downwind. Rule #1 is
that traffic already in the pattern has the right-of-way. Another thing
we do is announce our intentions: "White Flight one mile initial, left
overhead break," to let others know we are operating.

Now, Harry, did YOU announce YOUR entry into the pattern? I realize that
it is not required, but it IS good practice.

[C J Campbell]

"Harry Shin" > wrote in message
...
|
| So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
| "approved"?

You are allowed to enter the traffic pattern any way you like. AIM
recommends entering on the downwind at a 45 degree entry. Traffic on
instrument approaches tend to enter the pattern using either a straight-in
approach or a circling approach. Straight-in approaches are very common for
VFR traffic as well. Either the 45 degree entry or the straight-in gives you
plenty of opportunity to see and be seen.

Entering the pattern by descending into the downwind makes it difficult for
high wing aircraft to see you. If you are a low-wing aircraft, you also have
trouble seeing all the traffic in the pattern. If there were an accident you
would have to explain to the FAA, the families of the people you killed, and
probably some attorneys and a court room why you did not use the recommended
pattern entry. Even if there isn't an accident you risk incurring the wrath
of local pilots who might have had to take evasive action.

Uncontrolled airports tend to be squirrel nests anyway. Nothing you can do
about it except keep a sharp eye out (and maybe arrange a little blanket
party for the most serious offenders). :-)

[Harry Shin]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...

> Now, Harry, did YOU announce YOUR entry into the pattern? I realize that
> it is not required, but it IS good practice.

Orval,

First sentence (!), "My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69),
called in on the 45 to downwind..." (and all other legs as well, FWIW)

You formation guys need to pay more attention...

Harry

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are allowed to enter the traffic pattern any way you like.
>

Well, not just any way, there is a restriction on the direction of turns.

[C J Campbell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
|
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > You are allowed to enter the traffic pattern any way you like.
| >
|
| Well, not just any way, there is a restriction on the direction of turns.

True, but compliance and enforcement vary considerably from place to place.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> True, but compliance and enforcement vary considerably from place to
place.
>

In other words, you're free to violate any regulation that's not enforced.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Harry Shin wrote:
>
> So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
> "approved"?

Descending into a leg of the pattern is generally considered to be less than safe
due to the risk of a collision. It's a little less dangerous when the descending
aircraft is a high-wing, but it's still frowned upon.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Bob Gardner]

The December "Aviation Safety" had an article by Aviation Consumer Editor
Paul Bertorelli on this very subject.

Bob Gardner

"Harry Shin" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Guys,
>
> My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69), called in on the 45 to
> downwind and were just about to turn downwind when a flight of three
> experimentals called in that they were set up for their "overhead entry".
> They were flying above pattern altitude on the runway heading, proceeded
to
> make a diving 180 turn to downwind, inside our line.
>
> Two of them jumped ahead of us, while the third resigned himself to
> following our Citabria. I guess we really messed up their spectacular
> approach and possible formation landing... (yawn)
>
> So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
> "approved"? Petaluma can get pretty busy on weekends, and I feel their
> grandstanding lead to some concern and un-necessary avoidance
manuevering...
>
> Harry Shin
> Citabria N5064K, Sonerai I 'a building
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Descending into a leg of the pattern is generally considered to be less
than safe
> due to the risk of a collision. It's a little less dangerous when the
descending
> aircraft is a high-wing, but it's still frowned upon.

While what you say is true, I have tried the "overhead break" on occasion,
and found it to be a very good way to see the entire pattern before entry.
It's also a lot of fun.

On the other hand, it's always the one you *don't* see that kills you, and
ground clutter can make spotting traffic difficult, so descending into the
pattern can be dangerous. To reduce this risk, I've tried entering the
pattern for this kind of an "overhead break" just 100 or so feet above
"normal" pattern altitude. This seemed to be a good compromise, minimized
the amount of time spent descending into a possible conflict, while still
allowing for a good scan of the whole pattern.

Is it still dangerous? I would rate it as mildly more risky than the more
standard "entering on a 45," and slightly less risky than a long
straight-in. Therefore, I don't use this approach when I know there is
other traffic in the pattern.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Robert Moore]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> While what you say is true, I have tried the "overhead break" on occasion,
> and found it to be a very good way to see the entire pattern before entry.

I didn't know that there was any other entry for the first
18 months of my flying life. :-)

Bob Moore

[Mike O'Malley]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You are allowed to enter the traffic pattern any way you like.
> >
>
> Well, not just any way, there is a restriction on the direction of turns.

Please explain to me how it is possible to "enter on a 45 to the downwind"
AND "make all turns to the left in the traffic pattern" (that is paraphrased
from memory). In fact, if one were to only make left turns in the traffic
pattern, an overhead approach would be one of the ONLY ways to enter the
pattern. Of course, one very few people are looking for. :-)

--
Mike

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Harry Shin" > wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Now, Harry, did YOU announce YOUR entry into the pattern? I realize that
> > it is not required, but it IS good practice.
>
> Orval,
>
> First sentence (!), "My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69),
> called in on the 45 to downwind..." (and all other legs as well, FWIW)
>
> You formation guys need to pay more attention...
>
> Harry
>
>
Harry:

If that is your attitude, maybe YOU need to adjust YOUR attitude!

If you called the 45, you were NOT in the traffic pattern! Did you pay
attention to the frequency? Did the formation call "initial"?

I have seen so-called "pattern operations" flying extra wide downwinds
and two mile finals -- enough to land several flights of four.
Generally, our formation flights keep it in tight and have about ten
seconds spacing on landing.

BTW, your reference to "spoiling a formation landing" shows you know
nothing about formation flying. They came overhead in the break and, as
such, would have been landing individually, with one rolling out as the
next touched down.

[Icebound]

Mike O'Malley wrote:

>
> Please explain to me how it is possible to "enter on a 45 to the downwind"
> AND "make all turns to the left in the traffic pattern" (that is paraphrased
> from memory). In fact, if one were to only make left turns in the traffic
> pattern, an overhead approach would be one of the ONLY ways to enter the
> pattern. Of course, one very few people are looking for. :-)
>


Am I misreading something, or do the Canadians frown on the "45 to
downwind" approach at uncontrolled airports, (unless traffic advisory is
available)???

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/ansanda/aarna/new197.htm#MF2

quote:
Basically, when airport and traffic advisory information is not
available, regardless of whether MF procedures are in effect or not,
aircraft should not join 45% to the downwind leg, straight-in to the
base or final leg of the circuit. The correct entry procedure to be
used, therefore, depends on whether airport and traffic advisory is
available or not."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike O'Malley" > wrote in message
...
>
> Please explain to me how it is possible to "enter on a 45 to the downwind"
> AND "make all turns to the left in the traffic pattern" (that is
paraphrased
> from memory).
>

It isn't. The 45 degree entry to the downwind is illegal.

[Robert M. Gary]

For those arriving on the non-pattern side of the runway its the best
way to do it. Its also important to do if the winds are unknown
(because you can see the sock). The maneuver should be done above
pattern altitude, with a long right turn (assuming left traffic) into
the 45. The overhead entry "should" always drop you into the 45.


"Harry Shin" > wrote in message >...
> Hi Guys,
>
> My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69), called in on the 45 to
> downwind and were just about to turn downwind when a flight of three
> experimentals called in that they were set up for their "overhead entry".
> They were flying above pattern altitude on the runway heading, proceeded to
> make a diving 180 turn to downwind, inside our line.
>
> Two of them jumped ahead of us, while the third resigned himself to
> following our Citabria. I guess we really messed up their spectacular
> approach and possible formation landing... (yawn)
>
> So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
> "approved"? Petaluma can get pretty busy on weekends, and I feel their
> grandstanding lead to some concern and un-necessary avoidance manuevering...
>
> Harry Shin
> Citabria N5064K, Sonerai I 'a building

[Dave Stadt]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
m...
> For those arriving on the non-pattern side of the runway its the best
> way to do it. Its also important to do if the winds are unknown
> (because you can see the sock). The maneuver should be done above
> pattern altitude, with a long right turn (assuming left traffic) into
> the 45. The overhead entry "should" always drop you into the 45.

That's not the typical overhead entry. The overhead entry is an upwind leg
with a 180 degree left turn (assuming left hand traffic) to the downwind
leg.

>
>
> "Harry Shin" > wrote in message
>...
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > My father and I were returning to Petaluma (O69), called in on the 45 to
> > downwind and were just about to turn downwind when a flight of three
> > experimentals called in that they were set up for their "overhead
entry".
> > They were flying above pattern altitude on the runway heading, proceeded
to
> > make a diving 180 turn to downwind, inside our line.
> >
> > Two of them jumped ahead of us, while the third resigned himself to
> > following our Citabria. I guess we really messed up their spectacular
> > approach and possible formation landing... (yawn)
> >
> > So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field
is
> > "approved"? Petaluma can get pretty busy on weekends, and I feel their
> > grandstanding lead to some concern and un-necessary avoidance
manuevering...
> >
> > Harry Shin
> > Citabria N5064K, Sonerai I 'a building

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> The 45 entry to downwind is not "in the pattern". It is the entry to the
pattern
> and does nopt have to be a left turn.
>

The regulation does not require turns "in the pattern" to be to the left, it
requires the pilot of an airplane approaching to land at an airport without
an operating control tower to make all turns to the left. The 45 degree
entry to downwind violates the regulation.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Mike O'Malley wrote:
>
> Please explain to me how it is possible to "enter on a 45 to the downwind"
> AND "make all turns to the left in the traffic pattern" (that is paraphrased
> from memory).

The 45 entry to downwind is not "in the pattern". It is the entry to the pattern
and does nopt have to be a left turn.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Cub Driver]

>So, I'm wondering if their overhead approach to an un-controlled field is
>"approved"?

As I am sure the libertarians on this newsgroup will tell you, there
is no approved approach, in the sense that certain approaches are okay
and others are not.

And it is local custom at some airports to descend into the traffic
pattern. Personally, I have never seen it, and I hope that I never
will. (I don't even particularly care for the mid-field crossover :)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>If that is your attitude, maybe YOU need to adjust YOUR attitude!
>
>If you called the 45, you were NOT in the traffic pattern! Did you pay
>attention to the frequency? Did the formation call "initial"?

As I warned in my post, when you (that is, the original poster) start
to question the holy right of libertarian pilots to do what they
damned well please in the pattern, you are going to get some heated
replies.

