Time to revamp traffic patterns at non-towered airports?

There are aircraft currently flying that qualify as a "light sport"..that
fit just fine in the standard traffic pattern..

Every one keeps talking about the new "light sport aircraft" being designed
to meet the criteria, but I've yet to see any.

The still have max and min speeds AFAK that should fit in just fine.

If the Bonanza pilot (or light twin pilot) cannot self adjust his spacing to
fit in behind a J-3 at an uncontrolled airfield without ATC assistance, then
I sure as heck don't want him mixing it up with our gliders that currently
fly approaches any where from 45-70knts.

I don't like the idea of a "lower altitude pattern" for a LiteSportAircraft,
that may have a high wing, and the "regular" low wing ASEL aircraft above
him. We have enough problems with Cessna's and Pipers mixing it up on final
as is.. at least one or two a year.. and they "fly the same pattern"
supposedly.

BT

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
om...
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?

Your comment: "Every one keeps talking about the new "light sport
aircraft" being designed to meet the criteria, but I've yet to see any."

Just a bit of info...

Maule showed a prototype Light Sport Aircraft at Oshkosh 2003.

Mooney is partnering to sell a Toxo LSA.





"BTIZ" wrote in message
news:7nXTb.7273$IF1.7065@fed1read01...
There are aircraft currently flying that qualify as a "light sport"..that
fit just fine in the standard traffic pattern..

Every one keeps talking about the new "light sport aircraft" being
designed
to meet the criteria, but I've yet to see any.

The still have max and min speeds AFAK that should fit in just fine.

If the Bonanza pilot (or light twin pilot) cannot self adjust his spacing
to
fit in behind a J-3 at an uncontrolled airfield without ATC assistance,
then
I sure as heck don't want him mixing it up with our gliders that currently
fly approaches any where from 45-70knts.

I don't like the idea of a "lower altitude pattern" for a
LiteSportAircraft,
that may have a high wing, and the "regular" low wing ASEL aircraft above
him. We have enough problems with Cessna's and Pipers mixing it up on
final
as is.. at least one or two a year.. and they "fly the same pattern"
supposedly.

BT

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
om...
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?

"BTIZ" wrote in message:
There are aircraft currently flying that qualify as a "light sport"..that
fit just fine in the standard traffic pattern..

Agreed, but there will also be sport aircraft with approach speeds as
low as 25 knots. At some point, the speed differential between
aircraft in the pattern should become a concern. I see the potential
for doubling the speed differential between aircraft at the extreme
ends of the spectrum and I think this should be a concern. But I'm
open to anyone that can show how an increase in speed differential
won't increase the risk.

I don't like the idea of a "lower altitude pattern" for a LiteSportAircraft,
that may have a high wing, and the "regular" low wing ASEL aircraft above
him. We have enough problems with Cessna's and Pipers mixing it up on final
as is.. at least one or two a year.. and they "fly the same pattern"
supposedly.

I've never liked the idea of putting different aircraft with different
performance at different pattern altitudes either (e.g. singles at
1,000 AGL and twins at 1,500 AGL). I can see how it would prevent
faster aircraft from overrunning slower aircraft, but, from what I've
read, mid-airs in the pattern are more typically the result of
climbing/descending into blind spots. Perhaps different pattern
altitudes based on aircraft wing position would work better, i.e.,
high wings fly a 1,500-foot pattern and low wings fly a 1,000-foot
pattern. That still leaves other problems (where do biplanes fit in,
for instance), but it might be better than the current situation.

"BTIZ" wrote in message:
There are aircraft currently flying that qualify as a "light
sport"..that
fit just fine in the standard traffic pattern..

Agreed, but there will also be sport aircraft with approach speeds as
low as 25 knots. At some point, the speed differential between
aircraft in the pattern should become a concern.

Agreed.. isn't that why they created an "Ultra light" pattern.. so if you
are that slow.. fly the ultra light pattern.. if you can keep up with a
J-3.. fly the regular pattern...

and as for the SEL and MEL differences at some patterns.. I agree there can
be problems... and "at most times but not always".. the MEL pattern if
higher is also out farther from the runway so he can see the SEL downwind
and base.

BT

Absolutely right, BT. At airports that have space for a separate
ultralight pattern and runway (typically grass), I think it is an
ideal solution.

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. As you point out, the MEL pattern is outside and
above the SEL pattern so the MEL guy can see the SEL on downwind and
base. However, the SEL will have a great deal of difficulty seeing the
MEL that is overtaking him. Likewise, the ultralights will have
difficulty seeing any SEL or MEL that are overtaking them. Is this
system really the best way to minimize the risk in the traffic
pattern?

"BTIZ" wrote in message news:cqgUb.7670$IF1.5507@fed1read01...
"BTIZ" wrote in message:
There are aircraft currently flying that qualify as a "light
sport"..that
fit just fine in the standard traffic pattern..

Agreed, but there will also be sport aircraft with approach speeds as
low as 25 knots. At some point, the speed differential between
aircraft in the pattern should become a concern.

Agreed.. isn't that why they created an "Ultra light" pattern.. so if you
are that slow.. fly the ultra light pattern.. if you can keep up with a
J-3.. fly the regular pattern...

and as for the SEL and MEL differences at some patterns.. I agree there can
be problems... and "at most times but not always".. the MEL pattern if
higher is also out farther from the runway so he can see the SEL downwind
and base.

BT

"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.

"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.

Ace Pilot wrote:

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

One disadvantage is the fact that aircraft on the base leg of a reverse-direction
pattern can't be seen by high-wing aircraft waiting at the runway. Couple that with
a circling approach from 300' AGL, and you've got real problems. I was almost
nailed on my solo flight by some A**hole doing this in a Breezy. Fortunately, a
CFI flying the usual pattern with a student heard me announce departure and got
on the radio. I was halfway out on the runway before I got stopped, though. His
wheels were below the level of my instrument panel when he went by.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

However, the SEL will have a great deal of difficulty seeing the
MEL that is overtaking him. Likewise, the ultralights will have
difficulty seeing any SEL or MEL that are overtaking them. Is this
system really the best way to minimize the risk in the traffic
pattern?


I don't think I'd be so concerned with a guy behind me... unless we both
have an operating radio and make proper calls, I would not even know he is
behind me.

If I'm in a J-3 or a Champ or a Piper 140 or 180 or a C-210, and I think
that "larger SEL or MEL" aircraft is going to crawl up my butt, I think a
simple radio call asking if he can see me in front of him would suffice.

If I'm in my J-3, NORDO, and I know I did not cut off a 5 mile straight in
aircraft, could not see him and tell he was in the pattern. Then, he needs
to be looking out the window.

No, I am not standing on the, "I'm in front I own the runway" mentality, I'm
just stating the way it is. I have not flown many aircraft where I can crank
my head around to check 6 on final approach for that big bear that's gonna
roll over me.

BT

BTIZ wrote:

No, I am not standing on the, "I'm in front I own the runway" mentality, I'm
just stating the way it is. I have not flown many aircraft where I can crank
my head around to check 6 on final approach for that big bear that's gonna
roll over me.

Right with you. I do a final in my Maule at or below 65 mph, touching down about
45. I don't usually have a problem with the fast traffic, 'cause they know what
they're doing, but I do get the occasional solo student in a Cherokee who wants
to climb right up my back on final. I haven't found the STC for a rear-view mirror
yet.

Of course, the fact that I have flaps gives me a bit more ability to do a faster
final than a J-3 has.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.