Time to revamp traffic patterns at non-towered airports?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
Seriously though, I have to assume it's a combination of a significantly
smaller pattern flown (where final is very short) and the base leg
visibility he's complaining about.

Of course, when they're coming in on the reciprocal runway at our
field, you can't even see the base leg guys until right about when
they turn final.

Peter Duniho wrote:

Sounds to me like you both screwed up. Before wandering onto the runway,
you should've positioned your airplane so you could see traffic approaching
the runway,

I did. The entrance for the end of runway 06 at Kupper is roughly at 45 degrees
to the runway. He was doing a right hand pattern with a downwind at 300' AGL,
using a circling downwind to final (ie. no base leg as such). Kupper uses a left
hand pattern at 1000' AGL. He was still in his turn to final as he came over the
tree tops. He was eventually banned from several local airports for his approaches,
Solberg being one. Finally bought an airport so he could fly any way he wanted.

and he should have gone around when you violated his
right-of-way as landing traffic.

He had no time to go around.

In any case, if I can mix it with King Airs and KC-135s in a Maule, the sport
plane pilots can damn well fly the same patterns as the rest of us. No way is it
safe to have traffic running base legs from both directions.

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.

Dave Stadt wrote:

The old 360 before taking the runway allows one to see all
traffic no matter where it is coming from.

Try that at Old Bridge, and you'll put the plane right off a 20' bank. Might be
able to lock one brake in a J-3 and do a 360 without leaving the pavement, but
not much else.

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.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
Sounds to me like you both screwed up. Before wandering onto the
runway,
you should've positioned your airplane so you could see traffic
approaching
the runway,

I did.

So you saw the guy and still pulled out in front of him? That's pretty sad.
That you did it, and that you're willing to admit it here.

Peter Duniho wrote:

So you saw the guy and still pulled out in front of him? That's pretty sad.
That you did it, and that you're willing to admit it here.

No, I did not see him. I positioned the aircraft so that I could see others
approaching. I put the plane in exactly the position that EVERY PILOT POSITIONS
HIS AIRCRAFT FOR DEPARTURE FROM THAT RUNWAY.

Nobody can see a plane that comes in from behind or is below the tree line.

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.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
No, I did not see him. I positioned the aircraft so that I could see
others
approaching.

First, you claim you were positioned to see aircraft approaching the runway.
The aircraft was approaching the runway. So either you are incorrect about
how you positioned your plane, or you are incorrect about whether you saw
the guy.

Nobody can see a plane that comes in from behind or is below the tree
line.

Second, your story makes no sense. You've got an ultralight too slow to fly
with the other aircraft in the usual pattern, but so fast that it can make
it from the trees to the runway in the few seconds it takes for you to taxi
onto the runway, and so fast that it can't even manuever to go around once
the pilot sees you violating their right-of-way.

That's one fast (but slow) ultralight.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
No, I did not see him. I positioned the aircraft so that I could see
others
approaching.

First, you claim you were positioned to see aircraft approaching the runway.
The aircraft was approaching the runway. So either you are incorrect about
how you positioned your plane, or you are incorrect about whether you saw
the guy.

Go back to my original post. The approach at Kupper uses left-hand turns and has
the downwind at 1000' AGL. This guy was making right-hand turns with his downwind
at 300'. IOW, his "downwind" is everybody else's upwind leg in the reverse
direction. This guy was never in the pattern at all until about the last 100' of
the final leg. From the position of my plane, I could see any aircraft at any
point in the pattern. That is what I am required to do. He was not there.

Nobody can see a plane that comes in from behind or is below the tree
line.

Second, your story makes no sense. You've got an ultralight too slow to fly
with the other aircraft in the usual pattern, but so fast that it can make
it from the trees to the runway in the few seconds it takes for you to taxi
onto the runway, and so fast that it can't even manuever to go around once
the pilot sees you violating their right-of-way.

