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
  #101  
Old January 16th 04, 11:21 PM
Bill Denton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.




  #102  
Old January 16th 04, 11:35 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #103  
Old January 17th 04, 12:21 AM
Dave Stadt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cub Driver" wrote in message
news

Tunnel vision is
a very bad thing in the pattern


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


I fly all over the place and keep my head on a swivel everywhere I go.
Guess you will just have to quit flying.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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



  #104  
Old January 17th 04, 04:09 AM
Lisa Hughes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Cub Driver wrote:

The US Congress passed the Federal Aviation Act which authorizes and directs
the FAA to develop plans for and formulate policy


That's right. The FAA issues regulations. They are not laws. If you
violate the regs, you get an administrative punishment.


You meant to say they are not statues. Federal Regulations ARE laws. They are
in a category of law called administrative law, as opposed to statutory law,
constitutional law, and case law. This is 1L law school stuff. Statues however
are what permits FAA to create rules for aviation.

  #105  
Old January 17th 04, 07:19 AM
Bela P. Havasreti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 17:59:36 -0500, Cub Driver
wrote:

Pot; Kettle.

Bela P. Havasreti

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


  #106  
Old January 17th 04, 03:01 PM
Ron Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Lisa Hughes wrote:

You meant to say they are not statues.


Did your keyboard really mean "statutes?"

Ron Lee

  #107  
Old January 17th 04, 05:50 PM
Jeb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #108  
Old January 17th 04, 06:06 PM
Jeb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
  #109  
Old January 17th 04, 06:08 PM
Dave Stadt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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..................




  #110  
Old January 17th 04, 07:44 PM
Henry and Debbie McFarland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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)


 




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 06:04 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.