Time to revamp traffic patterns at non-towered airports?

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message ...
"Ace Pilot" wrote in message om...

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

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

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

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

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

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