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

On 18 Oct 2004 10:12:52 -0700, (John Galban)
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.


That was probably correct 10 or so years ago, but the new standard
TPA is 1000' AGL if not stated in the AFD. The AIM was changed to
reflect this.


I agree the AIM gives a new standard, but in my experience the AF/D
has not kept up with this change. Most airports I've seen that do not
have a TPA listed have an 800' pattern.

Not trying to be contrary, I don't mind the 1000' standard, just seems
that the FAA needs to be told to change the AF/D for a bunch of
airports.

z

Most airports I've seen that do not
have a TPA listed have an 800' pattern.

Not trying to be contrary, I don't mind the 1000' standard, just seems
that the FAA needs to be told to change the AF/D for a bunch of
airports.


I agree. However I bet the FAA expected the airports to just change their
pattern.

Jose

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

On 19 Oct 2004 00:35:48 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

However I bet the FAA expected the airports to just change their
pattern.


Probably, and I'll bet through osmosis as I'm sure they didn't
communicate the change to any operators.

z

zatatime wrote:

On 19 Oct 2004 00:35:48 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:


However I bet the FAA expected the airports to just change their
pattern.



Probably, and I'll bet through osmosis as I'm sure they didn't
communicate the change to any operators.

Perhaps that tells you how unimportant the pattern altitude is.

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:20:33 -0600, Newps
wrote:

Probably, and I'll bet through osmosis as I'm sure they didn't
communicate the change to any operators.

Perhaps that tells you how unimportant the pattern altitude is.


Nope. Just how bureaucracy can be.

Nice try though.

z