Opinions please, preferred pattern joining methods

What you are missing is that 4-3-2 deals with application of traffic pattern
indicators, period. Look at the note near 4-3-1 to see what the writers of
the AIM say about traffic pattern entries.

Bob

"Daniel L. Lieberman" wrote in message
...
Bob,

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something but Figure 4-3-2 of the 2005 AIM
Shows only one entry to the pattern.

That is what you suggested. The straight in (his second choice) is
probably more dangerous. I would be concerned about the possibility of (if
there is an Instrument Approach to 36) someone coming in behind or above
me.

I will look up the AC you referenced in an attempt to learn more. I know
one of the local DPEs might fail the straight in since he says the PTS
incorporates the AIM.

Daniel


"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
I like your first solution better than the second. Having said that,
neither the regs nor the AIM provide much guidance in the situation you
describe. Look at Advisory Circular 90-66A for more relevant information.

Bob Gardner

wrote in message
...
Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.

I've two thoughts:

Fly south, then west, pass overhead the field, and then 2 or 3 miles
later do a descending 225 degree right turn, and join on a 45 degree
to downwind, or

Stay east and then south of the airport, and join a straight in
outside 5 sm.

Opinions?

Stan






Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Bob,

The AC you referenced AC 90-66a says in "7. GENERAL OPERATING PROCEDURES
....E. The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern.
However, for those pilots who choose to execute a straight-in approach ,
maneuvering..." I believe that this clearly indicates that the 45 entry is
the standard traffic pattern and that the straight-in is an exception to the
standard.

Perhaps my 2005 AIM differs from your AIM. The note under 4-3-3 "Examples
Key to traffic pattern operations 1. Enter pattern in level flight, abeam
the midpoint of the runway, at pattern altitude..." supports the entry we
both think is best.

In my 2005 AIM
4-3-4 is "Visual Indicators ar Airports Without an Operating Control Tower".
4-3-3 is "Traffic Patterns".

I thank you for your reference to AC 90-66a which I have read and since we
both agree on the best entry don't see much value in arguing about the
justification for that opinion especially since the Original Poster asked
for "Opinions."

I will, since I respect your opinion, let you have the last word, if you
choose, and will read what you have to say and then drop the matter.

Daniel

What you are missing is that 4-3-2 deals with application of traffic
pattern indicators, period. Look at the note near 4-3-1 to see what the
writers of the AIM say about traffic pattern entries.

Bob

"Daniel L. Lieberman" wrote in message
...
Bob,

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something but Figure 4-3-2 of the 2005 AIM
Shows only one entry to the pattern.

That is what you suggested. The straight in (his second choice) is
probably more dangerous. I would be concerned about the possibility of
(if there is an Instrument Approach to 36) someone coming in behind or
above me.

I will look up the AC you referenced in an attempt to learn more. I know
one of the local DPEs might fail the straight in since he says the PTS
incorporates the AIM.

Daniel


"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
I like your first solution better than the second. Having said that,
neither the regs nor the AIM provide much guidance in the situation you
describe. Look at Advisory Circular 90-66A for more relevant information.

Bob Gardner

wrote in message
...
Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.

I've two thoughts:

Fly south, then west, pass overhead the field, and then 2 or 3 miles
later do a descending 225 degree right turn, and join on a 45 degree
to downwind, or

Stay east and then south of the airport, and join a straight in
outside 5 sm.

Opinions?

Stan






Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

But the first seems much more manoeuvring, possible preventing as good
a look out as the second option. I'm actually wondering if the second
seems more practicle.

Stan

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:26:54 -0800, "Bob Gardner"
wrote:

I like your first solution better than the second. Having said that, neither
the regs nor the AIM provide much guidance in the situation you describe.
Look at Advisory Circular 90-66A for more relevant information.

Bob Gardner

wrote in message
.. .
Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.

I've two thoughts:

Fly south, then west, pass overhead the field, and then 2 or 3 miles
later do a descending 225 degree right turn, and join on a 45 degree
to downwind, or

Stay east and then south of the airport, and join a straight in
outside 5 sm.

Opinions?

Stan

Forget about everything but safety. Flying over the center of the field 500
feet (or more) above pattern altitude keeps you away from everyone taking
off and landing...they are, after all, at field elevation. You get a good
look at planes on final and those rolling for takeoff. Then flying away from
the pattern and descending to pattern altitude well away from the pattern is
the safest solution to the problem you posed. Maneuvering, saving time,
saving gas...all take a back seat to safety.

Same thing applies at many controlled fields. Ask the controller for
permission to cross the airport and you will most likely be told to cross
midfield at 2500 feet or so...that's the way they do it at Seattle-Tacoma,
anyway. Hard to hit a jet when it has its wheels on the runway and you are
way up there.