My own policy is this: when there are idiots in the pattern, either
take your best shot to get on the ground safely, or go away and land
somewhere else. These people have closed minds, and they are flying
airplanes that can kill you.

My favorite example of this sort of booby was the *instructor* who had
his student fly *straight in* to a field where neither had landed
before, that was marked "heavy flight training," and that did its
training in NORDO aircraft -- and then bawled out the Cub driver on
base for not listening to the radio calls!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>In other words, you're free to violate any regulation that's not enforced.

And then you explain that it's "pilot's discretion" :)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>The 45 degree
>entry to downwind violates the regulation.

Shall we arrest the FAA, then?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:11_Mb.46583$na.36172@attbi_s04...
> > Descending into a leg of the pattern is generally considered to be less
> than safe
> > due to the risk of a collision. It's a little less dangerous when the
> descending
> > aircraft is a high-wing, but it's still frowned upon.
>
> While what you say is true, I have tried the "overhead break" on occasion,
> and found it to be a very good way to see the entire pattern before entry.
> It's also a lot of fun.

In the UK, the standard entry at an uncontrolled field is an overhead
join. You arrive above circuit height and then descend on the "dead
side", i.e. the opposide side to the downwind. You then fly crosswind
to downwind. As Jay said, it's a good way of seeing any traffic that is
currently in the circuit. It's also the way to see the windsock.

What you don't do is descend into the circuit.

Paul

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Shall we arrest the FAA, then?
>

From a pilot's viewpoint, I do not see a downside to that.

[Bill Denton]

I'm sitting here looking at my handy-dandy little PDQ pattern calculator...

For left traffic, it shows a 45 degree entry with a right to downwind, a
left to base, and a left to final. (Obviously, for right traffic, everything
is reversed).

I'm still a wannabe, but everything I have read indicates this is the
correct method for flying a pattern. Are there any F.A.R.s that indicate
otherwise?




"Mike O'Malley" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > You are allowed to enter the traffic pattern any way you like.
> > >
> >
> > Well, not just any way, there is a restriction on the direction of
turns.
>
> Please explain to me how it is possible to "enter on a 45 to the downwind"
> AND "make all turns to the left in the traffic pattern" (that is
paraphrased
> from memory). In fact, if one were to only make left turns in the traffic
> pattern, an overhead approach would be one of the ONLY ways to enter the
> pattern. Of course, one very few people are looking for. :-)
>
> --
> Mike
>
>

[Todd Pattist]

"Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:

>The regulation does not require turns "in the pattern" to be to the left, it
>requires the pilot of an airplane approaching to land at an airport without
>an operating control tower to make all turns to the left. The 45 degree
>entry to downwind violates the regulation.

While I'm inclined to agree with you that you have the
better interpretation of that regulation, it's also clear
that the FAA recommends a procedure that on its face seems
to be illegal. If the FAA's recommendation is legal, then
the logical reason must be that making the 45 right turn
entry to the pattern occurs before the pilot is "approaching
to land." It seems odd, given that the 45 entry is part of
the defined pattern for the approach to landing, but I've
seen the language in other FAR's strained farther than that.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Todd Pattist]

Cub Driver > wrote:

>And it is local custom at some airports to descend into the traffic
>pattern. Personally, I have never seen it, and I hope that I never
>will. (I don't even particularly care for the mid-field crossover :)

In my last 1000 flights, I'd estimate that 90% include a
descent into the pattern and 60% include a mid field
crossover. It's pretty difficult not to descend, even in
the pattern, when flying a glider, and when a mid field
crossover is standard at your airport to avoid the ridge,
then that's what everyone does. Keep your eyes open out
there.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm sitting here looking at my handy-dandy little PDQ pattern
> calculator...
>
> For left traffic, it shows a 45 degree entry with a right to downwind, a
> left to base, and a left to final. (Obviously, for right traffic,
everything
> is reversed).
>
> I'm still a wannabe, but everything I have read indicates this is the
> correct method for flying a pattern. Are there any F.A.R.s that indicate
> otherwise?
>

Yes.


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

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

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

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

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


§91.127 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class E airspace.

(a) Unless otherwise required by part 93 of this chapter or unless
otherwise authorized or required by the ATC facility having jurisdiction
over the Class E airspace area, each person operating an aircraft on or in
the vicinity of an airport in a Class E airspace area must comply with the
requirements of §91.126.

[Bill Zaleski]

I read an NTSB decision that violated a 135 operator for turning a 5
mile final from a right base. If that is considered "approaching to
land", then surely the 45 entry must be also.


On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:45:34 -0500, Todd Pattist
> wrote:

>"Steven P. McNicoll" >
>wrote:
>
>>The regulation does not require turns "in the pattern" to be to the left, it
>>requires the pilot of an airplane approaching to land at an airport without
>>an operating control tower to make all turns to the left. The 45 degree
>>entry to downwind violates the regulation.
>
>While I'm inclined to agree with you that you have the
>better interpretation of that regulation, it's also clear
>that the FAA recommends a procedure that on its face seems
>to be illegal. If the FAA's recommendation is legal, then
>the logical reason must be that making the 45 right turn
>entry to the pattern occurs before the pilot is "approaching
>to land." It seems odd, given that the 45 entry is part of
>the defined pattern for the approach to landing, but I've
>seen the language in other FAR's strained farther than that.
>Todd Pattist
>(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>___
>Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
>Share what you learn.

[Harry Shin]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...

> Harry:
>
> If that is your attitude, maybe YOU need to adjust YOUR attitude!

<snip>

> BTW, your reference to "spoiling a formation landing" shows you know
> nothing about formation flying. They came overhead in the break and, as
> such, would have been landing individually, with one rolling out as the
> next touched down.

Orval,

Your concern is sincerely appreciated but please don't worry, my attitude is
fine. I followed the recommended pattern entry at a busy uncontrolled
field. I do think, however, your undies may be a little tight.

Regarding my misnomer of "formation landing", you're absolutely correct and
I apologize. Having now had the privilege to fly (unintentionally) with
these fine airmen, slotted in the Number 3 position (original Number 3
became Number 4, or possibly we became Numbers 3a and 3b), we landed in
sequence to the adoration of cheering crowds, or maybe it was only a guy
walking his dog who didn't even notice the little airplanes land...

Regards,
Harry

[Bill Denton]

When I first read 91.126 I thought it was either a poorly-written or
extremely loose reg. But since I'm new to the world of FAR/AIM's I figured
I'd learn about it when I needed to.

But in response to your post I did a little digging, and determined that the
problem is that 91.126 is being misinterpreted!

If you go back and reread 91.126, you will note that all the relevant part
is actually saying is that "left traffic" or a left pattern will be the
default standard. The purpose is to state that unless there are indicators
indicating that "right traffic" should be flown, you should always fly "left
traffic". If you arrive at an airport with no indications of a specified
traffic pattern, you should always fly "left traffic".

My justification for this interpretation comes from AIM 4-24, Chapter 4-Air
Traffic Control, Section 3-Airport Operations.

Figure 4-3-2 Provides an illustration of traffic pattern operations. It
shows a 45 degree pattern entry with a right turn onto downwind, with all
turns inside the pattern being left turns. Obviously all turn directions are
reversed for right traffic.

This agrees with the information I have received from other sources.

If I am somehow incorrect on this please let me know, as I am very much
still in the process of learning!


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'm sitting here looking at my handy-dandy little PDQ pattern
> > calculator...
> >
> > For left traffic, it shows a 45 degree entry with a right to downwind, a
> > left to base, and a left to final. (Obviously, for right traffic,
> everything
> > is reversed).
> >
> > I'm still a wannabe, but everything I have read indicates this is the
> > correct method for flying a pattern. Are there any F.A.R.s that indicate
> > otherwise?
> >
>
> Yes.
>
>
> § 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G
> airspace.
>
> (a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person
> operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G
> airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.
>
> (b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without
an
> operating control tower in Class G airspace --
>
> (1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to
> the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual
> markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case
> the pilot must make all turns to the right; and
>
> (2) Each pilot of a helicopter must avoid the flow of fixed-wing
> aircraft.
>
>
> §91.127 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class E
airspace.
>
> (a) Unless otherwise required by part 93 of this chapter or unless
> otherwise authorized or required by the ATC facility having jurisdiction
> over the Class E airspace area, each person operating an aircraft on or in
> the vicinity of an airport in a Class E airspace area must comply with the
> requirements of §91.126.
>
>
>

[Todd Pattist]

Bill Zaleski > wrote:

>I read an NTSB decision that violated a 135 operator for turning a 5
>mile final from a right base. If that is considered "approaching to
>land", then surely the 45 entry must be also.

I read it too. It was his base to final turn. We're
talking about a 45 entry turn that is 2 turns before the
base to final turn. You tell me - is distance or number of
turns more important? How about time? There must be some
transition between "not yet approaching to land" and
"approaching to land," but I don't think we can say that
it's always illegal to make right hand turns within 5 miles
of the airport you want to land at.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[C J Campbell]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
|
| When I first read 91.126 I thought it was either a poorly-written or
| extremely loose reg. But since I'm new to the world of FAR/AIM's I figured
| I'd learn about it when I needed to.
|
| But in response to your post I did a little digging, and determined that
the
| problem is that 91.126 is being misinterpreted!
|

Steve, bless his heart, just likes being a little bit obtuse from time to
time. I love his posts. He is conveniently ignoring the "unless otherwise
authorized" clause in the reg. The 45 degree entry is "otherwise
authorized." The AIM specifically states that pilots following the
recommendations in it provide a safe harbor against violation of the
regulations and that all procedures in it are approved by the Administrator.
The AIM is also signed by the Administrator saying that the procedures in it
are authorized.

[C J Campbell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
|
| "Mike O'Malley" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > Please explain to me how it is possible to "enter on a 45 to the
downwind"
| > AND "make all turns to the left in the traffic pattern" (that is
| paraphrased
| > from memory).
| >
|
| It isn't. The 45 degree entry to the downwind is illegal.

