Time to revamp traffic patterns at non-towered airports?

[Ace Pilot]

The FAA is expecting to publish its final rule covering Light Sport
Aircraft, Sport Pilots, and the training and repair requirements
sometime this year. I'm wondering what impact this rule will have on
traffic pattern operations at non-towered airports.

Most non-towered airports have a single traffic pattern that all
aircraft share. Some airports specify different altitudes for
different types of aircraft, but they all end up using the same
rectangular traffic pattern. In the current environment, this seems to
work. I think the reason that it works is because the greatest speed
differential likely to be encountered is a factor of two. By this, I
mean a typical non-towered airport has training aircraft that fly
approaches as slow as about 55 knots. At the upper end are twin-engine
aircraft that may fly as fast as 120 knots. The difference is about a
factor of two.

With the introduction of sport aircraft, many of which fly at approach
speeds well below 55 knots, I'm wondering how they should be
integrated into the traffic pattern. One option would be to have them
use the same pattern every other single-engine aircraft uses (but
perhaps at a lower altitude?). However, this will just increase the
speed differential encountered in the pattern, perhaps as high as a
factor of three or four. This can't be a good idea. Imagine trying to
merge onto the highway if traffic had speed differentials of four
times (operating between 30 and 120 m.p.h.).

Advisory Circular 90-66A provides guidelines for traffic patterns by
ultralight operators at non-towered airports. One suggestion is to use
a traffic pattern that is lower than the single-engine traffic pattern
and inside of it. Would this be the best option for sport aircraft? It
eliminates conflicts in the downwind and base leg, but there is still
a possibility of a conflict on final.

What's the best way to reduce traffic pattern risk when there is a
wide range in approach speeds – vertical separation for different user
groups, or a different pattern for different user groups? Or are the
current traffic pattern practices at non-towered airports archaic and
need to be completely revamped?

[Dave Stadt]

"Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
om...
> The FAA is expecting to publish its final rule covering Light Sport
> Aircraft, Sport Pilots, and the training and repair requirements
> sometime this year. I'm wondering what impact this rule will have on
> traffic pattern operations at non-towered airports.

Probably little to none.

> Most non-towered airports have a single traffic pattern that all
> aircraft share. Some airports specify different altitudes for
> different types of aircraft, but they all end up using the same
> rectangular traffic pattern. In the current environment, this seems to
> work. I think the reason that it works is because the greatest speed
> differential likely to be encountered is a factor of two. By this, I
> mean a typical non-towered airport has training aircraft that fly
> approaches as slow as about 55 knots. At the upper end are twin-engine
> aircraft that may fly as fast as 120 knots. The difference is about a
> factor of two.
>
> With the introduction of sport aircraft, many of which fly at approach
> speeds well below 55 knots,

Don't know where you pulled this from but most sport aircraft will perform
equal to or better than most current light singles. Sport aircraft are not
ultralights. Current airplanes that qualify as sport aircraft such as J3s,
Champs, etc. fit in the pattern just fine and have been for 60 years or
more.

I'm wondering how they should be
> integrated into the traffic pattern.

Same as any other airplane.

One option would be to have them
> use the same pattern every other single-engine aircraft uses (but
> perhaps at a lower altitude?). However, this will just increase the
> speed differential encountered in the pattern, perhaps as high as a
> factor of three or four.

Huh? Three or four? Where did you get these numbers?

This can't be a good idea. Imagine trying to
> merge onto the highway if traffic had speed differentials of four
> times (operating between 30 and 120 m.p.h.).
>
> Advisory Circular 90-66A provides guidelines for traffic patterns by
> ultralight operators at non-towered airports. One suggestion is to use
> a traffic pattern that is lower than the single-engine traffic pattern
> and inside of it. Would this be the best option for sport aircraft? It
> eliminates conflicts in the downwind and base leg, but there is still
> a possibility of a conflict on final.
>
> What's the best way to reduce traffic pattern risk when there is a
> wide range in approach speeds -

1st Hint..........keep your eyes open!! Second hint......refer to first
hint.

vertical separation for different user
> groups, or a different pattern for different user groups? Or are the
> current traffic pattern practices at non-towered airports archaic and
> need to be completely revamped?

[EDR]

Ace, you need to get out more!

I fly my 1945 no electrical system Champ into Class B/C/D airspace
quite often during the year. And that's just the controlled airspace
fields. I also frequently fly into and out of uncontrolled airports
without using a radio.

It is really fun to watch pilots following do a go around because they
haven't paid attention to spacing. I fly my approaches at 65 MPH/56 KTS
on downwind, 60 MPH/52 KTS, and final at 55 MPH/48 KTS.

Considering that this is at the stall speeds of the most common,
modern, single engine aircraft, you are either going to have to fly a
pattern at slower than normal airspeeds or fly a bigger pattern.

On the other hand, I fly my patterns low and tight, so as long as there
are not many aircraft in the pattern, I will be on the ground and clear
of the runway, by the time you turn base.

Following traffic on final, if I am abeam the numbers, I can fly a
right 270 to a short base and land. My airplane will turn a 360 in less
than 300 feet.

[BTIZ]

There are aircraft currently flying that qualify as a "light sport"..that
fit just fine in the standard traffic pattern..

Every one keeps talking about the new "light sport aircraft" being designed
to meet the criteria, but I've yet to see any.

The still have max and min speeds AFAK that should fit in just fine.

If the Bonanza pilot (or light twin pilot) cannot self adjust his spacing to
fit in behind a J-3 at an uncontrolled airfield without ATC assistance, then
I sure as heck don't want him mixing it up with our gliders that currently
fly approaches any where from 45-70knts.

I don't like the idea of a "lower altitude pattern" for a LiteSportAircraft,
that may have a high wing, and the "regular" low wing ASEL aircraft above
him. We have enough problems with Cessna's and Pipers mixing it up on final
as is.. at least one or two a year.. and they "fly the same pattern"
supposedly.