First, the Breezy is not an ultralight, though it would meet the definition of
the new sport plane classification. It's a highwing that resembles a Curtiss
pusher. His had a 65 horse Continental. The only reason he was flying backwards
from everyone else was that he didn't want to spend the time it takes to climb all
the way to pattern altitude and he was afraid someone would descend into him if
he made the standard pattern at a lower altitude. Because he was so low, he was
doing a 180 from downwind to touchdown. In about the last half of this turn, he
could not see the end of the runway because the trees were in the way. The trees
at the west end of Kupper's runway were about 40' high and maybe as much as 100'
from the end of the runway at the time, though they've been cut back a bit since
then. He rolls out of his turn at 60' AGL and 100' from the end of the taxiway,
and that's the first time he can see me. He's got less than 1.5 seconds to react.

As far as right of way is concerned, it is a basic and well established legal
principle that you lose your right of way if you are in violation of the laws or
regulations. It would be interesting to see if the FAA agrees, but under standard
legal principles, he had NO right of way.

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.

Would you be good enough to post a link supporting your assertion that: "it
is a basic and well established legal principle that you lose your right of
way if you are in violation of the laws or regulations"?

I haven't read all of the FAR's yet so I suppose that could be true in the
aviation world, but I can tell you that your supposition is totally false in
the larger world of US law.


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Peter Duniho wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
No, I did not see him. I positioned the aircraft so that I could see
others
approaching.

First, you claim you were positioned to see aircraft approaching the
runway.
The aircraft was approaching the runway. So either you are incorrect
about
how you positioned your plane, or you are incorrect about whether you
saw
the guy.

Go back to my original post. The approach at Kupper uses left-hand turns
and has
the downwind at 1000' AGL. This guy was making right-hand turns with his
downwind
at 300'. IOW, his "downwind" is everybody else's upwind leg in the reverse
direction. This guy was never in the pattern at all until about the last
100' of
the final leg. From the position of my plane, I could see any aircraft at
any
point in the pattern. That is what I am required to do. He was not there.

Nobody can see a plane that comes in from behind or is below the tree
line.

Second, your story makes no sense. You've got an ultralight too slow to
fly
with the other aircraft in the usual pattern, but so fast that it can
make
it from the trees to the runway in the few seconds it takes for you to
taxi
onto the runway, and so fast that it can't even manuever to go around
once
the pilot sees you violating their right-of-way.

First, the Breezy is not an ultralight, though it would meet the
definition of
the new sport plane classification. It's a highwing that resembles a
Curtiss
pusher. His had a 65 horse Continental. The only reason he was flying
backwards
from everyone else was that he didn't want to spend the time it takes to
climb all
the way to pattern altitude and he was afraid someone would descend into
him if
he made the standard pattern at a lower altitude. Because he was so low,
he was
doing a 180 from downwind to touchdown. In about the last half of this
turn, he
could not see the end of the runway because the trees were in the way. The
trees
at the west end of Kupper's runway were about 40' high and maybe as much
as 100'
from the end of the runway at the time, though they've been cut back a bit
since
then. He rolls out of his turn at 60' AGL and 100' from the end of the
taxiway,
and that's the first time he can see me. He's got less than 1.5 seconds to
react.

As far as right of way is concerned, it is a basic and well established
legal
principle that you lose your right of way if you are in violation of the
laws or
regulations. It would be interesting to see if the FAA agrees, but under
standard
legal principles, he had NO right of way.

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.

Bill Denton wrote:

Would you be good enough to post a link supporting your assertion that: "it
is a basic and well established legal principle that you lose your right of
way if you are in violation of the laws or regulations"?

I haven't read all of the FAR's yet so I suppose that could be true in the
aviation world, but I can tell you that your supposition is totally false in
the larger world of US law.

Have an accident in New Jersey and have no insurance. You will be held at fault,
no matter what the circumstances because if you had obeyed the law, you would
not have been there.

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.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
Have an accident in New Jersey and have no insurance. You will be held at
fault,
no matter what the circumstances because if you had obeyed the law, you
would
not have been there.

You will be considered the "at fault" party simply because you have no
insurance? I doubt that. If it's really true, you should be able to cite
the New Jersey code that stipulates that.

It certainly isn't true in general. For example, the simple act of speeding
does not negate one's right-of-way. If you were to pull out in front of a
speeding vehicle and in doing so cause an accident, you would not
automatically be absolved of blame for the accident.

Pete