"Guilty" of Flying the Wrong Pattern?

Jim Burns wrote:
This is where a good airport manager or grandfatherly figure can politely
inform the offending pilot what they happened to notice. It's surprising
what a subtle hint between pilots can accomplish.

It's all in the way that you approach the person... If you approach them
in a confrontational manner, confrontation is what you'll probably
get... Which do you think is going to work better:

1. "Hey ****head, are you so stupid that you didn't know that this is a
lefthand pattern airport?"

2. "Excuse me... But, just in case you weren't aware of it, this is a
lefthand pattern airport. If it's not too much of an inconvenience for
you, would it be possible for you to fly a lefthand pattern from now on?
Thanks..."

Not that I have a problem with being confrontational though... It might
not be the best way to get things done all the time, but sometimes it's
necessary for certain situations...

Jay Beckman writes:

If they choose to not follow through with the expansion, I hope someone
shows the NIMBY crowd the balance sheet from the Glendale Airport on the
Monday after the SuperBowl slated for the new Cardinals stadium in Feb of
'08. Glendale (and Goodyear) are gonna make a killing off the high dollar
bizjet crowd. It would be nice if our airport was able to maybe siphon off
some of that action.

Aren't you right next to Williams Gateway Airport, the old Williams
AFB? I thought that was already receiving a great deal of traffic,
including overflow from Sky Harbor (which is apparently too big for
its britches today). What's the advantage of using Chandler's
airport?

FWIW, KCHD is currently my home airport in simulation, since I'm from
the area and Sky Harbor is a bit too big for small plane traffic (and
a bit slow in the sim).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Peter R." wrote:

Ron Lee wrote:

Still, that sounds like a good way to get people killed. The second
operator should have been busted.

That's a pretty bold statement considering you weren't there to know all
the circumstances of the second pilot's decision making.

--
Peter

So provide the textual investigation results that show that it was the
proper thing to do and that gross pilot error did not precede the
landing.

Ron Lee

Jay Beckman wrote:


IIRC, the rest of the story is that the pilot is a cop and was flying in the
performance of his duties. If he actually flew a wrong pattern, it was to
investigate something on the ground.

If he was actually a cop flying on duty he is not subject to the FAR's.

Newps writes:

If he was actually a cop flying on duty he is not subject to the FAR's.

Why not?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Newps writes:


If he was actually a cop flying on duty he is not subject to the FAR's.


Why not?

Government agencies are not required to abide by the FAR's. Many do to
make it easier on themselves but they are not required to.

Newps wrote:
Government agencies are not required to abide by the FAR's. Many do to
make it easier on themselves but they are not required to.

That can't be right. At least not such a blanket exemption. All I can find
is some exemptions for certain operations mention in 5-6-3 of the AIM.

Do you have a cite?

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
Government agencies are not required to abide by the FAR's. Many do to
make it easier on themselves but they are not required to.

Which would be a case of them thinking that is what is good enough for us is
not good enough for them... That might be how it works, but it doesn't make
it *right*...

Newps writes:

Government agencies are not required to abide by the FAR's.

Do municipal police forces count? Any cowtown can incorporate (or
not) and hire itself a police force.

Many do to make it easier on themselves but they are not
required to.

Where are government agencies exempted?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Grumman-581" writes:

Which would be a case of them thinking that is what is good enough for us is
not good enough for them... That might be how it works, but it doesn't make
it *right*...

I don't think that's how it works. I can recall special exceptions
for the military in certain circumstances (such as MOAs or military
aircraft on interception missions--which doesn't include training),
but that's all.

Nothing makes government aircraft immune to midair collisions, so
there's no particular reason why they should have any blanket
exemption from Federal air regulations.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.