Right pattern for practice?

"BTIZ" wrote:

gilder may have the right of way.. when he's landing and lower than the
powered aircraft.. but if he's trying to thermal out from pattern altitude
or lower.. he's not landing.. he does not have right of way over "landing
traffic".. but it's always, you never know when he's gonna bail for the
runway.

In the type of situation I described (forced landing at
another airport), I typically make several decisions to
land.

At a 1,000' AGL I'll have decided to land and be setting up,
double checking wind and traffic, approaching a pattern
entry point, but still hoping for lift, and positioning
myself with respect to wind to optimize my ability to make
some exploratory turns if I find something, but still be
able to safely enter a pattern after drifting downwind. My
gear will still be up. If I find a possible thermal, I will
make a turn and my mental state switches to "not landing."
After one or more complete turns, (during which I get an
excellent view of the pattern and the runway) my mental
state will change back to landing if things are not
improving.

Below 1000' my mental state may switch to "not landing" as I
start a turn in lift, but if it's going to change back, I
almost always know within seconds of starting the turn.
Mentally, I may have recommitted to "landing" while still
turning away from the runway. Again I get a great view of
the pattern. Somewhere between 800' and 600' my gear comes
out, and any lift I check will cause me to retract the gear.

As I turn downwind to base, I'm still hoping to be able to
make that turn a 360 deg. thermal turn. As I roll out,
unless lift hits me strongly (and it has, more than once), I
make the final, irrevocable commitment to land, double check
gear down and land.

"Sydney Hoeltzli" wrote in message ...


I thought a glider had right-of-way over a powered aircraft, unless
the powered aircraft is "in distress". (per 91.113)

You need to read 91.113. The class preference only applies to
aircraft converging at near the same altitude at other than head-on
(or nearly-so). It doesn't say that some clown out noodling around
looking for a thermal trying not landing can interfere with landing
traffic.

Where does it say this doesn't apply on final approach?

Where does it say he does?

If the glider
has the lower altitude, doesn't he actually have the right-of-way?

Not if he's not landing. The premise was that he was out there noodling
around for lift and might dive to the runway if he can't find any. That's
specifically not permitted by 91.113(g).

The FAA has consistantly held that the rules that apply to landing mean
you are actually intending to land. High speed low approaches, for instance,
were held that since you weren't intending to land you couldn't have out of 91.119.

If the glider pilot wants to land, safely. Let him do so. But the scenario is
that he was going to noodle around interfering with landing traffic without any
intent to land, but rahter to stretch his XC time.

"BJen" wrote in message ...


Below 1000' my mental state may switch to "not landing" as I
start a turn in lift, but if it's going to change back, I
almost always know within seconds of starting the turn.
Mentally, I may have recommitted to "landing" while still
turning away from the runway. Again I get a great view of
the pattern. Somewhere between 800' and 600' my gear comes
out, and any lift I check will cause me to retract the gear.


Keep your mind in the "landing" mode or get out of the way
of landing traffic. You have no business, and are in violation
of the regs to do otherwise.

"Ron Natalie" wrote:

Keep your mind in the "landing" mode or get out of the way
of landing traffic. You have no business, and are in violation
of the regs to do otherwise.

What reg prohibits me from deciding not to land? I'm not in
an airplane, and I don't want to land at this airport, but
must do so for safety. If a thermal permits me not to land,
and I don't want to, and can leave the pattern safely, what
regulation do you think prohibits me from departing?

"BJen" wrote in message ...
"Ron Natalie" wrote:

Keep your mind in the "landing" mode or get out of the way
of landing traffic. You have no business, and are in violation
of the regs to do otherwise.

What reg prohibits me from deciding not to land? I'm not in
an airplane, and I don't want to land at this airport, but
must do so for safety. If a thermal permits me not to land,
and I don't want to, and can leave the pattern safely, what
regulation do you think prohibits me from departing?

If you're not going to land, then get out of the way of landing
traffic. That's the rule. Puttering around looking for a thermal
trying to decide if you need to land or not is not landing.

"BJen" wrote in message ...


Where does it say he [sic] does?

FAR 91.113 defines where it applies, and there's no
exception that says that "Converging" can't occur at low
altitudes.

It doesn't. But it explicitly gives landing aircraft preference. You
need to read the FAR as a complete statement rather than taking
one without the context of the larger rule it is in.


If the glider
has the lower altitude, doesn't he actually have the right-of-way?

