Question from a new flight student (whopping 7 hours!)

[Gary G]

Question from a new flight student (whopping 7 hours!)

I was looking at the AOPA airport info.

ANP and W29 don't list AWOS or ATIS freqs.

That seems pretty critical.

So - where does one download "better" info so you can get local weather

freqs?

Maybe there is an "official" site? FAA?

Here is a link that's pretty good.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/W29

http://www.airnav.com/airport/ANP

http://www.airnav.com/airport/FDK

Question is - would you bet your life on this site or others?

Thanks!

Gary

[Roger Long]

Only bet your life on what you can see out the window! They are all only
forecasts.

--

Roger Long



"Gary G" > wrote in message
...
> Question from a new flight student (whopping 7 hours!)
>
> I was looking at the AOPA airport info.
>
> ANP and W29 don't list AWOS or ATIS freqs.
>
> That seems pretty critical.
>
> So - where does one download "better" info so you can get local weather
>
> freqs?
>
> Maybe there is an "official" site? FAA?
>
> Here is a link that's pretty good.
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/W29
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/ANP
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/FDK
>
> Question is - would you bet your life on this site or others?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Gary
>
>
>

[Bob Moore]

in :

> So - where does one download "better" info so you can get
> local weather freqs? Maybe there is an "official" site? FAA?

There is an "official" publication, the Airport and Facility
Directory. (A/FD)

Bob Moore

[Gary G]

I mean airport info - not weather info.
Like radio freqs, etc.
AWOS and ATIS often has other info like pattern info, noise abatement, and
wind info - active runway.
You know the drill . . .I'm sure!

[John Kirksey]

"Gary G" > wrote in message
...
> Question from a new flight student (whopping 7 hours!)
>
> I was looking at the AOPA airport info.
>
> ANP and W29 don't list AWOS or ATIS freqs.
>
> That seems pretty critical.
>
> So - where does one download "better" info so you can get local weather
>
> freqs?
>

I found a cool site, www.myairplane.com, that appears to have just about all
approach plates and for most of the airports in the US, and airport diagrams
for many of them as well. They even have the sectional charts online in a
digital format that lets you zoom in/out and pan around all of the sectional
charts.

According to the RNAV(GPS) Rwy 30 approach plate there is no ATIS/ASOS/AWOS
for ANP. It says to either get it from the CTAF or to use BWI's.

All that being said, the best way to ensure you have the most up to date
info is to order hard copies of sectionals, approach plates, and/or an A/F
directory. Actually even that isn't true - the best way is to call ahead to
a destination airport and ask! I don't think I'd actually use anything that
I downloaded/printed off the web for navigational or informational purposes.
That site is great if I just wanna print off the approach plates for BOS on
my 757 run from PHL (Flight Sim, of course ;-)

John K.
Student Pilot - Past, Present, and Future

[Bob Gardner]

You know something, Gary? There was a time when there was no such thing as
ATIS or AWOS, and we managed to fly anyway. Taking my elbow out of your
ribs, your best source of info is the Airport/Facility Directory (and we
didn't have that in its present convenient form back in the old days
either).

Bob Gardner

"Gary G" > wrote in message
...
> Question from a new flight student (whopping 7 hours!)
>
> I was looking at the AOPA airport info.
>
> ANP and W29 don't list AWOS or ATIS freqs.
>
> That seems pretty critical.
>
> So - where does one download "better" info so you can get local weather
>
> freqs?
>
> Maybe there is an "official" site? FAA?
>
> Here is a link that's pretty good.
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/W29
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/ANP
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/FDK
>
> Question is - would you bet your life on this site or others?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Gary
>
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> You know something, Gary? There was a time when there was no such thing as
> ATIS or AWOS, and we managed to fly anyway. Taking my elbow out of your
> ribs, your best source of info is the Airport/Facility Directory (and we
> didn't have that in its present convenient form back in the old days
> either).

I will bet those stone tablets were a real pain, eh, Bob?

[Roger Long]

Oops! Another shot from the hip going over the backstop.

This is a good site:

http://www.airnav.com/

It isn't official so you should verify critical information with your AFD.
The printouts are much easier to read in the cockpit however.
--

Roger Long



"Gary G" > wrote in message
...
>I mean airport info - not weather info.
> Like radio freqs, etc.
> AWOS and ATIS often has other info like pattern info, noise abatement, and
> wind info - active runway.
> You know the drill . . .I'm sure!

[Jim Fisher]

Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> in :
>
>> So - where does one download "better" info so you can get
>> local weather freqs? Maybe there is an "official" site? FAA?
>
> There is an "official" publication, the Airport and Facility
> Directory. (A/FD)


No, no, no. That simply won't do, Bob. We pilots have outgrown such quaint
publications. Who would want to spend literally dozens of dollars a year on
a silly book?

--
Jim Fisher

[Bob Gardner]

You ever try steering a pterodactyl that had a mind of its own?

Bob

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
>> You know something, Gary? There was a time when there was no such thing
>> as
>> ATIS or AWOS, and we managed to fly anyway. Taking my elbow out of your
>> ribs, your best source of info is the Airport/Facility Directory (and we
>> didn't have that in its present convenient form back in the old days
>> either).
>
> I will bet those stone tablets were a real pain, eh, Bob?
>
>

[Blanche]

Altho I'm an AOPA member, I would *never* trust the AOPA book on
airports. There have been too many inconsistencies and wrong
entries.

The only legal and official reporter of airport information is
the AF/D. But always *call* the airport and check the info if
you're going someplace you've never been before and need gas
or other services.

[Roger Long]

That isn't an AOPA site.

-

Roger Long



"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Altho I'm an AOPA member, I would *never* trust the AOPA book on
> airports. There have been too many inconsistencies and wrong
> entries.
>
> The only legal and official reporter of airport information is
> the AF/D. But always *call* the airport and check the info if
> you're going someplace you've never been before and need gas
> or other services.
>

[Gary G]

I LOVE it!
Got a guy I meet locally at the airport who
tells me the same type of things.
Absolutely true - and great to hear about.
I appreciate the words and tongue-in-cheek humor, too.

Thanks and good flying!

[Gary G]

The airnav site is the one lacking the info I referred to.
Great site, but it's missing a few things on the airports.

I haven't quite gotten to x-ctry flights yet, but
I'm curious and love to learn about anything that
is coming up.
So, I sat down and just explored a bunch of sites and what they have.
Each one is a little different.
The knee-board from AOPA is nice, but doesn't have all freqs in use (e.g.
AWOS).
Airnav is missing something (also some things known locally at W29).
So, this is why I'm curious about insuring that I get the
best info from the best place - DEVELOPING GOOD HABITS and all.

