![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Cummiskey wrote:
Actually, no. Actually, yes. If you think about it ... What makes you think I haven't? ... if you approach the numbers at a ~30 deg angle, and a "proper" downwind to base turn is made at a ~45 deg angle, there will be no conflict whatsover. When you reach the point in your training where you start flying at towered airports, you'll discover that there's no such thing as a "proper" pattern. Downwind and base legs (as well as upwind and crosswind legs) are extended and shortened for a wide variety of reasons, to allow planes in and out of the airport effectively. Especially when the airport is busy. You'll also discover that there are larger, faster airplanes - some even with jet engines - that fly larger patterns, and that can affect (and can be affected by) traffic farther away from the airport. You may have already discovered this flying around the pattern at your home airport. If not, you may want to discuss this with your instructor before he lets you solo. Regardless, a plane flying "to the numbers" from 30 degrees off the downwind side will cross every possible base leg to that runway. It will also cross every possible downwind leg at some point. For example, a plane on downwind set up for a 1/2 mile base leg could collide with the inbound plane 0.866 miles downwind from the numbers. On the other hand, if that inbound plane were to set up for a 5 mile final, there would be no possible conflict for any pattern configuration inside those 5 miles. That's a great reason for a tower controller to ask for it. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message ... Regardless, a plane flying "to the numbers" from 30 degrees off the downwind side will cross every possible base leg to that runway. It will also cross every possible downwind leg at some point. For example, a plane on downwind set up for a 1/2 mile base leg could collide with the inbound plane 0.866 miles downwind from the numbers. On the other hand, if that inbound plane were to set up for a 5 mile final, there would be no possible conflict for any pattern configuration inside those 5 miles. That's a great reason for a tower controller to ask for it. It's a good reason if she has or anticipates other traffic. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message ... Regardless, a plane flying "to the numbers" from 30 degrees off the downwind side will cross every possible base leg to that runway. It will also cross every possible downwind leg at some point. For example, a plane on downwind set up for a 1/2 mile base leg could collide with the inbound plane 0.866 miles downwind from the numbers. On the other hand, if that inbound plane were to set up for a 5 mile final, there would be no possible conflict for any pattern configuration inside those 5 miles. That's a great reason for a tower controller to ask for it. It's a good reason if she has or anticipates other traffic. Ity's probably time for the OP'er to say he now sees he may have been in error. The good thing about posting the quesiton is that it also may have made some readers more aware of what ATC instructions mean. As an aside, a long tiome ago I was making an ILS into BED after dark, and tower asked me for a landing light so they could see where I was (this was a long time ago). Now that was a time when I did not comply with tower -- a landing light in the clouds is a good way to really screw up night vision. I told them the landing light would have to wait until I had the runway in sight. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Relative to your anecdote, I have a question: Why not simply close your
eyes, turn on your landing light for five seconds, turn it off, open your eyes? This would have given tower their visual ID without impacting your night vision. If you're flying an ILS and in a cloud it could be safely assumed you are on an IFR flight plan, in which case tower would have been providing separation. If you're in a cloud, you would not be able to maintain separation yourself as you wouldn't be able to see much of anything, especially at night. If your aircraft is properly trimmed, five seconds away from the panel and controls should not have a serious impact on aircraft stability. It sounds like the situation described earlier on this thread where your entire focus was on your wants and needs, with no consideration for the larger picture. "AJW" wrote in message ... "Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message ... Regardless, a plane flying "to the numbers" from 30 degrees off the downwind side will cross every possible base leg to that runway. It will also cross every possible downwind leg at some point. For example, a plane on downwind set up for a 1/2 mile base leg could collide with the inbound plane 0.866 miles downwind from the numbers. On the other hand, if that inbound plane were to set up for a 5 mile final, there would be no possible conflict for any pattern configuration inside those 5 miles. That's a great reason for a tower controller to ask for it. It's a good reason if she has or anticipates other traffic. Ity's probably time for the OP'er to say he now sees he may have been in error. The good thing about posting the quesiton is that it also may have made some readers more aware of what ATC instructions mean. As an aside, a long tiome ago I was making an ILS into BED after dark, and tower asked me for a landing light so they could see where I was (this was a long time ago). Now that was a time when I did not comply with tower -- a landing light in the clouds is a good way to really screw up night vision. I told them the landing light would have to wait until I had the runway in sight. