TPA sillyness

[Roy Smith]

Somebody explain this one to me. DXR (Danburry, CT) lists:

Pattern altitude: 1701 ft. MSL
TPA FOR JET ACFT 1743 AGL

The field elevation is 458. I'm cool with the higher than normal TPA
(there's some big hills right next to the airport), but I don't
understand where they got the strange numbers from. What bit of
regulatory sillyness makes them publish a TPA of 1701 instead of 1700?
I've always flown it at 1700; I guess I should file a NASA report for
busting the TPA all these years?

And what is the advantage of having the jets flying 42 feet higher?

[Bob Fry]

(Roy Smith) writes:

> Pattern altitude: 1701 ft. MSL
> TPA FOR JET ACFT 1743 AGL
>
> The field elevation is 458. ...
>
> And what is the advantage of having the jets flying 42 feet higher?

Aren't the jets flying 1743+458=2201 feet MSL, 400 feet higher than
piston aircraft?

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Bob Fry > wrote:

> (Roy Smith) writes:
>
> > Pattern altitude: 1701 ft. MSL
> > TPA FOR JET ACFT 1743 AGL
> >
> > The field elevation is 458. ...
> >
> > And what is the advantage of having the jets flying 42 feet higher?
>
> Aren't the jets flying 1743+458=2201 feet MSL, 400 feet higher than
> piston aircraft?

Jeez. I didn't even notice that one was MSL and the other AGL!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

(Roy Smith) wrote in message >...
>
> Somebody explain this one to me. DXR (Danburry, CT) lists:
>
> Pattern altitude: 1701 ft. MSL
> TPA FOR JET ACFT 1743 AGL
>
> The field elevation is 458. I'm cool with the higher than normal TPA
> (there's some big hills right next to the airport), but I don't
> understand where they got the strange numbers from. What bit of
> regulatory sillyness makes them publish a TPA of 1701 instead of 1700?
> I've always flown it at 1700; I guess I should file a NASA report for
> busting the TPA all these years?
>
> And what is the advantage of having the jets flying 42 feet higher?
>

The jets aren't flying 42 feet higher, they're flying 500 feet higher.
The difference between 1701 MSL and 1743 AGL is 500 feet.

Where did you find information listed in this rather confusing manner?
The A/FD shows "TPA- 1701(1243)- jet acft 2201(1743)." That doesn't
explain the odd foot, but at least they're not mixing AGL and MSL.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
(Steven P. McNicoll) wrote:

> (Roy Smith) wrote in message
> >...
> >
> > Somebody explain this one to me. DXR (Danburry, CT) lists:
> >
> > Pattern altitude: 1701 ft. MSL
> > TPA FOR JET ACFT 1743 AGL
> >
> > The field elevation is 458. I'm cool with the higher than normal TPA
> > (there's some big hills right next to the airport), but I don't
> > understand where they got the strange numbers from. What bit of
> > regulatory sillyness makes them publish a TPA of 1701 instead of 1700?
> > I've always flown it at 1700; I guess I should file a NASA report for
> > busting the TPA all these years?
> >
> > And what is the advantage of having the jets flying 42 feet higher?
> >
>
> The jets aren't flying 42 feet higher, they're flying 500 feet higher.
> The difference between 1701 MSL and 1743 AGL is 500 feet.
>
> Where did you find information listed in this rather confusing manner?
> The A/FD shows "TPA- 1701(1243)- jet acft 2201(1743)." That doesn't
> explain the odd foot, but at least they're not mixing AGL and MSL.

From www.airnav.com; I assume they get it from some FAA data source. Their
web site seems to be down right now, but here it is cut-and-pasted from the
google cache (isn't it convenient to have an on-line backup of the entire
web?):

> Pattern altitude:*
> 1701 ft. MSL
> TPA FOR JET ACFT 1743 AGL

The cached page says, "This is G o o g l e's cache of
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KDXR as retrieved on Apr 1, 2005 16:37:38
GMT.", so maybe it's an April Fool's joke? :-) Either that or they're
mis-parsing some FAA data file?

[Brian Whatcott]

On 11 Apr 2005 14:05:35 -0400, (Roy Smith) wrote:

>Somebody explain this one to me. DXR (Danburry, CT) lists:
>
>Pattern altitude: 1701 ft. MSL
> TPA FOR JET ACFT 1743 AGL
>
>The field elevation is 458. I'm cool with the higher than normal TPA
>(there's some big hills right next to the airport), but I don't
>understand where they got the strange numbers from. What bit of
>regulatory sillyness makes them publish a TPA of 1701 instead of 1700?
>I've always flown it at 1700; I guess I should file a NASA report for
>busting the TPA all these years?
>
>And what is the advantage of having the jets flying 42 feet higher?

42 feet higher? Tell me you know the difference between
MSL and AGL!

Brian W