Question: "Overhead Entry to Downwind?"

"Harry Shin" wrote in message
...

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news

Are you jealous that others have practiced and enjoy flying formation?
Is it "airplane envy"? Your second paragraph indicates an attitude
problem.

Orval,

Hmmm. By your own analysis, these "others have practiced and enjoy flying
formation" did a lousy job, so I'm certainly not jealous of them.

As far as "airplane envy" and my so-called "attitude problem", I guess I
should feel honored that these guys chose to create an un-necessary
situation, with my father and I trying desperately to see where they were
going, and trying to make sure the two in the low wing planes didn't nail
us.

With respect to my "attitude problem", I suppose it's just a case where it
seems some people take themselves Way Too Seriously. "White flight", ten
second landing intervals, "break now!"; you guys should join the Boy
Scouts
so you can practice marching in step (turns can be very difficult). I've
also heard it's fun to wear camoflauge to play paintball... (oops, there's
that damn attitude thing again! sorry...)

Roger Out!,
Harry



Did you ever think that they had you in sight and knew that two were able to
enter downwind without causing a conflict and the third would fit in nicely
behind you? In my experience those that fly formation are more capable than
the pilot that can't deal with anything but the 45 degree entry to downwind
and you know the rest.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...

When I first read 91.126 I thought it was either a poorly-written or
extremely loose reg. But since I'm new to the world of FAR/AIM's I figured
I'd learn about it when I needed to.

But in response to your post I did a little digging, and determined that
the
problem is that 91.126 is being misinterpreted!

If you go back and reread 91.126, you will note that all the relevant part
is actually saying is that "left traffic" or a left pattern will be the
default standard. The purpose is to state that unless there are indicators
indicating that "right traffic" should be flown, you should always fly
"left
traffic". If you arrive at an airport with no indications of a specified
traffic pattern, you should always fly "left traffic".


Actually, 91.126 states that all turns while approaching to land are to the
left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings
indicating that turns should be made to the right. Turns on departure can
be in either direction.



My justification for this interpretation comes from AIM 4-24, Chapter
4-Air
Traffic Control, Section 3-Airport Operations.

Figure 4-3-2 Provides an illustration of traffic pattern operations. It
shows a 45 degree pattern entry with a right turn onto downwind, with all
turns inside the pattern being left turns. Obviously all turn directions
are
reversed for right traffic.

This agrees with the information I have received from other sources.

If I am somehow incorrect on this please let me know, as I am very much
still in the process of learning!


You are incorrect. As the AIM itself says it's not regulatory it obviously
does not trump the FARs.

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...

I read it too. It was his base to final turn. We're
talking about a 45 entry turn that is 2 turns before the
base to final turn. You tell me - is distance or number of
turns more important? How about time? There must be some
transition between "not yet approaching to land" and
"approaching to land," but I don't think we can say that
it's always illegal to make right hand turns within 5 miles
of the airport you want to land at.


The regulation says when approaching to land at an airport without an
operating control tower each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of
that airplane to the left. Logically, any turn made for the purpose of
aligning the airplane with the landing runway is such a turn and must be
made to the left. That would include all turns in the pattern and the
pattern entry.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Steve, bless his heart, just likes being a little bit obtuse from time to
time. I love his posts. He is conveniently ignoring the "unless otherwise
authorized" clause in the reg. The 45 degree entry is "otherwise
authorized."


Authorized by whom?



The AIM specifically states that pilots following the
recommendations in it provide a safe harbor against violation of the
regulations and that all procedures in it are approved by the
Administrator.


Where does the AIM state that? I can't find such a statement in my AIM.



The AIM is also signed by the Administrator saying that the procedures in
it are authorized.


Where is the AIM signed? I can't find any signature in my AIM.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

No, it is not. The regulation says "unless otherwise authorized," and the
45 degree entry is specifically authorized as a legal maneuver in a
document
signed by the Administrator (the AIM).


Where is that stated in the AIM? What's the purpose of promulgating a
regulation that everyone is authorized to deviate from?



