Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:51:25 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"

The people I've seen do it around here start with a high-speed, relatively
low pass (though not 10 feet off the deck...more like 200-500') and then
enter the proper traffic pattern with a climbing turn directly into the
downwind.

I realize that there are practical issues that are addressed by flying an
abbreviated pattern starting with an over-the-runway upwind. However, even
doing that starting at pattern altitude is not appropriate at a busy public
airport, and when executed as a chandelle it's even more inappropriate (and
dangerous).

As far as using the maneuver as "an alternative to a straight-in", I fail to
see how it would be better than a straight-in, especially if there is other
traffic. You spend more time in the pattern than you would with a
straight-in, and you do at least part of it in a location where the other
pilots in the pattern are less likely to be expecting you.

As far as "As long as you announce what you're doing there shouldn't be a
problem" goes, that's the classic "everyone has a radio" fallacy. The radio
is NOT a replacement for good traffic pattern usage.

Pete

The overhead is a *HELL* of a lot better than the straight in! It gives
you a view of traffic in the pattern, keeps you in close, gets you to
the downwind and gets a whole flight on the ground in the time it takes
to get one plane on the ground.

My pet peeve is those who fly wide, extended patterns, pretending that
they are in a 747, while flying a Cessna 172. Big flight schools are,
IMHO, the biggest offenders, teaching a "stabilized" approach and
dragging it in for three miles.

This type of instruction may even be a factor in the loss of the Europa
at Oshkosh, where the tower wants you to keep it in close, when the
pilots may not have been taught to do so.

I understand that the midfield crosswind entry is standard in Canada.
It's also one of the standard entries at my (controlled) home
field[1]. From that experience, I find I like it because it gives me
good situational awareness of what's going on with closed traffic,
45-degree entries, and base-leg entries. Any Canadians want to chime
in on what they teach you north of the 49th?

Don
[1] San Carlos, CA. Down the road at Palo Alto, they use left and
right patterns for a single runway. I do NOT care for that. I'm
anxious about where the guy in the other pattern is turning base. San
Carlos doesn't do that because there is a lot of helicopter activity
and the helos are segregated on one side of the field and land on the
apron while fixed-wing craft use the other side and land on the
runway.

I understand that the midfield crosswind entry is standard in Canada.
It's also one of the standard entries at my (controlled) home
field[1]. From that experience, I find I like it because it gives me
good situational awareness of what's going on with closed traffic,
45-degree entries, and base-leg entries. Any Canadians want to chime
in on what they teach you north of the 49th?

Don

You are correct it is normal to join the pattern from over the feild
in Canada. At uncontrolled aerodromes straight in approaches are not
standard. I was also taught to never be more than gliding distance
from the runway while in the pattern. It drives me nuts when I see
cessna 150s flying 3 mile finals or are so wide on downwind I think
they've left the pattern. Oh ya another difference is we don't use 45
degree entries to the pattern.

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:19:25 GMT, (Drew
Dalgleish) wrote:

I was also taught to never be more than gliding distance
from the runway while in the pattern.

This has always bugged me about the standard pattern as it was taught
to me, especially the bit about first overflying the field, then
flying off at least a mile before descending to the 45. Why would you
leave the vicinity of a perfectly good airport, especially when your
engine is 60 years old? The FAA recommended approach makes perfectly
good sense from a collision-avoidance point of view, but it ignores
the fact that engines are not immortal.



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

The FAA recommended approach makes perfectly
good sense from a collision-avoidance point of view, but it ignores
the fact that engines are not immortal.

I suspect that the dangers from a MAC in a crowded airport envoronment
are greater than the dangers from an engine out.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 06:06:50 -0400, Cub Driver usenet AT danford DOT
net wrote:

This has always bugged me about the standard pattern as it was taught
to me, especially the bit about first overflying the field, then
flying off at least a mile before descending to the 45. Why would you
leave the vicinity of a perfectly good airport, especially when your
engine is 60 years old? The FAA recommended approach makes perfectly
good sense from a collision-avoidance point of view, but it ignores
the fact that engines are not immortal.

I'm not sure it's all that much better. Is there a standard for where
you let down to pick up the 45 entry? Which way you turn? And I
swear, the last time I flew into South County, when I made my turn to
get on the 45, about a mile out, there was a plane on downwind out
there. I'd heard him on the radio, but I didn't expect him that far
out.

Don

This has always bugged me about the standard pattern as it was taught
to me, especially the bit about first overflying the field, then
flying off at least a mile before descending to the 45. Why would you
leave the vicinity of a perfectly good airport, especially when your
engine is 60 years old? The FAA recommended approach makes perfectly
good sense from a collision-avoidance point of view, but it ignores
the fact that engines are not immortal.

It makes less sense from a collision avoidance point of view. Why would
you fly away from the airport into the path that incoming traffic would
take? That's just dumb.

Newps wrote:
It makes less sense from a collision avoidance point of view. Why would
you fly away from the airport into the path that incoming traffic would
take? That's just dumb.

As an aside I know of at least one pilot that failed his private pilot
checkride because he did the a midfield crosswind entry instead of
overflying the airport for 2 miles and re-entering on the 45. The DE
didn't like the fact that that airport's flight school taught the
midfield crosswind entry (mostly due to overlying class Bravo
airspace).

On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:18:32 GMT, Don Tuite
wrote:

I understand that the midfield crosswind entry is standard in Canada.
It's also one of the standard entries at my (controlled) home
field[1]. From that experience, I find I like it because it gives me
good situational awareness of what's going on with closed traffic,
45-degree entries, and base-leg entries.

There is a nuclear power plant a few miles south of my home airport.
To approach from the west (the usual direction, since the ocean is on
the east) and to make the usual approach to runway 20 therefore
involves a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, which is apt to make the
security guards nervous. Ever since 9/11, therefore, I have always
entered the 45 from the west, regardless of wind direction. If I am to
land to the north, I fly the standard pattern. If I am landing to the
south, I make a midfield crossover. (It's actually a bit south of
midfield.)

The Cub is NORDO. I carry a handheld, but interference from the
sparkplugs makes it unfeasible to transmit unless the engine is at
idle. So I announce that I'm on the 45 from the west as I am
descending to pattern altitude, and generally I announce when I'm
descending on base or final. But otherwise I'm silent, though of
course I'm listening (and looking). No one has ever complained about
this.

I do confess however that, the first time I saw a midfield crossover,
I was so startled that I flew off and did some practice stuff for a
while, then returned when I was sure this interloper had parked his
plane or else left the area.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com