Question: "Overhead Entry to Downwind?"

"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.

"C J Campbell"
wrote:

"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.

You understood him to be saying that he thought it was a
"ridiculous" case. He didn't use that word, and I don't
think he meant that. One doesn't normally call something a
"very good case" if one thinks it's a "ridiculous case."

My personal opinion is that the FAR clearly states that the
45 left turn is illegal. I also think the FAA finds that to
be inconvenient, but too much trouble to change the FAR, so
they ignore it. Pilots ignore it too, since we all know the
FAA wants us to fly the 45, so it can't be illegal. If push
came to shove, the Chief Counsel will probably say that an
aircraft making the 45 turn is not yet approaching the
airport for a landing. "Interpreting" the language of a law
or statute to get the answer you want is a time-honored
method. Not enforcing a statute or regulation is also a
popular method of ignoring it.



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

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!"

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...
|
| "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!"

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

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