The AIM may not be regulatory,


There's no "may" about it, the AIM itself says it's not regulatory.



but following the procedures in the AIM provides a safe harbor and use of
those procedures is to be presumed by the FAA to be in compliance with all
federal regulations.


What do you base that on?

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

The "approach to landing" IS the pattern.


Wrong.

Dave Stadt wrote:
"Harry Shin" wrote in message
...

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
Are you jealous that others have practiced and enjoy flying formation?
Is it "airplane envy"? Your second paragraph indicates an attitude
problem.

Orval,

Hmmm. By your own analysis, these "others have practiced and enjoy flying
formation" did a lousy job, so I'm certainly not jealous of them.

As far as "airplane envy" and my so-called "attitude problem", I guess I
should feel honored that these guys chose to create an un-necessary
situation, with my father and I trying desperately to see where they were
going, and trying to make sure the two in the low wing planes didn't nail
us.

With respect to my "attitude problem", I suppose it's just a case where it
seems some people take themselves Way Too Seriously. "White flight", ten
second landing intervals, "break now!"; you guys should join the Boy

Scouts

so you can practice marching in step (turns can be very difficult). I've
also heard it's fun to wear camoflauge to play paintball... (oops, there's
that damn attitude thing again! sorry...)

Roger Out!,
Harry




Did you ever think that they had you in sight and knew that two were able to
enter downwind without causing a conflict and the third would fit in nicely
behind you? In my experience those that fly formation are more capable than
the pilot that can't deal with anything but the 45 degree entry to downwind
and you know the rest.





Hi guys...

Just a question - what is this 45 degree entry to downwind we keep
hearing about? I'm from the other side of the world and that's not
something I was taught - instead, like the guys from the UK, I do an
overhead join at an uncontrolled field, descending on the non-traffic
side, especially if unsure of the circuit direction. Here, most of our
smaller airfields are totally deserted, so there's no-one to observe to
determine circuit direction...

Thanks!

Chris
New Zealand

Just a question - what is this 45 degree entry to downwind we keep
hearing about? I'm from the other side of the world and that's not
something I was taught - instead, like the guys from the UK, I do an
overhead join at an uncontrolled field,

It is part of the recommended approach in the U.S., and is so commonly
used that alternative entries are upsetting to many pilots.

It really doesn't matter how you approach an airport, but it sure
helps if everyone does it the same way.

Since I fly a high-wing airplane, however, I would prefer that people
not descend upon me while I'm in the pattern. As an alternative to the
45, I would choose a mid-field crossover to the downwind, but not if
there's a NORDO aircraft in the pattern. He's expecting traffic to
enter from his right, not his left.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

It really doesn't matter how you approach an airport, but it sure
helps if everyone does it the same way.


How so?

As you have more than adequately informed all of us that the 45 degree
pattern entry is incorrect, would you please advise all of us as to what you
believe the correct pattern entry procedure to be?


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...

When I first read 91.126 I thought it was either a poorly-written or
extremely loose reg. But since I'm new to the world of FAR/AIM's I
figured
I'd learn about it when I needed to.

But in response to your post I did a little digging, and determined that
the
problem is that 91.126 is being misinterpreted!

If you go back and reread 91.126, you will note that all the relevant
part
is actually saying is that "left traffic" or a left pattern will be the
default standard. The purpose is to state that unless there are
indicators
indicating that "right traffic" should be flown, you should always fly
"left
traffic". If you arrive at an airport with no indications of a specified
traffic pattern, you should always fly "left traffic".


Actually, 91.126 states that all turns while approaching to land are to
the
left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings
indicating that turns should be made to the right. Turns on departure can
be in either direction.



My justification for this interpretation comes from AIM 4-24, Chapter
4-Air
Traffic Control, Section 3-Airport Operations.

Figure 4-3-2 Provides an illustration of traffic pattern operations. It
shows a 45 degree pattern entry with a right turn onto downwind, with
all
turns inside the pattern being left turns. Obviously all turn directions
are
reversed for right traffic.

This agrees with the information I have received from other sources.

If I am somehow incorrect on this please let me know, as I am very much
still in the process of learning!


You are incorrect. As the AIM itself says it's not regulatory it
obviously
does not trump the FARs.