Time to revamp traffic patterns at non-towered airports?

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

A "sport plane" that is more like an ultralight than a typical spam can
might warrant doing just that, I'd agree.

However, I would guess that most "sport planes" will wind up closer in
performance to the slower GA planes that already exist (Pacer, Champ, Cub,
150, etc.) and will have no trouble blending in with existing traffic.
Also, while I hope that the Sport certificate helps improve the pilot
population, I would be surprised if the increase in air traffic turns out to
be significant enough to even be worth thinking about how they are going to
fit in with other traffic.

Pete

Pete - I'm not sure if the increase in air traffic from sport aircraft
should be the main concern. Rather, it is the increase in speed
difference brought on by some of the slower sport aircraft. For
example, assume you have two C172s sharing the pattern at a
non-towered airport. What would increase the risk more - adding a
single sport aircraft that flies at 25-30 knots, or adding TWO more
C172s? My gut says the sport aircraft would cause more problems, but I
haven't done or seen any simulations to support this. Would you agree?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
om...
[...]
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?

A "sport plane" that is more like an ultralight than a typical spam can
might warrant doing just that, I'd agree.

However, I would guess that most "sport planes" will wind up closer in
performance to the slower GA planes that already exist (Pacer, Champ, Cub,
150, etc.) and will have no trouble blending in with existing traffic.
Also, while I hope that the Sport certificate helps improve the pilot
population, I would be surprised if the increase in air traffic turns out to
be significant enough to even be worth thinking about how they are going to
fit in with other traffic.

Pete

On 2004-02-05, Ace Pilot wrote:
Pete - I'm not sure if the increase in air traffic from sport aircraft
should be the main concern. Rather, it is the increase in speed
difference brought on by some of the slower sport aircraft.

Difference in performance AND pilot preference make keeping track of
planes hard, but I don't know that different entry paths (midfield
crosswind - 45 degree) are that much of a problem.

I fly a Pitts, normal power off decent rate is about 2,000fpm so I
start turning base just past the numbers and take about 15 seconds
to touchdown. This so different from a C172 flying a "normal"
pattern that I ASSUME that aircraft waiting to take off WILL
pull onto the runway after I call base.

Leagle or not, anyone not using a radio in the pattern is a fool and
and anyone not understanding and thinking about the differences in performace
between aircraft is taking a big risk.

"Doug Carter" wrote in message ...
I fly a Pitts, normal power off decent rate is about 2,000fpm so I
start turning base just past the numbers and take about 15 seconds
to touchdown. This so different from a C172 flying a "normal"
pattern that I ASSUME that aircraft waiting to take off WILL
pull onto the runway after I call base.

What's wrong with an airplane pulling on the runway after you call base?
Around here, you'd never take off if you waited for nobody to be on base
leg.

Leagle or not, anyone not using a radio in the pattern is a fool and
and anyone not understanding and thinking about the differences in performace
between aircraft is taking a big risk.

Anybody who assumes everybody else in the pattern is using the radio
is a fool.

On 2004-02-05, Ron Natalie wrote:

What's wrong with an airplane pulling on the runway after you call base?

The Pitts pattern is so close in and with the 2000fpm decent rate
they just about get lined up on the center line when I pass overhead
on my go-around. I was just illustrating the point that other aircraft
in your pattern may be markedly faster, slower, flying big or little
patterns. I'm sure we have all been flying a "normal" pattern (for a
Cessna or Piper) and realized there was someone else more than a
half mile further away on, effectivly a parallel downwind.

Anybody who assumes everybody else in the pattern is using the radio
is a fool.

I completly agree.

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
om...
[...] What would increase the risk more - adding a
single sport aircraft that flies at 25-30 knots, or adding TWO more
C172s?

The problem with your concern is that there are ALREADY airplanes flying
that slow, mixed in the pattern with more traditional airplanes, and there
doesn't seem to be a problem.

IMHO the answer to your question is that slow planes will do whatever slow
planes are doing now. Seems to be working just fine.

Pete