Thanks to ALL for taking the time to follow up.

I'll keep a set of stone tablets in the back just in case . . .

[Teacherjh]

>>
Altho I'm an AOPA member, I would *never* trust the AOPA book on
airports. There have been too many inconsistencies and wrong
entries.

The only legal and official reporter of airport information is
the AF/D. But always *call* the airport and check the info if
you're going someplace you've never been before and need gas
or other services.
<<

I'd never trust the AF/D either. I've gone to too many airports where the
information is incorrect (or where nobody does what the book says they do).
One example, GBR's TPA is not correct as listed (or rather, as "not" listed -
it may have been corrected as I sent the info to the FAA). Now the TPA is
fairly important; somebody who's right where you are but above (or below) you
by a few hundred feet could make your approach interesting. Ask me how I know.

Jose




--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Newps]

Teacherjh wrote:

>
> I'd never trust the AF/D either. I've gone to too many airports where the
> information is incorrect (or where nobody does what the book says they do).
> One example, GBR's TPA is not correct as listed (or rather, as "not" listed -
> it may have been corrected as I sent the info to the FAA). Now the TPA is
> fairly important; somebody who's right where you are but above (or below) you
> by a few hundred feet could make your approach interesting. Ask me how I know.

I use Flight Guide, nicer format. Of all the info I look at TPA isn't
ever one of them. I'm going to 1000 feet.

[John Theune]

"Gary G" > wrote in news:95ydnei1YOmpfPLcRVn-
:

> Question from a new flight student (whopping 7 hours!)
>
> I was looking at the AOPA airport info.
>
> ANP and W29 don't list AWOS or ATIS freqs.
>
> That seems pretty critical.
>
> So - where does one download "better" info so you can get local weather
>
> freqs?
>
> Maybe there is an "official" site? FAA?
>
> Here is a link that's pretty good.
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/W29
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/ANP
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/FDK
>
> Question is - would you bet your life on this site or others?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Gary
>
>
>

That's because neither has them. You'll find many airports that don't
have advanced weather information at them.

PS. ANP does have something available, it's a experimental system that
can be accessed by say "DigiBravo" on the ctaf for the airport.

[zatatime]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:38:52 -0600, Newps >
wrote:

> I'm going to 1000 feet.

This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports.
Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you?

z

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:52:08 GMT, zatatime
> wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:38:52 -0600, Newps >
>wrote:
>
>> I'm going to 1000 feet.
>
>This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports.
>Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you?
>
>z
How's that? If you look at the field elevation on the sectional, and
add 1000 feet, that's the pattern altitude isn't it? Are there lots
of airports that specify a non standard pattern altitude?

Corky Scott

[Newps]

zatatime wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:38:52 -0600, Newps >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm going to 1000 feet.
>
>
> This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports.
> Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you?

Nope.

[Blanche]

Roger Long > wrote:
>That isn't an AOPA site.

in response to my comment:

>"Blanche" > wrote in message
>> Altho I'm an AOPA member, I would *never* trust the AOPA book on
>> airports. There have been too many inconsistencies and wrong
>> entries.
>>
>> The only legal and official reporter of airport information is
>> the AF/D. But always *call* the airport and check the info if
>> you're going someplace you've never been before and need gas
>> or other services.

huh? I think I lost something in the thread....

[zatatime]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:22:12 -0600, Newps >
wrote:

>
>
>zatatime wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:38:52 -0600, Newps >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm going to 1000 feet.
>>
>>
>> This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports.
>> Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you?
>
>Nope.


Well that's just a pathetic shame. I feel for those you may endanger
by lacking regard of the rules we all abide by: And that you were
trained under!

z

[Dave Russell]

"Gary G" > wrote in message >...
> Question from a new flight student (whopping 7 hours!)
>
> I was looking at the AOPA airport info.
>
> ANP and W29 don't list AWOS or ATIS freqs.

An oldie but oh how true: One look at the windsock is worth more than
all the radio reports in ever broadcast.

-Dave Russell
N2S-3 8-)

[Newps]

zatatime wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:22:12 -0600, Newps >
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>zatatime wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:38:52 -0600, Newps >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm going to 1000 feet.
>>>
>>>
>>>This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports.
>>>Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you?
>>
>>Nope.
>
>
>
> Well that's just a pathetic shame. I feel for those you may endanger
> by lacking regard of the rules we all abide by: And that you were
> trained under!

Yeah right. I'm at 1000 AGL, meanwhile there's idiots flying over the
airport at pattern altitude then leaving so they can get on their
precious 45 degree entry. Sorry your argumaent doesn't hold water.

[Newps]

Dave Russell wrote:

> "Gary G" > wrote in message >...
>
>>Question from a new flight student (whopping 7 hours!)
>>
>>I was looking at the AOPA airport info.
>>
>>ANP and W29 don't list AWOS or ATIS freqs.
>
>
> An oldie but oh how true: One look at the windsock is worth more than
> all the radio reports in ever broadcast.

One look out the window to see the crab angle and a peek at the GPS
grounspeed makes ATIS/ASOS/Windsocks superfluous.

[Newps]

Corky Scott wrote:


>>
>>>I'm going to 1000 feet.
>>
>>This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports.
>>Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you?
>>
>>z
>
> How's that? If you look at the field elevation on the sectional, and
> add 1000 feet, that's the pattern altitude isn't it? Are there lots
> of airports that specify a non standard pattern altitude?

Some airports have a published pattern altitude of 800 feet.

[zatatime]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:59:38 -0400, Corky Scott
> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:52:08 GMT, zatatime
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:38:52 -0600, Newps >
>>wrote:
>>
>>> I'm going to 1000 feet.
>>
>>This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports.
>>Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you?
>>
>>z
>How's that? If you look at the field elevation on the sectional, and
>add 1000 feet, that's the pattern altitude isn't it?
Nope. Many airports (and most I fly in and out of) use an 800 foot
TPA, which is the original "standard TPA."

>Are there lots
>of airports that specify a non standard pattern altitude?
As I see it, yes there are. All the airports that have a 1000' TPA
are "non-standard," although the rule of thumb you have written has
become it's own standard of sorts. This is why I brought it up. If
you're flying in a Piper at 1000' thinking it is correct, and I'm
flying a Cessna at 800' which is what was published, we're going to
have a problem because we won't be able to see each other if we're in
close proximity. Also when looking for traffic, if the traffic is at
different altitudes it makes it harder to spot them. I could cite
other examples, but I think you'll get the point. There are also
airports with different altitudes for large aircraft, or opposite
traffic rules for rotorcraft, etc...


