A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Question: "Overhead Entry to Downwind?"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 15th 04, 04:02 PM
Tom Sixkiller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #2  
Old January 15th 04, 04:24 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #3  
Old January 15th 04, 04:46 PM
Todd Pattist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #4  
Old January 16th 04, 10:50 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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
  #5  
Old January 16th 04, 02:01 PM
Todd Pattist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #6  
Old January 16th 04, 03:51 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #7  
Old January 16th 04, 07:08 PM
Todd Pattist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #8  
Old January 16th 04, 11:04 PM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #9  
Old January 15th 04, 04:52 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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!"


  #10  
Old January 15th 04, 05:12 PM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
VOR/DME Approach Question Chip Jones Instrument Flight Rules 47 August 29th 04 05:03 AM
Front louvers for Cherokee/Archer overhead vents? Bob Chilcoat Owning 10 February 3rd 04 10:19 PM
Legal question - Pilot liability and possible involvement with a crime John Piloting 5 November 20th 03 09:40 PM
Question about Question 4488 [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 3 October 27th 03 01:26 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.