Question: "Overhead Entry to Downwind?"

******Didn't your mama ever say "If everybody jumped off the bridge, would
you do so too?"

Just because everybody else is doing it, doesn't make it safe. The fact
that they are
too lame to turn the pattern around to land upwind, or they patterns wide
enough for
a 747 isn't compelling reason to follow along.*******


Maybe you should change newsreaders, Ron. Since you can't seem to be able to
follow a thread. Or maybe it's just too much ego and not enough smarts. If
you follow the tread you'll see that I was not recommending everyone follow
the same pattern, rather, just the opposite.

When you build up enough time in the bush to be able to get a real job I'll
start respecting your point of view. Till then you're just a low time
loudmouth.

Karl

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
|
| May 19, 2000
|
| Pelican's Perch #30:
| The 45-Degree Zealots
|
| http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html

Good article, but I see nowhere that he says a 45 degree entry is illegal.

Why would he...he believes otherwise.

From the intro:
"There's not a syllable in the FARs about 45-degree traffic pattern
entries. Nor does the AIM require them. There exists, however, a
small-but-vocal cadre of pilots — and even some FAA inspectors — who
consider any other type of pattern entry (straight-in, crosswind, etc.) to
be a felony."

Contrariwise, he feels that the entry into the pattern is not part of the
pattern.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...
|
| "C J Campbell" wrote in message
| ...
|
| Good article, but I see nowhere that he says a 45 degree entry is
illegal.
|
|
| In about the middle of the article Deakin writes:
|
| "In fact, I can make a very good case that the classic 45-degree entry
is
| itself a violation of the FARs, since it is ALWAYS in the opposite
direction
| to the established flow of traffic. Since it is the final turn onto the
| downwind leg, it must certainly be in the "vicinity" of the airport, and
| therefore covered by the above regs!"

Then in that case I have to disagree with him on that point.

He says it in the context of "playing on words".


It might be interesting to get a couple of FSDO interpretations.

Actually, the AIM doesn't require anything. It is simply a collection of
best practices to help pilot fulfill their regulatory responsibilities.

That said, as I have previously noted, the AIM provides an illustration of
the traffic pattern, and it utilizes 45 degree entries.

As the FAA says the AIM presents their recommended practices and methods,
and the AIM recommendation contains 45 degree pattern entries, it would
appear that the FAA wants 45 degree entries to be used.


"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
|
| May 19, 2000
|
| Pelican's Perch #30:
| The 45-Degree Zealots
|
| http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html

Good article, but I see nowhere that he says a 45 degree entry is
illegal.

Why would he...he believes otherwise.

From the intro:
"There's not a syllable in the FARs about 45-degree traffic pattern
entries. Nor does the AIM require them. There exists, however, a
small-but-vocal cadre of pilots — and even some FAA inspectors — who
consider any other type of pattern entry (straight-in, crosswind, etc.) to
be a felony."

Contrariwise, he feels that the entry into the pattern is not part of
the
pattern.

"Chris Nielsen" wrote in message
news
Here's how we do it.... When we do an overhead join, we start 500 feet
above circuit altitude, and when ready, descend on the non-traffic side,
i.e. the upwind side - the other side of the circuit from downwind, then
when we're down to circuit altitude, we turn and fly the crosswind leg,
then, while looking for traffic we turn downwind and fly the rest
normally... I trust this doesn't come under the category of descending
on
you?

I've asked this before, but doesn't the dead side descending entry used in
UK (and, presumably from the above, New Zealand) mean that there is always
traffic noise on both sides of the runway? Many of the single runways in my
area have the pattern on one geographical side (e.g. LP 10, RP 28), thus
removing noise from, in this example, the south side. It also reduces the
fall-out-of-the-sky fear factor from people on the ground when there are
buildings on the unused side.

Or does the fact that the planes on the dead side are descending from
TPA+500 mean the noise is less intrusive?

-- David Brooks

I sent a request to the Chicago O'Hare requesting a clarification of these
issues. I'll post an answer if they send me one!