Not if he's not landing.

But I am landing. It's being forced on me, which makes it
different from the option that an airplane has, but it is a
landing nonetheless.

"He" here refers to the aircraft you are causing an hazard to, not you.
And no you are not landing by your own admission, you're noodling
around the airport environment trying to decide whether you can safely
land or not. Until you make up your freaking mind, stay out of the
way of other landing traffic which HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY.

"Noodling around for lift" is a bit harsh. I'm a pilot in
distress who is there because it's the only safe place for
me as I'm forced to lower altitudes.

If you're in distress, get your ass on the ground. You never said you
were in distress before. You're going to tell me that you are in
distress at the end of everyone of your XC flight ? Me seems to
think that you are either abusing the concept, or need to revisit your
idea of safety.

"BJen" wrote in message ...
I *am* going to land if I have to. I am as much "out of the
way" as I can safely be. Safety requires me to be closer as
I get lower.

If you're going to land, I have no problem. If you coordinate your
near runway behavior that is fine. But my statement was in the oirigna
message that yuo took issue is that "if you decide to cut off aircraft
in the process of landing" because you've decided it is more important
to whatever XC milestone you're trying to eak out by possibly NOT
landing, I stand by my statement that you are a hazard to air traffic
and wouldn't be surprise if the FAA tagged you for both 91.3 and 91.113
and 91.119 for that matter.

"Ron Natalie" wrote:

It doesn't. But it [ FAR 91.113] explicitly gives landing aircraft preference. You
need to read the FAR as a complete statement rather than taking
one without the context of the larger rule it is in.

I do read 91.113 completely and in context. It gives the
glider ROW for converging, it gives the aircraft on final
preference over others and it gives the lower aircraft ROW
when approaching for landing.

Since there is no aircraft on final, I'm a glider and I'm
lower and I'm approaching for landing, it appears I would
have ROW in all the circumstances discussed.

"He" here refers to the aircraft you are causing an hazard to, not you.

Why am i causing a hazard? I'm ensuring that I "see and
avoid" and I'm announcing my actions.

And no you are not landing by your own admission, you're noodling
around the airport environment trying to decide whether you can safely
land or not.

Not "whether I can," but rather "whether I have to."

Until you make up your freaking mind,

It's not up to me, it's up to the atmosphere.

stay out of the
way of other landing traffic which HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY.

1) I *am* out of the way - as far as safety permits. As I
read 91.113, only someone on final would have ROW over me,
and there is no one on final.

"Noodling around for lift" is a bit harsh. I'm a pilot in
distress who is there because it's the only safe place for
me as I'm forced to lower altitudes.

If you're in distress, get your ass on the ground.

And where does it say that I must get my "ass on the ground"
when I'm in distress? My "distress" is that I'm being
forced to the ground and my solution is to climb away and
gain altitude to relieve that distress. All I need is
temporary use of a small portion of the airspace, which as I
read the FAR's, I'm entitled to use with priority, even if
I'm not in legal "distress."

You never said you
were in distress before. You're going to tell me that you are in
distress at the end of everyone of your XC flight ?

Nearly all my XC flights end at home with the intentional
dissipation of altitude to permit a landing, so, no, I'm not
in distress then. Unlike an airplane, I can't take off
again. Once I'm down, I'm not going home without someone
else's help. You can bet your booty that I *do* consider
myself to be in distress when I'm being forced down low over
a farmer's field or into an unknown airport far from home.

Me seems to
think that you are either abusing the concept, or need to revisit your
idea of safety.

Where do you see abuse? I've never interfered with any
other landing aircraft. I've never made a thermalling turn
in a pattern occupied by another aircraft. The most I've
ever done is thermalled out of an empty pattern, or caught a
thermal before entering a pattern with traffic and
thermalled away, drifting downwind away from the pattern
traffic.

You've converted my question about the FAA/FAR's and right
hand patterns into a right of way question, then when I
point out that I've probably got legal ROW (for several
reasons,) you refer to it as "abuse," implying that I'm
going to use that ROW to barge into a traffic pattern full
of aircraft and start thermalling. I wouldn't do it, even
if I had right of way, because it wouldn't be safe.
However, I do thank the kind pilots who have in the past
given me the time and room I needed to escape by staying
well clear, and who gave me the option to dump in to the
runway for those few minutes when my escape was in doubt.

I take it you were not one of those pilots.

"BJen" wrote in message
...