BT

"Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
om...
> The FAA is expecting to publish its final rule covering Light Sport
> Aircraft, Sport Pilots, and the training and repair requirements
> sometime this year. I'm wondering what impact this rule will have on
> traffic pattern operations at non-towered airports.
>
> Most non-towered airports have a single traffic pattern that all
> aircraft share. Some airports specify different altitudes for
> different types of aircraft, but they all end up using the same
> rectangular traffic pattern. In the current environment, this seems to
> work. I think the reason that it works is because the greatest speed
> differential likely to be encountered is a factor of two. By this, I
> mean a typical non-towered airport has training aircraft that fly
> approaches as slow as about 55 knots. At the upper end are twin-engine
> aircraft that may fly as fast as 120 knots. The difference is about a
> factor of two.
>
> With the introduction of sport aircraft, many of which fly at approach
> speeds well below 55 knots, I'm wondering how they should be
> integrated into the traffic pattern. One option would be to have them
> use the same pattern every other single-engine aircraft uses (but
> perhaps at a lower altitude?). However, this will just increase the
> speed differential encountered in the pattern, perhaps as high as a
> factor of three or four. This can't be a good idea. Imagine trying to
> merge onto the highway if traffic had speed differentials of four
> times (operating between 30 and 120 m.p.h.).
>
> Advisory Circular 90-66A provides guidelines for traffic patterns by
> ultralight operators at non-towered airports. One suggestion is to use
> a traffic pattern that is lower than the single-engine traffic pattern
> and inside of it. Would this be the best option for sport aircraft? It
> eliminates conflicts in the downwind and base leg, but there is still
> a possibility of a conflict on final.
>
> What's the best way to reduce traffic pattern risk when there is a
> wide range in approach speeds - vertical separation for different user
> groups, or a different pattern for different user groups? Or are the
> current traffic pattern practices at non-towered airports archaic and
> need to be completely revamped?

[C J Campbell]

"Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
om...
| The FAA is expecting to publish its final rule covering Light Sport
| Aircraft, Sport Pilots, and the training and repair requirements
| sometime this year. I'm wondering what impact this rule will have on
| traffic pattern operations at non-towered airports.
|

It will have about the same effect that Taylorcraft and Piper Cubs have on
the traffic pattern today. Both of those airplanes qualify as Light Sport
Aircraft.

[Peter Duniho]

"Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
om...
> [...]
> Advisory Circular 90-66A provides guidelines for traffic patterns by
> ultralight operators at non-towered airports. One suggestion is to use
> a traffic pattern that is lower than the single-engine traffic pattern
> and inside of it. Would this be the best option for sport aircraft?

A "sport plane" that is more like an ultralight than a typical spam can
might warrant doing just that, I'd agree.

However, I would guess that most "sport planes" will wind up closer in
performance to the slower GA planes that already exist (Pacer, Champ, Cub,
150, etc.) and will have no trouble blending in with existing traffic.
Also, while I hope that the Sport certificate helps improve the pilot
population, I would be surprised if the increase in air traffic turns out to
be significant enough to even be worth thinking about how they are going to
fit in with other traffic.

Pete

[Ace Pilot]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message:
> "Ace Pilot" > wrote in message:
> > With the introduction of sport aircraft, many of which fly at approach
> > speeds well below 55 knots,
>
> Don't know where you pulled this from but most sport aircraft will perform
> equal to or better than most current light singles.

Depends on your definition of "perform."

> Sport aircraft are not ultralights.

True. But all ultralights (including most "fat" ultralights) can be
certified under the proposed sport aircraft rule. In fact, this is one
of the basic reasons for the proposed rule – to better regulate
ultralights, especially those with two seats.

> Current airplanes that qualify as sport aircraft such as J3s,
> Champs, etc. fit in the pattern just fine and have been for 60 years or
> more.

True. However, J3s and Champs represent the higher end of sport
aircraft. You are completely ignoring powered parachutes, trikes and
lower performance aircraft that are most likely to be sport aircraft
(because of their lower cost) and have significantly lower approach
speeds (typically 20% to 40% lower than a Cub).

> > One option would be to have them
> > use the same pattern every other single-engine aircraft uses (but
> > perhaps at a lower altitude?). However, this will just increase the
> > speed differential encountered in the pattern, perhaps as high as a
> > factor of three or four.
>
> Huh? Three or four? Where did you get these numbers?

Many powered parachutes operate around 25 knots. Put one of those in
the pattern with an aircraft with a 100-knot approach speed and you
have a four factor difference. That's the extreme case. A sampling of
other aircraft with low approach speeds (source - manufacturer's web
pages):

Quicksilver Sport 2S – 40 knots
Quicksilver MX Sprint – 34 knots
Airborne Redback trike – 31 knots

It seems reasonable to me that the lower cost of these aircraft will
increase their presence at airports (either privately owned, or more
likely, flight school owned).

> > What's the best way to reduce traffic pattern risk when there is a
> > wide range in approach speeds -
>
> 1st Hint..........keep your eyes open!! Second hint......refer to first
> hint.

Since sport aircraft are not required to have radios (nor are sport
pilots required to be trained in their use), see and avoid will be an
integral component for safe sport aviation activity. However, it's
been well documented that see and avoid is not fail safe. Its
effectiveness is limited, but by having standardized traffic patterns,
that effectiveness can be enhanced. I'm asking whether changes to the
current traffic patterns, in light of expected future activity, might
enhance the see and avoid system even further.

[Bill Denton]

RE: Your comment: "Every one keeps talking about the new "light sport
aircraft" being designed to meet the criteria, but I've yet to see any."

Just a bit of info...

Maule showed a prototype Light Sport Aircraft at Oshkosh 2003.

Mooney is partnering to sell a Toxo LSA.





