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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
G.R. Patterson III wrote: Obviously, the FAA feels that it's safe enough to *suggest* that we come in at 1,000' AGL, *suggest* that we enter the pattern on the downwind leg at a 45 degree angle or come straight in, *suggest* that we report our position by distance and direction (as opposed to something like "on the VOR approach"), and doesn't feel that safety would be significantly improved by *requiring* us to do anything beyond get the plane down in one piece. I don't have a problem with that, myself. They've made the recommendations and a sensible pilot will not deviate much from them. I would definitely deviate from the first one you mentioned. The latest AC "recommends" that pilots fly patterns at 1,000' AGL. That's not a very good suggestion at an airport that has a published pattern altitude of 800' AGL (of which there are many examples throughout the country). Instead, I fly the published altitude. If there is none, THEN I'll fly the recommended 1,000' AGL. Other regs require me to acquaint myself with all of the information pertinent to a flight before I go. Why would I ignore an 800' AGL pattern altitude listed for an airport, in favor of following the recommendation in AC? John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Recently, Bob Gardner posted:
AIM 3-2-1 says that it is the responsibility of the pilot to insure that ATC clearance or radio communication requirements are met prior to entry into Class B, C, or D airspace; the Air Traffic Control Handbook tells controllers that it is their responsibility to coordinate the passage through that airspace of flights to which they are providing services. Which is right?? Perhaps it's a matter of how one reads these things? For example, I interpret your above statement as follows: * The ATC handbook states that controllers must coordinate the passage through their airspace. * AIM 3-2-1 says that pilots must adhere to the instructions of ATC prior to entry into Class B, C, D airspace. In other words, pilots must follow the instructions they are given by ATC before entering controlled airspace. Ergo, all pattern entry in controlled airspace is determined by ATC. Where's the conflict? Neil |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
What bothers me, and what I find to be absolutely incredible, is the
lack of clear direction that is provided by the numerous documents that are produced by the FAA. If you think it's bad on the operations side, try the maintenance side sometime. Much worse. Once I used to look for wisdom in FAA regulations and advisory circulars. Once I tried to reconcile them so there was no contradiction. It's a task that I believe is beyond the capabilities of even a talmudic scholar. I've given up. Occam's Razor - the simple explanation is usually the correct one. The simple explanation is that the FAA is staffed with a bunch of useless bloody loonies. It's not as far-fetched as you think. The real business of the FAA is the regulation of the airlines. That's what the general public thinks of when it thinks aviation. That's where the visibility is. That's where the promotion opportunities are. That's also where this level of ambiguity is simply not tolerated - and neither is regulation that is impossible to comply with. Airlines and their unions have legal staffs and the ears of congressmen. That doesn't mean they have it all their own way, but it does mean that there is some level of accountability. Then there is the part of the FAA that deals with GA. The FSDO's, primarily. You will NEVER see an airline employee at the FSDO in his professional capacity. The airlines have their own offices. There is no visibility in GA, and no real opportunity to move up. So when you deal with the GA portion of the FAA, realize that you are dealing with the losers of the FAA, with the occasional little airplane enthusiast thrown in. Ever want to install a CD player or other entertainment system into your little airplane? Good luck. Some people will tell you that it can't be done unless you buy the $1000+ certified version. In some FSDO's, they are even correct. In others you can get by with it - but it's not really legit. Think the airlines would tolerate that state of affairs? Of course not. So the FAA issued AC 25-10. It spells out how you can install a CD player, video game, or other miscellaneous non-required electrical equipment for entertainment purposes. It's really quite simple to follow and very reasonable. Problem - it applies ONLY to transport category airplanes. Not your little bugsmasher. You're still hosed. NOW do you get it? Michael |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I can't count the number of times I have been flying with a student on
