Question: "Overhead Entry to Downwind?"

I think I'll take the FAA's word that there is one at ORD...

http://www1.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...

I think I'll take the FAA's word that there is one at ORD...

http://www1.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/


According to that FAA site, the "O'Hare" FSDO is in Schiller Park, IL.

According to the FAA site below, the only FSDOs in Illinois are at DuPage
and Springfield. I guess all we know for sure is we can't trust the FAA!

http://www1.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/faalinks.htm#GLFSDO

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...

I think I'll take the FAA's word that there is one at ORD...

http://www1.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/


According to that FAA site, the "O'Hare" FSDO is in Schiller Park, IL.

According to the FAA site below, the only FSDOs in Illinois are at DuPage
and Springfield. I guess all we know for sure is we can't trust the FAA!

http://www1.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/faalinks.htm#GLFSDO

It is easier to look up this AC

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

which says it all.

Excellent information! Thank you very much for posting it!

"Jeb" wrote in message
om...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...

I think I'll take the FAA's word that there is one at ORD...

http://www1.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/


According to that FAA site, the "O'Hare" FSDO is in Schiller Park, IL.

According to the FAA site below, the only FSDOs in Illinois are at
DuPage
and Springfield. I guess all we know for sure is we can't trust the
FAA!

http://www1.faa.gov/fsdo/ord/faalinks.htm#GLFSDO

It is easier to look up this AC


http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

which says it all.

Bill Denton wrote:
Excellent information! Thank you very much for posting it!

"Jeb" wrote
It is easier to look up this AC


http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

which says it all.





I still would like to know why Canada seems to have discontinued the 45
deg entry as of October 1996 and recommends against it in:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/an...new197.htm#MF2



--
*** And yet it is from within that most nations fall ***
- Yeesha, PC game character, (c) 2003 Ubisoft, Cyan

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Icebound wrote:

I still would like to know why Canada seems to have discontinued the 45
deg entry as of October 1996 and recommends against it in:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/an...new197.htm#MF2

We have discontinued teaching the 45, AFAIK. I learned about it in ground
school only as "something you'll need in the States"... (I got my PPL in
early 2002.)

grin That said, the three or four non-towered US airports I've been to
were utterly deserted when we were there (stat. holiday in Canada, normal
weekday in the USA) so we just went ahead and did our midfield entry to
the circuit anyway. Lazy, perhaps, but there were no local a/c around to
object.

The one busy non-twr'd American airport I flew into last summer, we did
the 45 - and it felt really odd. Because I hadn't flown over the runway
first, I was having trouble judging my height above the runway and how far
out I was on downwind.

I've got no idea why the difference in national practice; there are more
major differences I've noticed between Canadian & American practice, but
circuit entry is one that probably trips a lot of people from both sides
of the line.

Brian - PP-ASEL/Night -

For future reference, here in the US the AIM allows an overflight of the
airport, parallel to and offset from the runway, and flown above pattern
altitude. The purpose being to check windsocks, segmented circles, etc.

You would then descend to pattern altitude and enter the pattern...

"Brian Burger" wrote in message
ia.tc.ca...
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Icebound wrote:

I still would like to know why Canada seems to have discontinued the 45
deg entry as of October 1996 and recommends against it in:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/an...new197.htm#MF2

We have discontinued teaching the 45, AFAIK. I learned about it in ground
school only as "something you'll need in the States"... (I got my PPL in
early 2002.)

grin That said, the three or four non-towered US airports I've been to
were utterly deserted when we were there (stat. holiday in Canada, normal
weekday in the USA) so we just went ahead and did our midfield entry to
the circuit anyway. Lazy, perhaps, but there were no local a/c around to
object.

The one busy non-twr'd American airport I flew into last summer, we did
the 45 - and it felt really odd. Because I hadn't flown over the runway
first, I was having trouble judging my height above the runway and how far
out I was on downwind.

I've got no idea why the difference in national practice; there are more
major differences I've noticed between Canadian & American practice, but
circuit entry is one that probably trips a lot of people from both sides
of the line.

Brian - PP-ASEL/Night -

Very interesting information in your article, too!

But it would seem you are confusing the importance of having a specific
pattern (fairly low) with the importance of having a consistently flown
pattern (very high).

It appears there are many opinions as to which specific pattern is the
safest. And there may well be specific advantages of one over another.

But the most important safety factor is having everyone fly exactly the same
pattern. And before I get flamed on this, let me give an observation: As I
have studied this thing, I have come to perceive the traffic pattern less as
lines, and more as corridors. Some may fly a "tight pattern"; others a
looser one, but everyone is flying some portion of roughly the same
rectangle. I think it should go without saying that "passing" another
aircraft is a big no-no unless everyone in the pattern is made aware of
what's happening via: radio.

Now to entry points...several pilots here have mentioned flying the pattern
with their head on a swivel, making no assumptions, constantly scanning in
all directions. And I'm sure that many achieve that ideal. Keep in mind that
I'm still a wannabe, but from what I have read and studied, pilot workload
can vary widely depending upon where one is in the pattern. And when
workload goes up or other events occur where one is more focused on the
airplane, they will not be scanning as well as they would at other times.
So, one would hope that entry points would be designed in such a way that
aircraft would enter the pattern at a point where the pilot workload of
other planes in the pattern would be low.

So, to wrap it up, it would appear that what Canada was primarily doing was
reducing the number of entry points while getting rid of one type of entry.
And I'm sure they did so based upon there own safety studies and experience.

Once again, the words of a wannabe, and if there's something I need to learn
please let me know...


"Icebound" wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...
Bill Denton wrote:
Excellent information! Thank you very much for posting it!

"Jeb" wrote
It is easier to look up this AC



http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/74c9017c9457e4ab862569d800780551/$FILE/AC90-66A.pdf

which says it all.





I still would like to know why Canada seems to have discontinued the 45
deg entry as of October 1996 and recommends against it in:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/an...new197.htm#MF2



--
*** And yet it is from within that most nations fall ***
- Yeesha, PC game character, (c) 2003 Ubisoft, Cyan

So, to wrap it up, it would appear that what Canada was primarily doing was
reducing the number of entry points while getting rid of one type of entry.
And I'm sure they did so based upon there own safety studies and experience.

Once again, the words of a wannabe, and if there's something I need to learn
please let me know...


In the UK the standard pattern entry procedure is to join via the
overhead at 2000'aal descend on the dead side to cross the upwind end
of the runway (over the numbers) at pattern height (varies between 800
and 1100'aal) and then turn into the downwind keeping a good look out
for circuit bashing traffic. There is no standard traffic pattern
direction either as they vary due to neighborliness.

It can get a bit hairy when everyone is entering the overhead.

I have flown at an uncontrolled field where there have been 9 aircraft
in the pattern doing touch and goes and come and goes for an hour
without a single enforced go around.

What you don't get is people jumping in ahead of their turn.

What you did get to do though is learn to fly the aircraft in the
pattern at a variety of speeds to deal with the traffic. Occasionally
a student would end up going a bit too long on the downwind so you
have to follow even if it is costing you $3 a minute.

The answer - just grin an bear it. We can all be smart and clever but
it is the quiet ones who are the smartest and the cleverest.