"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:7nXTb.7273$IF1.7065@fed1read01...
> There are aircraft currently flying that qualify as a "light sport"..that
> fit just fine in the standard traffic pattern..
>
> Every one keeps talking about the new "light sport aircraft" being
designed
> to meet the criteria, but I've yet to see any.
>
> The still have max and min speeds AFAK that should fit in just fine.
>
> If the Bonanza pilot (or light twin pilot) cannot self adjust his spacing
to
> fit in behind a J-3 at an uncontrolled airfield without ATC assistance,
then
> I sure as heck don't want him mixing it up with our gliders that currently
> fly approaches any where from 45-70knts.
>
> I don't like the idea of a "lower altitude pattern" for a
LiteSportAircraft,
> that may have a high wing, and the "regular" low wing ASEL aircraft above
> him. We have enough problems with Cessna's and Pipers mixing it up on
final
> as is.. at least one or two a year.. and they "fly the same pattern"
> supposedly.
>
> BT
>
> "Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
> om...
> > The FAA is expecting to publish its final rule covering Light Sport
> > Aircraft, Sport Pilots, and the training and repair requirements
> > sometime this year. I'm wondering what impact this rule will have on
> > traffic pattern operations at non-towered airports.
> >
> > Most non-towered airports have a single traffic pattern that all
> > aircraft share. Some airports specify different altitudes for
> > different types of aircraft, but they all end up using the same
> > rectangular traffic pattern. In the current environment, this seems to
> > work. I think the reason that it works is because the greatest speed
> > differential likely to be encountered is a factor of two. By this, I
> > mean a typical non-towered airport has training aircraft that fly
> > approaches as slow as about 55 knots. At the upper end are twin-engine
> > aircraft that may fly as fast as 120 knots. The difference is about a
> > factor of two.
> >
> > With the introduction of sport aircraft, many of which fly at approach
> > speeds well below 55 knots, I'm wondering how they should be
> > integrated into the traffic pattern. One option would be to have them
> > use the same pattern every other single-engine aircraft uses (but
> > perhaps at a lower altitude?). However, this will just increase the
> > speed differential encountered in the pattern, perhaps as high as a
> > factor of three or four. This can't be a good idea. Imagine trying to
> > merge onto the highway if traffic had speed differentials of four
> > times (operating between 30 and 120 m.p.h.).
> >
> > Advisory Circular 90-66A provides guidelines for traffic patterns by
> > ultralight operators at non-towered airports. One suggestion is to use
> > a traffic pattern that is lower than the single-engine traffic pattern
> > and inside of it. Would this be the best option for sport aircraft? It
> > eliminates conflicts in the downwind and base leg, but there is still
> > a possibility of a conflict on final.
> >
> > What's the best way to reduce traffic pattern risk when there is a
> > wide range in approach speeds - vertical separation for different user
> > groups, or a different pattern for different user groups? Or are the
> > current traffic pattern practices at non-towered airports archaic and
> > need to be completely revamped?
>
>

[Ace Pilot]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message:
> There are aircraft currently flying that qualify as a "light sport"..that
> fit just fine in the standard traffic pattern..

Agreed, but there will also be sport aircraft with approach speeds as
low as 25 knots. At some point, the speed differential between
aircraft in the pattern should become a concern. I see the potential
for doubling the speed differential between aircraft at the extreme
ends of the spectrum and I think this should be a concern. But I'm
open to anyone that can show how an increase in speed differential
won't increase the risk.

> I don't like the idea of a "lower altitude pattern" for a LiteSportAircraft,
> that may have a high wing, and the "regular" low wing ASEL aircraft above
> him. We have enough problems with Cessna's and Pipers mixing it up on final
> as is.. at least one or two a year.. and they "fly the same pattern"
> supposedly.

I've never liked the idea of putting different aircraft with different
performance at different pattern altitudes either (e.g. singles at
1,000 AGL and twins at 1,500 AGL). I can see how it would prevent
faster aircraft from overrunning slower aircraft, but, from what I've
read, mid-airs in the pattern are more typically the result of
climbing/descending into blind spots. Perhaps different pattern
altitudes based on aircraft wing position would work better, i.e.,
high wings fly a 1,500-foot pattern and low wings fly a 1,000-foot
pattern. That still leaves other problems (where do biplanes fit in,
for instance), but it might be better than the current situation.

[Henry and Debbie McFarland]

"Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
> Many powered parachutes operate around 25 knots. Put one of those in
> the pattern with an aircraft with a 100-knot approach speed and you
> have a four factor difference. That's the extreme case.

We have two power parachutes based at our home field, and we have no problem
landing with them. They land on the grass and we land on the pavement. I've
done touch and goes with them. We have Lear Jets, powerchutes and everything
in between here with no major hassles. It's just not a big deal because we
all try hard to share the space and play nice.

Deb

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

[BTIZ]

> "BTIZ" > wrote in message:
> > There are aircraft currently flying that qualify as a "light
sport"..that
> > fit just fine in the standard traffic pattern..
>
> Agreed, but there will also be sport aircraft with approach speeds as
> low as 25 knots. At some point, the speed differential between
> aircraft in the pattern should become a concern.

Agreed.. isn't that why they created an "Ultra light" pattern.. so if you
are that slow.. fly the ultra light pattern.. if you can keep up with a
J-3.. fly the regular pattern...

and as for the SEL and MEL differences at some patterns.. I agree there can
be problems... and "at most times but not always".. the MEL pattern if
higher is also out farther from the runway so he can see the SEL downwind
and base.

BT

[Mackfly]

>From: (Ace Pilot)

And on and on and on it goes--- Gawd ! I've flown with a helo and a blimp
giving rides while gliders were up soaring, landing, and towing off the runway.
Ya look out the dang window and try real hard not to hit any thing. If you
have a radio, short, to the point position transmissions are in order. Don't
trust ATC to keep you from having a mid-air! Your eyes and ears are your best
bet---turn the music OFF! Fly the plane. (the "ears" are for hearing your
airspeed) Nothing is risk free! But do race trains when you have the chance.
ha ha ha Mac

[Ace Pilot]

So, Mac, you're saying that there's no better way to conduct
operations at non-towered airports? Rather closed minded of you. And
I'll bet you haven't even examined any alternatives, have you? Like so
many in aviation, the "We've always done it that way" argument is good
enough for you.

As has been pointed out in previous posts, the increase in sport
aircraft is probably going to increase the speed differential found in
the traffic pattern. At airports where there is sufficient room,
slower speed traffic is segregated into their own pattern (obviously,
because somebody recognizes that large speed differentials in the
pattern are not a good thing). But at airports without sufficient
room, the only option currently is to assign smaller, larger, higher,
and/or lower traffic patterns to different aircraft. I've never seen
an analysis for the basis of these assignments.

I'm skeptical that the current traffic patterns, that have evolved
piecemeal over the years, is a better solution than one formulated
from scratch that takes all factors into account from the beginning.