I feel fairly strongly that operations around an airport should be as
predictable as possible since this is where you will most likely find
numerous aircraft sharing close quarters. Flying a proper altitude is
one of the things that should be consistent for all traffic, and it
isn't like it's really hard to find the answer, or ask Unicom if
you're unsure.


(This may be wrong but,)I believe when a TPA is not explicitly stated
in the AF/D the expected TPA is 800' AGL.

HTH.
z

[zatatime]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:16:20 -0600, Newps >
wrote:

>Yeah right. I'm at 1000 AGL, meanwhile there's idiots flying over the
>airport at pattern altitude then leaving so they can get on their
>precious 45 degree entry. Sorry your argumaent doesn't hold water.


Why would you leave the pattern to perform a 45 entry? At least my
argument makes sense.

z

[C J Campbell]

"Blanche" > wrote in message
...
> Altho I'm an AOPA member, I would *never* trust the AOPA book on
> airports. There have been too many inconsistencies and wrong
> entries.
>
> The only legal and official reporter of airport information is
> the AF/D.

What is legal and official about it?

[C J Campbell]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:38:52 -0600, Newps >
> wrote:
>
> > I'm going to 1000 feet.
>
> This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports.
> Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you?

It probably would bother him if it posed a safety hazard.

[Newps]

zatatime wrote:


>
> (This may be wrong but,)I believe when a TPA is not explicitly stated
> in the AF/D the expected TPA is 800' AGL.

TPA is always a suggestion. Never a reg.

[Newps]

zatatime wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:16:20 -0600, Newps >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Yeah right. I'm at 1000 AGL, meanwhile there's idiots flying over the
>>airport at pattern altitude then leaving so they can get on their
>>precious 45 degree entry. Sorry your argumaent doesn't hold water.
>
>
>
> Why would you leave the pattern to perform a 45 entry?

You're kidding right? You would not believe what some people go thru to
go out and get back on that 45.

[Newps]

zatatime wrote:

>
> As I see it, yes there are. All the airports that have a 1000' TPA
> are "non-standard," although the rule of thumb you have written has
> become it's own standard of sorts. This is why I brought it up. If
> you're flying in a Piper at 1000' thinking it is correct, and I'm
> flying a Cessna at 800' which is what was published, we're going to
> have a problem because we won't be able to see each other if we're in
> close proximity. Also when looking for traffic, if the traffic is at
> different altitudes it makes it harder to spot them. I could cite
> other examples, but I think you'll get the point. There are also
> airports with different altitudes for large aircraft, or opposite
> traffic rules for rotorcraft, etc...


At all airports that can expect some higher performance aircraft like
King Airs and biz jets they will have a second published pattern
altitude, almost always 1500' AGL. 99%+ of these aircraft are low wing.
So how are they supposed to see anybody?

[Teacherjh]

>>
All the airports that have a 1000' TPA
are "non-standard," although the rule of thumb you have written has
become it's own standard of sorts. This is why I brought it up. If
you're flying in a Piper at 1000' thinking it is correct, and I'm
flying a Cessna at 800' which is what was published, we're going to
have a problem because we won't be able to see each other if we're in
close proximity.
[...]
I believe when a TPA is not explicitly stated
in the AF/D the expected TPA is 800' AGL.
<<

The hazard indicated is real, but the altitudes are no longer correct.
According to my AIM (2000, 4-3-3) a pattern of 1000 feet is reccomended unless
established otherwise. However it seems that some airports have retained the
historical 800 foot altitude you indicate was once standard, but have not
ensured that the AF/D is apprised of this. Thus, us newfangled pilots (the
ones minted after VORs <g,d>) will enter at 1000 feet, only to be surprised by
folks 200 feet below us. (this was exactly what I found at GBR not too long
ago).

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Jay Honeck]

> Altho I'm an AOPA member, I would *never* trust the AOPA book on
> airports. There have been too many inconsistencies and wrong
> entries.

I've not found flight-critical information to be wrong in the AOPA book.

I *have* found, on numerous occasions, however, inaccuracies in services
provided, such as restaurants and mogas.

It's still an essential tool that goes with us on every flight.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> You're kidding right? You would not believe what some people go thru to
> go out and get back on that 45.

I've got to say that I've honestly never seen anyone leave the pattern just
to re-enter on a 45.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I haven't quite gotten to x-ctry flights yet, but
> I'm curious and love to learn about anything that
> is coming up.

That's an excellent attitude.

> So, I sat down and just explored a bunch of sites and what they have.
> Each one is a little different.
> The knee-board from AOPA is nice, but doesn't have all freqs in use (e.g.
> AWOS).
> Airnav is missing something (also some things known locally at W29).
> So, this is why I'm curious about insuring that I get the
> best info from the best place - DEVELOPING GOOD HABITS and all.

The best pre-flight (and in-flight) info is obtained from a variety of
sources.

1. Flight Service. In this age of pop-up TFRs, get a weather briefing
before each flight. While you're talking, ask about NOTAMs (Notices To
Airmen), because they'll tell you the little "surprise!" things (like a
runways that's closed for crack-sealing, that the airport manager forgot to
call in.). Don't forget to ask specifically about all TFRs.

2. Airnav is an excellent, very thorough site, run by a real GA supporter,
Paulo Santos. You will find this site more and more valuable as your
experience grows.

3. Your Sectional Chart will have most of the pertinent radio frequencies
for your flight. (Caution: Approach frequencies for center, and a lot of
the "oddball" frequencies for approach, are NOT on your sectional chart.)

As you learn more, all of this stuff becomes intuitive (really!), and you
will find that much of what you currently find essential is actually
superfluous. But that comes with experience, so -- for now -- keep getting
all your ducks in a row before each flight.

