It only takes one...

[Kyle Boatright]

This evening, one careless, clueless, oblivious, inattentive (choose one)
pilot made a shambles of the pattern at my home field for 10 minutes.

It was 20 minutes before dusk and the flock was returning home - there were
aircraft in the pattern and at least 3 inbound. A guy (in a Cessna)
announced a midfield crossover entry into the pattern for a touch and go,
but indicated that he'd have to extend his downwind because he was 500'
above pattern altitude. Fair enough, I thought - the guy is gonna fly a
normal downwind + 1/2 mile.

Long story short, the guy flew a normal downwind plus 2.5 miles, and his
downwind was literally a mile wide to boot...

So the airplane behind him (another Cessna) had to fly the same B-52
pattern, the Grumman behind *him* had to fly a B-47 pattern, and I followed
with a B-29 pattern. Two inbound aircraft recognized that the traffic
pattern was a mess and opted to do loiter outside the pattern to let things
correct themselves.

Then the original Cessna flying doofus flew an abbreviated upwind and
crosswind after his touch and go and cut off the folks who had loitered
waiting for everything to sort itself out. Aargh! I don't think I'll ever
understand this type of pilot...

The question in my mind was... Did the Cessna flying doofus even realize
that A) he was flying a dumb and dangerous pattern, being outside of gliding
range from the field, or that B) he caused a bad chain reaction in the
pattern.??

As I said: It only takes one.

[John T]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message

>
> Long story short, the guy flew a normal downwind plus 2.5 miles, and
> his downwind was literally a mile wide to boot...
> ...
> The question in my mind was... Did the Cessna flying doofus even
> realize that A) he was flying a dumb and dangerous pattern, being
> outside of gliding range from the field, or that B) he caused a bad
> chain reaction in the pattern.??

What kind of Cessna? 150? 182? 206? Caravan? My point is the higher
performance the plane, the larger the pattern. I wasn't there, so I'll take
your word the pattern was wider than it needed to be. Still, I consider
"gliding range in the pattern" a goal, not a rule with a "dumb" label
applied to violators.

Even if he was wide and long, why did you guys let it affect your pattern?
You could've entered slow flight and/or used shallow S-turns, for instance,
to eat time.

My real point is "flying doofi" will always show themselves at the pattern
(and elsewhere). The only thing we control is our reaction to them.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

[Kyle Boatright]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> Long story short, the guy flew a normal downwind plus 2.5 miles, and
>> his downwind was literally a mile wide to boot...
>> ...
>> The question in my mind was... Did the Cessna flying doofus even
>> realize that A) he was flying a dumb and dangerous pattern, being
>> outside of gliding range from the field, or that B) he caused a bad
>> chain reaction in the pattern.??
>
> What kind of Cessna? 150? 182? 206? Caravan? My point is the higher
> performance the plane, the larger the pattern. I wasn't there, so I'll
> take your word the pattern was wider than it needed to be. Still, I
> consider "gliding range in the pattern" a goal, not a rule with a "dumb"
> label applied to violators.

The guy was flying a 172, and turning 500 extra feet of altitude into a 3x
sized pattern put him and everyone behind him at increased risk.

>
> Even if he was wide and long, why did you guys let it affect your pattern?
> You could've entered slow flight and/or used shallow S-turns, for
> instance, to eat time.

You saw the part where each successive airplane flew a smaller pattern?
There is only so much you can do when the origial spacing is 3/4 mile (?) or
thereabouts. Airplane one (a Cessna) flew the downwind at 75 knots,
airplane two (another Cessna) could comfortably slow to 65, airplane three
( a Grumman) probably needed 70 or 75 knots to be happy, and I was OK at 65
knots.

>
> My real point is "flying doofi" will always show themselves at the pattern
> (and elsewhere). The only thing we control is our reaction to them.

You're right, but the problem with flying doofi is that we (you, I, and
everyone else) *expect* other pilots to act in a "normal" manner. If a guy
radios that he's gonna extend his downwind, we understand. But nobody
expects a downwind extended by 2 miles. I'm sure everyone in tonight's
pattern expected the guy to turn base ANY SECOND once he was a half mile
beyond the normal pattern, and as the downwind extended and extended, I'd
bet everyone behind the first guy was wondering.... What the heck is that
guy doing???

>
> --
> John T
> http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
> Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
> ____________________
>

[TheSmokingGnu]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> This evening, one careless, clueless, oblivious, inattentive (choose one)
> pilot made a shambles of the pattern at my home field for 10 minutes.

We shall term this the "McNicoll effect", for while being entirely
within the bounds of the law, was being a complete ass and mucking it up
for the rest of us.

Which, of course, means that he wasn't a danger at all and how dare you
question his piloting ability based on his obviously legal performance
(sub-quote, you ugly tit).