Ace

(Mackfly) wrote in message >...
> >From: (Ace Pilot)
>
> And on and on and on it goes--- Gawd ! I've flown with a helo and a blimp
> giving rides while gliders were up soaring, landing, and towing off the runway.
> Ya look out the dang window and try real hard not to hit any thing. If you
> have a radio, short, to the point position transmissions are in order. Don't
> trust ATC to keep you from having a mid-air! Your eyes and ears are your best
> bet---turn the music OFF! Fly the plane. (the "ears" are for hearing your
> airspeed) Nothing is risk free! But do race trains when you have the chance.
> ha ha ha Mac

[Ace Pilot]

Absolutely right, BT. At airports that have space for a separate
ultralight pattern and runway (typically grass), I think it is an
ideal solution.

But there are airports that don't have this luxury and all aircraft
have to share the same runway. Putting the ultralights on the "inside
and lower" from the regular (SEL) traffic pattern, which may be
"inside and lower" the MEL puts the burden for see and avoid on the
faster aircraft. As you point out, the MEL pattern is outside and
above the SEL pattern so the MEL guy can see the SEL on downwind and
base. However, the SEL will have a great deal of difficulty seeing the
MEL that is overtaking him. Likewise, the ultralights will have
difficulty seeing any SEL or MEL that are overtaking them. Is this
system really the best way to minimize the risk in the traffic
pattern?

"BTIZ" > wrote in message news:<cqgUb.7670$IF1.5507@fed1read01>...
> > "BTIZ" > wrote in message:
> > > There are aircraft currently flying that qualify as a "light
> sport"..that
> > > fit just fine in the standard traffic pattern..
> >
> > Agreed, but there will also be sport aircraft with approach speeds as
> > low as 25 knots. At some point, the speed differential between
> > aircraft in the pattern should become a concern.
>
> Agreed.. isn't that why they created an "Ultra light" pattern.. so if you
> are that slow.. fly the ultra light pattern.. if you can keep up with a
> J-3.. fly the regular pattern...
>
> and as for the SEL and MEL differences at some patterns.. I agree there can
> be problems... and "at most times but not always".. the MEL pattern if
> higher is also out farther from the runway so he can see the SEL downwind
> and base.
>
> BT

[Ace Pilot]

Pete - I'm not sure if the increase in air traffic from sport aircraft
should be the main concern. Rather, it is the increase in speed
difference brought on by some of the slower sport aircraft. For
example, assume you have two C172s sharing the pattern at a
non-towered airport. What would increase the risk more - adding a
single sport aircraft that flies at 25-30 knots, or adding TWO more
C172s? My gut says the sport aircraft would cause more problems, but I
haven't done or seen any simulations to support this. Would you agree?

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
> om...
> > [...]
> > Advisory Circular 90-66A provides guidelines for traffic patterns by
> > ultralight operators at non-towered airports. One suggestion is to use
> > a traffic pattern that is lower than the single-engine traffic pattern
> > and inside of it. Would this be the best option for sport aircraft?
>
> A "sport plane" that is more like an ultralight than a typical spam can
> might warrant doing just that, I'd agree.
>
> However, I would guess that most "sport planes" will wind up closer in
> performance to the slower GA planes that already exist (Pacer, Champ, Cub,
> 150, etc.) and will have no trouble blending in with existing traffic.
> Also, while I hope that the Sport certificate helps improve the pilot
> population, I would be surprised if the increase in air traffic turns out to
> be significant enough to even be worth thinking about how they are going to
> fit in with other traffic.
>
> Pete

[Ron Natalie]

"Ace Pilot" > wrote in message om...

> But there are airports that don't have this luxury and all aircraft
> have to share the same runway. Putting the ultralights on the "inside
> and lower" from the regular (SEL) traffic pattern, which may be
> "inside and lower" the MEL puts the burden for see and avoid on the
> faster aircraft.

Back when our airport had a fairly active ultralight activity. They flew the
opposite pattern, obviously lower and tighter than the regular pattern. It
was quite easy as a result for them to adjust on base leg to fit into the
higher performance traffic.

[Doug Carter]

On 2004-02-05, Ace Pilot > wrote:
> Pete - I'm not sure if the increase in air traffic from sport aircraft
> should be the main concern. Rather, it is the increase in speed
> difference brought on by some of the slower sport aircraft.

Difference in performance AND pilot preference make keeping track of
planes hard, but I don't know that different entry paths (midfield
crosswind - 45 degree) are that much of a problem.

I fly a Pitts, normal power off decent rate is about 2,000fpm so I
start turning base just past the numbers and take about 15 seconds
to touchdown. This so different from a C172 flying a "normal"
pattern that I ASSUME that aircraft waiting to take off WILL
pull onto the runway after I call base.

Leagle or not, anyone not using a radio in the pattern is a fool and
and anyone not understanding and thinking about the differences in performace
between aircraft is taking a big risk.

[Ron Natalie]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message ...
>> I fly a Pitts, normal power off decent rate is about 2,000fpm so I
> start turning base just past the numbers and take about 15 seconds
> to touchdown. This so different from a C172 flying a "normal"
> pattern that I ASSUME that aircraft waiting to take off WILL
> pull onto the runway after I call base.

What's wrong with an airplane pulling on the runway after you call base?
Around here, you'd never take off if you waited for nobody to be on base
leg.
>
> Leagle or not, anyone not using a radio in the pattern is a fool and
> and anyone not understanding and thinking about the differences in performace
> between aircraft is taking a big risk.

Anybody who assumes everybody else in the pattern is using the radio
is a fool.

[Peter Duniho]

"Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
om...
> [...] What would increase the risk more - adding a
> single sport aircraft that flies at 25-30 knots, or adding TWO more
> C172s?

The problem with your concern is that there are ALREADY airplanes flying
that slow, mixed in the pattern with more traditional airplanes, and there
doesn't seem to be a problem.

IMHO the answer to your question is that slow planes will do whatever slow
planes are doing now. Seems to be working just fine.

Pete

[Doug Carter]

On 2004-02-05, Ron Natalie > wrote:

> What's wrong with an airplane pulling on the runway after you call base?
>
The Pitts pattern is so close in and with the 2000fpm decent rate
they just about get lined up on the center line when I pass overhead
on my go-around. I was just illustrating the point that other aircraft
in your pattern may be markedly faster, slower, flying big or little
patterns. I'm sure we have all been flying a "normal" pattern (for a
Cessna or Piper) and realized there was someone else more than a
half mile further away on, effectivly a parallel downwind.