Good luck!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[zatatime]

On 15 Oct 2004 22:59:15 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

>>>
>All the airports that have a 1000' TPA
>are "non-standard," although the rule of thumb you have written has
>become it's own standard of sorts. This is why I brought it up. If
>you're flying in a Piper at 1000' thinking it is correct, and I'm
>flying a Cessna at 800' which is what was published, we're going to
>have a problem because we won't be able to see each other if we're in
>close proximity.
>[...]
>I believe when a TPA is not explicitly stated
>in the AF/D the expected TPA is 800' AGL.
><<
>
>The hazard indicated is real, but the altitudes are no longer correct.
>According to my AIM (2000, 4-3-3) a pattern of 1000 feet is reccomended unless
>established otherwise. However it seems that some airports have retained the
>historical 800 foot altitude you indicate was once standard, but have not
>ensured that the AF/D is apprised of this. Thus, us newfangled pilots (the
>ones minted after VORs <g,d>) will enter at 1000 feet, only to be surprised by
>folks 200 feet below us. (this was exactly what I found at GBR not too long
>ago).
>
>Jose


I guess there's a reason my muscles ache more than they used too. <g>
So, if an altitude isn't listed in the AF/D should we now assume its
1000'? And when it turns out to be 800, who is allowed to call the
FAA to have the entry modified? I've always assumed an 800' pattern
if I didn't see an entry (and have never had a problem), but what you
wrote seems to show a different standard than I was taught.

Thanks for the info.
z

(I guess the bottom line is to know the specifics of the airports you
operate at, and maintain consistency with the other pilots.)

[Jay Honeck]

> One look out the window to see the crab angle and a peek at the GPS
> grounspeed makes ATIS/ASOS/Windsocks superfluous.

How true. Sometimes you've got to wonder what people are looking for before
landing.

What I like are the guys who obviously aren't carrying a sectional chart (or
any other airport information) and insist on calling Unicom for an "airport
advisory" -- despite the airport having a published AWOS frequency.

When this occurs, everyone on the freq knows that the incoming guy:

a) Doesn't know the runways, and is hoping that the FBO will tell him the
preferred landing runway before he gets to the pattern.
b) Doesn't have a sectional, and therefore doesn't know the AWOS frequency
to check weather -- which would tell him the preferred runway in 30 seconds.

Our FBO manager loves to play with these guys, telling them stuff like
"winds are variable -- you have your choice of 6 runways..." or he'll simply
give them the AWOS frequency, laconically stating that "our AWOS will give
you the complete weather every 30 seconds...

When you listen to Unicom for 8 hours a day, every day, it's AMAZING the
stuff you hear.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[zatatime]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:19:53 -0600, Newps >
wrote:

>> Why would you leave the pattern to perform a 45 entry?
>
>You're kidding right? You would not believe what some people go thru to
>go out and get back on that 45.


No, I'm really not. If you're in the pattern, fly a square. Why
leave to come back?

z

[zatatime]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:23:58 -0600, Newps >
wrote:

> almost always 1500' AGL. 99%+ of these aircraft are low wing.
> So how are they supposed to see anybody?


99% of them are also alot faster than a typical single so the
opportunity to remain over a lower aircraft is significantly reduced,
and still allows for picking up traffic ahead of the larger aircraft.
They also fly a larger pattern, and where this condition exists
(generally speaking) have control towers on the field to aid in
separation. The 500' vertical separation also helps reduce the risk of
a mid-air.

z

[Teacherjh]

>>
So, if an altitude isn't listed in the AF/D should we now assume its
1000'?
<<

Yes. But be careful about assUme.

>>
And when it turns out to be 800, who is allowed to call the
FAA to have the entry modified?
<<

Anybody. Tell them what you've observed, and have them contact the airport for
verification. It's even better if you talk to the airport head first and get
appropriate contact info for the FAA. It's just a "correction" to the AF/D,
like any other correction (lake in the wrong place on the sectional, tower
mismarked, stuff like that)

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Teacherjh]

>>
I've got to say that I've honestly never seen anyone leave the pattern just
to re-enter on a 45.
<<

I do sometimes, though I come over the airport 1000 feet above pattern
altitude. It's the standard "strange field approach", and it's also how you
see the wind sock or segmented circle. Granted AWOS and GPS makes a lot of
this obsolete, but radios don't make the plane fly.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[kage]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:qI_bd.187839$wV.66243@attbi_s54...
>> One look out the window to see the crab angle and a peek at the GPS
>> grounspeed makes ATIS/ASOS/Windsocks superfluous.
>
> How true. Sometimes you've got to wonder what people are looking for
> before landing.
>
> What I like are the guys who obviously aren't carrying a sectional chart
> (or any other airport information) and insist on calling Unicom for an
> "airport advisory" -- despite the airport having a published AWOS
> frequency.


AWOS won't necessarily give you the active runway. Many preferred runways
have TAILWINDS, up to certain speeds. Sectionals won't help as they omit
this information.


>
> When this occurs, everyone on the freq knows that the incoming guy:


"Everyone" seems to be uninformed.


>
> a) Doesn't know the runways, and is hoping that the FBO will tell him the
> preferred landing runway before he gets to the pattern.
> b) Doesn't have a sectional, and therefore doesn't know the AWOS frequency
> to check weather -- which would tell him the preferred runway in 30
> seconds.


Is there some compelling reason the FBO wants to confuse the pilot? Only the
uninformed would assume that a pilot requesting an airport advisory doesn't
have a sectional. Advisories can and do include much pertanent information
like airport maintenance, bird and animal activity, parachute activity,
glider towing, runway braking condition, and preferred runway, even if it is
the downwind runway, ETC. AWOS gives none of that.

>
> Our FBO manager loves to play with these guys,


No, your FBO manager is an ass.


>telling them stuff like "winds are variable -- you have your choice of 6
>runways..." or he'll simply give them the AWOS frequency, laconically
>stating that "our AWOS will give you the complete weather every 30
>seconds...


Again, AWOS will not necessarily give the active runway, which is often a
downwind runway. Nor will a sectional. Sometimes the AF/D provides this
information. Your FBO manager needs to be schooled.


> When you listen to Unicom for 8 hours a day, every day, it's AMAZING the
> stuff you hear.

Many here need a few years of flying 8-12 hours a day and some remedial
schooling.

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>You're kidding right? You would not believe what some people go thru to
>>go out and get back on that 45.
>
>
> I've got to say that I've honestly never seen anyone leave the pattern just
> to re-enter on a 45.

Let me be more clear. Rwy 9/27 is in use. You are approaching from the
NE, the dead side of the pattern if you will. In this situation I will
always enter at midfield, on the crosswind, unless traffic does not
permit. I can usually always get in on the midfield crosswind, worst
case I turn upwind and fall in behind someone else. This is very rare.
It is not uncommon for others to enter just like me except they will
then make a right turn(approax 45 degrees) and fly away from the pattern
on a southwesterly heading, into the face of other traffic entering on
the 45, fly out a couple miles and then do a 180 for the sole purpose of
entering the pattern on the 45. These people are nuts

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:


>
> 1. Flight Service. In this age of pop-up TFRs, get a weather briefing
> before each flight. While you're talking, ask about NOTAMs (Notices To
> Airmen), because they'll tell you the little "surprise!" things (like a
> runways that's closed for crack-sealing, that the airport manager forgot to
> call in.). Don't forget to ask specifically about all TFRs.

