Flying patterns

Roger writes:

Ahhh...Think I'll pass on that one. Ever use binocs when bounding
around. A friend and I were Salmon fishing on Lake Michigan quite a
few years back This was in a 16' Aluminum boat. It was a pretty
rough day, but he wanted to take a look through the binoculars. He
lasted about 30 seconds, began to perspire and jammed the binocs back
into the case with the comment: "Boy! It wouldn't take much of that to
make a guy sick!"

The movement had not occurred to me; small planes must move a lot.
Controllers seem to always have binoculars at hand, so I thought
perhaps pilots would, too.

Most have pretty good visibility straight ahead. For many of us a lot
of pattern flying can lead to a stiff neck from looking for traffic.
Plus we learn to make slight and shallow turns (s-turns) to look for
traffic in all sectors.

Don't shallow turns cause you to stray from the pattern?

Normally it applies to every one, but it may apply in a different
manner depending on the size and speed of the aircraft.

What happens if you fail to observe noise-abatement procedures?

I don't know of any, but they are widely available for less than $5.00
USD "I believe".

Not in France, I'm afraid.

You can order one along with charts from "Sporty's Pilot Shop" on
line. The online services I use require you be a paying member.

I don't have a working credit card, but I'll keep that in mind.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

Why?

Since it requires so much effort to learn how to fly in the first
place, I prefer to learn based on the rules of the country that is the
most advanced in aviation, and that is the U.S. The 1001 exceptions
of the European tribes are just background noise.

Why?

Because it depends on individuals keeping their eyes open, being alert
and disciplined. Some pilots are always that way, but some aren't.
Given how hard it seems to be to get a PPL, I'm surprised by how
incompetent some pilots apparently are. How did they ever manage to
get a license?

The risk more or less comparable with driving.

That's a pretty high risk!

There are several different reasons why there's a higher risk than
with airliners, but you make it sound more dangerous than it is.

The numbers make it look awfully dangerous. Not so much in an empty
sky, perhaps, but when there are other aircraft around, particularly
other GA aircraft, the risk skyrockets.

VFR procedures as such are not really risky, there are other reasons
that come to mind.

Such as?

One that I can think of is the use of reciprocating
internal-combustion engines, which are vastly less reliable than
turbines.

Same with cars, but that doesn't seem to scare a lot of people away
from driving.

The risks don't scare a lot of people away from flying, either. I'm
quite sure there are plenty of private pilots who regularly take
foolish risks, and only survive out of luck.

In the air you have the added security that hitting each
other in three-dimensional space is much less likely than on the narrow
space of a road. It's probably quite hard to hit a moving target in the
air even if you try intentionally.

I've tried it in the sim. It's very difficult.

The flip side is that hitting someone in the air is much more likely
to kill you than hitting someone on the ground. A fender-bender on
the ground may result in a high-speed crash when it happens between
aircraft aloft.

A turn in a small plane is a matter of seconds. Half a minute is long
enough e.g. for a final if you're already low (say 500 ft GND, which is
a good idea for the altitude you should have at the last turn in small
planes).

Aren't standard turns supposed to be lined up with that two-minute
marker on the turn indicator? That would correspond to 90° turns in
30 seconds, if I'm not mistaken.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

How is that different from IFR?

In IFR, you don't have to look out the window for other aircraft. You
have help from controllers.

In the real world, mid-airs are only a tiny fraction of aviation
accidents.

True. Unfortunately, equipment failures are much more deadly than on
the road.

They certainly scare more people.

People who are afraid of flying suffer from irrational fears that are
out of proportion with the actual risk.

OTOH there are private pilots with fear of flying.

So why do they become private pilots? Are they anything like
hypochondriacs who decide to become doctors?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Sylvain writes:

... if you tell your local pilots that you'd be happy
to recycle these publication to use on a sim I am sure
they'd be happy to oblige.

Not if they're from this newsgroup.

Now, that IS trolling. Sorry to see you sink to this.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

Now, that IS trolling. Sorry to see you sink to this.

I'm not trolling, I'm serious. I don't know what it is about USENET,
but sometimes sifting through the losers to find people who can
actually sustain an intelligent discussion is exceedingly difficult.

On the one hand, I have the old boys' club here that cannot condescend
to speak to anyone who doesn't meet their own standards of pilothood
(the threshold invariably being whatever level they've achieved
themselves, no more and no less). On the other, I have the kiddies in
sim groups who cannot wait for the next version of MSFS because the
box is so pretty. There are practically no level-headed people in
between.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Be fair, I wrote nothing which contradicts what you said (and I agree
with most of it).

No, nothing contradicts it. It just seemed to imply that the IFR/VFR
response related to the towered/notowred question.

Keep in mind I'm writing from a European perspective.

Ok, that makes a difference, but one of correlation, not of causation.

Over here, IFR at uncontrolled airports is impossible, because such
airports are normally surrounded by VFR-only airspace

Interesting. It's sort of the opposite here in the colonies. (FSVO
"opposite")

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Mxsmanic wrote:
On the one hand, I have the old boys' club here that cannot condescend
to speak to anyone who doesn't meet their own standards of pilothood
(the threshold invariably being whatever level they've achieved
themselves, no more and no less). On the other, I have the kiddies in
sim groups who cannot wait for the next version of MSFS because the
box is so pretty. There are practically no level-headed people in
between.


It must be difficult for you.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

Mortimer Schnerd, RN writes:

It must be difficult for you.

It is.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic posted:

Neil Gould writes:

Now, that IS trolling. Sorry to see you sink to this.

I'm not trolling, I'm serious. I don't know what it is about USENET,
but sometimes sifting through the losers to find people who can
actually sustain an intelligent discussion is exceedingly difficult.

On the one hand, I have the old boys' club here that cannot condescend
to speak to anyone who doesn't meet their own standards of pilothood
(the threshold invariably being whatever level they've achieved
themselves, no more and no less).

You can't seriously believe that this describes the people who have
responded to your questions in this ng. Every one of your questions has
been responded to with courtesy and facts by at least one or two people.
Even though the majority of your questions could be answered by a couple
of hours of flight lessons, you have still received courteous and factual
responses for the most part. The only variances from this that I've seen
are from those who get frustrated by your refusal to appreciate those
factual answers.

On the other, I have the kiddies in
sim groups who cannot wait for the next version of MSFS because the
box is so pretty. There are practically no level-headed people in
between.

I find it hard to believe that you don't recognize the level-headed
responses that you've received here. If anything, your claim is far from
level-headed, given the proportion of respectful, factual responses vs.
anything else, so, again, this appears as nothing more than a troll, and
having "known" you from other ngs for years, I'm sorry to see you sink to
this.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

You can't seriously believe that this describes the people who have
responded to your questions in this ng.

It describes those whose replies amounted to personal attacks.
Obviously, it does not describe those who provided rational answers,
but unfortunately this latter group is somewhat of a minority.

Every one of your questions has been responded to with courtesy and
facts by at least one or two people.

Yes, while being ridiculed by a dozen others. The high end of the
bell curve is small.

I find it hard to believe that you don't recognize the level-headed
responses that you've received here. If anything, your claim is far from
level-headed, given the proportion of respectful, factual responses vs.
anything else, so, again, this appears as nothing more than a troll, and
having "known" you from other ngs for years, I'm sorry to see you sink to
this.

Read my posts carefully.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.