> Anybody who assumes everybody else in the pattern is using the radio
> is a fool.
>
I completly agree.

[BTIZ]

> However, the SEL will have a great deal of difficulty seeing the
> MEL that is overtaking him. Likewise, the ultralights will have
> difficulty seeing any SEL or MEL that are overtaking them. Is this
> system really the best way to minimize the risk in the traffic
> pattern?
>

I don't think I'd be so concerned with a guy behind me... unless we both
have an operating radio and make proper calls, I would not even know he is
behind me.

If I'm in a J-3 or a Champ or a Piper 140 or 180 or a C-210, and I think
that "larger SEL or MEL" aircraft is going to crawl up my butt, I think a
simple radio call asking if he can see me in front of him would suffice.

If I'm in my J-3, NORDO, and I know I did not cut off a 5 mile straight in
aircraft, could not see him and tell he was in the pattern. Then, he needs
to be looking out the window.

No, I am not standing on the, "I'm in front I own the runway" mentality, I'm
just stating the way it is. I have not flown many aircraft where I can crank
my head around to check 6 on final approach for that big bear that's gonna
roll over me.

BT

[G.R. Patterson III]

BTIZ wrote:
>
> No, I am not standing on the, "I'm in front I own the runway" mentality, I'm
> just stating the way it is. I have not flown many aircraft where I can crank
> my head around to check 6 on final approach for that big bear that's gonna
> roll over me.

Right with you. I do a final in my Maule at or below 65 mph, touching down about
45. I don't usually have a problem with the fast traffic, 'cause they know what
they're doing, but I do get the occasional solo student in a Cherokee who wants
to climb right up my back on final. I haven't found the STC for a rear-view mirror
yet.

Of course, the fact that I have flaps gives me a bit more ability to do a faster
final than a J-3 has.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Mackfly]

>From: (Ace Pilot)

>So, Mac, you're saying that there's no better way to conduct
>operations at non-towered airports? Rather closed minded of you. And
>I'll bet you haven't even examined any alternatives, have you?

Maybe we could "take a number" and wait to be called? We have / use an
alternative pattern at K46--"We" came up with the idea. The airport authority
bought it. We fly it. It still boils down to "don't get hit" and "don't hit
anyone else" And if I was not open minded I'd not be a glider pilot as well as
ASEL tailwheel and all that---oh have you ever flown a TriPacer off the same
runway with B-58 Hustler bombers? I have. Slight speed difference there ole
chap. have fun Mac

[Ace Pilot]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message >...
> "Ace Pilot" > wrote in message om...
>
> > But there are airports that don't have this luxury and all aircraft
> > have to share the same runway. Putting the ultralights on the "inside
> > and lower" from the regular (SEL) traffic pattern, which may be
> > "inside and lower" the MEL puts the burden for see and avoid on the
> > faster aircraft.
>
> Back when our airport had a fairly active ultralight activity. They flew the
> opposite pattern, obviously lower and tighter than the regular pattern. It
> was quite easy as a result for them to adjust on base leg to fit into the
> higher performance traffic.

This sounds interesting. If I understand you correctly, everyone used
the same runway, but higher performance aircraft flew a left-hand
pattern while ultralights flew a right-hand pattern (or vice versa).
This is contrary to what AC 90-66A suggests, i.e., different size and
altitude patterns on the same side of the runway. Was there something
that prevented the airport from following the 90-66A recommendation,
or was this procedure deemed safer than what 90-66A recommended?

I can see some of the advantages. While on downwind and base, traffic
with significantly different speeds is more likely forward of you,
enabling everyone to better see and avoid the traffic that is of most
concern.

Having different sized patterns on opposite sides of the runway means
that traffic that overshoots final isn't flying head on into the other
pattern's base leg traffic.

Were there any disadvantages with this procedure? How was knowledge of
this procedure disseminated? Thanks for the input, Ron.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ace Pilot wrote:
>
> Were there any disadvantages with this procedure? How was knowledge of
> this procedure disseminated? Thanks for the input, Ron.

One disadvantage is the fact that aircraft on the base leg of a reverse-direction
pattern can't be seen by high-wing aircraft waiting at the runway. Couple that with
a circling approach from 300' AGL, and you've got real problems. I was almost
nailed on my solo flight by some A**hole doing this in a Breezy. Fortunately, a
CFI flying the usual pattern with a student heard me announce departure and got
on the radio. I was halfway out on the runway before I got stopped, though. His
wheels were below the level of my instrument panel when he went by.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> One disadvantage is the fact that aircraft on the base leg of a
reverse-direction
> pattern can't be seen by high-wing aircraft waiting at the runway.

Huh? Left or right patterns are not chosen for the convenience of those
waiting at the runway. At most airports, the pattern is all left turns or
all right turns, and there is only one taxiway to the runway. There is
almost always the potential for a high-wing airplane to not be able to see
traffic on base leg without turning the airplane prior to entering the
runway. This has nothing to do with having a "reverse-direction pattern".

You can NEVER count on there not being an aircraft on base leg behind you as
you enter the runway. That's why I ALWAYS turn the airplane so that I can
see the base leg behind me, whichever base leg that is and whether or not
it's part of the usual pattern, before I enter the runway.

> [...] I was halfway out on the runway before I got stopped, though. His
> wheels were below the level of my instrument panel when he went by.

Sounds to me like you both screwed up. Before wandering onto the runway,
you should've positioned your airplane so you could see traffic approaching
the runway, and he should have gone around when you violated his
right-of-way as landing traffic.

Pete

[Ron Natalie]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...

> One disadvantage is the fact that aircraft on the base leg of a reverse-direction
> pattern can't be seen by high-wing aircraft waiting at the runway

Not at our field. The aircraft at the hold line actually has his back
to his OWN base leg. He's looking at the ultralight base leg.
You've got to turn towards final before you leave anyhow
(or in the Navion slide the canopy back so you can see 360 degrees).

[Ron Natalie]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
> Sounds to me like you both screwed up. Before wandering onto the runway,
> you should've positioned your airplane so you could see traffic approaching
> the runway, and he should have gone around when you violated his
> right-of-way as landing traffic.
>
I'm also not sure why traffic on base is an issue. How long does it take to
depart? Around here there are typically people on final when you pull out.
If you don't you'll never get off the ground on a busy day.