No, it is not. The regulation says "unless otherwise authorized," and the 45
degree entry is specifically authorized as a legal maneuver in a document
signed by the Administrator (the AIM). The AIM may not be regulatory, but
following the procedures in the AIM provides a safe harbor and use of those
procedures is to be presumed by the FAA to be in compliance with all federal
regulations.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Harry Shin" > wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Harry:
> >
> > If that is your attitude, maybe YOU need to adjust YOUR attitude!
>
> <snip>
>
> > BTW, your reference to "spoiling a formation landing" shows you know
> > nothing about formation flying. They came overhead in the break and, as
> > such, would have been landing individually, with one rolling out as the
> > next touched down.
>
> Orval,
>
> Your concern is sincerely appreciated but please don't worry, my attitude is
> fine. I followed the recommended pattern entry at a busy uncontrolled
> field. I do think, however, your undies may be a little tight.
>
> Regarding my misnomer of "formation landing", you're absolutely correct and
> I apologize. Having now had the privilege to fly (unintentionally) with
> these fine airmen, slotted in the Number 3 position (original Number 3
> became Number 4, or possibly we became Numbers 3a and 3b), we landed in
> sequence to the adoration of cheering crowds, or maybe it was only a guy
> walking his dog who didn't even notice the little airplanes land...
>
> Regards,
> Harry
>
>

Harry:

It appears that your real complaint is that the three were flying
formation and did an overhead approach -- both of which, if properly
done, are safe, legal and efficient. In my original post, I conceded
that it appears that the flight leader screwed up in breaking ahead of
you. What else do you want?

Are you jealous that others have practiced and enjoy flying formation?
Is it "airplane envy"? Your second paragraph indicates an attitude
problem.

[Kyle Boatright]

Sounds like the real story here is a guy got cut off in the pattern and was
rightfully ****ed about it, but PO'd another guy by making a blanket
statement about formation flyers.

C'mon guys.. Lighten up. Both of you sound reasonable (but annoyed), just
let it go...

KB

[Harry Shin]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are you jealous that others have practiced and enjoy flying formation?
> Is it "airplane envy"? Your second paragraph indicates an attitude
> problem.

Orval,

Hmmm. By your own analysis, these "others have practiced and enjoy flying
formation" did a lousy job, so I'm certainly not jealous of them.

As far as "airplane envy" and my so-called "attitude problem", I guess I
should feel honored that these guys chose to create an un-necessary
situation, with my father and I trying desperately to see where they were
going, and trying to make sure the two in the low wing planes didn't nail
us.

With respect to my "attitude problem", I suppose it's just a case where it
seems some people take themselves Way Too Seriously. "White flight", ten
second landing intervals, "break now!"; you guys should join the Boy Scouts
so you can practice marching in step (turns can be very difficult). I've
also heard it's fun to wear camoflauge to play paintball... (oops, there's
that damn attitude thing again! sorry...)

Roger Out!,
Harry

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> The regulation does not require turns "in the pattern" to be to the left, it
> requires the pilot of an airplane approaching to land at an airport without
> an operating control tower to make all turns to the left.

The "approach to landing" IS the pattern.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Dave Stadt]

"Harry Shin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Are you jealous that others have practiced and enjoy flying formation?
> > Is it "airplane envy"? Your second paragraph indicates an attitude
> > problem.
>
> Orval,
>
> Hmmm. By your own analysis, these "others have practiced and enjoy flying
> formation" did a lousy job, so I'm certainly not jealous of them.
>
> As far as "airplane envy" and my so-called "attitude problem", I guess I
> should feel honored that these guys chose to create an un-necessary
> situation, with my father and I trying desperately to see where they were
> going, and trying to make sure the two in the low wing planes didn't nail
> us.
>
> With respect to my "attitude problem", I suppose it's just a case where it
> seems some people take themselves Way Too Seriously. "White flight", ten
> second landing intervals, "break now!"; you guys should join the Boy
Scouts
> so you can practice marching in step (turns can be very difficult). I've
> also heard it's fun to wear camoflauge to play paintball... (oops, there's
> that damn attitude thing again! sorry...)
>
> Roger Out!,
> Harry
>


Did you ever think that they had you in sight and knew that two were able to
enter downwind without causing a conflict and the third would fit in nicely
behind you? In my experience those that fly formation are more capable than
the pilot that can't deal with anything but the 45 degree entry to downwind
and you know the rest.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> When I first read 91.126 I thought it was either a poorly-written or
> extremely loose reg. But since I'm new to the world of FAR/AIM's I figured
> I'd learn about it when I needed to.
>
> But in response to your post I did a little digging, and determined that
the
> problem is that 91.126 is being misinterpreted!
>
> If you go back and reread 91.126, you will note that all the relevant part
> is actually saying is that "left traffic" or a left pattern will be the
> default standard. The purpose is to state that unless there are indicators
> indicating that "right traffic" should be flown, you should always fly
"left
> traffic". If you arrive at an airport with no indications of a specified
> traffic pattern, you should always fly "left traffic".
>

Actually, 91.126 states that all turns while approaching to land are to the
left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings
indicating that turns should be made to the right. Turns on departure can
be in either direction.


>
> My justification for this interpretation comes from AIM 4-24, Chapter
4-Air
> Traffic Control, Section 3-Airport Operations.
>
> Figure 4-3-2 Provides an illustration of traffic pattern operations. It
> shows a 45 degree pattern entry with a right turn onto downwind, with all
> turns inside the pattern being left turns. Obviously all turn directions
are
> reversed for right traffic.
>
> This agrees with the information I have received from other sources.
>
> If I am somehow incorrect on this please let me know, as I am very much
> still in the process of learning!
>

You are incorrect. As the AIM itself says it's not regulatory it obviously
does not trump the FARs.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
>
> I read it too. It was his base to final turn. We're
> talking about a 45 entry turn that is 2 turns before the
> base to final turn. You tell me - is distance or number of
> turns more important? How about time? There must be some
> transition between "not yet approaching to land" and
> "approaching to land," but I don't think we can say that
> it's always illegal to make right hand turns within 5 miles
> of the airport you want to land at.
>

The regulation says when approaching to land at an airport without an
operating control tower each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of
that airplane to the left. Logically, any turn made for the purpose of
aligning the airplane with the landing runway is such a turn and must be
made to the left. That would include all turns in the pattern and the
pattern entry.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steve, bless his heart, just likes being a little bit obtuse from time to
> time. I love his posts. He is conveniently ignoring the "unless otherwise
> authorized" clause in the reg. The 45 degree entry is "otherwise
> authorized."
>

Authorized by whom?


>
> The AIM specifically states that pilots following the
> recommendations in it provide a safe harbor against violation of the
> regulations and that all procedures in it are approved by the
> Administrator.
>

Where does the AIM state that? I can't find such a statement in my AIM.


>
> The AIM is also signed by the Administrator saying that the procedures in
> it are authorized.
>

Where is the AIM signed? I can't find any signature in my AIM.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, it is not. The regulation says "unless otherwise authorized," and the
> 45 degree entry is specifically authorized as a legal maneuver in a
document
> signed by the Administrator (the AIM).
>

Where is that stated in the AIM? What's the purpose of promulgating a
regulation that everyone is authorized to deviate from?


>
> The AIM may not be regulatory,
>

There's no "may" about it, the AIM itself says it's not regulatory.


>
> but following the procedures in the AIM provides a safe harbor and use of
> those procedures is to be presumed by the FAA to be in compliance with all
> federal regulations.
>

What do you base that on?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> The "approach to landing" IS the pattern.
>

Wrong.

[Chris Nielsen]

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Harry Shin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Are you jealous that others have practiced and enjoy flying formation?
>>>Is it "airplane envy"? Your second paragraph indicates an attitude
>>>problem.
>>
>>Orval,
>>
>>Hmmm. By your own analysis, these "others have practiced and enjoy flying
>>formation" did a lousy job, so I'm certainly not jealous of them.
>>
>>As far as "airplane envy" and my so-called "attitude problem", I guess I
>>should feel honored that these guys chose to create an un-necessary
>>situation, with my father and I trying desperately to see where they were
>>going, and trying to make sure the two in the low wing planes didn't nail
>>us.
>>
>>With respect to my "attitude problem", I suppose it's just a case where it
>>seems some people take themselves Way Too Seriously. "White flight", ten
>>second landing intervals, "break now!"; you guys should join the Boy
>
> Scouts
>
>>so you can practice marching in step (turns can be very difficult). I've
>>also heard it's fun to wear camoflauge to play paintball... (oops, there's
>>that damn attitude thing again! sorry...)
>>
>>Roger Out!,
>>Harry
>>
>
>
>
> Did you ever think that they had you in sight and knew that two were able to
> enter downwind without causing a conflict and the third would fit in nicely
> behind you? In my experience those that fly formation are more capable than
> the pilot that can't deal with anything but the 45 degree entry to downwind
> and you know the rest.
>
>
>


Hi guys...

Just a question - what is this 45 degree entry to downwind we keep
hearing about? I'm from the other side of the world and that's not
something I was taught - instead, like the guys from the UK, I do an
overhead join at an uncontrolled field, descending on the non-traffic
side, especially if unsure of the circuit direction. Here, most of our
smaller airfields are totally deserted, so there's no-one to observe to
determine circuit direction...

Thanks!

Chris
New Zealand

[Cub Driver]

>Just a question - what is this 45 degree entry to downwind we keep
>hearing about? I'm from the other side of the world and that's not
>something I was taught - instead, like the guys from the UK, I do an
>overhead join at an uncontrolled field,

It is part of the recommended approach in the U.S., and is so commonly
used that alternative entries are upsetting to many pilots.

It really doesn't matter how you approach an airport, but it sure
helps if everyone does it the same way.

Since I fly a high-wing airplane, however, I would prefer that people
not descend upon me while I'm in the pattern. As an alternative to the
45, I would choose a mid-field crossover to the downwind, but not if
there's a NORDO aircraft in the pattern. He's expecting traffic to
enter from his right, not his left.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> It really doesn't matter how you approach an airport, but it sure
> helps if everyone does it the same way.
>

How so?

[Bill Denton]

As you have more than adequately informed all of us that the 45 degree
pattern entry is incorrect, would you please advise all of us as to what you
believe the correct pattern entry procedure to be?