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...
|
| May 19, 2000
|
| Pelican's Perch #30:
| The 45-Degree Zealots
|
| http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182100-1.html

Good article, but I see nowhere that he says a 45 degree entry is
illegal.

Why would he...he believes otherwise.

From the intro:
"There's not a syllable in the FARs about 45-degree traffic pattern
entries. Nor does the AIM require them. There exists, however, a
small-but-vocal cadre of pilots — and even some FAA inspectors — who
consider any other type of pattern entry (straight-in, crosswind, etc.) to
be a felony."

Contrariwise, he feels that the entry into the pattern is not part of
the
pattern.

In article ,
Chris Nielsen wrote:

Cub Driver wrote:


Just a question - what is this 45 degree entry to downwind we keep
hearing about? I'm from the other side of the world and that's not
something I was taught - instead, like the guys from the UK, I do an
overhead join at an uncontrolled field,

It is part of the recommended approach in the U.S., and is so commonly
used that alternative entries are upsetting to many pilots.

It really doesn't matter how you approach an airport, but it sure
helps if everyone does it the same way.

Since I fly a high-wing airplane, however, I would prefer that people
not descend upon me while I'm in the pattern. As an alternative to the
45, I would choose a mid-field crossover to the downwind, but not if
there's a NORDO aircraft in the pattern. He's expecting traffic to
enter from his right, not his left.


OK, just another dumb question.. When you talk about people descending on
you in the circuit, I take it you mean they are descending while on
downwind? That sounds extremely unwise!!! I'm surprised that what we do
isn't also practised, or maybe it is but you call it something else... I
also can't bring myself to call it a pattern - sorry, I'm so used to
referring to it as a circuit, pattern sounds foreign to me :-)

Here's how we do it.... When we do an overhead join, we start 500 feet
above circuit altitude, and when ready, descend on the non-traffic side,
i.e. the upwind side - the other side of the circuit from downwind, then
when we're down to circuit altitude, we turn and fly the crosswind leg,
then, while looking for traffic we turn downwind and fly the rest
normally... I trust this doesn't come under the category of descending on
you?

No doubt this is normal, but called something else...

See ya

Chris


Here at Spruce Creek, we do initial at or below pattern altitude and
perform either a level turn break or a "popup" break, to shed speed,
followed by a tight pattern.

Both approaches give lead a better assessment of incoming and pattern
traffic than a descending break. Also, the descending break makes it
really hard to reduce speed to gear and flap speed (mine is only 100
mph, while I may be flying aintial at 160 +). It is incumbent on lead to
assure that his flight does NOT break into other traffic.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...

I sent a request to the Chicago O'Hare requesting a clarification of these
issues. I'll post an answer if they send me one!


What is "the Chicago O'Hare"?

Finally, someone who thinks like I do!

It would help if you guys would post what airport you are based at, so
I can avoid them.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

OK, just another dumb question.. When you talk about people descending on
you in the circuit, I take it you mean they are descending while on
downwind? That sounds extremely unwise!!!

Yes, that's what I understood the original poster to have meant.

Here's how we do it.... When we do an overhead join, we start 500 feet
above circuit altitude, and when ready, descend on the non-traffic side,
i.e. the upwind side

That sounds a whole lot safer.

What's really important is that everyone do it the same way at a given
airfield. The guy who asked why this was safer left me shaking my head
and wondering if it was a good idea to take up this hobby. It's all
very well to smirk and say the NORDO pilot (indeed, the pilot with
radio) should have his head on a swivel, but the fact is that student
pilots have a lot of cognitive dissonance cluttering up the old brain
pan. They do well to see the aircraft in front of them, never mind the
one charging in from the side or descending from overhead.


the other side of the circuit from downwind, then
when we're down to circuit altitude, we turn and fly the crosswind leg,
then, while looking for traffic we turn downwind and fly the rest
normally... I trust this doesn't come under the category of descending on
you?

No, it doesn't. Thanks for the clarification.

(All of this said, I ought to add that I have descended to the
downwind occasionally, on simulated engine-out landings. But never
when there was another aircraft in the pattern or moving anywhere on
the field.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com