Exactly, because these conversations are recorded so if they don't give
you the info on a TFR you are not responsible.


>
> 3. Your Sectional Chart will have most of the pertinent radio frequencies
> for your flight. (Caution: Approach frequencies for center, and a lot of
> the "oddball" frequencies for approach, are NOT on your sectional chart.)

For approach freq's do not use the sectional unless you have to. Use
the ATIS, it will always tell you what the approach freq will be. My
facility, like a lot of others, has more than one approach freq, nicely
written is this cute little pie chart. We never ever use more than one
approach freq. It is always 120.5. If we were to tell the FAA to
remove the other freq from the chart they would take that freq away from
us. We use it occasionally for emergencies, airshows or to BS with our
buddies. Couple times a day somebody calls in on the wrong one, very
clearly not paying attention to the ATIS.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Blanche wrote:
>
> huh? I think I lost something in the thread....

According to the thread chain in my newsreader, you were replying to (although did
not quote it) Roger's post recommending Airnav, which is not an AOPA site.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Dave Stadt]

"kage" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:qI_bd.187839$wV.66243@attbi_s54...
> >> One look out the window to see the crab angle and a peek at the GPS
> >> grounspeed makes ATIS/ASOS/Windsocks superfluous.
> >
> > How true. Sometimes you've got to wonder what people are looking for
> > before landing.
> >
> > What I like are the guys who obviously aren't carrying a sectional chart
> > (or any other airport information) and insist on calling Unicom for an
> > "airport advisory" -- despite the airport having a published AWOS
> > frequency.
>
>
> AWOS won't necessarily give you the active runway.

Far as I know AWOS will never give an active runway. I do believe an active
runway at a non towered airport is any runway a pilot wishes to use. The
most useless radio call is "clear of the active" at a non towered airport.
Well, tied anyway with "traffic in the area please advise" and "airport
advisories."

[Blanche]

My favorite annoyance is the call on the unicom asking for advisories when
1) the AWOS is working
2) there are 3-4 students in the pattern, all making "correct"
announcements (fortunately, most of them do not get chatty or
superfluous!)
3) everyone is on the RT on 8 (or 35) and the caller insists on
Left Traffic and ignores the fact they are now encroaching into
Class B Surface.

Just because you've been cleared into Class B does not mean you
get a free pass when every piece of paper states Right Traffic.

[C J Campbell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:qI_bd.187839$wV.66243@attbi_s54...
>
> Our FBO manager loves to play with these guys, telling them stuff like
> "winds are variable -- you have your choice of 6 runways..." or he'll
simply
> give them the AWOS frequency, laconically stating that "our AWOS will give
> you the complete weather every 30 seconds...

Your FBO manager is a jerk, but he is correct. He should not be directing
traffic into the airport.

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>>>
> I've got to say that I've honestly never seen anyone leave the pattern
> just
> to re-enter on a 45.
> <<
>
> I do sometimes, though I come over the airport 1000 feet above pattern
> altitude.

Maybe I misunderstand the original statement, but the procedure you describe
doesn't have you leaving the pattern in order to re-enter on the 45. You
weren't in the pattern in the first place, since (by your own statement) you
were ABOVE the pattern.

I often overfly the airport, head out and come back on the 45. But I can't
recall a single instance when I was actually already on a legitimate leg in
the traffic pattern, made a turn away from the pattern for the purpose of
positioning myself on the 45, for the further purpose of re-entering the
pattern. That just sounds silly to me.

Pete

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:33:04 GMT, zatatime
> wrote:

>Nope. Many airports (and most I fly in and out of) use an 800 foot
>TPA, which is the original "standard TPA."

I didn't know that! God, I love newsgroups!

Makes sense. 800 feet is certainly the right TPA for a Cub.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 01:20:38 GMT, zatatime
> wrote:

> I've always assumed an 800' pattern
>if I didn't see an entry (and have never had a problem), but what you
>wrote seems to show a different standard than I was taught.

I took my flight lessons & ground school in 1997. I was told to assume
1,000 feet--even though I fly from an airport with 800 feet TPA!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:22:12 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>> This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports.
>> Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you?
>
>Nope.

Please don't fly in southeastern New Hampshire. Promise?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:42:49 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>It is not uncommon for others to enter just like me except they will
>then make a right turn(approax 45 degrees) and fly away from the pattern
>on a southwesterly heading, into the face of other traffic entering on
>the 45, fly out a couple miles and then do a 180 for the sole purpose of
>entering the pattern on the 45. These people are nuts

Yes, they are. But so are you, declaring that "nope" it doesn't bother
you that you may create a hazard by flyiing at a non-standard altitude
in the pattern.

The existence of stupid pilots is not a reason for you to behave
stupidly, but a reason for you to be even more punctilious in doing
the expected thing. In the case you describe, there is one hazard at
the airport. But you are declaring your right to add a second one!


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:59:38 -0400, Corky Scott
> wrote:

>How's that? If you look at the field elevation on the sectional, and
>add 1000 feet, that's the pattern altitude isn't it? Are there lots
>of airports that specify a non standard pattern altitude?

Many of them, especially small ones. The airport I fly from has a
field altitude of 100 feet and a TPA of 900.

I have the essential information on 10 airports on my knee-board. On
six of them your system would be correct. The others vary from the
thousand-foot rule by anywhere from 65 feet to 200 feet.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:02:11 GMT, "John Kirksey"
> wrote:

>I found a cool site, www.myairplane.com, that appears to have just about all
>approach plates and for most of the airports in the US, and airport diagrams
>for many of them as well. They even have the sectional charts online in a
>digital format that lets you zoom in/out and pan around all of the sectional
>charts.

That digital chart is magnificent! Many thanks for the pointer.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 01:21:26 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Our FBO manager loves to play with these guys, telling them stuff like
>"winds are variable -- you have your choice of 6 runways..." or he'll simply
>give them the AWOS frequency, laconically stating that "our AWOS will give
>you the complete weather every 30 seconds...

The second is excusable, but I don't think the first is. I know what
the conversation would be in the jury room when they were trying to
assess liability for damages. ("Well, he told the guy to land on any
runway!")