Sorry, can't resist. :D

---

It sounds as though everyone else had the forethought to do the right
thing, however I am concerned about the progression of the patterns.
Shouldn't it be just about Global Hawk-sized by now, if indeed it kept
on the same decay curve?

TheSmokingGnu

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> The question in my mind was... Did the Cessna flying doofus even realize
> that A) he was flying a dumb and dangerous pattern, being outside of gliding
> range from the field, or that B) he caused a bad chain reaction in the
> pattern.??


I'm not arguing with the general point of your posting but I will take a poke at
your assertion about being outside of gliding range of the field. With that
sort of idea, how does one justify ever leaving the pattern to go somewhere?
Every cross country is outside gliding distance of the field.

Aside from that: A) possibly; and B) probably not.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[[email protected]]

On May 1, 7:13 pm, "John T" > wrote:

> My real point is "flying doofi" will always show themselves at the pattern
> (and elsewhere). The only thing we control is our reaction to them.
>
> --
> John Thttp://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
> Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework:http://openspf.org
> ____________________

Ah, what the heck. He may have been new, and not really realized the
distances and effects he was having. Or, he just did what he was
taught.

I'm glad to say I've never screwed up in a pattern. (snicker. I
screwed it up so bad I turned 180, changed my callsign and came back
later.) (No, actually, I didn't change my callsign. But I think
they're still looking for me...)

I guess the more important thing isn't what HE did, because HE will
always be out there. The important thing is how you/we respond to
the unexpected.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>> The question in my mind was... Did the Cessna flying doofus even realize
>> that A) he was flying a dumb and dangerous pattern, being outside of
>> gliding
>> range from the field, or that B) he caused a bad chain reaction in the
>> pattern.??
>
>
> I'm not arguing with the general point of your posting but I will take a
> poke at your assertion about being outside of gliding range of the field.
> With that sort of idea, how does one justify ever leaving the pattern to
> go somewhere? Every cross country is outside gliding distance of the
> field.

Altitude, baybee... And time. From pattern altitude, my airplane has a
minute's worth of glide time or maybe a mile and a half of "range" in a
power off glide. Assuming (incorrectly) that anything within 1.5 miles of
the airplane is within range, I have approximately 6 or 7 square miles of
potential landing sites from pattern altitude. Realistically, the figure is
probably 1/2 that.

From 3, 4, or 5,000 AGL the options go up exponentially. At 5,000', I have
about 7 minutes to restart the engine (assuming a switchology, tankology, or
similar problem). Also, my airplane can glide about 9 miles. Again,
assuming I can glide to anywhere within 9 miles, I have about 250 square
miles of potential landing sites, which greatly increases my chances of a
safe landing.

In my local area, there are enough public and private fields that one is in
range 80% or more of the time if I'm above 5,000' AGL.

That makes me feel a little better about leaving the pattern. As the old
farts say, the question isn't "if?", but "when?" the engine will fail. I
try and stack the odds in my favor if the answer to the question is "now"...

>
> Aside from that: A) possibly; and B) probably not.
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
> mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com
>

[BT]

Ahh... cessna on the extended downwind.. if you are planning to log cross
country on this pattern, do you mind if I make a tight pattern and get on
the ground... great... thanks..

BT

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
> This evening, one careless, clueless, oblivious, inattentive (choose one)
> pilot made a shambles of the pattern at my home field for 10 minutes.
>
> It was 20 minutes before dusk and the flock was returning home - there
> were aircraft in the pattern and at least 3 inbound. A guy (in a Cessna)
> announced a midfield crossover entry into the pattern for a touch and go,
> but indicated that he'd have to extend his downwind because he was 500'
> above pattern altitude. Fair enough, I thought - the guy is gonna fly a
> normal downwind + 1/2 mile.
>
> Long story short, the guy flew a normal downwind plus 2.5 miles, and his
> downwind was literally a mile wide to boot...
>
> So the airplane behind him (another Cessna) had to fly the same B-52
> pattern, the Grumman behind *him* had to fly a B-47 pattern, and I
> followed with a B-29 pattern. Two inbound aircraft recognized that the
> traffic pattern was a mess and opted to do loiter outside the pattern to
> let things correct themselves.
>
> Then the original Cessna flying doofus flew an abbreviated upwind and
> crosswind after his touch and go and cut off the folks who had loitered
> waiting for everything to sort itself out. Aargh! I don't think I'll
> ever understand this type of pilot...
>
> The question in my mind was... Did the Cessna flying doofus even realize
> that A) he was flying a dumb and dangerous pattern, being outside of
> gliding range from the field, or that B) he caused a bad chain reaction in
> the pattern.??
>
> As I said: It only takes one.
>

[tjd]

On May 1, 9:55 pm, "Kyle Boatright" > wrote:
> A guy (in a Cessna)
> announced a midfield crossover entry into the pattern for a touch and go,
> but indicated that he'd have to extend his downwind because he was 500'
> above pattern altitude. Fair enough, I thought - the guy is gonna fly a
> normal downwind + 1/2 mile.