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > When I first read 91.126 I thought it was either a poorly-written or
> > extremely loose reg. But since I'm new to the world of FAR/AIM's I
figured
> > I'd learn about it when I needed to.
> >
> > But in response to your post I did a little digging, and determined that
> the
> > problem is that 91.126 is being misinterpreted!
> >
> > If you go back and reread 91.126, you will note that all the relevant
part
> > is actually saying is that "left traffic" or a left pattern will be the
> > default standard. The purpose is to state that unless there are
indicators
> > indicating that "right traffic" should be flown, you should always fly
> "left
> > traffic". If you arrive at an airport with no indications of a specified
> > traffic pattern, you should always fly "left traffic".
> >
>
> Actually, 91.126 states that all turns while approaching to land are to
the
> left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings
> indicating that turns should be made to the right. Turns on departure can
> be in either direction.
>
>
> >
> > My justification for this interpretation comes from AIM 4-24, Chapter
> 4-Air
> > Traffic Control, Section 3-Airport Operations.
> >
> > Figure 4-3-2 Provides an illustration of traffic pattern operations. It
> > shows a 45 degree pattern entry with a right turn onto downwind, with
all
> > turns inside the pattern being left turns. Obviously all turn directions
> are
> > reversed for right traffic.
> >
> > This agrees with the information I have received from other sources.
> >
> > If I am somehow incorrect on this please let me know, as I am very much
> > still in the process of learning!
> >
>
> You are incorrect. As the AIM itself says it's not regulatory it
obviously
> does not trump the FARs.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> As you have more than adequately informed all of us that the 45 degree
> pattern entry is incorrect, would you please advise all of us as to what
you
> believe the correct pattern entry procedure to be?
>

To be precise, I have not stated that the 45 degree entry is correct or
incorrect, just that it runs afoul of FAR 91.126. You'll discover that the
more FAA documents you examine the more inconsistencies you will find.

[Todd Pattist]

"Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:

>The regulation says when approaching to land at an airport without an
>operating control tower each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of
>that airplane to the left.

Agreed. I submit, that it is legal to make right hand turns
in airplanes at some point during flight after departure and
prior to landing. I also submit that during that period of
time when it is legal to make such right turns that one is
*not* "approaching to land." Consequently, I submit that
there is a dividing line between the "not approaching to
land" when it is legal to turn right and "approaching to
land" when the FAR's prohibit it. That dividing line will
come into play if any of us are ever accused of violating
91.126.

> Logically, any turn made for the purpose of
>aligning the airplane with the landing runway is such a turn and must be
>made to the left. That would include all turns in the pattern and the
>pattern entry.

If you are right, then the 45 entry is in violation of
91.126. However, I have my doubts that the application of
"logic" is particularly useful in interpreting the FAR's.:-)
It's probably better to look at the Chief Counsel's
interpretations and the NTSB hearing records

To my knowledge, no pilot has ever been violated for a 45
entry, and many cases have upheld the AIM's recommendations
as good operating practices, so 45 entries are pretty safe
to use, and the disparity between the AIM and 91.126 is
little more than a curiosity that the FAA likes to ignore.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you are right, then the 45 entry is in violation of
> 91.126. However, I have my doubts that the application of
> "logic" is particularly useful in interpreting the FAR's.:-)
> It's probably better to look at the Chief Counsel's
> interpretations and the NTSB hearing records
>
> To my knowledge, no pilot has ever been violated for a 45
> entry, and many cases have upheld the AIM's recommendations
> as good operating practices, so 45 entries are pretty safe
> to use, and the disparity between the AIM and 91.126 is
> little more than a curiosity that the FAA likes to ignore.
>

Agreed.

[Dave Stadt]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Just a question - what is this 45 degree entry to downwind we keep
> >hearing about? I'm from the other side of the world and that's not
> >something I was taught - instead, like the guys from the UK, I do an
> >overhead join at an uncontrolled field,
>
> It is part of the recommended approach in the U.S., and is so commonly
> used that alternative entries are upsetting to many pilots.
>
> It really doesn't matter how you approach an airport, but it sure
> helps if everyone does it the same way.
>
> Since I fly a high-wing airplane, however, I would prefer that people
> not descend upon me while I'm in the pattern. As an alternative to the
> 45, I would choose a mid-field crossover to the downwind, but not if
> there's a NORDO aircraft in the pattern. He's expecting traffic to
> enter from his right, not his left.

Doesn't matter if you fly with or without a radio you should expect traffic
to enter the pattern anywhere and everywhere. Why do you think NORDO
traffic would only expect traffic to enter from "his right, not his left?"

>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Brien K. Meehan]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...

> Since I fly a high-wing airplane, however, I would prefer that people
> not descend upon me while I'm in the pattern. As an alternative to the
> 45, I would choose a mid-field crossover to the downwind, but not if
> there's a NORDO aircraft in the pattern. He's expecting traffic to
> enter from his right, not his left.

He should be expecting traffic to enter any time from anywhere, just
as you, and every competent pilot, are.

[Cub Driver]

>it's also clear
>that the FAA recommends a procedure that on its face seems
>to be illegal.

What makes it illegal? The requirement to make left turns (except when
making right turns!) is an FAA requirement. No legislature passed this
law.

What the FAA requires, the FAA can amend.

You know that it is not a law. Think: if you bust the requirement,
will the local sheriff come out and arrest you? No. The FAA will lift
your certificate at worst. There is merely an institutional
requirement, and to enforce it there is an institutional remedy. There
is nothing "illegal" about it.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> |
> | "Mike O'Malley" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | >
> | > Please explain to me how it is possible to "enter on a 45 to the
> downwind"
> | > AND "make all turns to the left in the traffic pattern" (that is
> | paraphrased
> | > from memory).
> | >
> |
> | It isn't. The 45 degree entry to the downwind is illegal.
>
> No, it is not. The regulation says "unless otherwise authorized," and the
45
> degree entry is specifically authorized as a legal maneuver in a document
> signed by the Administrator (the AIM). The AIM may not be regulatory, but
> following the procedures in the AIM provides a safe harbor and use of
those
> procedures is to be presumed by the FAA to be in compliance with all
federal
> regulations.
>

May 19, 2000

Pelican's Perch #30:
The 45-Degree Zealots

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> What makes it illegal?
>

FAR 91.126


>
> The requirement to make left turns (except when
> making right turns!) is an FAA requirement. No legislature passed this
> law.
>

The US Congress passed the Federal Aviation Act which authorizes and directs
the FAA to develop plans for and formulate policy with respect to the use of
the navigable airspace and assign by rule, regulation, or order the use of
the navigable airspace as necessary in order to insure the safety of
aircraft and the efficient utilization of such airspace.


>
> What the FAA requires, the FAA can amend.
>

Yes, but they haven't amended the regulation.


>
> You know that it is not a law.
>

It is law.


>
> Think: if you bust the requirement,
> will the local sheriff come out and arrest you?
>

So only that which the local sheriff might arrest me for is law?


>
> No. The FAA will lift
> your certificate at worst. There is merely an institutional
> requirement, and to enforce it there is an institutional remedy. There
> is nothing "illegal" about it.
>

Nonsense.

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:48:06 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

<snip>

>> Since I fly a high-wing airplane, however, I would prefer that people
>> not descend upon me while I'm in the pattern. As an alternative to the
>> 45, I would choose a mid-field crossover to the downwind, but not if
>> there's a NORDO aircraft in the pattern. He's expecting traffic to
>> enter from his right, not his left.
>
>Doesn't matter if you fly with or without a radio you should expect traffic
>to enter the pattern anywhere and everywhere. Why do you think NORDO
>traffic would only expect traffic to enter from "his right, not his left?"

Finally, someone who thinks like I do!

If you only expect (and look for) the expected, the unexpected will
get you sooner or later.

There can be an aircraft in distress (emergency) that comes into
the pattern from virtually anywhere.

There can be a pilot who's lost who blunders into a traffic
pattern / area.

An analogy might be trusting other drivers in their cars when they use
signals, merge onto freeways, etc. If you only expect them to do what
they're supposed to do (or what would be deemed logical to do), you're
asking for trouble....

Like defensive driving, defensive flying is the way to go.

Bela P. Havasreti

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
|
| May 19, 2000
|
| Pelican's Perch #30:
| The 45-Degree Zealots
|
| http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html

Good article, but I see nowhere that he says a 45 degree entry is illegal.
Contrariwise, he feels that the entry into the pattern is not part of the
pattern.

[Todd Pattist]

"C J Campbell" >
wrote:


>| Pelican's Perch #30:
>| The 45-Degree Zealots
>| http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html
>
>Good article, but I see nowhere that he says a 45 degree entry is illegal.

I quote from that article:

"I can make a very good case that the classic 45-degree
entry is itself a violation of the FARs,..."

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Good article, but I see nowhere that he says a 45 degree entry is illegal.
>

In about the middle of the article Deakin writes:

"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!"

[C J Campbell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
|
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > Good article, but I see nowhere that he says a 45 degree entry is
illegal.
| >
|
| In about the middle of the article Deakin writes:
|
| "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!"

Then in that case I have to disagree with him on that point.

It might be interesting to get a couple of FSDO interpretations.

[karl]

****It might be interesting to get a couple of FSDO interpretations.****

That, and $3.75, will buy you a cup of coffee.

Karl

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then in that case I have to disagree with him on that point.
>

On what basis?

[Bill Denton]

Good article, thanks for posting it. Now please allow me to chew it up a
bit...

Mr. Deakin stated: "Rubbish to both, I say. I say there is no good evidence
either way that any one type of pattern entry is any safer than any other."

This is not correct. The safest traffic pattern entry is the one that is
flown correctly and consistently by everyone.

Mr. Deakin next moved on to the FAR's, specifically: 91.126 Operating on or
in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.

The relevant portion of 91.126 is this::
(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an
operating control tower in a Class G airspace area -

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

As I have previously stated, I believe this is not being interpreted
correctly. I believe that the purpose of this regulation is to define a
default traffic pattern direction. It basically states that "left traffic"
will be the standard, unless there are specific indications that one should
fly "right traffic".

By defining "left traffic" as the default direction, this eliminates the
problem of some pilots flying "left traffic" while others fly "right
traffic".

Now, allow me to provide a few quotes from the Preface to the AIM: "This
manual is designed to provide the aviation community with basic flight
information and ATC procedures for use in the National Airspace System (NAS)
of the United States...This manual contains the fundamentals required to fly
in the United States NAS...This publication, while not regulatory, provides
information which reflects examples of operating techniques and procedures
which may be requirements in other federal publications or regulations. It
is made available solely to assist pilots in executing their
responsibilities required by other publications."

