Question from a new flight student (whopping 7 hours!)

Roger Long wrote:
That isn't an AOPA site.

in response to my comment:

"Blanche" wrote in message
Altho I'm an AOPA member, I would *never* trust the AOPA book on
airports. There have been too many inconsistencies and wrong
entries.

The only legal and official reporter of airport information is
the AF/D. But always *call* the airport and check the info if
you're going someplace you've never been before and need gas
or other services.

huh? I think I lost something in the thread....

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:22:12 -0600, Newps
wrote:



zatatime wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:38:52 -0600, Newps
wrote:


I'm going to 1000 feet.


This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports.
Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you?

Nope.


Well that's just a pathetic shame. I feel for those you may endanger
by lacking regard of the rules we all abide by: And that you were
trained under!

z

"Gary G" wrote in message ...
Question from a new flight student (whopping 7 hours!)

I was looking at the AOPA airport info.

ANP and W29 don't list AWOS or ATIS freqs.

An oldie but oh how true: One look at the windsock is worth more than
all the radio reports in ever broadcast.

-Dave Russell
N2S-3 8-)

zatatime wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:22:12 -0600, Newps
wrote:



zatatime wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:38:52 -0600, Newps
wrote:



I'm going to 1000 feet.


This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports.
Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you?

Nope.



Well that's just a pathetic shame. I feel for those you may endanger
by lacking regard of the rules we all abide by: And that you were
trained under!

Yeah right. I'm at 1000 AGL, meanwhile there's idiots flying over the
airport at pattern altitude then leaving so they can get on their
precious 45 degree entry. Sorry your argumaent doesn't hold water.

Dave Russell wrote:

"Gary G" wrote in message ...

Question from a new flight student (whopping 7 hours!)

I was looking at the AOPA airport info.

ANP and W29 don't list AWOS or ATIS freqs.


An oldie but oh how true: One look at the windsock is worth more than
all the radio reports in ever broadcast.

One look out the window to see the crab angle and a peek at the GPS
grounspeed makes ATIS/ASOS/Windsocks superfluous.

Corky Scott wrote:



I'm going to 1000 feet.

This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports.
Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you?

z

How's that? If you look at the field elevation on the sectional, and
add 1000 feet, that's the pattern altitude isn't it? Are there lots
of airports that specify a non standard pattern altitude?

Some airports have a published pattern altitude of 800 feet.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:59:38 -0400, Corky Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:52:08 GMT, zatatime
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:38:52 -0600, Newps
wrote:

I'm going to 1000 feet.

This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports.
Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you?

z
How's that? If you look at the field elevation on the sectional, and
add 1000 feet, that's the pattern altitude isn't it?
Nope. Many airports (and most I fly in and out of) use an 800 foot
TPA, which is the original "standard TPA."

Are there lots
of airports that specify a non standard pattern altitude?
As I see it, yes there are. All the airports that have a 1000' TPA
are "non-standard," although the rule of thumb you have written has
become it's own standard of sorts. This is why I brought it up. If
you're flying in a Piper at 1000' thinking it is correct, and I'm
flying a Cessna at 800' which is what was published, we're going to
have a problem because we won't be able to see each other if we're in
close proximity. Also when looking for traffic, if the traffic is at
different altitudes it makes it harder to spot them. I could cite
other examples, but I think you'll get the point. There are also
airports with different altitudes for large aircraft, or opposite
traffic rules for rotorcraft, etc...


I feel fairly strongly that operations around an airport should be as
predictable as possible since this is where you will most likely find
numerous aircraft sharing close quarters. Flying a proper altitude is
one of the things that should be consistent for all traffic, and it
isn't like it's really hard to find the answer, or ask Unicom if
you're unsure.


(This may be wrong but,)I believe when a TPA is not explicitly stated
in the AF/D the expected TPA is 800' AGL.

HTH.
z

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:16:20 -0600, Newps
wrote:

Yeah right. I'm at 1000 AGL, meanwhile there's idiots flying over the
airport at pattern altitude then leaving so they can get on their
precious 45 degree entry. Sorry your argumaent doesn't hold water.


Why would you leave the pattern to perform a 45 entry? At least my
argument makes sense.

z

"Blanche" wrote in message
...
Altho I'm an AOPA member, I would *never* trust the AOPA book on
airports. There have been too many inconsistencies and wrong
entries.

The only legal and official reporter of airport information is
the AF/D.

What is legal and official about it?

"zatatime" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:38:52 -0600, Newps
wrote:

I'm going to 1000 feet.

This would put you at the wrong altitude at a great deal of airports.
Doesn't causing a safety hazard bother you?

It probably would bother him if it posed a safety hazard.