I see no-one has mentioned this part yet - descending into the traffic
pattern is dangerous in and of itself and AC90-66A specifically
recommends against it. The guy was probably cooking along at 110,
hadn't done his checklists, etc. so no wonder it took him so long to
turn base...

[Dallas]

On Tue, 1 May 2007 21:55:56 -0400, Kyle Boatright wrote:

> I don't think I'll ever understand this type of pilot...

They're at every airport. We have Doctor that shows up once or so a week
to fire up his Citabria and fly massive and unpredictable oval patterns for
an hour. It's really quite educational for those learning to fly the
pattern.

He's been given the nickname "Doctor Death" by those who have survived his
attempts to kill them.

--
Dallas

[Vaughn Simon]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
> In my local area, there are enough public and private fields that one is in
> range 80% or more of the time if I'm above 5,000' AGL.
>
> That makes me feel a little better about leaving the pattern. As the old
> farts say, the question isn't "if?", but "when?" the engine will fail. I try
> and stack the odds in my favor if the answer to the question is "now"...

Then I guess you don't fly out of a field that is under class C airspace.
We have to fly about five miles away from the field before we can climb above
1200 feet. There are no landing fields in that five miles. Even worse, that
means that all of the light plane traffic is concentrated in about 200' of
altitude, greatly increasing the chances of two (or more) planes trying to
occupy the same dab of airspace at the same time. FAA's reason for this
arrangement is to "increase safety".

Still, we seem to survive.

Vaughn

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

wrote:
>
> I'm glad to say I've never screwed up in a pattern.

Me either.

But I don't count the time I totally brain farted and flew a right
pattern (vs. the published standard left) at my home base. I correctly
made radio calls of RIGHT downwind, RIGHT base, and final. <G>

I've been ribbed enough about it that it no longer counts!

[Denny]

I correctly
> made radio calls of RIGHT downwind, RIGHT base, and final. <G>
>
> I've been ribbed enough about it that it no longer counts!

Barry, I frequently fly RH pattern to the unused cross wind runway..
Of course I announce my intentions and keep a sharp eye for anyone
that might get confused by me... But this IS an uncontrolled
airport... Training maneuvers and practicing emergency procedures is
legal... No one ribs me about it <they don't even mention it>...

denny

[Peter R.]

On 5/1/2007 11:12:37 PM, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

> I'm not arguing with the general point of your posting but I will take a
> poke at your assertion about being outside of gliding range of the field.

Isn't this guideline based on the theory that there is a higher chance of
engine failure during changes in power settings? A reduction of power while
entering the pattern, I recall reading, presents a statistically higher
chance of engine failure than while at cruise.

--
Peter

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Denny wrote:
> I correctly
>> made radio calls of RIGHT downwind, RIGHT base, and final. <G>
>>
>> I've been ribbed enough about it that it no longer counts!
>
> Barry, I frequently fly RH pattern to the unused cross wind runway..

Understood.

I did it to the in-use runway at an uncontrolled field, with other guys
in the published pattern. They took it in stride, and spaced me right in.

What I did still deserved a "poke" or two, because of the intentions
involved. <G>

[Matt Barrow[_4_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
> This evening, one careless, clueless, oblivious, inattentive (choose one)
> pilot made a shambles of the pattern at my home field for 10 minutes.
>
> It was 20 minutes before dusk and the flock was returning home - there
> were aircraft in the pattern and at least 3 inbound. A guy (in a Cessna)
> announced a midfield crossover entry into the pattern for a touch and go,
> but indicated that he'd have to extend his downwind because he was 500'
> above pattern altitude. Fair enough, I thought - the guy is gonna fly a
> normal downwind + 1/2 mile.
>
> Long story short, the guy flew a normal downwind plus 2.5 miles, and his
> downwind was literally a mile wide to boot...
>
> So the airplane behind him (another Cessna) had to fly the same B-52
> pattern, the Grumman behind *him* had to fly a B-47 pattern, and I
> followed with a B-29 pattern. Two inbound aircraft recognized that the
> traffic pattern was a mess and opted to do loiter outside the pattern to
> let things correct themselves.
>
> Then the original Cessna flying doofus flew an abbreviated upwind and
> crosswind after his touch and go and cut off the folks who had loitered
> waiting for everything to sort itself out. Aargh! I don't think I'll
> ever understand this type of pilot...
>
> The question in my mind was... Did the Cessna flying doofus even realize
> that A) he was flying a dumb and dangerous pattern, being outside of
> gliding range from the field, or that B) he caused a bad chain reaction in
> the pattern.??
>
> As I said: It only takes one.
One?

http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/189177-1.html

February 20, 2005

The Pilot's Lounge #84: Arrogance, Etiquette And Big Fat Traffic
Patterns

'Are you going to land here or keep going on downwind into the next county?'
It's painful to be in the pattern behind a pilot who thinks a stabilized
final approach in a Cessna means a two-mile final. But just what are the
rules and safe practices regarding the size of a traffic pattern? AVweb's
Rick Durden looks into it this month in The Pilot's Lounge.

