![]() |
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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:52:08 GMT, zatatime
wrote: On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:38:52 -0600, Newps wrote: I'm going to 1000 feet. This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports. Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you? z How's that? If you look at the field elevation on the sectional, and add 1000 feet, that's the pattern altitude isn't it? Are there lots of airports that specify a non standard pattern altitude? Corky Scott |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Corky Scott wrote: I'm going to 1000 feet. This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports. Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you? z How's that? If you look at the field elevation on the sectional, and add 1000 feet, that's the pattern altitude isn't it? Are there lots of airports that specify a non standard pattern altitude? Some airports have a published pattern altitude of 800 feet. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:59:38 -0400, Corky Scott
wrote: On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:52:08 GMT, zatatime wrote: On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:38:52 -0600, Newps wrote: I'm going to 1000 feet. This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports. Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you? z How's that? If you look at the field elevation on the sectional, and add 1000 feet, that's the pattern altitude isn't it? Nope. Many airports (and most I fly in and out of) use an 800 foot TPA, which is the original "standard TPA." Are there lots of airports that specify a non standard pattern altitude? As I see it, yes there are. All the airports that have a 1000' TPA are "non-standard," although the rule of thumb you have written has become it's own standard of sorts. This is why I brought it up. If you're flying in a Piper at 1000' thinking it is correct, and I'm flying a Cessna at 800' which is what was published, we're going to have a problem because we won't be able to see each other if we're in close proximity. Also when looking for traffic, if the traffic is at different altitudes it makes it harder to spot them. I could cite other examples, but I think you'll get the point. There are also airports with different altitudes for large aircraft, or opposite traffic rules for rotorcraft, etc... I feel fairly strongly that operations around an airport should be as predictable as possible since this is where you will most likely find numerous aircraft sharing close quarters. Flying a proper altitude is one of the things that should be consistent for all traffic, and it isn't like it's really hard to find the answer, or ask Unicom if you're unsure. (This may be wrong but,)I believe when a TPA is not explicitly stated in the AF/D the expected TPA is 800' AGL. HTH. z |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() zatatime wrote: (This may be wrong but,)I believe when a TPA is not explicitly stated in the AF/D the expected TPA is 800' AGL. TPA is always a suggestion. Never a reg. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() zatatime wrote: As I see it, yes there are. All the airports that have a 1000' TPA are "non-standard," although the rule of thumb you have written has become it's own standard of sorts. This is why I brought it up. If you're flying in a Piper at 1000' thinking it is correct, and I'm flying a Cessna at 800' which is what was published, we're going to have a problem because we won't be able to see each other if we're in close proximity. Also when looking for traffic, if the traffic is at different altitudes it makes it harder to spot them. I could cite other examples, but I think you'll get the point. There are also airports with different altitudes for large aircraft, or opposite traffic rules for rotorcraft, etc... At all airports that can expect some higher performance aircraft like King Airs and biz jets they will have a second published pattern altitude, almost always 1500' AGL. 99%+ of these aircraft are low wing. So how are they supposed to see anybody? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 16:23:58 -0600, Newps
wrote: almost always 1500' AGL. 99%+ of these aircraft are low wing. So how are they supposed to see anybody? 99% of them are also alot faster than a typical single so the opportunity to remain over a lower aircraft is significantly reduced, and still allows for picking up traffic ahead of the larger aircraft. They also fly a larger pattern, and where this condition exists (generally speaking) have control towers on the field to aid in separation. The 500' vertical separation also helps reduce the risk of a mid-air. z |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() All the airports that have a 1000' TPA are "non-standard," although the rule of thumb you have written has become it's own standard of sorts. This is why I brought it up. If you're flying in a Piper at 1000' thinking it is correct, and I'm flying a Cessna at 800' which is what was published, we're going to have a problem because we won't be able to see each other if we're in close proximity. [...] I believe when a TPA is not explicitly stated in the AF/D the expected TPA is 800' AGL. The hazard indicated is real, but the altitudes are no longer correct. According to my AIM (2000, 4-3-3) a pattern of 1000 feet is reccomended unless established otherwise. However it seems that some airports have retained the historical 800 foot altitude you indicate was once standard, but have not ensured that the AF/D is apprised of this. Thus, us newfangled pilots (the ones minted after VORs g,d) will enter at 1000 feet, only to be surprised by folks 200 feet below us. (this was exactly what I found at GBR not too long ago). Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() So, if an altitude isn't listed in the AF/D should we now assume its 1000'? Yes. But be careful about assUme. And when it turns out to be 800, who is allowed to call the FAA to have the entry modified? Anybody. Tell them what you've observed, and have them contact the airport for verification. It's even better if you talk to the airport head first and get appropriate contact info for the FAA. It's just a "correction" to the AF/D, like any other correction (lake in the wrong place on the sectional, tower mismarked, stuff like that) Jose -- (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 01:20:38 GMT, zatatime
wrote: I've always assumed an 800' pattern if I didn't see an entry (and have never had a problem), but what you wrote seems to show a different standard than I was taught. I took my flight lessons & ground school in 1997. I was told to assume 1,000 feet--even though I fly from an airport with 800 feet TPA! all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put Cubdriver in subject line) Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Looking for Cessna Caravan pilots | [email protected] | Owning | 9 | April 1st 04 02:54 AM |
Logging approaches | Ron Garrison | Instrument Flight Rules | 109 | March 2nd 04 05:54 PM |
us air force us air force academy us air force bases air force museum us us air force rank us air force reserve adfunk | Jehad Internet | Military Aviation | 0 | February 7th 04 04:24 AM |
question charity flight | Dave Jacobowitz | Piloting | 1 | November 14th 03 12:51 AM |