[Peter Duniho]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
. ..
> I'm also not sure why traffic on base is an issue. How long does it
take to
> depart? Around here there are typically people on final when you pull
out.
> If you don't you'll never get off the ground on a busy day.

Maybe it's those fast slow ultralights? :)

Seriously though, I have to assume it's a combination of a significantly
smaller pattern flown (where final is very short) and the base leg
visibility he's complaining about. The complaint still doesn't make sense,
but at least I can hypothesize a pattern flown where traffic on base is
still relatively close to landing.

Who knows? Bottom line though is that one should not taxi onto the runway
until one has made sure one is not pulling out in front of traffic, no
matter where that traffic may be.

Pete

[Dave Stadt]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ace Pilot wrote:
> >
> > Were there any disadvantages with this procedure? How was knowledge of
> > this procedure disseminated? Thanks for the input, Ron.
>
> One disadvantage is the fact that aircraft on the base leg of a
reverse-direction
> pattern can't be seen by high-wing aircraft waiting at the runway.

I don't understand. I fly a high wing and have never had a problem seeing
base leg traffic no matter the runway/taxiway configuration or traffic
direction. The old 360 before taking the runway allows one to see all
traffic no matter where it is coming from.

Couple that with
> a circling approach from 300' AGL, and you've got real problems. I was
almost
> nailed on my solo flight by some A**hole doing this in a Breezy.
Fortunately, a
> CFI flying the usual pattern with a student heard me announce departure
and got
> on the radio. I was halfway out on the runway before I got stopped,
though. His
> wheels were below the level of my instrument panel when he went by.
>
> George Patterson
> Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is
curable
> either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the
circumstances
> under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but
more
> often to the physician than to the patient.

[Ron Natalie]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
> Seriously though, I have to assume it's a combination of a significantly
> smaller pattern flown (where final is very short) and the base leg
> visibility he's complaining about.

Of course, when they're coming in on the reciprocal runway at our
field, you can't even see the base leg guys until right about when
they turn final.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> Sounds to me like you both screwed up. Before wandering onto the runway,
> you should've positioned your airplane so you could see traffic approaching
> the runway,

I did. The entrance for the end of runway 06 at Kupper is roughly at 45 degrees
to the runway. He was doing a right hand pattern with a downwind at 300' AGL,
using a circling downwind to final (ie. no base leg as such). Kupper uses a left
hand pattern at 1000' AGL. He was still in his turn to final as he came over the
tree tops. He was eventually banned from several local airports for his approaches,
Solberg being one. Finally bought an airport so he could fly any way he wanted.

> and he should have gone around when you violated his
> right-of-way as landing traffic.

He had no time to go around.

In any case, if I can mix it with King Airs and KC-135s in a Maule, the sport
plane pilots can damn well fly the same patterns as the rest of us. No way is it
safe to have traffic running base legs from both directions.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave Stadt wrote:
>
> The old 360 before taking the runway allows one to see all
> traffic no matter where it is coming from.

Try that at Old Bridge, and you'll put the plane right off a 20' bank. Might be
able to lock one brake in a J-3 and do a 360 without leaving the pavement, but
not much else.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> > Sounds to me like you both screwed up. Before wandering onto the
runway,
> > you should've positioned your airplane so you could see traffic
approaching
> > the runway,
>
> I did.

So you saw the guy and still pulled out in front of him? That's pretty sad.
That you did it, and that you're willing to admit it here.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> So you saw the guy and still pulled out in front of him? That's pretty sad.
> That you did it, and that you're willing to admit it here.

No, I did not see him. I positioned the aircraft so that I could see others
approaching. I put the plane in exactly the position that EVERY PILOT POSITIONS
HIS AIRCRAFT FOR DEPARTURE FROM THAT RUNWAY.

Nobody can see a plane that comes in from behind or is below the tree line.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> No, I did not see him. I positioned the aircraft so that I could see
others
> approaching.

First, you claim you were positioned to see aircraft approaching the runway.
The aircraft was approaching the runway. So either you are incorrect about
how you positioned your plane, or you are incorrect about whether you saw
the guy.

> Nobody can see a plane that comes in from behind or is below the tree
line.

Second, your story makes no sense. You've got an ultralight too slow to fly
with the other aircraft in the usual pattern, but so fast that it can make
it from the trees to the runway in the few seconds it takes for you to taxi
onto the runway, and so fast that it can't even manuever to go around once
the pilot sees you violating their right-of-way.

That's one fast (but slow) ultralight.

Pete

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> > No, I did not see him. I positioned the aircraft so that I could see
> others
> > approaching.
>
> First, you claim you were positioned to see aircraft approaching the runway.
> The aircraft was approaching the runway. So either you are incorrect about
> how you positioned your plane, or you are incorrect about whether you saw
> the guy.

Go back to my original post. The approach at Kupper uses left-hand turns and has
the downwind at 1000' AGL. This guy was making right-hand turns with his downwind
at 300'. IOW, his "downwind" is everybody else's upwind leg in the reverse
direction. This guy was never in the pattern at all until about the last 100' of
the final leg. From the position of my plane, I could see any aircraft at any
point in the pattern. That is what I am required to do. He was not there.

> > Nobody can see a plane that comes in from behind or is below the tree
> line.
>
> Second, your story makes no sense. You've got an ultralight too slow to fly
> with the other aircraft in the usual pattern, but so fast that it can make
> it from the trees to the runway in the few seconds it takes for you to taxi
> onto the runway, and so fast that it can't even manuever to go around once
> the pilot sees you violating their right-of-way.

First, the Breezy is not an ultralight, though it would meet the definition of
the new sport plane classification. It's a highwing that resembles a Curtiss
pusher. His had a 65 horse Continental. The only reason he was flying backwards
from everyone else was that he didn't want to spend the time it takes to climb all
the way to pattern altitude and he was afraid someone would descend into him if
he made the standard pattern at a lower altitude. Because he was so low, he was
doing a 180 from downwind to touchdown. In about the last half of this turn, he
could not see the end of the runway because the trees were in the way. The trees
at the west end of Kupper's runway were about 40' high and maybe as much as 100'
from the end of the runway at the time, though they've been cut back a bit since
then. He rolls out of his turn at 60' AGL and 100' from the end of the taxiway,
and that's the first time he can see me. He's got less than 1.5 seconds to react.