From this, it would be a reasonable interpretation that the purpose of the
AIM is to provide a set of "best practices"; a method of performing
operations in a specific manner that will comply with regulations.

Now examine: "AIM 4-24, Chapter 4-Air Traffic Control, Section 3-Airport
Operations".

Figure 4-3-2 Provides an illustration of traffic pattern operations. It
shows a 45 degree pattern entry with a right turn onto downwind, with all
turns inside the pattern being left turns. Obviously all turn directions are
reversed for right traffic.

This would indicate that the FAA's preferred method for pattern entry is a
45 degree entry with a right turn into "left traffic" or a left turn into
"right traffic".

Again, let me note that I am a wannabe; I am anxiously awaiting the
implementation of the Sport Pilot License. But via: my varied occupations, I
have extensive experience interpreting various rules, regulations, and
supplemental materials published both by various governments and private
industry. So, I feel quite confident of my interpretations. But if I am
demonstrably incorrect, please let me know...







"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > |
> > | "Mike O'Malley" > wrote in message
> > | ...
> > | >
> > | > Please explain to me how it is possible to "enter on a 45 to the
> > downwind"
> > | > AND "make all turns to the left in the traffic pattern" (that is
> > | paraphrased
> > | > from memory).
> > | >
> > |
> > | It isn't. The 45 degree entry to the downwind is illegal.
> >
> > No, it is not. The regulation says "unless otherwise authorized," and
the
> 45
> > degree entry is specifically authorized as a legal maneuver in a
document
> > signed by the Administrator (the AIM). The AIM may not be regulatory,
but
> > following the procedures in the AIM provides a safe harbor and use of
> those
> > procedures is to be presumed by the FAA to be in compliance with all
> federal
> > regulations.
> >
>
> May 19, 2000
>
> Pelican's Perch #30:
> The 45-Degree Zealots
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html
>
>

[karl]

Your basic premise is incorrect, and there is no data to back up such a
claim. In fact, it is impossible for all aircraft to fly the same pattern.


*****This is not correct. The safest traffic pattern entry is the one that
is
flown correctly and consistently by everyone.*******

Karl

[Ron Natalie]

"karl" > wrote in message ...

> *****This is not correct. The safest traffic pattern entry is the one that
> is
> flown correctly and consistently by everyone.*******
>
Didn't your mama ever say "If everybody jumped off the bridge, would you do so too?"

Just because everybody else is doing it, doesn't make it safe. The fact that they are
too lame to turn the pattern around to land upwind, or they patterns wide enough for
a 747 isn't compelling reason to follow along.

[Todd Pattist]

"Bill Denton" > wrote:

>This is not correct. The safest traffic pattern entry is the one that is
>flown correctly and consistently by everyone.

Your evidence for this is? Putting all traffic on the exact
same altitude at exactly the same ground track ensures that
we're guaranteed a midair if I'm a mile from touchdown when
you're a mile from touchdown. I don't necessarily disagree
with you, but I'd like to see the evidence for your claim.

>As I have previously stated, I believe this is not being interpreted
>correctly. I believe that the purpose of this regulation is to define a
>default traffic pattern direction. It basically states that "left traffic"
>will be the standard, unless there are specific indications that one should
>fly "right traffic".

Your belief is not regulatory - the FAR's are. If they
wanted to say what you believe they mean, they could have
written it your way.

>From this, it would be a reasonable interpretation that the purpose of the
>AIM is to provide a set of "best practices"; a method of performing
>operations in a specific manner that will comply with regulations.

Reasonable. I might have stated it as: "... that will
comply with regulations as they are presently interpreted
and enforced."

>This would indicate that the FAA's preferred method for pattern entry is a
>45 degree entry with a right turn into "left traffic" or a left turn into
>"right traffic".

Yep.

>Again, let me note that I am a wannabe;

If you are a student or hope to become one, then ignore this
whole discussion and fly according to the AIM as closely as
you can. This discussion is by those who are either
frustrated or simply amused that the FAA's recommended
practices don't seem to be in compliance with the FAR's.
Eventually someone might push to change the FAR's or even
the 45 recommendation, but as a present or future student,
you should ignore this whole thread.

> I am anxiously awaiting the
>implementation of the Sport Pilot License. But via: my varied occupations, I
>have extensive experience interpreting various rules, regulations, and
>supplemental materials published both by various governments and private
>industry. So, I feel quite confident of my interpretations. But if I am
>demonstrably incorrect, please let me know...

The simplest demonstration is that the 45 turn to a left
pattern is a right turn, and the FAR's prohibit a right turn
when approaching to land. If you aren't approaching to land
when you make that turn, then you're right, but my gut tells
me you are. Q: When is a fish not a fish? A: When the FAA
says it's a cow. It's a curiosity that should guide no one.
There are lots of them in the FAR's. Fly the AIM for
instruction and flight tests and whenever it's safe.

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Chris Nielsen]

Cub Driver wrote:

>
>>Just a question - what is this 45 degree entry to downwind we keep
>>hearing about? I'm from the other side of the world and that's not
>>something I was taught - instead, like the guys from the UK, I do an
>>overhead join at an uncontrolled field,
>
> It is part of the recommended approach in the U.S., and is so commonly
> used that alternative entries are upsetting to many pilots.
>
> It really doesn't matter how you approach an airport, but it sure
> helps if everyone does it the same way.
>
> Since I fly a high-wing airplane, however, I would prefer that people
> not descend upon me while I'm in the pattern. As an alternative to the
> 45, I would choose a mid-field crossover to the downwind, but not if
> there's a NORDO aircraft in the pattern. He's expecting traffic to
> enter from his right, not his left.
>

OK, just another dumb question.. When you talk about people descending on
you in the circuit, I take it you mean they are descending while on
downwind? That sounds extremely unwise!!! I'm surprised that what we do
isn't also practised, or maybe it is but you call it something else... I
also can't bring myself to call it a pattern - sorry, I'm so used to
referring to it as a circuit, pattern sounds foreign to me :-)

Here's how we do it.... When we do an overhead join, we start 500 feet
above circuit altitude, and when ready, descend on the non-traffic side,
i.e. the upwind side - the other side of the circuit from downwind, then
when we're down to circuit altitude, we turn and fly the crosswind leg,
then, while looking for traffic we turn downwind and fly the rest
normally... I trust this doesn't come under the category of descending on
you?

No doubt this is normal, but called something else...

See ya

Chris

[karl]

******Didn't your mama ever say "If everybody jumped off the bridge, would
you do so too?"

Just because everybody else is doing it, doesn't make it safe. The fact
that they are
too lame to turn the pattern around to land upwind, or they patterns wide
enough for
a 747 isn't compelling reason to follow along.*******


Maybe you should change newsreaders, Ron. Since you can't seem to be able to
follow a thread. Or maybe it's just too much ego and not enough smarts. If
you follow the tread you'll see that I was not recommending everyone follow
the same pattern, rather, just the opposite.

When you build up enough time in the bush to be able to get a real job I'll
start respecting your point of view. Till then you're just a low time
loudmouth.

Karl

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | May 19, 2000
> |
> | Pelican's Perch #30:
> | The 45-Degree Zealots
> |
> | http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html
>
> Good article, but I see nowhere that he says a 45 degree entry is illegal.

Why would he...he believes otherwise.

From the intro:
"There's not a syllable in the FARs about 45-degree traffic pattern
entries. Nor does the AIM require them. There exists, however, a
small-but-vocal cadre of pilots — and even some FAA inspectors — who
consider any other type of pattern entry (straight-in, crosswind, etc.) to
be a felony."

> Contrariwise, he feels that the entry into the pattern is not part of the
> pattern.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> |
> | "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | >
> | > Good article, but I see nowhere that he says a 45 degree entry is
> illegal.
> | >
> |
> | In about the middle of the article Deakin writes:
> |
> | "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!"
>
> Then in that case I have to disagree with him on that point.

He says it in the context of "playing on words".


> It might be interesting to get a couple of FSDO interpretations.

[Bill Denton]

Actually, the AIM doesn't require anything. It is simply a collection of
best practices to help pilot fulfill their regulatory responsibilities.

That said, as I have previously noted, the AIM provides an illustration of
the traffic pattern, and it utilizes 45 degree entries.

As the FAA says the AIM presents their recommended practices and methods,
and the AIM recommendation contains 45 degree pattern entries, it would
appear that the FAA wants 45 degree entries to be used.


"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > |
> > | May 19, 2000
> > |
> > | Pelican's Perch #30:
> > | The 45-Degree Zealots
> > |
> > | http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html
> >
> > Good article, but I see nowhere that he says a 45 degree entry is
illegal.
>
> Why would he...he believes otherwise.
>
> From the intro:
> "There's not a syllable in the FARs about 45-degree traffic pattern
> entries. Nor does the AIM require them. There exists, however, a
> small-but-vocal cadre of pilots — and even some FAA inspectors — who
> consider any other type of pattern entry (straight-in, crosswind, etc.) to
> be a felony."
>
> > Contrariwise, he feels that the entry into the pattern is not part of
the
> > pattern.
>
>
>

[David Brooks]

"Chris Nielsen" > wrote in message
...

> Here's how we do it.... When we do an overhead join, we start 500 feet
> above circuit altitude, and when ready, descend on the non-traffic side,
> i.e. the upwind side - the other side of the circuit from downwind, then
> when we're down to circuit altitude, we turn and fly the crosswind leg,
> then, while looking for traffic we turn downwind and fly the rest
> normally... I trust this doesn't come under the category of descending
on
> you?

I've asked this before, but doesn't the dead side descending entry used in
UK (and, presumably from the above, New Zealand) mean that there is always
traffic noise on both sides of the runway? Many of the single runways in my
area have the pattern on one geographical side (e.g. LP 10, RP 28), thus
removing noise from, in this example, the south side. It also reduces the
fall-out-of-the-sky fear factor from people on the ground when there are
buildings on the unused side.

Or does the fact that the planes on the dead side are descending from
TPA+500 mean the noise is less intrusive?

-- David Brooks

[Bill Denton]

I sent a request to the Chicago O'Hare requesting a clarification of these
issues. I'll post an answer if they send me one!

