On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:59:38 -0400, Corky Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:52:08 GMT, zatatime
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:38:52 -0600, Newps
wrote:

I'm going to 1000 feet.

This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports.
Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you?

z
How's that? If you look at the field elevation on the sectional, and
add 1000 feet, that's the pattern altitude isn't it?
Nope. Many airports (and most I fly in and out of) use an 800 foot
TPA, which is the original "standard TPA."

Are there lots
of airports that specify a non standard pattern altitude?
As I see it, yes there are. All the airports that have a 1000' TPA
are "non-standard," although the rule of thumb you have written has
become it's own standard of sorts. This is why I brought it up. If
you're flying in a Piper at 1000' thinking it is correct, and I'm
flying a Cessna at 800' which is what was published, we're going to
have a problem because we won't be able to see each other if we're in
close proximity. Also when looking for traffic, if the traffic is at
different altitudes it makes it harder to spot them. I could cite
other examples, but I think you'll get the point. There are also
airports with different altitudes for large aircraft, or opposite
traffic rules for rotorcraft, etc...


I feel fairly strongly that operations around an airport should be as
predictable as possible since this is where you will most likely find
numerous aircraft sharing close quarters. Flying a proper altitude is
one of the things that should be consistent for all traffic, and it
isn't like it's really hard to find the answer, or ask Unicom if
you're unsure.


(This may be wrong but,)I believe when a TPA is not explicitly stated
in the AF/D the expected TPA is 800' AGL.

HTH.
z