By Rick Durden, Columnist

[Jay Honeck]

> We shall term this the "McNicoll effect", for while being entirely
> within the bounds of the law, was being a complete ass and mucking it up
> for the rest of us.

Excellent. Well done.

Actually, I think you are really on to something here. This newly
coined phenomenon could explain much about what happens in the air --
and on the ground.

In fact, this "McNicoll Effect" just might explain everything that is
wrong with our society -- and even the world! There is so much of
this sort of thing going on -- often completely unexplained -- that
some sort of a blanket explanation was just begging to be discovered.
And you did it!

Dang, Gnu, you may have just tipped the sociological and political
world on its ear today -- good show!

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

[ArtP]

On Wed, 2 May 2007 08:19:42 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote:

>
>Isn't this guideline based on the theory that there is a higher chance of
>engine failure during changes in power settings? A reduction of power while
>entering the pattern, I recall reading, presents a statistically higher
>chance of engine failure than while at cruise.

Of course you change your power at the beginning of a climb, top of
the climb, beginning of a descent, and the bottom of the descent. If
you are flying IFR you will do this a number of times and you may not
even be able to see the ground much less be looking for a good landing
spot. If you are flying an ILS approach you are certainly not within
gliding distance of a runway.

But take heart. As has been pointed out many times most accidents are
not the result of mechanical failure.

[Viperdoc]

Flying the pattern also means understanding who's ahead or behind you. It's
unrealistic to expect a G-V fly a pattern behind a guy in a 150.

Both of my planes have a difficult time flying a pattern with a 150- I need
to be at least at 100, and preferably 120k. Otherwise I'll be hanging on the
prop in slow flight, and SOL if the engine quits, or in the other case, well
below Vyse if an engine quits. Neither is a good situation.

Yet, flying a wider and faster pattern commensurate with the safer speeds
often leads me to be either cut off, or having to do S turns for the 150
pilot doing a five mile 65K final.

The same guy who flies the 5 mile final also tends to use all of the 5500
foot runway to turn off as a matter of convenience.

So, how about thinking about the people behind you as well as in front of
you in the pattern?


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> This evening, one careless, clueless, oblivious, inattentive (choose one)
>> pilot made a shambles of the pattern at my home field for 10 minutes.
>>
>> It was 20 minutes before dusk and the flock was returning home - there
>> were aircraft in the pattern and at least 3 inbound. A guy (in a Cessna)
>> announced a midfield crossover entry into the pattern for a touch and go,
>> but indicated that he'd have to extend his downwind because he was 500'
>> above pattern altitude. Fair enough, I thought - the guy is gonna fly a
>> normal downwind + 1/2 mile.
>>
>> Long story short, the guy flew a normal downwind plus 2.5 miles, and his
>> downwind was literally a mile wide to boot...
>>
>> So the airplane behind him (another Cessna) had to fly the same B-52
>> pattern, the Grumman behind *him* had to fly a B-47 pattern, and I
>> followed with a B-29 pattern. Two inbound aircraft recognized that the
>> traffic pattern was a mess and opted to do loiter outside the pattern to
>> let things correct themselves.
>>
>> Then the original Cessna flying doofus flew an abbreviated upwind and
>> crosswind after his touch and go and cut off the folks who had loitered
>> waiting for everything to sort itself out. Aargh! I don't think I'll
>> ever understand this type of pilot...
>>
>> The question in my mind was... Did the Cessna flying doofus even realize
>> that A) he was flying a dumb and dangerous pattern, being outside of
>> gliding range from the field, or that B) he caused a bad chain reaction
>> in the pattern.??
>>
>> As I said: It only takes one.
> One?
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/189177-1.html
>
> February 20, 2005
>
> The Pilot's Lounge #84: Arrogance, Etiquette And Big Fat Traffic
> Patterns
>
> 'Are you going to land here or keep going on downwind into the next
> county?' It's painful to be in the pattern behind a pilot who thinks a
> stabilized final approach in a Cessna means a two-mile final. But just
> what are the rules and safe practices regarding the size of a traffic
> pattern? AVweb's Rick Durden looks into it this month in The Pilot's
> Lounge.
>
> By Rick Durden, Columnist
>
>

[Peter R.]

On 5/2/2007 9:47:13 AM, ArtP wrote:

> Of course you change your power at the beginning of a climb, top of
> the climb, beginning of a descent, and the bottom of the descent

Not in my case. My turbo-normalized Bonanza is typically run at WOT from take
off thru approach/pattern (depending on IFR or VFR and also depending on how
turbulent the air is). The first throttle reduction would be just before the
IAF or a few miles outside the traffic pattern.