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > |
> > | May 19, 2000
> > |
> > | Pelican's Perch #30:
> > | The 45-Degree Zealots
> > |
> > | http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html
> >
> > Good article, but I see nowhere that he says a 45 degree entry is
illegal.
>
> Why would he...he believes otherwise.
>
> From the intro:
> "There's not a syllable in the FARs about 45-degree traffic pattern
> entries. Nor does the AIM require them. There exists, however, a
> small-but-vocal cadre of pilots — and even some FAA inspectors — who
> consider any other type of pattern entry (straight-in, crosswind, etc.) to
> be a felony."
>
> > Contrariwise, he feels that the entry into the pattern is not part of
the
> > pattern.
>
>
>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Chris Nielsen > wrote:

> Cub Driver wrote:
>
> >
> >>Just a question - what is this 45 degree entry to downwind we keep
> >>hearing about? I'm from the other side of the world and that's not
> >>something I was taught - instead, like the guys from the UK, I do an
> >>overhead join at an uncontrolled field,
> >
> > It is part of the recommended approach in the U.S., and is so commonly
> > used that alternative entries are upsetting to many pilots.
> >
> > It really doesn't matter how you approach an airport, but it sure
> > helps if everyone does it the same way.
> >
> > Since I fly a high-wing airplane, however, I would prefer that people
> > not descend upon me while I'm in the pattern. As an alternative to the
> > 45, I would choose a mid-field crossover to the downwind, but not if
> > there's a NORDO aircraft in the pattern. He's expecting traffic to
> > enter from his right, not his left.
> >
>
> OK, just another dumb question.. When you talk about people descending on
> you in the circuit, I take it you mean they are descending while on
> downwind? That sounds extremely unwise!!! I'm surprised that what we do
> isn't also practised, or maybe it is but you call it something else... I
> also can't bring myself to call it a pattern - sorry, I'm so used to
> referring to it as a circuit, pattern sounds foreign to me :-)
>
> Here's how we do it.... When we do an overhead join, we start 500 feet
> above circuit altitude, and when ready, descend on the non-traffic side,
> i.e. the upwind side - the other side of the circuit from downwind, then
> when we're down to circuit altitude, we turn and fly the crosswind leg,
> then, while looking for traffic we turn downwind and fly the rest
> normally... I trust this doesn't come under the category of descending on
> you?
>
> No doubt this is normal, but called something else...
>
> See ya
>
> Chris
>

Here at Spruce Creek, we do initial at or below pattern altitude and
perform either a level turn break or a "popup" break, to shed speed,
followed by a tight pattern.

Both approaches give lead a better assessment of incoming and pattern
traffic than a descending break. Also, the descending break makes it
really hard to reduce speed to gear and flap speed (mine is only 100
mph, while I may be flying aintial at 160 +). It is incumbent on lead to
assure that his flight does NOT break into other traffic.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> I sent a request to the Chicago O'Hare requesting a clarification of these
> issues. I'll post an answer if they send me one!
>

What is "the Chicago O'Hare"?

[Cub Driver]

>Finally, someone who thinks like I do!

It would help if you guys would post what airport you are based at, so
I can avoid them.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>OK, just another dumb question.. When you talk about people descending on
>you in the circuit, I take it you mean they are descending while on
>downwind? That sounds extremely unwise!!!

Yes, that's what I understood the original poster to have meant.

>Here's how we do it.... When we do an overhead join, we start 500 feet
>above circuit altitude, and when ready, descend on the non-traffic side,
>i.e. the upwind side

That sounds a whole lot safer.

What's really important is that everyone do it the same way at a given
airfield. The guy who asked why this was safer left me shaking my head
and wondering if it was a good idea to take up this hobby. It's all
very well to smirk and say the NORDO pilot (indeed, the pilot with
radio) should have his head on a swivel, but the fact is that student
pilots have a lot of cognitive dissonance cluttering up the old brain
pan. They do well to see the aircraft in front of them, never mind the
one charging in from the side or descending from overhead.


the other side of the circuit from downwind, then
>when we're down to circuit altitude, we turn and fly the crosswind leg,
>then, while looking for traffic we turn downwind and fly the rest
>normally... I trust this doesn't come under the category of descending on
>you?

No, it doesn't. Thanks for the clarification.

(All of this said, I ought to add that I have descended to the
downwind occasionally, on simulated engine-out landings. But never
when there was another aircraft in the pattern or moving anywhere on
the field.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Here at Spruce Creek, we do initial at or below pattern altitude and
>perform either a level turn break or a "popup" break, to shed speed,
>followed by a tight pattern.

Again, if it's local custom, most anything would suffice. Pity there
wasn't a place in the AOPA airport handbook to indicate these local
quirks.

My home field has a nuclear plant a few miles to the south, and the
local rule since 9/11 is never to point your plane in its direction.
The ocean is a couple miles east, so most traffic is coming from the
west.

When we must land to the north, therefore, most of us get on the 45
from the west, then cross over at mid-field or at the south end,
making a left turn onto downwind (no doubt to the joy of those who
believe that right turns onto downwind are "illegal").

I suppose every airfield has these local quirks. We have a "calm wind
runway" also, and so do other fields I've landed at. One even uses the
favored runway up to a 5 knot tailwind.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Here at Spruce Creek, we do initial at or below pattern altitude and
>perform either a level turn break or a "popup" break, to shed speed,
>followed by a tight pattern.

You know, it would help me (and perhaps others) if somebody explained
what a "break" was. I've never done formation flying, nor do I intend
to, but if it's part of your landing drill, perhaps I should know
about it.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>"I can make a very good case that the classic 45-degree
>entry is itself a violation of the FARs,..."

I understand that to mean "ridiculous as it seems, I can ..."

We know someone can make a case for it. People do it all the time on
this newsgroup. That doesn't make it a good case, especially when the
organization that wrote the FARs itself recommends the 45 entry.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>As the FAA says the AIM presents their recommended practices and methods,
>and the AIM recommendation contains 45 degree pattern entries, it would
>appear that the FAA wants 45 degree entries to be used.

Thank you, Bill! A nice statement of the obvious.

Put it in the FAQ!


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>To my knowledge, no pilot has ever been violated for a 45
>entry,

Nor any flight instructor for telling his students to do it that way,
which includes all the flight instructors who were brave enough to
take me up.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Chris Nielsen]

David Brooks wrote:
> "Chris Nielsen" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Here's how we do it.... When we do an overhead join, we start 500 feet
>>above circuit altitude, and when ready, descend on the non-traffic side,
>>i.e. the upwind side - the other side of the circuit from downwind, then
>>when we're down to circuit altitude, we turn and fly the crosswind leg,
>>then, while looking for traffic we turn downwind and fly the rest
>>normally... I trust this doesn't come under the category of descending
>
> on
>
>>you?
>
>
> I've asked this before, but doesn't the dead side descending entry used in
> UK (and, presumably from the above, New Zealand) mean that there is always
> traffic noise on both sides of the runway? Many of the single runways in my
> area have the pattern on one geographical side (e.g. LP 10, RP 28), thus
> removing noise from, in this example, the south side. It also reduces the
> fall-out-of-the-sky fear factor from people on the ground when there are
> buildings on the unused side.
>
> Or does the fact that the planes on the dead side are descending from
> TPA+500 mean the noise is less intrusive?
>
> -- David Brooks
>
>


I guess the deal is that since you've got reduced throttle setting and
you're not there for very long it doesn't really matter....

Don't really have a good answer for you, and I think I should have one!!!!

Rgds

chris

[Chris Nielsen]

Cub Driver wrote:


> My home field has a nuclear plant a few miles to the south, and the
> local rule since 9/11 is never to point your plane in its direction.
> The ocean is a couple miles east, so most traffic is coming from the
> west.


Interesting! Just a completely off topic question - feel free to flame
me mercilessly... I live in what is described as a nuclear-free
country. I don't know if you guys remember but back in the 80s our
government banned US ships and so on... But anyway, I've just had a
nasty email exchange with our local Green Party, who now want to ban US
military flights from Christchurch airport because they supply the Pine
Gap spy facility in Australia, which shares with the US...

Idiots!!!! I'm firing off another email to these bloody tree-hugging
hippies now...

All the best

Chris

[Cub Driver]

>The US Congress passed the Federal Aviation Act which authorizes and directs
>the FAA to develop plans for and formulate policy

That's right. The FAA issues regulations. They are not laws. If you
violate the regs, you get an administrative punishment.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Todd Pattist]

Cub Driver > wrote:

>>"I can make a very good case that the classic 45-degree
>>entry is itself a violation of the FARs,..."
>
>I understand that to mean "ridiculous as it seems, I can ..."
>
>We know someone can make a case for it. People do it all the time on
>this newsgroup. That doesn't make it a good case,

He called it a "very good case."
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Dave Stadt]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Finally, someone who thinks like I do!
>
> It would help if you guys would post what airport you are based at, so
> I can avoid them.

Because we keep our heads on a swivel and assume traffic could come from any
direction and fly defensively you don't want to fly at our airports? Dang,
I didn't know there were people like you actually flying. Tunnel vision is
a very bad thing in the pattern Dan. It could get you dead.

> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Bill Denton]

Sorry, I dropped a word; should be "Chicago O'Hare FSDO"

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I sent a request to the Chicago O'Hare requesting a clarification of
these
> > issues. I'll post an answer if they send me one!
> >
>
> What is "the Chicago O'Hare"?
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
| Cub Driver > wrote:
|
| >>"I can make a very good case that the classic 45-degree
| >>entry is itself a violation of the FARs,..."
| >
| >I understand that to mean "ridiculous as it seems, I can ..."
| >
| >We know someone can make a case for it. People do it all the time on
| >this newsgroup. That doesn't make it a good case,
|
| He called it a "very good case."

He can call it a green-eyed lizard if he wishes, but that doesn't make it
true.

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 05:33:08 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:


>>Finally, someone who thinks like I do!
>
>It would help if you guys would post what airport you are based at, so
>I can avoid them.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email:
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Suit yourself, but I find it a bit odd that you want to avoid
pilots who fly defensively.

Eyeballs out the windows, assume nothing, expect the
unexpected.

Bela P. Havasreti

[George Black]

"Chris Nielsen" > wrote in message
...
: Cub Driver wrote:
:
:
: > My home field has a nuclear plant a few miles to the south, and
the
: > local rule since 9/11 is never to point your plane in its
direction.
: > The ocean is a couple miles east, so most traffic is coming from
the
: > west.
:
:
: Interesting! Just a completely off topic question - feel free to
flame
: me mercilessly... I live in what is described as a nuclear-free
: country. I don't know if you guys remember but back in the 80s our
: government banned US ships and so on... But anyway, I've just had a
: nasty email exchange with our local Green Party, who now want to ban
US
: military flights from Christchurch airport because they supply the
Pine
: Gap spy facility in Australia, which shares with the US...

