![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The FAA is expecting to publish its final rule covering Light Sport
Aircraft, Sport Pilots, and the training and repair requirements sometime this year. I'm wondering what impact this rule will have on traffic pattern operations at non-towered airports. Most non-towered airports have a single traffic pattern that all aircraft share. Some airports specify different altitudes for different types of aircraft, but they all end up using the same rectangular traffic pattern. In the current environment, this seems to work. I think the reason that it works is because the greatest speed differential likely to be encountered is a factor of two. By this, I mean a typical non-towered airport has training aircraft that fly approaches as slow as about 55 knots. At the upper end are twin-engine aircraft that may fly as fast as 120 knots. The difference is about a factor of two. With the introduction of sport aircraft, many of which fly at approach speeds well below 55 knots, I'm wondering how they should be integrated into the traffic pattern. One option would be to have them use the same pattern every other single-engine aircraft uses (but perhaps at a lower altitude?). However, this will just increase the speed differential encountered in the pattern, perhaps as high as a factor of three or four. This can't be a good idea. Imagine trying to merge onto the highway if traffic had speed differentials of four times (operating between 30 and 120 m.p.h.). Advisory Circular 90-66A provides guidelines for traffic patterns by ultralight operators at non-towered airports. One suggestion is to use a traffic pattern that is lower than the single-engine traffic pattern and inside of it. Would this be the best option for sport aircraft? It eliminates conflicts in the downwind and base leg, but there is still a possibility of a conflict on final. What's the best way to reduce traffic pattern risk when there is a wide range in approach speeds – vertical separation for different user groups, or a different pattern for different user groups? Or are the current traffic pattern practices at non-towered airports archaic and need to be completely revamped? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Logging time on a PCATD | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | December 18th 04 05:25 PM |
FAA Application -- kinds of time | Gary Drescher | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | November 23rd 04 02:33 PM |
Logging approaches | Ron Garrison | Instrument Flight Rules | 109 | March 2nd 04 05:54 PM |
they took me back in time and the nsa or japan wired my head and now they know the idea came from me so if your back in time and wounder what happen they change tim liverance history for good. I work at rts wright industries and it a time travel trap | tim liverance | Military Aviation | 0 | August 18th 03 12:18 AM |