--
Peter

[ManhattanMan]

BT wrote:
> Ahh... cessna on the extended downwind.. if you are planning to log
> cross country on this pattern, do you mind if I make a tight pattern
> and get on the ground... great... thanks..
>


I had an occassion where I entered downwind, had already passed the field,
only other traffic was a guy still several miles out on a straight in final,
and the tower cleared me for immediate landing, which was no problem in a
150, so I turned base - the guy still miles out really got his shorts
bunched up and started screaming that someone had cut in front of him!!!!!
Tower told him to cool it, there was more than adequate spacing.. d:->))

[Maxwell]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> On 5/1/2007 11:12:37 PM, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
>
>> I'm not arguing with the general point of your posting but I will take a
>> poke at your assertion about being outside of gliding range of the field.
>
> Isn't this guideline based on the theory that there is a higher chance of
> engine failure during changes in power settings? A reduction of power
> while
> entering the pattern, I recall reading, presents a statistically higher
> chance of engine failure than while at cruise.
>

Might be an urban legend, but that's what I was taught back in the 70s.

[Erik]

I screwed up a pattern real good once. I didn't then proceed to
screw everyone over, though.

It's the gift that keeps giving, too. Like a car accident. Once
the accident is cleared up, traffic is still messed up for hours
afterward.

I felt so bad.

[Erik]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> You're right, but the problem with flying doofi is that we (you, I, and
> everyone else) *expect* other pilots to act in a "normal" manner. If a guy
> radios that he's gonna extend his downwind, we understand. But nobody
> expects a downwind extended by 2 miles. I'm sure everyone in tonight's
> pattern expected the guy to turn base ANY SECOND once he was a half mile
> beyond the normal pattern, and as the downwind extended and extended, I'd
> bet everyone behind the first guy was wondering.... What the heck is that
> guy doing???

Oh man that would suck. I could totally see myself following someone
that perhaps decided to abandon his plans and depart on the downwind
and not announce his intentions. Merrily flying along wondering what
the hell am I doing here???

[Erik]

Viperdoc wrote:
>
> So, how about thinking about the people behind you as well as in front of
> you in the pattern?
>

And please extend this thinking to the drive home or to the airstrip.

Or grocery store, or work...

[Jay Masino]

Kyle Boatright > wrote:
> Long story short, the guy flew a normal downwind plus 2.5 miles, and his
> downwind was literally a mile wide to boot...
>
> So the airplane behind him (another Cessna) had to fly the same B-52
> pattern, the Grumman behind *him* had to fly a B-47 pattern, and I followed
> with a B-29 pattern. Two inbound aircraft recognized that the traffic
> pattern was a mess and opted to do loiter outside the pattern to let things
> correct themselves.

This has recently become a significant pet peave of mine. There are a
fairly large number of inexperienced private pilots at my airport, who
are all flying these ridiculously wide patterns. It seems to be the
"fault" of our one particular old flight instructor. All of his
students seem to do this, and it drives me crazy. He apparently flew
WWII transport size aircraft, so that may explain it. That Avweb
article that was cited was really good. I think I'll print a few copies
and leave it around the airport. :)

--- Jay

--

Jay Masino "Home is where My critters are"
http://www.JayMasino.com
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Viperdoc" > wrote:

> Flying the pattern also means understanding who's ahead or behind you. It's
> unrealistic to expect a G-V fly a pattern behind a guy in a 150.
>
> Both of my planes have a difficult time flying a pattern with a 150- I need
> to be at least at 100, and preferably 120k. Otherwise I'll be hanging on the
> prop in slow flight, and SOL if the engine quits, or in the other case, well
> below Vyse if an engine quits. Neither is a good situation.
>
> Yet, flying a wider and faster pattern commensurate with the safer speeds
> often leads me to be either cut off, or having to do S turns for the 150
> pilot doing a five mile 65K final.
>
> The same guy who flies the 5 mile final also tends to use all of the 5500
> foot runway to turn off as a matter of convenience.
>
> So, how about thinking about the people behind you as well as in front of
> you in the pattern?
>

I've had that happen to me! I extended a formation to let a Mooney in,
spaced myself so he would clear at the second exit -- he decided to take
exit #3, while slowing down to taxi speed and keeping in the center of
our 150 ft wide runway! I radioed, "Mooney clear right, please." Nothing!

Another time (some 40+ years ago, I was flying a Beech 18 into an
airport, where a Champ was doing T&Gs. I spaced myself, but he decided
to stay on the runway and slow-taxi to the end. I cleaned it up, applied
climb power and held it low until I passed over him. The sound of 2
R-985s at climb power HAD to get his attention!