It's only another of their attempts to shut down anything remotely
connected with the US

: Idiots!!!! I'm firing off another email to these bloody
tree-hugging
: hippies now...

Use very simple words and very short sentences. You are not dealing
with real people

[Todd Pattist]

"C J Campbell" >
wrote:

>"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
>| Cub Driver > wrote:
>|
>| >>"I can make a very good case that the classic 45-degree
>| >>entry is itself a violation of the FARs,..."
>| >
>| >I understand that to mean "ridiculous as it seems, I can ..."
>| >
>| >We know someone can make a case for it. People do it all the time on
>| >this newsgroup. That doesn't make it a good case,
>|
>| He called it a "very good case."
>
>He can call it a green-eyed lizard if he wishes, but that doesn't make it
>true.

You understood him to be saying that he thought it was a
"ridiculous" case. He didn't use that word, and I don't
think he meant that. One doesn't normally call something a
"very good case" if one thinks it's a "ridiculous case."

My personal opinion is that the FAR clearly states that the
45 left turn is illegal. I also think the FAA finds that to
be inconvenient, but too much trouble to change the FAR, so
they ignore it. Pilots ignore it too, since we all know the
FAA wants us to fly the 45, so it can't be illegal. If push
came to shove, the Chief Counsel will probably say that an
aircraft making the 45 turn is not yet approaching the
airport for a landing. "Interpreting" the language of a law
or statute to get the answer you want is a time-honored
method. Not enforcing a statute or regulation is also a
popular method of ignoring it.



Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Cub Driver > wrote:

> >Here at Spruce Creek, we do initial at or below pattern altitude and
> >perform either a level turn break or a "popup" break, to shed speed,
> >followed by a tight pattern.
>
> You know, it would help me (and perhaps others) if somebody explained
> what a "break" was. I've never done formation flying, nor do I intend
> to, but if it's part of your landing drill, perhaps I should know
> about it.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

The break is where the flight leadre breaks up the formation for
landing. It is generally overhead the airport, flying down the active
runway heading, with a 45 deg banked turn to the downwind.

Spacing of the break is by mutual agreement of the pilots within a
flight -- usually from 1 to 4 seconds. As each plane breaks, the plane
remaining is responsible for making sure that he (and those following)
have the proper spacing with other traffic.

This procedure allows the flight leader a good view of other traffic
inside and approaching the traffic pattern. IMHO, a descending break
puts traffic in the ground clutter and makes it difficult to see. It
also impairs slowing down higher-performance aircraft which have
restricted gear speeds.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sorry, I dropped a word; should be "Chicago O'Hare FSDO"
>

There is no FSDO at O'Hare, but there is one at Du Page.

By the way, if you're not happy with the answer you get from any one FSDO,
just ask another one.

[Cub Driver]

> Tunnel vision is
>a very bad thing in the pattern

You didn't say what airport you were flying at.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Suit yourself, but I find it a bit odd that you want to avoid
>pilots who fly defensiv

Sounds offensive to me.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:01:58 -0500, Todd Pattist
> wrote:

>He called it a "very good case."

Okay. "Ridiculous as it seems, I can make a very good case ..."

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Bill Denton]

I think I'll take the FAA's word that there is one at ORD...

http://www1.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Sorry, I dropped a word; should be "Chicago O'Hare FSDO"
> >
>
> There is no FSDO at O'Hare, but there is one at Du Page.
>
> By the way, if you're not happy with the answer you get from any one FSDO,
> just ask another one.
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think I'll take the FAA's word that there is one at ORD...
>
> http://www1.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/
>

According to that FAA site, the "O'Hare" FSDO is in Schiller Park, IL.

According to the FAA site below, the only FSDOs in Illinois are at DuPage
and Springfield. I guess all we know for sure is we can't trust the FAA!

http://www1.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/faalinks.htm#GLFSDO

[Dave Stadt]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Tunnel vision is
> >a very bad thing in the pattern
>
> You didn't say what airport you were flying at.

I fly all over the place and keep my head on a swivel everywhere I go.
Guess you will just have to quit flying.

>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Lisa Hughes]

Cub Driver wrote:

> >The US Congress passed the Federal Aviation Act which authorizes and directs
> >the FAA to develop plans for and formulate policy
>
> That's right. The FAA issues regulations. They are not laws. If you
> violate the regs, you get an administrative punishment.

You meant to say they are not statues. Federal Regulations ARE laws. They are
in a category of law called administrative law, as opposed to statutory law,
constitutional law, and case law. This is 1L law school stuff. Statues however
are what permits FAA to create rules for aviation.

[Bela P. Havasreti]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:59:36 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

Pot; Kettle.

Bela P. Havasreti

>>Suit yourself, but I find it a bit odd that you want to avoid
>>pilots who fly defensiv
>
>Sounds offensive to me.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email:
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Ron Lee]

Lisa Hughes > wrote:
>
>You meant to say they are not statues.

Did your keyboard really mean "statutes?"

Ron Lee

[Jeb]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message >...
> Actually, the AIM doesn't require anything. It is simply a collection of
> best practices to help pilot fulfill their regulatory responsibilities.
>
> That said, as I have previously noted, the AIM provides an illustration of
> the traffic pattern, and it utilizes 45 degree entries.
>
> As the FAA says the AIM presents their recommended practices and methods,
> and the AIM recommendation contains 45 degree pattern entries, it would
> appear that the FAA wants 45 degree entries to be used.
>
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > |
> > > | May 19, 2000
> > > |
> > > | Pelican's Perch #30:
> > > | The 45-Degree Zealots
> > > |
> > > | http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html
> > >
> > > Good article, but I see nowhere that he says a 45 degree entry is
> illegal.
> >
> > Why would he...he believes otherwise.
> >
> > From the intro:
> > "There's not a syllable in the FARs about 45-degree traffic pattern
> > entries. Nor does the AIM require them. There exists, however, a
> > small-but-vocal cadre of pilots ? and even some FAA inspectors ? who
> > consider any other type of pattern entry (straight-in, crosswind, etc.) to
> > be a felony."
> >
> > > Contrariwise, he feels that the entry into the pattern is not part of
> the
> > > pattern.
> >

Well the 45 degree entry to the pattern is in the AC61-23 (Page 6-9)
as as this and the AIM form the requirements for the PTS I cannot
believe that this form of pattern entry is the result of " a
small-but-vocal cadre of pilots ? and even some FAA inspectors ? who
consider any other type of pattern entry (straight-in, crosswind,
etc.) to be a felony."

It seems to be the policy of the FAA with the result that if there was
an incident between a pilot flying the pattern as per AC61-23 and a
pilot doing doing what only can be considered an unorthodox pattern
entry, then I can bet which pilot will get the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe the real test is for all these hotshot gun toting stuff the 45
degree entry pilots to take the practical test again fly their normal
way and see whether they would get a pink slip.

Mind you I would not bet on them not driving on the wrong side of the
road out of awkwardness.

Such naughty little boys - it must make you feel very bit to be
thumbing you nose up at the authories because the FAR does not
actually say in so many words that the 45 degree entry should be the
norm if possible.

When you are on your own in the pattern it matters little, but when
there other arcraft joining the pattern, its much easier to see
aircraft in the pattern joining at 45 degrees and when in the pattern,
you have a good idea where to look to find aircraft joining too.

The idiots doing 180 degree decending joins are just that, showing
little consideration of others in the pattern or who are joining the
pattern.

They are like stupid dwarfs - not big and not clever.

[Jeb]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message . net>...
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I think I'll take the FAA's word that there is one at ORD...
> >
> > http://www1.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/
> >
>
> According to that FAA site, the "O'Hare" FSDO is in Schiller Park, IL.
>
> According to the FAA site below, the only FSDOs in Illinois are at DuPage
> and Springfield. I guess all we know for sure is we can't trust the FAA!
>
> http://www1.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/faalinks.htm#GLFSDO

It is easier to look up this AC

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

which says it all.

[Dave Stadt]

"Jeb" > wrote in message >
> Well the 45 degree entry to the pattern is in the AC61-23 (Page 6-9)
> as as this and the AIM form the requirements for the PTS I cannot
> believe that this form of pattern entry is the result of " a
> small-but-vocal cadre of pilots ? and even some FAA inspectors ? who
> consider any other type of pattern entry (straight-in, crosswind,
> etc.) to be a felony."
>
> It seems to be the policy of the FAA with the result that if there was
> an incident between a pilot flying the pattern as per AC61-23 and a
> pilot doing doing what only can be considered an unorthodox pattern
> entry, then I can bet which pilot will get the benefit of the doubt.

Your support for this is..................

[Henry and Debbie McFarland]

> Maybe the real test is for all these hotshot gun toting stuff the 45
> degree entry pilots to take the practical test again fly their normal
> way and see whether they would get a pink slip.

Please don't use the Private Pilot Test Standards as the basis of your
argument as some of us were trained beyond them.

A pattern entry should be based on judgment, not herd mentality. One size
does not fit all. Base your approach on terrain, traffic, your airplane and
any other factors that may be present.

Hopefully, anyone who has earned a PP has the ability to merge his or her
airplane into a pattern full of traffic in a seamless manner using an entry
that helps the flow.

I think the root of this debate is that most pilots today are not taught to
control their airplanes in the pattern. They can't fly slow, and they don't
know to look first and talk later.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)

[Bill Denton]

Excellent information! Thank you very much for posting it!

"Jeb" > wrote in message
om...
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
. net>...
> > "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I think I'll take the FAA's word that there is one at ORD...
> > >
> > > http://www1.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/
> > >
> >
> > According to that FAA site, the "O'Hare" FSDO is in Schiller Park, IL.
> >
> > According to the FAA site below, the only FSDOs in Illinois are at
DuPage
> > and Springfield. I guess all we know for sure is we can't trust the
FAA!
> >
> > http://www1.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/faalinks.htm#GLFSDO
>
> It is easier to look up this AC
>
>
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf
>
> which says it all.

