Question: "Overhead Entry to Downwind?"

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...
|
| "Mike O'Malley" wrote in message
| ...
|
| Please explain to me how it is possible to "enter on a 45 to the
downwind"
| AND "make all turns to the left in the traffic pattern" (that is
| paraphrased
| from memory).
|
|
| It isn't. The 45 degree entry to the downwind is illegal.

No, it is not. The regulation says "unless otherwise authorized," and the 45
degree entry is specifically authorized as a legal maneuver in a document
signed by the Administrator (the AIM). The AIM may not be regulatory, but
following the procedures in the AIM provides a safe harbor and use of those
procedures is to be presumed by the FAA to be in compliance with all federal
regulations.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

No, it is not. The regulation says "unless otherwise authorized," and the
45 degree entry is specifically authorized as a legal maneuver in a
document
signed by the Administrator (the AIM).


Where is that stated in the AIM? What's the purpose of promulgating a
regulation that everyone is authorized to deviate from?



The AIM may not be regulatory,


There's no "may" about it, the AIM itself says it's not regulatory.



but following the procedures in the AIM provides a safe harbor and use of
those procedures is to be presumed by the FAA to be in compliance with all
federal regulations.


What do you base that on?

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...
|
| "Mike O'Malley" wrote in message
| ...
|
| Please explain to me how it is possible to "enter on a 45 to the
downwind"
| AND "make all turns to the left in the traffic pattern" (that is
| paraphrased
| from memory).
|
|
| It isn't. The 45 degree entry to the downwind is illegal.

No, it is not. The regulation says "unless otherwise authorized," and the
45
degree entry is specifically authorized as a legal maneuver in a document
signed by the Administrator (the AIM). The AIM may not be regulatory, but
following the procedures in the AIM provides a safe harbor and use of
those
procedures is to be presumed by the FAA to be in compliance with all
federal
regulations.


May 19, 2000

Pelican's Perch #30:
The 45-Degree Zealots

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
|
| May 19, 2000
|
| Pelican's Perch #30:
| The 45-Degree Zealots
|
| http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html

Good article, but I see nowhere that he says a 45 degree entry is illegal.
Contrariwise, he feels that the entry into the pattern is not part of the
pattern.

"C J Campbell"
wrote:


| Pelican's Perch #30:
| The 45-Degree Zealots
| http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html

Good article, but I see nowhere that he says a 45 degree entry is illegal.

I quote from that article:

"I can make a very good case that the classic 45-degree
entry is itself a violation of the FARs,..."

Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"I can make a very good case that the classic 45-degree
entry is itself a violation of the FARs,..."

I understand that to mean "ridiculous as it seems, I can ..."

We know someone can make a case for it. People do it all the time on
this newsgroup. That doesn't make it a good case, especially when the
organization that wrote the FARs itself recommends the 45 entry.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver wrote:

"I can make a very good case that the classic 45-degree
entry is itself a violation of the FARs,..."

I understand that to mean "ridiculous as it seems, I can ..."

We know someone can make a case for it. People do it all the time on
this newsgroup. That doesn't make it a good case,

He called it a "very good case."
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
| Cub Driver wrote:
|
| "I can make a very good case that the classic 45-degree
| entry is itself a violation of the FARs,..."
|
| I understand that to mean "ridiculous as it seems, I can ..."
|
| We know someone can make a case for it. People do it all the time on
| this newsgroup. That doesn't make it a good case,
|
| He called it a "very good case."

He can call it a green-eyed lizard if he wishes, but that doesn't make it
true.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:01:58 -0500, Todd Pattist
wrote:

He called it a "very good case."

Okay. "Ridiculous as it seems, I can make a very good case ..."

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Good article, but I see nowhere that he says a 45 degree entry is illegal.


In about the middle of the article Deakin writes:

"In fact, I can make a very good case that the classic 45-degree entry is
itself a violation of the FARs, since it is ALWAYS in the opposite direction
to the established flow of traffic. Since it is the final turn onto the
downwind leg, it must certainly be in the "vicinity" of the airport, and
therefore covered by the above regs!"