Question from a new flight student (whopping 7 hours!)

I've got to say that I've honestly never seen anyone leave the pattern just
to re-enter on a 45.


I do sometimes, though I come over the airport 1000 feet above pattern
altitude. It's the standard "strange field approach", and it's also how you
see the wind sock or segmented circle. Granted AWOS and GPS makes a lot of
this obsolete, but radios don't make the plane fly.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

I've got to say that I've honestly never seen anyone leave the pattern
just
to re-enter on a 45.


I do sometimes, though I come over the airport 1000 feet above pattern
altitude.

Maybe I misunderstand the original statement, but the procedure you describe
doesn't have you leaving the pattern in order to re-enter on the 45. You
weren't in the pattern in the first place, since (by your own statement) you
were ABOVE the pattern.

I often overfly the airport, head out and come back on the 45. But I can't
recall a single instance when I was actually already on a legitimate leg in
the traffic pattern, made a turn away from the pattern for the purpose of
positioning myself on the 45, for the further purpose of re-entering the
pattern. That just sounds silly to me.

Pete

.... but the procedure you describe
doesn't have you leaving the pattern in order
to re-enter on the 45. [...] you
were ABOVE the pattern.


Correct. I was expanding a bit.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

... but the procedure you describe
doesn't have you leaving the pattern in order
to re-enter on the 45. [...] you
were ABOVE the pattern.


Correct. I was expanding a bit.

Maybe you can expand just a little more? You wrote, in response to the
statement "I've honestly never seen anyone leave the pattern just to
re-enter on a 45", the words "I do sometimes".

Do you, or do you not, ever leave the pattern just to re-enter on a 45? You
seem to have said that you do, but the example you gave was not an example
of you doing so.

Honestly, I can't say it matters one way or the other...but I'd at least
like to get straight what it is you said you do.

Pete

Maybe you can expand just a little more? You wrote, in response to the
statement "I've honestly never seen anyone leave the pattern just to
re-enter on a 45", the words "I do sometimes".

Do you, or do you not, ever leave the pattern just to re-enter on a 45?


No, I do not. I misspoke. I enter above the pattern as I later stated.

What I did with the words was expand the definition of "pattern" to include not
only the region at an appropriate altitude, but also the regions above and
below to some degree. Since the discussion included variations in what is
percieved as pattern altituted, I did not think this too much of a nonce
expansion for the purposes of the post.

I'll agree that 1000 feet is not "somewhat" above TPA, but if one were from the
days of four course ranges g,d,r (and thought the pattern were 800 AGL, given
no mention of TPA in the AF/D), and because of a cloud deck, cheated a bit
(coming in at 800 feet above what he thought was TPA, making it 1600 AGL) at an
airport whose TPA was actually 1200 AGL but still not mentioned in the AF/D),
he'd be only 400 feet above the real TPA on the overhead and out to the 45.
This is "somewhat" above.

Somebody a little high as she's coming in to one of the legs (say 1350 AGL)
might find herself not too far from the bloke who thinks he's a thousand feet
above. An altimeter setting from a different airport (if the destination has
none) might increase the pucker factor even more.

I'll grant that 800 AGL undocumented in the AF/D is probably more common for
historical reasons than an undocumented 1200 AGL pattern, but the principle is
the same. Fly as precisely as you can, but be aware that there are sources of
variance that can pile up. I'm not even counting the squirrel chasers who
arrive overhead at their cruise altitude (1000 AGL) before seeing the airport.

So, I did not think it unreasonable to include discussion of a proper 45 entry
in the discussion about variances in TPA and folks who come in at pattern
altitude overhead, looking for the 45.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...
[...]
So, I did not think it unreasonable to include discussion of a proper 45
entry
in the discussion about variances in TPA and folks who come in at pattern
altitude overhead, looking for the 45.

Me either. I was just trying to figure out what you actually meant to say.

Thanks for clarifying.