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 02 May 2007 17:32:14 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> wrote in
>:

>
>I've had that happen to me! I extended a formation to let a Mooney in,
>spaced myself so he would clear at the second exit -- he decided to take
>exit #3, while slowing down to taxi speed and keeping in the center of
>our 150 ft wide runway! I radioed, "Mooney clear right, please." Nothing!
>
>Another time (some 40+ years ago, I was flying a Beech 18 into an
>airport, where a Champ was doing T&Gs. I spaced myself, but he decided
>to stay on the runway and slow-taxi to the end. I cleaned it up, applied
>climb power and held it low until I passed over him. The sound of 2
>R-985s at climb power HAD to get his attention!

Are you able to quote a specific regulation that prevents you from
landing behind the aircraft in these situations?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 02 May 2007 17:32:14 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>> I've had that happen to me! I extended a formation to let a Mooney
>> in, spaced myself so he would clear at the second exit -- he decided
>> to take exit #3, while slowing down to taxi speed and keeping in the
>> center of our 150 ft wide runway! I radioed, "Mooney clear right,
>> please." Nothing!
>>
>> Another time (some 40+ years ago, I was flying a Beech 18 into an
>> airport, where a Champ was doing T&Gs. I spaced myself, but he
>> decided to stay on the runway and slow-taxi to the end. I cleaned it
>> up, applied climb power and held it low until I passed over him. The
>> sound of 2 R-985s at climb power HAD to get his attention!
>
> Are you able to quote a specific regulation that prevents you from
> landing behind the aircraft in these situations?

The laws of physics might come into play.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 2 May 2007 13:14:21 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 May 2007 17:32:14 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>
>>> I've had that happen to me! I extended a formation to let a Mooney
>>> in, spaced myself so he would clear at the second exit -- he decided
>>> to take exit #3, while slowing down to taxi speed and keeping in the
>>> center of our 150 ft wide runway! I radioed, "Mooney clear right,
>>> please." Nothing!
>>>
>>> Another time (some 40+ years ago, I was flying a Beech 18 into an
>>> airport, where a Champ was doing T&Gs. I spaced myself, but he
>>> decided to stay on the runway and slow-taxi to the end. I cleaned it
>>> up, applied climb power and held it low until I passed over him. The
>>> sound of 2 R-985s at climb power HAD to get his attention!
>>
>> Are you able to quote a specific regulation that prevents you from
>> landing behind the aircraft in these situations?
>
>The laws of physics might come into play.
>

That's a matter of pilot judgment, isn't it?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2007 13:14:21 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 May 2007 17:32:14 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
>>> > wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've had that happen to me! I extended a formation to let a Mooney
>>>> in, spaced myself so he would clear at the second exit -- he
>>>> decided to take exit #3, while slowing down to taxi speed and
>>>> keeping in the center of our 150 ft wide runway! I radioed,
>>>> "Mooney clear right, please." Nothing!
>>>>
>>>> Another time (some 40+ years ago, I was flying a Beech 18 into an
>>>> airport, where a Champ was doing T&Gs. I spaced myself, but he
>>>> decided to stay on the runway and slow-taxi to the end. I cleaned
>>>> it up, applied climb power and held it low until I passed over
>>>> him. The sound of 2 R-985s at climb power HAD to get his attention!
>>>
>>> Are you able to quote a specific regulation that prevents you from
>>> landing behind the aircraft in these situations?
>>
>> The laws of physics might come into play.
>>
>
> That's a matter of pilot judgment, isn't it?

No physics is not a matter of pilot judgement. If they are going to come
into play is a matter of pilot judgement.

[Viperdoc]

In my high performance tail dragger there is absolutely no forward
visibility on the ground. If the preceding plane is not completely clear,
there is no way to see and avoid.

[flynrider via AviationKB.com]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>So the airplane behind him (another Cessna) had to fly the same B-52
>pattern, the Grumman behind *him* had to fly a B-47 pattern, and I followed
>with a B-29 pattern. Two inbound aircraft recognized that the traffic
>pattern was a mess and opted to do loiter outside the pattern to let things
>correct themselves.
>

If he'd just kept on going, would you guys have kept on following? If
someone ahead of me is flying 2.5 miles beyond the normal downwind, I turn
base. I'll be tying up the airplane before he gets back.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Peter R. wrote:
>On 5/1/2007 11:12:37 PM, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
>
>> I'm not arguing with the general point of your posting but I will take a
>> poke at your assertion about being outside of gliding range of the field.
>
>Isn't this guideline based on the theory that there is a higher chance of
>engine failure during changes in power settings? A reduction of power while
>entering the pattern, I recall reading, presents a statistically higher
>chance of engine failure than while at cruise.

