Question: "Overhead Entry to Downwind?"

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

That, and $3.75, will buy you a cup of coffee.

Karl

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

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


On what basis?

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"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.

He says it in the context of "playing on words".


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

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.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"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.

Why would he...he believes otherwise.

From the intro:
"There's not a syllable in the FARs about 45-degree traffic pattern
entries. Nor does the AIM require them. There exists, however, a
small-but-vocal cadre of pilots — and even some FAA inspectors — who
consider any other type of pattern entry (straight-in, crosswind, etc.) to
be a felony."

Contrariwise, he feels that the entry into the pattern is not part of the
pattern.

Actually, the AIM doesn't require anything. It is simply a collection of
best practices to help pilot fulfill their regulatory responsibilities.

That said, as I have previously noted, the AIM provides an illustration of
the traffic pattern, and it utilizes 45 degree entries.

As the FAA says the AIM presents their recommended practices and methods,
and the AIM recommendation contains 45 degree pattern entries, it would
appear that the FAA wants 45 degree entries to be used.


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"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.

Why would he...he believes otherwise.

From the intro:
"There's not a syllable in the FARs about 45-degree traffic pattern
entries. Nor does the AIM require them. There exists, however, a
small-but-vocal cadre of pilots — and even some FAA inspectors — who
consider any other type of pattern entry (straight-in, crosswind, etc.) to
be a felony."

Contrariwise, he feels that the entry into the pattern is not part of
the
pattern.

As the FAA says the AIM presents their recommended practices and methods,
and the AIM recommendation contains 45 degree pattern entries, it would
appear that the FAA wants 45 degree entries to be used.

Thank you, Bill! A nice statement of the obvious.

Put it in the FAQ!


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

"Bill Denton" wrote in message ...
Actually, the AIM doesn't require anything. It is simply a collection of
best practices to help pilot fulfill their regulatory responsibilities.

That said, as I have previously noted, the AIM provides an illustration of
the traffic pattern, and it utilizes 45 degree entries.

As the FAA says the AIM presents their recommended practices and methods,
and the AIM recommendation contains 45 degree pattern entries, it would
appear that the FAA wants 45 degree entries to be used.


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"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.

Why would he...he believes otherwise.

From the intro:
"There's not a syllable in the FARs about 45-degree traffic pattern
entries. Nor does the AIM require them. There exists, however, a
small-but-vocal cadre of pilots ? and even some FAA inspectors ? who
consider any other type of pattern entry (straight-in, crosswind, etc.) to
be a felony."

Contrariwise, he feels that the entry into the pattern is not part of
the
pattern.


Well the 45 degree entry to the pattern is in the AC61-23 (Page 6-9)
as as this and the AIM form the requirements for the PTS I cannot
believe that this form of pattern entry is the result of " a
small-but-vocal cadre of pilots ? and even some FAA inspectors ? who
consider any other type of pattern entry (straight-in, crosswind,
etc.) to be a felony."

It seems to be the policy of the FAA with the result that if there was
an incident between a pilot flying the pattern as per AC61-23 and a
pilot doing doing what only can be considered an unorthodox pattern
entry, then I can bet which pilot will get the benefit of the doubt.

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.

Mind you I would not bet on them not driving on the wrong side of the
road out of awkwardness.

Such naughty little boys - it must make you feel very bit to be
thumbing you nose up at the authories because the FAR does not
actually say in so many words that the 45 degree entry should be the
norm if possible.

When you are on your own in the pattern it matters little, but when
there other arcraft joining the pattern, its much easier to see
aircraft in the pattern joining at 45 degrees and when in the pattern,
you have a good idea where to look to find aircraft joining too.

The idiots doing 180 degree decending joins are just that, showing
little consideration of others in the pattern or who are joining the
pattern.

They are like stupid dwarfs - not big and not clever.

"Jeb" wrote in message
Well the 45 degree entry to the pattern is in the AC61-23 (Page 6-9)
as as this and the AIM form the requirements for the PTS I cannot
believe that this form of pattern entry is the result of " a
small-but-vocal cadre of pilots ? and even some FAA inspectors ? who
consider any other type of pattern entry (straight-in, crosswind,
etc.) to be a felony."

It seems to be the policy of the FAA with the result that if there was
an incident between a pilot flying the pattern as per AC61-23 and a
pilot doing doing what only can be considered an unorthodox pattern
entry, then I can bet which pilot will get the benefit of the doubt.

Your support for this is..................

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 think the root of this debate is that most pilots today are not taught to
control their airplanes in the pattern. They can't fly slow, and they don't
know to look first and talk later.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (His)
1948 Luscombe 8E (Hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (Ours)
Jasper, Ga. (JZP)