Question: "Overhead Entry to Downwind?"

Excellent information! Thank you very much for posting it!

"Jeb" wrote in message
om...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...

I think I'll take the FAA's word that there is one at ORD...

http://www1.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/


According to that FAA site, the "O'Hare" FSDO is in Schiller Park, IL.

According to the FAA site below, the only FSDOs in Illinois are at
DuPage
and Springfield. I guess all we know for sure is we can't trust the
FAA!

http://www1.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/faalinks.htm#GLFSDO

It is easier to look up this AC


http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

which says it all.

"Henry and Debbie McFarland" wrote in message link.net...
Maybe the real test is for all these hotshot gun toting stuff the 45
degree entry pilots to take the practical test again fly their normal
way and see whether they would get a pink slip.

Please don't use the Private Pilot Test Standards as the basis of your
argument as some of us were trained beyond them.

A pattern entry should be based on judgment, not herd mentality. One size
does not fit all. Base your approach on terrain, traffic, your airplane and
any other factors that may be present.

Hopefully, anyone who has earned a PP has the ability to merge his or her
airplane into a pattern full of traffic in a seamless manner using an entry
that helps the flow.

I thought that's what the 45 degree entry is about and why the FAA
whose role is safety advise it. Mind you I realise that some of you in
this newsgroup posess more wisdom that the collected experience of all
the NTSB investigators all the flight safety specialists, all the FAA
inspectors and all of the examiners put together. I am truely lucky to
be a witness to your wisdom.

I humbly apologise for following the herd, for wanting to be part of
an orderly pattern where pilots behave consistantly. I stand
corrected.

No, I realise that it is better for some pilots to do as they please,
communicating their intentions at their discretion.

I am really lucky to be learning so much from this newgroup. At the
end of my first lesson on this topic I have discovered that so many
people are capable of talking out of their assholes.

HOWEVER,

I suspect this will turn out to be an issue of flying the pattern.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/7735795.htm

C J Campbell wrote:
....

Then in that case I have to disagree with him on that point.

It might be interesting to get a couple of FSDO interpretations.



The article includes the statement:

"... In fact, in Canada, the crosswind entry is the preferred method,
and I'm not even sure the 45 entry is even mentioned!..."

The Canadian link is

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/an...new197.htm#MF2

which suggests that the 45-degree entry is frowned upon when there is no
traffic advisory available.

Since the US and Canadian systems are so similar, I would have to
believe there is some good reason for this.

Jeb wrote:

HOWEVER,

I suspect this will turn out to be an issue of flying the pattern.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/7735795.htm

Actually, my first instinct was this is not "flying the pattern issue"
but typical high wing vs low wing blind spots. From the artical, both
planes were on downwind.

Sounds from the artical, that the two planes intermingled on downwind,
and just didn't see each other due to the blindspot created by wings.

Allen

Bill Denton wrote:
Excellent information! Thank you very much for posting it!

"Jeb" wrote
It is easier to look up this AC


http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

which says it all.





I still would like to know why Canada seems to have discontinued the 45
deg entry as of October 1996 and recommends against it in:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/an...new197.htm#MF2



--
*** And yet it is from within that most nations fall ***
- Yeesha, PC game character, (c) 2003 Ubisoft, Cyan

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Icebound wrote:

I still would like to know why Canada seems to have discontinued the 45
deg entry as of October 1996 and recommends against it in:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/an...new197.htm#MF2

We have discontinued teaching the 45, AFAIK. I learned about it in ground
school only as "something you'll need in the States"... (I got my PPL in
early 2002.)

grin That said, the three or four non-towered US airports I've been to
were utterly deserted when we were there (stat. holiday in Canada, normal
weekday in the USA) so we just went ahead and did our midfield entry to
the circuit anyway. Lazy, perhaps, but there were no local a/c around to
object.

The one busy non-twr'd American airport I flew into last summer, we did
the 45 - and it felt really odd. Because I hadn't flown over the runway
first, I was having trouble judging my height above the runway and how far
out I was on downwind.

I've got no idea why the difference in national practice; there are more
major differences I've noticed between Canadian & American practice, but
circuit entry is one that probably trips a lot of people from both sides
of the line.

Brian - PP-ASEL/Night -

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Here at Spruce Creek, we do initial at or below pattern altitude and
perform either a level turn break or a "popup" break, to shed speed,
followed by a tight pattern.

You know, it would help me (and perhaps others) if somebody explained
what a "break" was. I've never done formation flying, nor do I intend
to, but if it's part of your landing drill, perhaps I should know
about it.

