Question: "Overhead Entry to Downwind?"

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)

"Henry and Debbie McFarland" wrote in message link.net...
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 thought that's what the 45 degree entry is about and why the FAA
whose role is safety advise it. Mind you I realise that some of you in
this newsgroup posess more wisdom that the collected experience of all
the NTSB investigators all the flight safety specialists, all the FAA
inspectors and all of the examiners put together. I am truely lucky to
be a witness to your wisdom.

I humbly apologise for following the herd, for wanting to be part of
an orderly pattern where pilots behave consistantly. I stand
corrected.

No, I realise that it is better for some pilots to do as they please,
communicating their intentions at their discretion.

I am really lucky to be learning so much from this newgroup. At the
end of my first lesson on this topic I have discovered that so many
people are capable of talking out of their assholes.

HOWEVER,

I suspect this will turn out to be an issue of flying the pattern.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/7735795.htm

Jeb wrote:

HOWEVER,

I suspect this will turn out to be an issue of flying the pattern.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/7735795.htm

Actually, my first instinct was this is not "flying the pattern issue"
but typical high wing vs low wing blind spots. From the artical, both
planes were on downwind.

Sounds from the artical, that the two planes intermingled on downwind,
and just didn't see each other due to the blindspot created by wings.

Allen