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 from a new flight student (whopping 7 hours!)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 15th 04, 08:59 PM
Corky Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 15th 04, 10:18 PM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old October 15th 04, 10:33 PM
zatatime
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 15th 04, 11:18 PM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old October 15th 04, 11:23 PM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



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  
Old October 16th 04, 02:29 AM
zatatime
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 15th 04, 11:59 PM
Teacherjh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old October 16th 04, 02:20 AM
zatatime
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 15 Oct 2004 22:59:15 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:


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



I guess there's a reason my muscles ache more than they used too. g
So, if an altitude isn't listed in the AF/D should we now assume its
1000'? And when it turns out to be 800, who is allowed to call the
FAA to have the entry modified? 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.

Thanks for the info.
z

(I guess the bottom line is to know the specifics of the airports you
operate at, and maintain consistency with the other pilots.)
  #9  
Old October 16th 04, 02:47 AM
Teacherjh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old October 16th 04, 11:03 AM
Cub Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:33 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.