Old Wives Tale might be more appropriate. Lycoming reported on this
theory and the one about running "oversquare" rpm/mp settings. It's on page
65 of this .pdf :

http://www.lycoming.com/support/tips-advice/key-reprints/pdfs/Key%20Operations.pdf


Anecdotally, I've known quite a few pilots that have experienced engine
failure over the years and the vast majority happened in cruise.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-1800

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

[Gig 601XL Builder]

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Peter R. wrote:
>> On 5/1/2007 11:12:37 PM, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not arguing with the general point of your posting but I will
>>> take a poke at your assertion about being outside of gliding range
>>> of the field.
>>
>> Isn't this guideline based on the theory that there is a higher
>> chance of engine failure during changes in power settings? A
>> reduction of power while entering the pattern, I recall reading,
>> presents a statistically higher chance of engine failure than while
>> at cruise.
>
> Old Wives Tale might be more appropriate. Lycoming reported on this
> theory and the one about running "oversquare" rpm/mp settings. It's
> on page 65 of this .pdf :
>
> http://www.lycoming.com/support/tips-advice/key-
> reprints/pdfs/Key%20Operations.pdf
>

It's on the page marked as 65. It's really on page 31 of the 38 page pdf.

[Kyle Boatright]

"flynrider via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote in message
news:7197219d35910@uwe...
> Kyle Boatright wrote:
>>
>>So the airplane behind him (another Cessna) had to fly the same B-52
>>pattern, the Grumman behind *him* had to fly a B-47 pattern, and I
>>followed
>>with a B-29 pattern. Two inbound aircraft recognized that the traffic
>>pattern was a mess and opted to do loiter outside the pattern to let
>>things
>>correct themselves.
>>
>
> If he'd just kept on going, would you guys have kept on following?

Interesting question. I was #4 on downwind. If #2 had turned base, I think
that would have been reasonable, but #4 turning base in front of 3 people on
downwind might not have been appropriate...

KB

> If
> someone ahead of me is flying 2.5 miles beyond the normal downwind, I turn
> base. I'll be tying up the airplane before he gets back.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.com
> http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1
>

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> We shall term this the "McNicoll effect", for while being entirely
>> within the bounds of the law, was being a complete ass and mucking it up
>> for the rest of us.
>
> Excellent. Well done.
>
> Actually, I think you are really on to something here. This newly
> coined phenomenon could explain much about what happens in the air --
> and on the ground.
>
> In fact, this "McNicoll Effect" just might explain everything that is
> wrong with our society -- and even the world! There is so much of
> this sort of thing going on -- often completely unexplained -- that
> some sort of a blanket explanation was just begging to be discovered.
> And you did it!
>
> Dang, Gnu, you may have just tipped the sociological and political
> world on its ear today -- good show!
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck

Outstanding work by both of you, particularly the Gnu. I have witnessed the
McNicoll Effect in this forum frequently. I was able to quickly identify the
root cause, but never came up with an appropriate name for it. Or at least
one that was suitable for a public forum.

KB

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in message
...
> I had an occassion where I entered downwind, had already passed the field,
> only other traffic was a guy still several miles out on a straight in
> final, and the tower cleared me for immediate landing, which was no
> problem in a 150, so I turned base - the guy still miles out really got
> his shorts bunched up and started screaming that someone had cut in front
> of him!!!!! Tower told him to cool it, there was more than adequate
> spacing.. d:->))

He obviously was not listening to the radio, otherwise he would have heard
tower give you clearance to land!
Crash Lander

[Peter R.]

On 5/2/2007 5:03:41 PM, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" wrote:

> Old Wives Tale might be more appropriate.

So file that one away with the whole shock cooling thing, I see. :)

--
Peter

[ManhattanMan]

Crash Lander wrote:
> "ManhattanMan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I had an occassion where I entered downwind, had already passed the
>> field, only other traffic was a guy still several miles out on a
>> straight in final, and the tower cleared me for immediate landing,
>> which was no problem in a 150, so I turned base - the guy still
>> miles out really got his shorts bunched up and started screaming
>> that someone had cut in front of him!!!!! Tower told him to cool it,
>> there was more than adequate spacing.. d:->))
>
> He obviously was not listening to the radio, otherwise he would have
> heard tower give you clearance to land!

He was listening, just not thinking. It did give me a VBG when the tower
told him to not sweat it! :)

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Kyle Boatright wrote:
>
>Interesting question. I was #4 on downwind. If #2 had turned base, I think
>that would have been reasonable, but #4 turning base in front of 3 people on
>downwind might not have been appropriate...
>
I don't see what would be inappropriate about it. If those 2 planes ahead
are continuing to follow the guy who's over 2.5 miles away, you will
certainly not be a factor to any of the 3 by the time they get back to the
airport later that day.