Below 1000' my mental state may switch to "not landing" as I
start a turn in lift, but if it's going to change back, I
almost always know within seconds of starting the turn.
Mentally, I may have recommitted to "landing" while still
turning away from the runway. Again I get a great view of
the pattern. Somewhere between 800' and 600' my gear comes
out, and any lift I check will cause me to retract the gear.

As I turn downwind to base, I'm still hoping to be able to
make that turn a 360 deg. thermal turn. As I roll out,
unless lift hits me strongly (and it has, more than once), I
make the final, irrevocable commitment to land, double check
gear down and land.


Isn't switching mental state so low to the ground a safety issue
in its own right, regardless of the impact it might have on others?

One of the dangerous parts of Instrument flying is the mental
switching between flying 'on instruments' and 'on visual' when
shooting an ILS down to minimums. Quite a few accidents have
been caused by disorientation when switching mental gears
in patchy low-level clouds -- it takes people a few seconds to
adjust & one has to be quite sure what you are planning to do
(that is, stay 'on instruments' until you're guaranteed a continuous
visual so you don't have to change gears again).

I'm no glider pilot, but I'd have thought the same psychological
issues might be relevant here. Is it just you that change mental
state so low to the ground, or is it common practice.

Not trying to be confrontational. Just interested.

"Tony Cox" wrote:

Isn't switching mental state so low to the ground a safety issue
in its own right, regardless of the impact it might have on others?

Yes, it's a "safety issue" in the sense that there is, as
always, risk in flying. The risk can be managed, however.
My description was at my limits, in perfect favorable
conditions when I've got lots of recent flight practice, the
wind isn't too strong, etc.

One of the dangerous parts of Instrument flying is the mental
switching between flying 'on instruments' and 'on visual' when
shooting an ILS down to minimums. Quite a few accidents have
been caused by disorientation when switching mental gears
in patchy low-level clouds -- it takes people a few seconds to
adjust & one has to be quite sure what you are planning to do
(that is, stay 'on instruments' until you're guaranteed a continuous
visual so you don't have to change gears again).

I recognize this, but it's important for me to make a strong
commitment to my flight status. I want the mental
transition to "landing" every time before I land. If I'm
trying to get away, I may decide I need to raise the gear.
I may actually have lift and still have to land if I'm
climbing slowly and the wind is moving me away from a
position of safe access to the runway to "too far downwind."
The mental switch to "landing" ensures my landing gear
check, my ballast gets dumped, and I tighten my belts. I
may make those checks 3-4 times if conditions are variable.

I'm no glider pilot, but I'd have thought the same psychological
issues might be relevant here. Is it just you that change mental
state so low to the ground, or is it common practice.

If you read my post closely, you'll see these mental states:

1) "I'm probably going to have to land" I'm now making sure
I know the pattern, wind, traffic, etc.

2) "I'm landing." Here is where I do my checklist, dump
water ballast (it takes me 3+ minutes), enter the pattern
and get the gear down, etc. If I'm still trying to stay
aloft, this decision is revocable, but my flight path is
fixed unless lift is encountered. If I encounter lift, I
decide whether I'm too low, the wind is too strong or
traffic is a problem that prevents a turn.

3) "I'm not landing" I divert from my flight path by
turning in lift I've decided it is safe to turn in. My gear
may be retracted if things are improving significantly. I
may stop dumping water. I may switch back and forth from
state 3 and 2. Every entry into mental state 2 results in a
complete checklst, gear check, etc.

4) "I'm irrevocably commmitted to landing" Lift encountered
now is disregarded. This is a positive irrevocable decision
in my mental state that differs from state 2. I have never
broken and have promised myself I will never break this
commitment no matter how tempted I am. It is usually
entered from state 3, when things haven't gone as well as
I'd hoped.

I suspect that something similar is universal among XC
glider pilots, with the altitude that one will switch to
mental state 3 gradually decreasing with skill and
experience. Like many other glider pilots ahve said to me,
it seems that the moment I lower the gear, or even touch the
gear handle, I hit lift. When we do, we usually can escape.

You have to be ready to land, and you have to have a lower
limit. As your altitude decreases, your options diminish
and you are forced to approach the landing area. This
forcing of your location may begin 15 to 20 miles away from
an airport. A successful "save" is entirely possible long
after this position forcing has begun.

Not trying to be confrontational. Just interested.

I don't take it as confrontational. In part I posted here
to hear the view of those who have no glider experience. I
want to know what they think.