Bob Gardner

wrote in message
...
But the first seems much more manoeuvring, possible preventing as good
a look out as the second option. I'm actually wondering if the second
seems more practicle.

Stan

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:26:54 -0800, "Bob Gardner"
wrote:

I like your first solution better than the second. Having said that,
neither
the regs nor the AIM provide much guidance in the situation you describe.
Look at Advisory Circular 90-66A for more relevant information.

Bob Gardner

wrote in message
. ..
Consider you're NE of the airfield, non towered airport, runway 18/36,
standard left pattern applies, with runway 36 the active. I'm
interested in hearing what your personal method of joining the pattern
would be, while adhering to the FAR's and AIM.

I've two thoughts:

Fly south, then west, pass overhead the field, and then 2 or 3 miles
later do a descending 225 degree right turn, and join on a 45 degree
to downwind, or

Stay east and then south of the airport, and join a straight in
outside 5 sm.

Opinions?

Stan

"Bob Gardner" wrote:
Same thing applies at many controlled fields. Ask the controller for
permission to cross the airport and you will most likely be told to cross
midfield at 2500 feet or so...that's the way they do it at Seattle-Tacoma,
anyway. Hard to hit a jet when it has its wheels on the runway and you are
way up there.

Yup, that's what they do around here. Ask to transition LaGuardia, and
they'll have you fly directly over the tower at 1500 feet. I've had them
do similar at Newark and Kennedy.

At White Plains, they'll often give spam cans closed traffic on 29 while
running jets on 34; they just ask you to keep your downwind in tight,
passing right over the numbers of 34.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message =
...
"Bob Gardner" wrote:
Same thing applies at many controlled fields. Ask the controller for=20
permission to cross the airport and you will most likely be told to =
cross=20
midfield at 2500 feet or so...that's the way they do it at =
Seattle-Tacoma,=20
anyway. Hard to hit a jet when it has its wheels on the runway and =
you are=20
way up there.
=20
Yup, that's what they do around here. Ask to transition LaGuardia, =
and=20
they'll have you fly directly over the tower at 1500 feet. I've had =
them=20
do similar at Newark and Kennedy.
=20
At White Plains, they'll often give spam cans closed traffic on 29 =
while=20
running jets on 34; they just ask you to keep your downwind in tight,=20
passing right over the numbers of 34.

Occasionally I fly IFR into Spirit of St. Louis Airport from the east,
and it's rare NOT to be vectored squarely across Lambert Field,
continuing outward south-westerly until getting further vectors to KSUS.
Once, in VMC, I was asked to cross "the building with the big blue =
roof"!

"Bob Gardner" wrote:
Then flying away from the pattern and descending to pattern altitude
well away from the pattern is the safest solution to the problem you
posed.

What's the point of that? That requires more turns at low altitude near
an airport, increasing collision exposure.

Join the pattern as expeditiously as possible (always following
right-of-way rules) and get it on the ground.

Crossing midfield at pattern altitude gives a good view of the pattern
and the windsock and sets you up for an simple turn to the downwind.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

I agree, Cross midfield at pattern altitude, and enter down wind. give
way to aircraft entering on the 45. The reason for instructors
teaching the crossing at 500-1000' over and then entering the 45 is a
because that is the recommended proceedure in the AIM. This is one
area that I think the AIM is lacking in that I can not come up with any
good reason to do this over the cleaner shorter and aurguably safer
method of crossing at pattern altitude and just turning downwind. I
really like the AOPA Air Safety Foundation document on flying and
Non-towered airports. I just wish they could get the FAA to go along
with (and provide FAA documentation) supporting the Alternate pattern
entry they show. Perhaps more instructors would start teaching the
alternate method which I believe is safer.

(My Safer aurgment goes like this: Against overflying and enter on the
45. 1. flying over the pattern it is very difficult to see aircraft
below you in the ground clutter. 2. How far out do you go to get out of
the pattern to descend to pattern altitude. I watch twins routinely fly
3 mile patterns, This is nearly a Cross Country in the J-4. 3.
Skydivers and Turbine aircraft patterns are routinely at the 1500 to
2000' level. 4. above 1000' it is much more difficult to see Windsocks
and other details about the runway. For overfly at Pattern altitude.
1. Efficent 2. Never leave gliding range of the runway 3. Can see other
aircraft better since they should all be at pattern altitude. 4. Can
See windsock and other runway details better.

Brian

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
Forget about everything but safety. Flying over the center of the field
500 feet (or more) above pattern altitude keeps you away from everyone
taking off and landing... Bob Gardner


I like that "more" part. Larger aircraft will often use a pattern 500 ft
higher.

Plus the Skydivers usually open between 1500 and 2000 ft AGL. I would
much rather try avoiding a Parachute rather than a free falling
skydiver.

Ok maybe not an issue at every airport, but certainly an issue at some
of the airports I fly at.