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Relative to your anecdote, I have a question: Why not simply close your eyes, turn on your landing light for five seconds, turn it off, open your eyes? This would have given tower their visual ID without impacting your night vision. If you're flying an ILS and in a cloud it could be safely assumed you are on an IFR flight plan, in which case tower would have been providing separation. If you're in a cloud, you would not be able to maintain separation yourself as you wouldn't be able to see much of anything, especially at night. If your aircraft is properly trimmed, five seconds away from the panel and controls should not have a serious impact on aircraft stability. It sounds like the situation described earlier on this thread where your entire focus was on your wants and needs, with no consideration for the larger picture. "AJW" wrote in message ... As an aside, a long tiome ago I was making an ILS into BED after dark, and tower asked me for a landing light so they could see where I was (this was a long time ago). Now that was a time when I did not comply with tower -- a landing light in the clouds is a good way to really screw up night vision. I told them the landing light would have to wait until I had the runway in sight. Sorry, but in the circumstances I cited, I told the tower They'd get no light until I was out of the clouds, and they didn't complain. WhenI'm flying an approach in clouds at night I turn off strobes, too. I do NOT fly with my eyes shut, not even for 5 seconds. Re traffic avoidance, it was solid IFR, I think the ceiling had to have been about 300 feet or so. I don't remember if there was someone at the threshold waiting to go, although it's likely with approach painting me a ciouple of miles out that they'd have realeased someone for take off. I think in this case I made the right decision, but it'll be interesting to see what others here will say. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
O.K, O.K. Maybe closing your eyes for five seconds may not be the best idea
I've ever come up with. Guess I should have thought that one through a little better. Mea culpa... "Bill Denton" wrote in message ... Relative to your anecdote, I have a question: Why not simply close your eyes, turn on your landing light for five seconds, turn it off, open your eyes? This would have given tower their visual ID without impacting your night vision. If you're flying an ILS and in a cloud it could be safely assumed you are on an IFR flight plan, in which case tower would have been providing separation. If you're in a cloud, you would not be able to maintain separation yourself as you wouldn't be able to see much of anything, especially at night. If your aircraft is properly trimmed, five seconds away from the panel and controls should not have a serious impact on aircraft stability. It sounds like the situation described earlier on this thread where your entire focus was on your wants and needs, with no consideration for the larger picture. "AJW" wrote in message ... "Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message ... Regardless, a plane flying "to the numbers" from 30 degrees off the downwind side will cross every possible base leg to that runway. It will also cross every possible downwind leg at some point. For example, a plane on downwind set up for a 1/2 mile base leg could collide with the inbound plane 0.866 miles downwind from the numbers. On the other hand, if that inbound plane were to set up for a 5 mile final, there would be no possible conflict for any pattern configuration inside those 5 miles. That's a great reason for a tower controller to ask for it. It's a good reason if she has or anticipates other traffic. Ity's probably time for the OP'er to say he now sees he may have been in error. The good thing about posting the quesiton is that it also may have made some readers more aware of what ATC instructions mean. As an aside, a long tiome ago I was making an ILS into BED after dark, and tower asked me for a landing light so they could see where I was (this was a long time ago). Now that was a time when I did not comply with tower -- a landing light in the clouds is a good way to really screw up night vision. I told them the landing light would have to wait until I had the runway in sight. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You've earned my respect, Bill.
O.K, O.K. Maybe closing your eyes for five seconds may not be the best idea I've ever come up with. Guess I should have thought that one through a little better. Mea culpa... "Bill Denton" wrote in message ... Relative to your anecdote, I have a question: Why not simply close your eyes, turn on your landing light for five seconds, turn it off, open your eyes? This would have given tower their visual ID without impacting your night vision. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Emergency Procedures | RD | Piloting | 13 | April 11th 04 08:25 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
Rwy incursions | Hankal | Piloting | 10 | November 16th 03 02:33 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |