Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
if collision avoidance is more
important.

When would collision avoidance *not* be more important?

Hi Cub,

As I said in another post: essentially, when other operational
characteristics of the airplane make a different runway safer
(I assume that's what CJ means).

For example: *longer runway for a twin or HP plane
*runway more aligned with the wind for a plane
with linked rudder/nosewheel
*grass runway for antique taildragger
*longer runway for testing after maintenance
*more I haven't thought of?

JMO, but actually I think the "improved collision avoidance"
of everyone in the same pattern is actually somewhat illusory,
unless everyone can fly the same pattern at the same speed or
unless the pattern is fairly full (more than a couple of planes).
I think if one draws out crossing patterns and tries to visualize
the vectors, it's clear there are only a couple of potential
conflict points. Avoid those and it's a no-brainer. With the
potential for overtaking traffic flying a different pattern, some
people flying 1000 ft pattern when the published altitude is 800
ft etc, when everyone's in the same pattern the entire pattern is
one big potential conflict point.

Cheers,
Sydney