Time to revamp traffic patterns at non-towered airports?

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message om...

But there are airports that don't have this luxury and all aircraft
have to share the same runway. Putting the ultralights on the "inside
and lower" from the regular (SEL) traffic pattern, which may be
"inside and lower" the MEL puts the burden for see and avoid on the
faster aircraft.

Back when our airport had a fairly active ultralight activity. They flew the
opposite pattern, obviously lower and tighter than the regular pattern. It
was quite easy as a result for them to adjust on base leg to fit into the
higher performance traffic.

However, the SEL will have a great deal of difficulty seeing the
MEL that is overtaking him. Likewise, the ultralights will have
difficulty seeing any SEL or MEL that are overtaking them. Is this
system really the best way to minimize the risk in the traffic
pattern?


I don't think I'd be so concerned with a guy behind me... unless we both
have an operating radio and make proper calls, I would not even know he is
behind me.

If I'm in a J-3 or a Champ or a Piper 140 or 180 or a C-210, and I think
that "larger SEL or MEL" aircraft is going to crawl up my butt, I think a
simple radio call asking if he can see me in front of him would suffice.

If I'm in my J-3, NORDO, and I know I did not cut off a 5 mile straight in
aircraft, could not see him and tell he was in the pattern. Then, he needs
to be looking out the window.

No, I am not standing on the, "I'm in front I own the runway" mentality, I'm
just stating the way it is. I have not flown many aircraft where I can crank
my head around to check 6 on final approach for that big bear that's gonna
roll over me.

BT

From: (Ace Pilot)

And on and on and on it goes--- Gawd ! I've flown with a helo and a blimp
giving rides while gliders were up soaring, landing, and towing off the runway.
Ya look out the dang window and try real hard not to hit any thing. If you
have a radio, short, to the point position transmissions are in order. Don't
trust ATC to keep you from having a mid-air! Your eyes and ears are your best
bet---turn the music OFF! Fly the plane. (the "ears" are for hearing your
airspeed) Nothing is risk free! But do race trains when you have the chance.
ha ha ha Mac

So, Mac, you're saying that there's no better way to conduct
operations at non-towered airports? Rather closed minded of you. And
I'll bet you haven't even examined any alternatives, have you? Like so
many in aviation, the "We've always done it that way" argument is good
enough for you.

As has been pointed out in previous posts, the increase in sport
aircraft is probably going to increase the speed differential found in
the traffic pattern. At airports where there is sufficient room,
slower speed traffic is segregated into their own pattern (obviously,
because somebody recognizes that large speed differentials in the
pattern are not a good thing). But at airports without sufficient
room, the only option currently is to assign smaller, larger, higher,
and/or lower traffic patterns to different aircraft. I've never seen
an analysis for the basis of these assignments.

I'm skeptical that the current traffic patterns, that have evolved
piecemeal over the years, is a better solution than one formulated
from scratch that takes all factors into account from the beginning.

Ace

(Mackfly) wrote in message ...
From: (Ace Pilot)

And on and on and on it goes--- Gawd ! I've flown with a helo and a blimp
giving rides while gliders were up soaring, landing, and towing off the runway.
Ya look out the dang window and try real hard not to hit any thing. If you
have a radio, short, to the point position transmissions are in order. Don't
trust ATC to keep you from having a mid-air! Your eyes and ears are your best
bet---turn the music OFF! Fly the plane. (the "ears" are for hearing your
airspeed) Nothing is risk free! But do race trains when you have the chance.
ha ha ha Mac

From: (Ace Pilot)

So, Mac, you're saying that there's no better way to conduct
operations at non-towered airports? Rather closed minded of you. And
I'll bet you haven't even examined any alternatives, have you?