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Dave Stadt]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 01:21:26 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
> >Our FBO manager loves to play with these guys, telling them stuff like
> >"winds are variable -- you have your choice of 6 runways..." or he'll
simply
> >give them the AWOS frequency, laconically stating that "our AWOS will
give
> >you the complete weather every 30 seconds...
>
> The second is excusable, but I don't think the first is. I know what
> the conversation would be in the jury room when they were trying to
> assess liability for damages. ("Well, he told the guy to land on any
> runway!")

No he didn't. He said he had his choice of six which is true no matter what
the wind might be. What liability would they be trying to assess?


>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
> Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Teacherjh]

>>
.... but the procedure you describe
doesn't have you leaving the pattern in order
to re-enter on the 45. [...] you
were ABOVE the pattern.
<<

Correct. I was expanding a bit.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[zatatime]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:08:22 -0400, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>The existence of stupid pilots is not a reason for you to behave
>stupidly, but a reason for you to be even more punctilious in doing
>the expected thing. In the case you describe, there is one hazard at
>the airport. But you are declaring your right to add a second one!


Thank you. Stated better than I could have, but my sentiments
exactly.

z

[Newps]

Cub Driver wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:22:12 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>>This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports.
>>>Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you?
>>
>>Nope.
>
>
> Please don't fly in southeastern New Hampshire. Promise?

I'm on my way.

[Newps]

Cub Driver wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:42:49 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>It is not uncommon for others to enter just like me except they will
>>then make a right turn(approax 45 degrees) and fly away from the pattern
>>on a southwesterly heading, into the face of other traffic entering on
>>the 45, fly out a couple miles and then do a 180 for the sole purpose of
>>entering the pattern on the 45. These people are nuts
>
>
> Yes, they are. But so are you, declaring that "nope" it doesn't bother
> you that you may create a hazard by flyiing at a non-standard altitude
> in the pattern.

Oh please. There's 800 foot patterns, 1000 foot patterns and all
numbers in between so they can be a round number(My airport TPA is 851
feet). Now you fly to West Nowhere Muni where the nearest altimeter
setting is 100 miles away. Nobody is at the same altitude even if they
all agreed to the same pattern altitude. I work at a towered field and
see everyday that pattern altitudes vary. 800, 900, 1000, it's like
worrying if your tire has 30 or 31 psi.

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>>>
> ... but the procedure you describe
> doesn't have you leaving the pattern in order
> to re-enter on the 45. [...] you
> were ABOVE the pattern.
> <<
>
> Correct. I was expanding a bit.

Maybe you can expand just a little more? :) You wrote, in response to the
statement "I've honestly never seen anyone leave the pattern just to
re-enter on a 45", the words "I do sometimes".

Do you, or do you not, ever leave the pattern just to re-enter on a 45? You
seem to have said that you do, but the example you gave was not an example
of you doing so.

Honestly, I can't say it matters one way or the other...but I'd at least
like to get straight what it is you said you do. :)

Pete

[Dave Stadt]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Cub Driver wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:42:49 -0600, Newps > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It is not uncommon for others to enter just like me except they will
> >>then make a right turn(approax 45 degrees) and fly away from the pattern
> >>on a southwesterly heading, into the face of other traffic entering on
> >>the 45, fly out a couple miles and then do a 180 for the sole purpose of
> >>entering the pattern on the 45. These people are nuts
> >
> >
> > Yes, they are. But so are you, declaring that "nope" it doesn't bother
> > you that you may create a hazard by flyiing at a non-standard altitude
> > in the pattern.
>
> Oh please. There's 800 foot patterns, 1000 foot patterns and all
> numbers in between so they can be a round number(My airport TPA is 851
> feet). Now you fly to West Nowhere Muni where the nearest altimeter
> setting is 100 miles away. Nobody is at the same altitude even if they
> all agreed to the same pattern altitude. I work at a towered field and
> see everyday that pattern altitudes vary. 800, 900, 1000, it's like
> worrying if your tire has 30 or 31 psi.


My guess is if you were to ask 10 pilots what the TPA is at their home
airport you would get at least 8 different answers.

[Teacherjh]

>>
Maybe you can expand just a little more? :) You wrote, in response to the
statement "I've honestly never seen anyone leave the pattern just to
re-enter on a 45", the words "I do sometimes".

Do you, or do you not, ever leave the pattern just to re-enter on a 45?
<<

No, I do not. I misspoke. I enter above the pattern as I later stated.

What I did with the words was expand the definition of "pattern" to include not
only the region at an appropriate altitude, but also the regions above and
below to some degree. Since the discussion included variations in what is
percieved as pattern altituted, I did not think this too much of a nonce
expansion for the purposes of the post.

I'll agree that 1000 feet is not "somewhat" above TPA, but if one were from the
days of four course ranges <g,d,r> (and thought the pattern were 800 AGL, given
no mention of TPA in the AF/D), and because of a cloud deck, cheated a bit
(coming in at 800 feet above what he thought was TPA, making it 1600 AGL) at an
airport whose TPA was actually 1200 AGL but still not mentioned in the AF/D),
he'd be only 400 feet above the real TPA on the overhead and out to the 45.
This is "somewhat" above.

Somebody a little high as she's coming in to one of the legs (say 1350 AGL)
might find herself not too far from the bloke who thinks he's a thousand feet
above. An altimeter setting from a different airport (if the destination has
none) might increase the pucker factor even more.

I'll grant that 800 AGL undocumented in the AF/D is probably more common for
historical reasons than an undocumented 1200 AGL pattern, but the principle is
the same. Fly as precisely as you can, but be aware that there are sources of
variance that can pile up. I'm not even counting the squirrel chasers who
arrive overhead at their cruise altitude (1000 AGL) before seeing the airport.

So, I did not think it unreasonable to include discussion of a proper 45 entry
in the discussion about variances in TPA and folks who come in at pattern
altitude overhead, looking for the 45.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Jay Honeck]

>> AWOS won't necessarily give you the active runway.
>
> Far as I know AWOS will never give an active runway.

Technology hasn't progressed to that point -- yet.

However, if AWOS is reporting "wind 250 at 15" you can bet your bottom
dollar that the "active" runway here in Iowa City will be Rwy 25.

It's, of course, true that someone doing crosswind practice might be using
(for example) Rwy 30 instead, but this just presents our hapless (mapless,
clueless) arriving pilot from my original example with another challenge --
should he believe that the radio calls from the guy doing (unbeknownst to
him) crosswind practice represents the runway that is most favoring the
wind?

The answer, of course, is no -- which is yet another reason to never enter
the pattern unprepared.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> Our FBO manager loves to play with these guys, telling them stuff like
>> "winds are variable -- you have your choice of 6 runways..." or he'll
> simply
>> give them the AWOS frequency, laconically stating that "our AWOS will
>> give
>> you the complete weather every 30 seconds...
>
> Your FBO manager is a jerk, but he is correct. He should not be directing
> traffic into the airport.