flight following, and upon approaching Class D airspace hear the question "Should I switch over to the tower?" I think the existing situation is confusing to many pilots. Added to this, and extending the thread a tad, is the situation where the tower has ceded the top 500 feet of its D airspace to the overlying approach control, so the student learns, to his surprise, that he need not call the tower at all but can stay with approach. This is not a big deal except that it leads to a lot of unnecessary transmissions: "Approach, BuzzBird 35X, should I switch over to the tower now?" "Negative, stay with me." Bob Gardner "G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... Bob Gardner wrote: AIM 3-2-1 says that it is the responsibility of the pilot to insure that ATC clearance or radio communication requirements are met prior to entry into Class B, C, or D airspace; the Air Traffic Control Handbook tells controllers that it is their responsibility to coordinate the passage through that airspace of flights to which they are providing services. Which is right?? I don't see any conflict. The AIM tells me that it's my responsibility to handle things before I enter the controller's airspace and the ATCH says it's the controllers' responsibility after I get in there. Two different scenarios and locations in the air. George Patterson The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On 6 Jan 2005 08:12:09 -0800, "Michael"
wrote: What bothers me, and what I find to be absolutely incredible, is the lack of clear direction that is provided by the numerous documents that are produced by the FAA. If you think it's bad on the operations side, try the maintenance side sometime. Much worse. Once I used to look for wisdom in FAA regulations and advisory circulars. Once I tried to reconcile them so there was no contradiction. It's a task that I believe is beyond the capabilities of even a talmudic scholar. I've given up. snipped good stuff.... NOW do you get it? Michael I do get it, Michael. In fact, I got it from the beginning. That doesn't diminish my astonishment that the situation can actually be as convoluted as it seems to be. Where else would this be tolerated? Rich Russell |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I do get it, Michael. In fact, I got it from the beginning.
Sorry. I got overexcited. That doesn't diminish my astonishment that the situation can actually be as convoluted as it seems to be. Where else would this be tolerated? Nowhere, I suspect. You should realize that it's mostly not tolerated in aviation either. I gave you the example of the CD player for a reason. A friend of mine has an AM/FM/Tape Player installed in his Bonanza. There is no paperwork for it. Never has been. It has been there for maney years. It is clearly not legal, and yet every IA seems to sign off the annual every year. That's little ****. A friend of mine bought a Cherokee Six in Alaska. The pilot's seat was a lawn chair. The doors had to be duct taped closed. She flew it to Houston. I've seen a tractor carburetor come off a certified airplane - and I'm talking about a model that had NEVER been approved for aviation. It made it through dozens of annuals and a major overhaul, and was only removed when the bowl cracked. My girlfriend bought a Straduster a few years ago. The owner had been flying for many years, but eventually did get around to getting a private license. With a private license and an experimental (amateur-built) airplane, he would take people up for aerobatic rides (without parachutes) and charge for it. I know people who file and fly IFR who never got the instrument rating, and I know at least one who used to do it - until he finally got rated. He went on to be a fleet captain for a major airline and a DE in transport category jets. This is the reality of general aviation. You won't see it at the front desk of the FBO, with a flight school staffed by airline wannabes, but dig a little deeper and it's all around you. This is how people react to regulations that are unworkable. It's no different from what you see on the highway. Almost nobody consistently drives the speed limit. Few people come to a full stop at every stop sign. Every gas station I've ever seen in Texas sells cold beer, and the open container law has had no impact. Rules that are unworkable or unacceptable are largely ignored. GA rules are some of the most unacceptable and unworkable of all, and they're also some of the most widely ignored. Only on these newsgroups and in the commercial flight schools are pilots concerned about what's legal. In the real world, they're only concerned with what they can get away with. The intolerable is not tolerated. There is something about these newsgroups that seems to attract a subset of people who believe we SHOULD tolerate this. People who believe that even though the regulations are clearly convoluted, self-contradictory, and unworkable we should still comply. People who even believe that it's reasonable to rat out someone to the FAA for non-compliance. They're a vocal minority - nothing more. Can you imagine what would happen if the majority of pilots openly refused to comply? That's what happened in the ultralight world. The rules set weight and operational limits that were ridiculous, and people simply did not comply. 90% of the single seaters were overweight, and 90% of the "instruction-only" two seaters were being flown for personal use. So what happened? Were there prosecutions on a mass scale? No. Everyone knew that people wouldn't stand for that. So in the end, the FAA came up with something more reasonable (sport pilot) in hopes that people would comply. Whether they do - or continue to fly as they have been - remains to be seen. Michael |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
RV-7a baggage area | David Smith | Home Built | 32 | December 15th 03 04:08 AM |