![]() |
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:51:25 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote: In article , "Peter Duniho" wrote: "Bob Martin" wrote in message ... How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?" The people I've seen do it around here start with a high-speed, relatively low pass (though not 10 feet off the deck...more like 200-500') and then enter the proper traffic pattern with a climbing turn directly into the downwind. I realize that there are practical issues that are addressed by flying an abbreviated pattern starting with an over-the-runway upwind. However, even doing that starting at pattern altitude is not appropriate at a busy public airport, and when executed as a chandelle it's even more inappropriate (and dangerous). As far as using the maneuver as "an alternative to a straight-in", I fail to see how it would be better than a straight-in, especially if there is other traffic. You spend more time in the pattern than you would with a straight-in, and you do at least part of it in a location where the other pilots in the pattern are less likely to be expecting you. As far as "As long as you announce what you're doing there shouldn't be a problem" goes, that's the classic "everyone has a radio" fallacy. The radio is NOT a replacement for good traffic pattern usage. Pete The overhead is a *HELL* of a lot better than the straight in! It gives you a view of traffic in the pattern, keeps you in close, gets you to the downwind and gets a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes to get one plane on the ground. My pet peeve is those who fly wide, extended patterns, pretending that they are in a 747, while flying a Cessna 172. Big flight schools are, IMHO, the biggest offenders, teaching a "stabilized" approach and dragging it in for three miles. This type of instruction may even be a factor in the loss of the Europa at Oshkosh, where the tower wants you to keep it in close, when the pilots may not have been taught to do so. I understand that the midfield crosswind entry is standard in Canada. It's also one of the standard entries at my (controlled) home field[1]. From that experience, I find I like it because it gives me good situational awareness of what's going on with closed traffic, 45-degree entries, and base-leg entries. Any Canadians want to chime in on what they teach you north of the 49th? Don [1] San Carlos, CA. Down the road at Palo Alto, they use left and right patterns for a single runway. I do NOT care for that. I'm anxious about where the guy in the other pattern is turning base. San Carlos doesn't do that because there is a lot of helicopter activity and the helos are segregated on one side of the field and land on the apron while fixed-wing craft use the other side and land on the runway. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Oshkosh Reflections | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 54 | August 16th 05 09:24 PM |
Oshkosh Reflections | Jay Honeck | Owning | 44 | August 7th 05 02:31 PM |
Oshkosh Reflections | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 45 | August 7th 05 02:31 PM |
Oshkosh EAA Warbirds ??? | Paul | Restoration | 0 | July 11th 04 04:17 AM |
How I got to Oshkosh (long) | Doug | Owning | 2 | August 18th 03 12:05 AM |