Actually, he's a helluva nice guy. He's just (a) worried about directing
pilots (as you state), and (b) trying to subtlely teach these folks a
lesson.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> No he didn't. He said he had his choice of six which is true no matter
> what
> the wind might be. What liability would they be trying to assess?

And just like *that* (snapping his fingers) we're back to the liability
attorney/insurance thread!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
>
> Actually, he's a helluva nice guy. He's just (a) worried about directing
> pilots (as you state), and (b) trying to subtlely teach these folks a
> lesson.

That's part of the fun of ATC. You get a stupid guy on the freq and it
won't be long before everybody else knows it too.

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> So, I did not think it unreasonable to include discussion of a proper 45
> entry
> in the discussion about variances in TPA and folks who come in at pattern
> altitude overhead, looking for the 45.

Me either. I was just trying to figure out what you actually meant to say.

Thanks for clarifying.

[zatatime]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:30:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>should he believe that the radio calls from the guy doing (unbeknownst to
>him) crosswind practice represents the runway that is most favoring the
>wind?
>
>The answer, of course, is no


Why is the answer "of course no?" If the pilot doesn't mind a cross
wind landing, and thinks its more appropriate to define a consistent
traffic flow, then why shouldn't he follow the other guy. Ultimately
the decision is for the pilot in command, which I hope is never taken
away by technology.

z

[Dave Stadt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:C8jcd.252695$MQ5.231863@attbi_s52...
> > No he didn't. He said he had his choice of six which is true no matter
> > what
> > the wind might be. What liability would they be trying to assess?
>
> And just like *that* (snapping his fingers) we're back to the liability
> attorney/insurance thread!
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Sorry.

[zatatime]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 03:41:38 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
> wrote:

>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>news:C8jcd.252695$MQ5.231863@attbi_s52...
>> > No he didn't. He said he had his choice of six which is true no matter
>> > what
>> > the wind might be. What liability would they be trying to assess?
>>
>> And just like *that* (snapping his fingers) we're back to the liability
>> attorney/insurance thread!
>>
>> ;-)
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>> www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>Sorry.
>
Hold on...When you're placing blame and determinig who's liable NOBODY
says Sorry! That's automatic grounds to accept all liability. :)

z

[Dave Stadt]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 03:41:38 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> >news:C8jcd.252695$MQ5.231863@attbi_s52...
> >> > No he didn't. He said he had his choice of six which is true no
matter
> >> > what
> >> > the wind might be. What liability would they be trying to assess?
> >>
> >> And just like *that* (snapping his fingers) we're back to the liability
> >> attorney/insurance thread!
> >>
> >> ;-)
> >> --
> >> Jay Honeck
> >> Iowa City, IA
> >> Pathfinder N56993
> >> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> >> "Your Aviation Destination"
> >
> >Sorry.
> >
> Hold on...When you're placing blame and determinig who's liable NOBODY
> says Sorry! That's automatic grounds to accept all liability. :)
>
> z

Not in Iowa. :-)

[C J Campbell]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:22:12 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
> >> This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports.
> >> Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you?
> >
> >Nope.
>
> Please don't fly in southeastern New Hampshire. Promise?

Something you may not know: many airports have more than one published
traffic pattern altitude. If you are depending on all the other airplanes
flying the same pattern and same altitude as you are, you are the one
creating a safety hazard.

[Jay Honeck]

> That's part of the fun of ATC. You get a stupid guy on the freq and it
> won't be long before everybody else knows it too.

Hee hee -- for sure!

Not ATC per se, but coming back from Pella (near Des Moines) today we
over-flew a poor sap who was apparently sitting on his microphone. He had
the incredible misfortune of being the last person in a flight of three to
land, and while they landed ahead of him he gave a long, critical, and quite
profane review of his "friend's" landings to his co-pilot -- and also,
unknowingly, live on the air, for every pilot in the Midwest to hear.

After he landed, we could hear the guy shut down, and someone yelling at
him. Then the mike went dead.

It was hilarious! (But I'll bet those guys aren't friends anymore.)

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Dave Stadt > wrote:

> My guess is if you were to ask 10 pilots what the TPA is at their home
> airport you would get at least 8 different answers.

In addition, you would not be amazed at the number of pilots who "turn
in the pattern" at 500' AGL after takeoff! Why? "Because their
instructor taught them to turn at 500'"! This, at an airport with a
1000' pattern published (also the FAA default pattern).

Still, many pilots and instructors don't see the problem... The AIM
says that you may turn from the departure leg when "within 300 feet of
the pattern altitude". So, for an 800' pattern, 500' AGL is the
correct minimum altitude to turn. However, for a 1000' pattern, 800'
AGL is the correct minimum altitude to turn... when remaining in the
pattern.

You may find this in the AIM, in the descrption of landing patterns,
below the PICTURE/DIAGRAM, not in the regular text.

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 218 Young Eagles!

[John Galban]

zatatime > wrote in message >...
>
>
> (This may be wrong but,)I believe when a TPA is not explicitly stated
> in the AF/D the expected TPA is 800' AGL.
>

That was probably correct 10 or so years ago, but the new standard
TPA is 1000' AGL if not stated in the AFD. The AIM was changed to
reflect this.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Corky Scott]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:48:39 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>For approach freq's do not use the sectional unless you have to. Use
>the ATIS, it will always tell you what the approach freq will be.

It will? I guess I don't travel far enough afield to hear this. None
of the ATIS's I've listened to in Northern New England do more than
tell you the standard ATIS fare. Here's an example from a website of
a typical ATIS broadcast:

ATIS information identifier letter Information India
Time of Report 1755 Zulu
Wind Direction/Speed 260 at 15 gusting to 19
Visibility 6 miles, light snow
Ceiling 2,600 Scattered, 3,500 Overcast
Temperature -5
Dew Point -11
Altimeter 29.99
Instrument Approach and Runways in use ILS (Instrument Landing
System) runway 23 Left in use
Landing 23 Left, Departing 23 Right
Notices to Airmen
Taxiway/runway closures, lights, etc.
Runway 18 closed

I don't see any information regarding approach frequencies there, and
it's been my experience that you odn't find that information in ATIS.
But perhaps if I flew into busier airports once in a while?