As far as right of way is concerned, it is a basic and well established legal
principle that you lose your right of way if you are in violation of the laws or
regulations. It would be interesting to see if the FAA agrees, but under standard
legal principles, he had NO right of way.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Bill Denton]

Would you be good enough to post a link supporting your assertion that: "it
is a basic and well established legal principle that you lose your right of
way if you are in violation of the laws or regulations"?

I haven't read all of the FAR's yet so I suppose that could be true in the
aviation world, but I can tell you that your supposition is totally false in
the larger world of US law.


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Duniho wrote:
> >
> > "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > No, I did not see him. I positioned the aircraft so that I could see
> > others
> > > approaching.
> >
> > First, you claim you were positioned to see aircraft approaching the
runway.
> > The aircraft was approaching the runway. So either you are incorrect
about
> > how you positioned your plane, or you are incorrect about whether you
saw
> > the guy.
>
> Go back to my original post. The approach at Kupper uses left-hand turns
and has
> the downwind at 1000' AGL. This guy was making right-hand turns with his
downwind
> at 300'. IOW, his "downwind" is everybody else's upwind leg in the reverse
> direction. This guy was never in the pattern at all until about the last
100' of
> the final leg. From the position of my plane, I could see any aircraft at
any
> point in the pattern. That is what I am required to do. He was not there.
>
> > > Nobody can see a plane that comes in from behind or is below the tree
> > line.
> >
> > Second, your story makes no sense. You've got an ultralight too slow to
fly
> > with the other aircraft in the usual pattern, but so fast that it can
make
> > it from the trees to the runway in the few seconds it takes for you to
taxi
> > onto the runway, and so fast that it can't even manuever to go around
once
> > the pilot sees you violating their right-of-way.
>
> First, the Breezy is not an ultralight, though it would meet the
definition of
> the new sport plane classification. It's a highwing that resembles a
Curtiss
> pusher. His had a 65 horse Continental. The only reason he was flying
backwards
> from everyone else was that he didn't want to spend the time it takes to
climb all
> the way to pattern altitude and he was afraid someone would descend into
him if
> he made the standard pattern at a lower altitude. Because he was so low,
he was
> doing a 180 from downwind to touchdown. In about the last half of this
turn, he
> could not see the end of the runway because the trees were in the way. The
trees
> at the west end of Kupper's runway were about 40' high and maybe as much
as 100'
> from the end of the runway at the time, though they've been cut back a bit
since
> then. He rolls out of his turn at 60' AGL and 100' from the end of the
taxiway,
> and that's the first time he can see me. He's got less than 1.5 seconds to
react.
>
> As far as right of way is concerned, it is a basic and well established
legal
> principle that you lose your right of way if you are in violation of the
laws or
> regulations. It would be interesting to see if the FAA agrees, but under
standard
> legal principles, he had NO right of way.
>
> George Patterson
> Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is
curable
> either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the
circumstances
> under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but
more
> often to the physician than to the patient.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bill Denton wrote:
>
> Would you be good enough to post a link supporting your assertion that: "it
> is a basic and well established legal principle that you lose your right of
> way if you are in violation of the laws or regulations"?
>
> I haven't read all of the FAR's yet so I suppose that could be true in the
> aviation world, but I can tell you that your supposition is totally false in
> the larger world of US law.

Have an accident in New Jersey and have no insurance. You will be held at fault,
no matter what the circumstances because if you had obeyed the law, you would
not have been there.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> Have an accident in New Jersey and have no insurance. You will be held at
fault,
> no matter what the circumstances because if you had obeyed the law, you
would
> not have been there.

You will be considered the "at fault" party simply because you have no
insurance? I doubt that. If it's really true, you should be able to cite
the New Jersey code that stipulates that.

It certainly isn't true in general. For example, the simple act of speeding
does not negate one's right-of-way. If you were to pull out in front of a
speeding vehicle and in doing so cause an accident, you would not
automatically be absolved of blame for the accident.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:42:39 -0600, "Bill Denton"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>
>Would you be good enough to post a link supporting your assertion that: "it
>is a basic and well established legal principle that you lose your right of
>way if you are in violation of the laws or regulations"?
>
>I haven't read all of the FAR's yet so I suppose that could be true in the
>aviation world, but I can tell you that your supposition is totally false in
>the larger world of US law.

I won a case in 1996 filed by an unlicensed building contractor who
was demanding payment. The judge found that the California law denied
unlicensed contractors legal remedy. I could research the statute,
and so can you: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

[Bill Denton]

Thank you, but your case is totally irrelevant.

In your case, someone was trying to recover on a contract. Since the
contractor was not licensed they could not legally enter into a contract.
Since they couldn't enter into a contract, there was no contract. And since
there was no contract, they couldn't recover.

Now consider this:

I am driving my car, and pull up and stop at a red traffic signal. The
driver behind me doesn't stop quickly enough, and breaks my tail light
window and bulb.

We quickly exchange license and information and return to our cars.

The traffic light turns green; can I proceed?

Let's look at the facts:

I have a green light, which grants me an explicit right-of-way through the
intersection.

I have a totally non-functional tail-light on my car, which is generally
some violation of the motor vehicle code.

So, under Mr. Patterson's interpretation, I would never be allowed to
proceed through the intersection unless I had a mechanic come to the
intersection to repair my tail-light.

Obviously, this would be silly, and it's not correct.

Normally, a grant of right-of-way is for a specific action(s). And the right
of way is normally granted for a period long enough to accomplish the
action. I could not take advantage of the right-of-way granted to me and
pull into the intersection and stop, blocking all other traffic. When the
light changed, granting a right-of-way to traffic coming from either side,
by right=of-way would end, barring special circumstances.

But, broken tail-light or no, I would be granted the right-of-way when the
light turned green.

One interesting point, if the light turned green, but an ambulance or
firetruck were coming into the intersection, in most jurisdictions my
right-of-way would be superseded by a "special" right of way normally
enjoyed by emergency vehicles.