Maybe we could "take a number" and wait to be called? We have / use an
alternative pattern at K46--"We" came up with the idea. The airport authority
bought it. We fly it. It still boils down to "don't get hit" and "don't hit
anyone else" And if I was not open minded I'd not be a glider pilot as well as
ASEL tailwheel and all that---oh have you ever flown a TriPacer off the same
runway with B-58 Hustler bombers? I have. Slight speed difference there ole
chap. have fun Mac

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
om...
| The FAA is expecting to publish its final rule covering Light Sport
| Aircraft, Sport Pilots, and the training and repair requirements
| sometime this year. I'm wondering what impact this rule will have on
| traffic pattern operations at non-towered airports.
|

It will have about the same effect that Taylorcraft and Piper Cubs have on
the traffic pattern today. Both of those airplanes qualify as Light Sport
Aircraft.

"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
om...
[...]
Advisory Circular 90-66A provides guidelines for traffic patterns by
ultralight operators at non-towered airports. One suggestion is to use
a traffic pattern that is lower than the single-engine traffic pattern
and inside of it. Would this be the best option for sport aircraft?

A "sport plane" that is more like an ultralight than a typical spam can
might warrant doing just that, I'd agree.

However, I would guess that most "sport planes" will wind up closer in
performance to the slower GA planes that already exist (Pacer, Champ, Cub,
150, etc.) and will have no trouble blending in with existing traffic.
Also, while I hope that the Sport certificate helps improve the pilot
population, I would be surprised if the increase in air traffic turns out to
be significant enough to even be worth thinking about how they are going to
fit in with other traffic.

Pete

Pete - I'm not sure if the increase in air traffic from sport aircraft
should be the main concern. Rather, it is the increase in speed
difference brought on by some of the slower sport aircraft. For
example, assume you have two C172s sharing the pattern at a
non-towered airport. What would increase the risk more - adding a
single sport aircraft that flies at 25-30 knots, or adding TWO more
C172s? My gut says the sport aircraft would cause more problems, but I
haven't done or seen any simulations to support this. Would you agree?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
om...
[...]
Advisory Circular 90-66A provides guidelines for traffic patterns by
ultralight operators at non-towered airports. One suggestion is to use
a traffic pattern that is lower than the single-engine traffic pattern
and inside of it. Would this be the best option for sport aircraft?

A "sport plane" that is more like an ultralight than a typical spam can
might warrant doing just that, I'd agree.

However, I would guess that most "sport planes" will wind up closer in
performance to the slower GA planes that already exist (Pacer, Champ, Cub,
150, etc.) and will have no trouble blending in with existing traffic.
Also, while I hope that the Sport certificate helps improve the pilot
population, I would be surprised if the increase in air traffic turns out to
be significant enough to even be worth thinking about how they are going to
fit in with other traffic.

Pete

On 2004-02-05, Ace Pilot wrote:
Pete - I'm not sure if the increase in air traffic from sport aircraft
should be the main concern. Rather, it is the increase in speed
difference brought on by some of the slower sport aircraft.

Difference in performance AND pilot preference make keeping track of
planes hard, but I don't know that different entry paths (midfield
crosswind - 45 degree) are that much of a problem.

I fly a Pitts, normal power off decent rate is about 2,000fpm so I
start turning base just past the numbers and take about 15 seconds
to touchdown. This so different from a C172 flying a "normal"
pattern that I ASSUME that aircraft waiting to take off WILL
pull onto the runway after I call base.

Leagle or not, anyone not using a radio in the pattern is a fool and
and anyone not understanding and thinking about the differences in performace
between aircraft is taking a big risk.

"Doug Carter" wrote in message ...
I fly a Pitts, normal power off decent rate is about 2,000fpm so I
start turning base just past the numbers and take about 15 seconds
to touchdown. This so different from a C172 flying a "normal"
pattern that I ASSUME that aircraft waiting to take off WILL
pull onto the runway after I call base.

What's wrong with an airplane pulling on the runway after you call base?
Around here, you'd never take off if you waited for nobody to be on base
leg.

Leagle or not, anyone not using a radio in the pattern is a fool and
and anyone not understanding and thinking about the differences in performace
between aircraft is taking a big risk.

Anybody who assumes everybody else in the pattern is using the radio
is a fool.