Corky Scott

[zatatime]

On 18 Oct 2004 10:12:52 -0700, (John Galban)
wrote:

>> (This may be wrong but,)I believe when a TPA is not explicitly stated
>> in the AF/D the expected TPA is 800' AGL.
>>
>
> That was probably correct 10 or so years ago, but the new standard
>TPA is 1000' AGL if not stated in the AFD. The AIM was changed to
>reflect this.


I agree the AIM gives a new standard, but in my experience the AF/D
has not kept up with this change. Most airports I've seen that do not
have a TPA listed have an 800' pattern.

Not trying to be contrary, I don't mind the 1000' standard, just seems
that the FAA needs to be told to change the AF/D for a bunch of
airports.

z

[Dave Stadt]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:48:39 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
> >For approach freq's do not use the sectional unless you have to. Use
> >the ATIS, it will always tell you what the approach freq will be.
>
> It will? I guess I don't travel far enough afield to hear this. None
> of the ATIS's I've listened to in Northern New England do more than
> tell you the standard ATIS fare. Here's an example from a website of
> a typical ATIS broadcast:
>
> ATIS information identifier letter Information India
> Time of Report 1755 Zulu
> Wind Direction/Speed 260 at 15 gusting to 19
> Visibility 6 miles, light snow
> Ceiling 2,600 Scattered, 3,500 Overcast
> Temperature -5
> Dew Point -11
> Altimeter 29.99
> Instrument Approach and Runways in use ILS (Instrument Landing
> System) runway 23 Left in use
> Landing 23 Left, Departing 23 Right
> Notices to Airmen
> Taxiway/runway closures, lights, etc.
> Runway 18 closed
>
> I don't see any information regarding approach frequencies there, and
> it's been my experience that you odn't find that information in ATIS.
> But perhaps if I flew into busier airports once in a while?
>
> Corky Scott

I have heard approach freqs. announced quite frequently on ATIS in the
Midwest.

[Teacherjh]

>>
Most airports I've seen that do not
have a TPA listed have an 800' pattern.

Not trying to be contrary, I don't mind the 1000' standard, just seems
that the FAA needs to be told to change the AF/D for a bunch of
airports.
<<

I agree. However I bet the FAA expected the airports to just change their
pattern.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[zatatime]

On 19 Oct 2004 00:35:48 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

> However I bet the FAA expected the airports to just change their
>pattern.


Probably, and I'll bet through osmosis as I'm sure they didn't
communicate the change to any operators.

z

[John Galban]

Corky Scott > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:48:39 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
<snip>
> I don't see any information regarding approach frequencies there, and
> it's been my experience that you odn't find that information in ATIS.
> But perhaps if I flew into busier airports once in a while?
>
Corky,

At airports where more than one approach frequency is used, they
usually include the info after the runway information on ATIS.
Something like :'

Arrivals from the north, contact approach on xxx.xx
Arrivals from the south, contact approach on xxx.xx


John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Newps]

zatatime wrote:

> On 19 Oct 2004 00:35:48 GMT, (Teacherjh)
> wrote:
>
>
>>However I bet the FAA expected the airports to just change their
>>pattern.
>
>
>
> Probably, and I'll bet through osmosis as I'm sure they didn't
> communicate the change to any operators.

Perhaps that tells you how unimportant the pattern altitude is.

[zatatime]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:20:33 -0600, Newps >
wrote:

>> Probably, and I'll bet through osmosis as I'm sure they didn't
>> communicate the change to any operators.
>
>Perhaps that tells you how unimportant the pattern altitude is.


Nope. Just how bureaucracy can be.

Nice try though.

z

[Paul Sengupta]

> wrote in message
...
> Still, many pilots and instructors don't see the problem... The AIM
> says that you may turn from the departure leg when "within 300 feet of
> the pattern altitude". So, for an 800' pattern, 500' AGL is the
> correct minimum altitude to turn. However, for a 1000' pattern, 800'
> AGL is the correct minimum altitude to turn... when remaining in the
> pattern.

Sure that's not 700ft? :-)

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:qI_bd.187839$wV.66243@attbi_s54...
> What I like are the guys who obviously aren't carrying a sectional chart
(or
> any other airport information) and insist on calling Unicom for an
"airport
> advisory" -- despite the airport having a published AWOS frequency.

What if the wind is between two runways? Of course you're entitled
to use either, or neither, but if there's a temporary lull in the radio, or
non radio aircraft using one particular runway then surely it's better to
be given a heads up on which is the current preferred runway?

For example, at Winter Haven there's a 04-22 and a 11-29. 04-22 is
longer. So if the wind is between the two, usually 04-22 is the one used.
It's not written anywhere, but it's just local knowledge.

If the wind is variable, then one particular runway may be preferred,
maybe for noise reasons, maybe because someone is taxying out to
that runway to take off, or maybe that's the runway everyone else
is headed for while inbound. And it doesn't have to be the FBO that
replies. If no one's behind the desk and there's maybe one plane in
the pattern for a particular runway, not making calls on the radio
because he doesn't see or hear any other traffic, or maybe he's just
inbound and picked a particular runway, this person can tell the
person who asked what that runway is - so they're both singing from
the same song sheet.

Paul

[G.R. Patterson III]

Paul Sengupta wrote:
>
> What if the wind is between two runways? Of course you're entitled
> to use either, or neither, but if there's a temporary lull in the radio, or
> non radio aircraft using one particular runway then surely it's better to
> be given a heads up on which is the current preferred runway?
>
> For example, at Winter Haven there's a 04-22 and a 11-29. 04-22 is
> longer. So if the wind is between the two, usually 04-22 is the one used.
> It's not written anywhere, but it's just local knowledge.

This is also the case for airports with single runways. In the event of a direct
crosswind (and sometimes even with a bit of a tailwind) one direction is considered
the preferred runway. In most untowered New Jersey airports, this is whatever runway
points in a westerly direction, but, again, it's mainly local knowledge.

It's always fun when the wind is out of the northeasterly quadrant and somebody
decides to land on 24 instead of 06 just because they've "always" used 24.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Jay Honeck]

> What if the wind is between two runways? Of course you're entitled
> to use either, or neither, but if there's a temporary lull in the radio,
> or
> non radio aircraft using one particular runway then surely it's better to
> be given a heads up on which is the current preferred runway?

That's an excellent point.

At our airport, Rwy 25 is the "preferred" no-wind runway, as it's the
longest runway with the clearest over-run area. Thus, jets and turbo-props
use 25 almost all the time, unless the wind is quite strong and not favoring
it.

This is mostly local knowledge which would require an "airport advisory" for
a transient to know, and I've heard our Unicom operators give this
information out on more than one occasion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"