Question: "Overhead Entry to Downwind?"

Sorry, I dropped a word; should be "Chicago O'Hare FSDO"

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...

I sent a request to the Chicago O'Hare requesting a clarification of
these
issues. I'll post an answer if they send me one!


What is "the Chicago O'Hare"?

"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 05:33:08 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:


Finally, someone who thinks like I do!

It would help if you guys would post what airport you are based at, so
I can avoid them.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

Suit yourself, but I find it a bit odd that you want to avoid
pilots who fly defensively.

Eyeballs out the windows, assume nothing, expect the
unexpected.

Bela P. Havasreti

"Chris Nielsen" wrote in message
...
: Cub Driver wrote:
:
:
: My home field has a nuclear plant a few miles to the south, and
the
: local rule since 9/11 is never to point your plane in its
direction.
: The ocean is a couple miles east, so most traffic is coming from
the
: west.
:
:
: Interesting! Just a completely off topic question - feel free to
flame
: me mercilessly... I live in what is described as a nuclear-free
: country. I don't know if you guys remember but back in the 80s our
: government banned US ships and so on... But anyway, I've just had a
: nasty email exchange with our local Green Party, who now want to ban
US
: military flights from Christchurch airport because they supply the
Pine
: Gap spy facility in Australia, which shares with the US...

It's only another of their attempts to shut down anything remotely
connected with the US

: Idiots!!!! I'm firing off another email to these bloody
tree-hugging
: hippies now...

Use very simple words and very short sentences. You are not dealing
with real people

"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.

In article ,
Cub Driver wrote:

Here at Spruce Creek, we do initial at or below pattern altitude and
perform either a level turn break or a "popup" break, to shed speed,
followed by a tight pattern.

You know, it would help me (and perhaps others) if somebody explained
what a "break" was. I've never done formation flying, nor do I intend
to, but if it's part of your landing drill, perhaps I should know
about it.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

The break is where the flight leadre breaks up the formation for
landing. It is generally overhead the airport, flying down the active
runway heading, with a 45 deg banked turn to the downwind.

Spacing of the break is by mutual agreement of the pilots within a
flight -- usually from 1 to 4 seconds. As each plane breaks, the plane
remaining is responsible for making sure that he (and those following)
have the proper spacing with other traffic.

This procedure allows the flight leader a good view of other traffic
inside and approaching the traffic pattern. IMHO, a descending break
puts traffic in the ground clutter and makes it difficult to see. It
also impairs slowing down higher-performance aircraft which have
restricted gear speeds.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...

Sorry, I dropped a word; should be "Chicago O'Hare FSDO"


There is no FSDO at O'Hare, but there is one at Du Page.

By the way, if you're not happy with the answer you get from any one FSDO,
just ask another one.

Tunnel vision is
a very bad thing in the pattern

You didn't say what airport you were flying at.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

Suit yourself, but I find it a bit odd that you want to avoid
pilots who fly defensiv

Sounds offensive to me.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

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