We get students flying these jumbo patterns quite a bit at my (towered)
home field. The tower folks know I fly a tight pattern, so when practicing
T&Gs behind one, the tower gives me a short approach when I'm abeam the
numbers. I'm usually turning from the crosswind to downwind by the time the
student crosses the threshold. I can generally make 3 laps for every 2 the
student makes, and never get in the other plane's way.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

[[email protected]]

On May 2, 5:19 am, "Peter R." > wrote:
> On 5/1/2007 11:12:37 PM, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
>
> > I'm not arguing with the general point of your posting but I will take a
> > poke at your assertion about being outside of gliding range of the field.
>
> Isn't this guideline based on the theory that there is a higher chance of
> engine failure during changes in power settings? A reduction of power while
> entering the pattern, I recall reading, presents a statistically higher
> chance of engine failure than while at cruise.
>
> --
> Peter

Interesting...
Sounds to me like: "There is a higher chance that the engine will quit
while the pilot is manipulating the throttles, mixture, and carb
heat." And in the pattern, the statistics might count because there
is less time to recover than from, say, 10,000 feet

[Ross]

Crash Lander wrote:
> "ManhattanMan" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I had an occassion where I entered downwind, had already passed the field,
>>only other traffic was a guy still several miles out on a straight in
>>final, and the tower cleared me for immediate landing, which was no
>>problem in a 150, so I turned base - the guy still miles out really got
>>his shorts bunched up and started screaming that someone had cut in front
>>of him!!!!! Tower told him to cool it, there was more than adequate
>>spacing.. d:->))
>
>
> He obviously was not listening to the radio, otherwise he would have heard
> tower give you clearance to land!
> Crash Lander
>
>
Johnson County Airport south of Kansas City is a towered airport. While
working on my commerical there and doing pattern work, there would be
some one in the pattern doing very large circuits. If appropriate I
would request a short approach from the tower and he would give it to
me. A legal cut in front of....

--

Regards, Ross
C-172F 180HP
KSWI

[Morgans[_2_]]

"flynrider via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote
>
> If he'd just kept on going, would you guys have kept on following? If
> someone ahead of me is flying 2.5 miles beyond the normal downwind, I turn
> base. I'll be tying up the airplane before he gets back.

I have to admit, I thought the same thing.
--
Jim in NC

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote:

> I had an occassion where I entered downwind, had already passed the
> field, only other traffic was a guy still several miles out on a
> straight in final, and the tower cleared me for immediate landing,

I've had the same thing happen. Tower can tell if you're faster and flying a tighter pattern. In my case, if I
recall, he cleared me for the touch and go without me asking for the shortcut. Maybe it's their way of
sendng a not so subtle message to the guys flying the huge patterns.

Mike

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 1 May 2007 21:55:56 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:

>This evening, one careless, clueless, oblivious, inattentive (choose one)
>pilot made a shambles of the pattern at my home field for 10 minutes.
>
>It was 20 minutes before dusk and the flock was returning home - there were
>aircraft in the pattern and at least 3 inbound. A guy (in a Cessna)
>announced a midfield crossover entry into the pattern for a touch and go,
>but indicated that he'd have to extend his downwind because he was 500'
>above pattern altitude. Fair enough, I thought - the guy is gonna fly a
>normal downwind + 1/2 mile.
>
>Long story short, the guy flew a normal downwind plus 2.5 miles, and his
>downwind was literally a mile wide to boot...
>
>So the airplane behind him (another Cessna) had to fly the same B-52
>pattern, the Grumman behind *him* had to fly a B-47 pattern, and I followed

No he didn't.

>with a B-29 pattern. Two inbound aircraft recognized that the traffic
>pattern was a mess and opted to do loiter outside the pattern to let things
>correct themselves.

What I see happen here is the guy flying the wide and or long base is
very likely to find him, or her self outside the pattern with a whole
group of planes flying the normal patterns.

When you have a mix of every thing from ultra lights to high
performance twins you can easily have two on down wind with one a city
block out and another a mile out.

the same is true for the long down wind. Every one thinks they are
headed else where regardless of their radio calls.

It leads to a lot of neck swiveling trying to find the errant plane,
but we are lined right up with the 14 VOR approach into MBS. Planes
flying the VOR 14 *should* be about a 1000 feet above our pattern, but
VFR traffic will often be not much above our pattern and a plane 2
miles out does not appear to be in the pattern. Soooo...Those
stretching the pattern way out to the side or in length often turn
final to find as many as two on base on one on final ahead of them. On
a busy day if they fly both wide and long it could be even more.

No one...well not many stay inside on purpose, but they really can't
claim they were cut off when they are so far out pilots in the pattern
think they were headed some where else. We had that happen when a
Mooney flew a very wide and long pattern and fund an ultra light and
another plane on base and final ahead of him. He found no sympathy
from the other pilots or airport manager when he complained. Actually
the manager wanted to know why he was flying a non standard pattern.



>
>Then the original Cessna flying doofus flew an abbreviated upwind and
>crosswind after his touch and go and cut off the folks who had loitered
>waiting for everything to sort itself out. Aargh! I don't think I'll ever
>understand this type of pilot...
>
>The question in my mind was... Did the Cessna flying doofus even realize
>that A) he was flying a dumb and dangerous pattern, being outside of gliding
>range from the field, or that B) he caused a bad chain reaction in the
>pattern.??
>
>As I said: It only takes one.
>