[Jeb]

"Henry and Debbie McFarland" > wrote in message et>...
> > Maybe the real test is for all these hotshot gun toting stuff the 45
> > degree entry pilots to take the practical test again fly their normal
> > way and see whether they would get a pink slip.
>
> Please don't use the Private Pilot Test Standards as the basis of your
> argument as some of us were trained beyond them.
>
> A pattern entry should be based on judgment, not herd mentality. One size
> does not fit all. Base your approach on terrain, traffic, your airplane and
> any other factors that may be present.
>
> Hopefully, anyone who has earned a PP has the ability to merge his or her
> airplane into a pattern full of traffic in a seamless manner using an entry
> that helps the flow.

I thought that's what the 45 degree entry is about and why the FAA
whose role is safety advise it. Mind you I realise that some of you in
this newsgroup posess more wisdom that the collected experience of all
the NTSB investigators all the flight safety specialists, all the FAA
inspectors and all of the examiners put together. I am truely lucky to
be a witness to your wisdom.

I humbly apologise for following the herd, for wanting to be part of
an orderly pattern where pilots behave consistantly. I stand
corrected.

No, I realise that it is better for some pilots to do as they please,
communicating their intentions at their discretion.

I am really lucky to be learning so much from this newgroup. At the
end of my first lesson on this topic I have discovered that so many
people are capable of talking out of their assholes.

HOWEVER,

I suspect this will turn out to be an issue of flying the pattern.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/7735795.htm

[Icebound]

C J Campbell wrote:
....
>
> Then in that case I have to disagree with him on that point.
>
> It might be interesting to get a couple of FSDO interpretations.
>
>

The article includes the statement:

"... In fact, in Canada, the crosswind entry is the preferred method,
and I'm not even sure the 45 entry is even mentioned!..."

The Canadian link is

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/ansanda/aarna/new197.htm#MF2

which suggests that the 45-degree entry is frowned upon when there is no
traffic advisory available.

Since the US and Canadian systems are so similar, I would have to
believe there is some good reason for this.

[A Lieberman]

Jeb wrote:

> HOWEVER,
>
> I suspect this will turn out to be an issue of flying the pattern.
>
> http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/7735795.htm

Actually, my first instinct was this is not "flying the pattern issue"
but typical high wing vs low wing blind spots. From the artical, both
planes were on downwind.

Sounds from the artical, that the two planes intermingled on downwind,
and just didn't see each other due to the blindspot created by wings.

Allen

[Icebound]

Bill Denton wrote:
> Excellent information! Thank you very much for posting it!
>
> "Jeb" > wrote
>>It is easier to look up this AC
>>
>
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf
>
>>which says it all.
>
>
>


I still would like to know why Canada seems to have discontinued the 45
deg entry as of October 1996 and recommends against it in:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/ansanda/aarna/new197.htm#MF2



--
*** And yet it is from within that most nations fall ***
- Yeesha, PC game character, (c) 2003 Ubisoft, Cyan

[Brian Burger]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Icebound wrote:

> I still would like to know why Canada seems to have discontinued the 45
> deg entry as of October 1996 and recommends against it in:
>
> http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/ansanda/aarna/new197.htm#MF2

We have discontinued teaching the 45, AFAIK. I learned about it in ground
school only as "something you'll need in the States"... (I got my PPL in
early 2002.)

<grin> That said, the three or four non-towered US airports I've been to
were utterly deserted when we were there (stat. holiday in Canada, normal
weekday in the USA) so we just went ahead and did our midfield entry to
the circuit anyway. Lazy, perhaps, but there were no local a/c around to
object.

The one busy non-twr'd American airport I flew into last summer, we did
the 45 - and it felt really odd. Because I hadn't flown over the runway
first, I was having trouble judging my height above the runway and how far
out I was on downwind.

I've got no idea why the difference in national practice; there are more
major differences I've noticed between Canadian & American practice, but
circuit entry is one that probably trips a lot of people from both sides
of the line.

Brian - PP-ASEL/Night -

[Paul Sengupta]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Here at Spruce Creek, we do initial at or below pattern altitude and
> >perform either a level turn break or a "popup" break, to shed speed,
> >followed by a tight pattern.
>
> You know, it would help me (and perhaps others) if somebody explained
> what a "break" was. I've never done formation flying, nor do I intend
> to, but if it's part of your landing drill, perhaps I should know
> about it.

Copied from a post I sent, 2002-03-26:

There are other descriptions of the run and break:
http://www.yakuk.co.uk/L-29plane.htm
Have a look at the section "Joining the circuit".

Another description by the late Mark Hanna.
http://www.bf109.com/flying.html

(search the document for "break")

The thread name was "Military style arrivals at uncontrolled airports ".

Paul

[Bill Denton]

Very interesting information in your article, too!

But it would seem you are confusing the importance of having a specific
pattern (fairly low) with the importance of having a consistently flown
pattern (very high).

It appears there are many opinions as to which specific pattern is the
safest. And there may well be specific advantages of one over another.

But the most important safety factor is having everyone fly exactly the same
pattern. And before I get flamed on this, let me give an observation: As I
have studied this thing, I have come to perceive the traffic pattern less as
lines, and more as corridors. Some may fly a "tight pattern"; others a
looser one, but everyone is flying some portion of roughly the same
rectangle. I think it should go without saying that "passing" another
aircraft is a big no-no unless everyone in the pattern is made aware of
what's happening via: radio.

Now to entry points...several pilots here have mentioned flying the pattern
with their head on a swivel, making no assumptions, constantly scanning in
all directions. And I'm sure that many achieve that ideal. Keep in mind that
I'm still a wannabe, but from what I have read and studied, pilot workload
can vary widely depending upon where one is in the pattern. And when
workload goes up or other events occur where one is more focused on the
airplane, they will not be scanning as well as they would at other times.
So, one would hope that entry points would be designed in such a way that
aircraft would enter the pattern at a point where the pilot workload of
other planes in the pattern would be low.

So, to wrap it up, it would appear that what Canada was primarily doing was
reducing the number of entry points while getting rid of one type of entry.
And I'm sure they did so based upon there own safety studies and experience.

Once again, the words of a wannabe, and if there's something I need to learn
please let me know...


"Icebound" > wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...
> Bill Denton wrote:
> > Excellent information! Thank you very much for posting it!
> >
> > "Jeb" > wrote
> >>It is easier to look up this AC
> >>
> >
> >
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf
> >
> >>which says it all.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> I still would like to know why Canada seems to have discontinued the 45
> deg entry as of October 1996 and recommends against it in:
>
> http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/ansanda/aarna/new197.htm#MF2
>
>
>
> --
> *** And yet it is from within that most nations fall ***
> - Yeesha, PC game character, (c) 2003 Ubisoft, Cyan
>

[Bill Denton]

For future reference, here in the US the AIM allows an overflight of the
airport, parallel to and offset from the runway, and flown above pattern
altitude. The purpose being to check windsocks, segmented circles, etc.

You would then descend to pattern altitude and enter the pattern...

"Brian Burger" > wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Icebound wrote:
>
> > I still would like to know why Canada seems to have discontinued the 45
> > deg entry as of October 1996 and recommends against it in:
> >
> > http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/ansanda/aarna/new197.htm#MF2
>
> We have discontinued teaching the 45, AFAIK. I learned about it in ground
> school only as "something you'll need in the States"... (I got my PPL in
> early 2002.)
>
> <grin> That said, the three or four non-towered US airports I've been to
> were utterly deserted when we were there (stat. holiday in Canada, normal
> weekday in the USA) so we just went ahead and did our midfield entry to
> the circuit anyway. Lazy, perhaps, but there were no local a/c around to
> object.
>
> The one busy non-twr'd American airport I flew into last summer, we did
> the 45 - and it felt really odd. Because I hadn't flown over the runway
> first, I was having trouble judging my height above the runway and how far
> out I was on downwind.
>
> I've got no idea why the difference in national practice; there are more
> major differences I've noticed between Canadian & American practice, but
> circuit entry is one that probably trips a lot of people from both sides
> of the line.
>
> Brian - PP-ASEL/Night -
>

[Jeb]

>
> So, to wrap it up, it would appear that what Canada was primarily doing was
> reducing the number of entry points while getting rid of one type of entry.
> And I'm sure they did so based upon there own safety studies and experience.
>
> Once again, the words of a wannabe, and if there's something I need to learn
> please let me know...
>

In the UK the standard pattern entry procedure is to join via the
overhead at 2000'aal descend on the dead side to cross the upwind end
of the runway (over the numbers) at pattern height (varies between 800
and 1100'aal) and then turn into the downwind keeping a good look out
for circuit bashing traffic. There is no standard traffic pattern
direction either as they vary due to neighborliness.

It can get a bit hairy when everyone is entering the overhead.

I have flown at an uncontrolled field where there have been 9 aircraft
in the pattern doing touch and goes and come and goes for an hour
without a single enforced go around.

What you don't get is people jumping in ahead of their turn.

What you did get to do though is learn to fly the aircraft in the
pattern at a variety of speeds to deal with the traffic. Occasionally
a student would end up going a bit too long on the downwind so you
have to follow even if it is costing you $3 a minute.

The answer - just grin an bear it. We can all be smart and clever but
it is the quiet ones who are the smartest and the cleverest.

[Brian Burger]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Bill Denton wrote:

> For future reference, here in the US the AIM allows an overflight of the
> airport, parallel to and offset from the runway, and flown above pattern
> altitude. The purpose being to check windsocks, segmented circles, etc.
>
> You would then descend to pattern altitude and enter the pattern...

Thanks, Bill. Good to know for future cross-border trips.

Is the U.S. AIM available online somewhere?

Brian - PP-ASEL/Night -

[Bill Denton]

I believe it is available at www.faa.gov, but good luck finding it!

Sometimes finding things on their site can be a major frustration...always
bookmark it when you find it!

"Brian Burger" > wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Bill Denton wrote:
>
> > For future reference, here in the US the AIM allows an overflight of the
> > airport, parallel to and offset from the runway, and flown above pattern
> > altitude. The purpose being to check windsocks, segmented circles, etc.
> >
> > You would then descend to pattern altitude and enter the pattern...
>
> Thanks, Bill. Good to know for future cross-border trips.
>
> Is the U.S. AIM available online somewhere?
>
> Brian - PP-ASEL/Night -

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Brian Burger" > wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
>
> Is the U.S. AIM available online somewhere?
>

http://www1.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/index.htm