Copied from a post I sent, 2002-03-26:

There are other descriptions of the run and break:
http://www.yakuk.co.uk/L-29plane.htm
Have a look at the section "Joining the circuit".

Another description by the late Mark Hanna.
http://www.bf109.com/flying.html

(search the document for "break")

The thread name was "Military style arrivals at uncontrolled airports ".

Paul

Very interesting information in your article, too!

But it would seem you are confusing the importance of having a specific
pattern (fairly low) with the importance of having a consistently flown
pattern (very high).

It appears there are many opinions as to which specific pattern is the
safest. And there may well be specific advantages of one over another.

But the most important safety factor is having everyone fly exactly the same
pattern. And before I get flamed on this, let me give an observation: As I
have studied this thing, I have come to perceive the traffic pattern less as
lines, and more as corridors. Some may fly a "tight pattern"; others a
looser one, but everyone is flying some portion of roughly the same
rectangle. I think it should go without saying that "passing" another
aircraft is a big no-no unless everyone in the pattern is made aware of
what's happening via: radio.

Now to entry points...several pilots here have mentioned flying the pattern
with their head on a swivel, making no assumptions, constantly scanning in
all directions. And I'm sure that many achieve that ideal. Keep in mind that
I'm still a wannabe, but from what I have read and studied, pilot workload
can vary widely depending upon where one is in the pattern. And when
workload goes up or other events occur where one is more focused on the
airplane, they will not be scanning as well as they would at other times.
So, one would hope that entry points would be designed in such a way that
aircraft would enter the pattern at a point where the pilot workload of
other planes in the pattern would be low.

So, to wrap it up, it would appear that what Canada was primarily doing was
reducing the number of entry points while getting rid of one type of entry.
And I'm sure they did so based upon there own safety studies and experience.

Once again, the words of a wannabe, and if there's something I need to learn
please let me know...


"Icebound" wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...
Bill Denton wrote:
Excellent information! Thank you very much for posting it!

"Jeb" wrote
It is easier to look up this AC



http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

which says it all.





I still would like to know why Canada seems to have discontinued the 45
deg entry as of October 1996 and recommends against it in:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/an...new197.htm#MF2



--
*** And yet it is from within that most nations fall ***
- Yeesha, PC game character, (c) 2003 Ubisoft, Cyan

For future reference, here in the US the AIM allows an overflight of the
airport, parallel to and offset from the runway, and flown above pattern
altitude. The purpose being to check windsocks, segmented circles, etc.

You would then descend to pattern altitude and enter the pattern...

"Brian Burger" wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Icebound wrote:

I still would like to know why Canada seems to have discontinued the 45
deg entry as of October 1996 and recommends against it in:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/an...new197.htm#MF2

We have discontinued teaching the 45, AFAIK. I learned about it in ground
school only as "something you'll need in the States"... (I got my PPL in
early 2002.)

grin That said, the three or four non-towered US airports I've been to
were utterly deserted when we were there (stat. holiday in Canada, normal
weekday in the USA) so we just went ahead and did our midfield entry to
the circuit anyway. Lazy, perhaps, but there were no local a/c around to
object.

The one busy non-twr'd American airport I flew into last summer, we did
the 45 - and it felt really odd. Because I hadn't flown over the runway
first, I was having trouble judging my height above the runway and how far
out I was on downwind.

I've got no idea why the difference in national practice; there are more
major differences I've noticed between Canadian & American practice, but
circuit entry is one that probably trips a lot of people from both sides
of the line.

Brian - PP-ASEL/Night -

So, to wrap it up, it would appear that what Canada was primarily doing was
reducing the number of entry points while getting rid of one type of entry.
And I'm sure they did so based upon there own safety studies and experience.

Once again, the words of a wannabe, and if there's something I need to learn
please let me know...


In the UK the standard pattern entry procedure is to join via the
overhead at 2000'aal descend on the dead side to cross the upwind end
of the runway (over the numbers) at pattern height (varies between 800
and 1100'aal) and then turn into the downwind keeping a good look out
for circuit bashing traffic. There is no standard traffic pattern
direction either as they vary due to neighborliness.

It can get a bit hairy when everyone is entering the overhead.

I have flown at an uncontrolled field where there have been 9 aircraft
in the pattern doing touch and goes and come and goes for an hour
without a single enforced go around.

What you don't get is people jumping in ahead of their turn.

What you did get to do though is learn to fly the aircraft in the
pattern at a variety of speeds to deal with the traffic. Occasionally
a student would end up going a bit too long on the downwind so you
have to follow even if it is costing you $3 a minute.

The answer - just grin an bear it. We can all be smart and clever but
it is the quiet ones who are the smartest and the cleverest.