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:42:39 -0600, "Bill Denton"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >
> >Would you be good enough to post a link supporting your assertion that:
"it
> >is a basic and well established legal principle that you lose your right
of
> >way if you are in violation of the laws or regulations"?
> >
> >I haven't read all of the FAR's yet so I suppose that could be true in
the
> >aviation world, but I can tell you that your supposition is totally false
in
> >the larger world of US law.
>
> I won a case in 1996 filed by an unlicensed building contractor who
> was demanding payment. The judge found that the California law denied
> unlicensed contractors legal remedy. I could research the statute,
> and so can you: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
>
>

[Mackfly]

>From: "Bill Denton"
>Date: 2/9/2004 3:53 PM Central Standard Time

>in most jurisdictions my
>right-of-way would be superseded by a "special" right of way normally
>enjoyed by emergency vehicles.
>

Now you just keep that in mind if ya see me on final. Some of my landings look
like an emergency in progress! Well I'm not that bad. mac

[Peter Duniho]

"Mackfly" > wrote in message
...
> Now you just keep that in mind if ya see me on final. Some of my landings
look
> like an emergency in progress!

Then it wouldn't be you that has the right-of-way. It would be the fire
trucks coming to put your airplane out who have the right-of-way. :)

[Bill Denton]

You need to review Mr. Patterson's post of 02/08/2004. That post formed the
root of this sub-thread, which is in fact about rights-of-way, not
automobile insurance.

Mr. Patterson made the statement: "if you are in violation of the laws or
regulations."

My broken tail-light example would have fallen under the parameters he
stated, so I felt no need to make the example a major felony.

But, in your insurance example, "fault" (actually liability) is normally a
fact determined by a court. There are a few exceptions, but a lack of
insurance is not one of them, to my knowledge...

"Saryon" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:53:38 -0600, "Bill Denton"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Now consider this:
> >
> >I am driving my car, and pull up and stop at a red traffic signal. The
> >driver behind me doesn't stop quickly enough, and breaks my tail light
> >window and bulb.
> >
> >We quickly exchange license and information and return to our cars.
> >
> >The traffic light turns green; can I proceed?
> >
> >Let's look at the facts:
> >
> >I have a green light, which grants me an explicit right-of-way through
the
> >intersection.
> >
> >I have a totally non-functional tail-light on my car, which is generally
> >some violation of the motor vehicle code.
> >
> >So, under Mr. Patterson's interpretation, I would never be allowed to
> >proceed through the intersection unless I had a mechanic come to the
> >intersection to repair my tail-light.
> >
> >Obviously, this would be silly, and it's not correct.
>
> Actually, I believe what Mr. Patterson is saying is that by the pure
> fact that you do not have a NJ Auto Insurance policy in effect at the
> time you are driving, any accident that you get into is automatically
> considered your fault because you are illegally operating the vehicle
> on public roads to begin with.
>
> Under your facts, it's not illegal per-se for you to be operating the
> vehicle with a broken tail light, it's an equipment violation that can
> get you cited by the police until such a time as you get the vehicle
> repaired.
>
> That having been said, all I can find on New Jersey's DMV site
> regarding insurance is:
> ( http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/cit_insurance/v_insurance_required.html )
>
> "Required Documents
> Your insurance company must give you a New Jersey Insurance
> Identification Card for each vehicle under the policy.
>
> You must keep the card in the vehicle and present it:
>
> before inspection
>
> when involved in an accident
>
> when stopped for a traffic violation
>
> when police officers stop you in a spot check
> Failure to present the card may result in fines.
> Driving an uninsured vehicle may result in fines, community service,
> license suspension, and insurance surcharges."
>
> However, I must admit that I haven't had the time to do any case
> research into accidents involving uninsured drivers in NJ or any
> legislation search for fault assessment. Someone who actually lives
> in NJ would likely be better for that anyway as they may have a cite
> off the top of their heads..
>
> Luck.
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Christopher Sims" > wrote in message
...
> Re this discussion. Am I rite in thinking that over where you people come
> from, you don't have mandatory radio calling for this scenario?

There is no requirement to use a radio, except in specific situations, all
of which involve air traffic control. Air-to-air communications is not
required.

> Here in
> Australia we have such procedure. If you were coming in to such an
airport
> here you would make the following call. "All stations xx (where this is
the
> name of the airport) this is RMH inbound 1000ft for landingon Runway 26
> left." Perhaps you should think about going down the same path as us
ozys.

Should we spell the same as you too?

In any case, using a radio may or may not solve the "problem" being
discussed here. I'm sure you think it's a wonderful idea, but we have
plenty of airplanes over here that simply don't have radios, and it's a
mistake to think that the radio is a substitute for looking outside the
airplane.

Pete

[Christopher Sims]

Re this discussion. Am I rite in thinking that over where you people come
from, you don't have mandatory radio calling for this scenario? Here in
Australia we have such procedure. If you were coming in to such an airport
here you would make the following call. "All stations xx (where this is the
name of the airport) this is RMH inbound 1000ft for landingon Runway 26
left." Perhaps you should think about going down the same path as us ozys.
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Duniho wrote:
> >
> > Sounds to me like you both screwed up. Before wandering onto the
runway,
> > you should've positioned your airplane so you could see traffic
approaching
> > the runway,
>
> I did. The entrance for the end of runway 06 at Kupper is roughly at 45
degrees
> to the runway. He was doing a right hand pattern with a downwind at 300'
AGL,
> using a circling downwind to final (ie. no base leg as such). Kupper uses
a left
> hand pattern at 1000' AGL. He was still in his turn to final as he came
over the
> tree tops. He was eventually banned from several local airports for his
approaches,
> Solberg being one. Finally bought an airport so he could fly any way he
wanted.
>
> > and he should have gone around when you violated his
> > right-of-way as landing traffic.
>
> He had no time to go around.
>
> In any case, if I can mix it with King Airs and KC-135s in a Maule, the
sport
> plane pilots can damn well fly the same patterns as the rest of us. No way
is it
> safe to have traffic running base legs from both directions.
>
> George Patterson
> Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is
curable
> either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the
circumstances
> under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but
more
> often to the physician than to the patient.

[Larry Dighera]

On 10 Feb 2004 04:00:23 GMT, (Mackfly) wrote in
Message-Id: >:

>Some of my landings look like an emergency in progress!

I've had that happen to me too. They rolled the fire trucks on one
particularly steep slipping descent into KSNA (John Wayne Airport).
The rate of descent must have been good enough to set off some ATC
alarm or something. Nobody said a word, but the fire fighters looked
a little disappointed as I taxied past them after landing.