Opinions please, preferred pattern joining methods

In article . com,
"Brian" wrote:

Plus the Skydivers usually open between 1500 and 2000 ft AGL.

Um, no, not most skydivers I used to jump with anyway; that's pretty
low! 2000'-3000' and higher (tandem jumpers would open around 4,500'
IIRC) is more reasonable, I'd guess. Have a look down from 2000'
sometime. How'd you like to be hurtling towards the ground ar 100 MPH
from THAT altitude? You'd be OK if your main works as planned but it
doesn't leave you much room for handling any emergencies.

I would much rather try avoiding a Parachute rather than a free falling
skydiver.

At the vertical speeds involved I'd be amazed if you could spot a
skydiver nearby in freefall (far in front of you is different but harder
for different reasons), let alone plan and execute a course to avoid
them!

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

Better to look at the sectional for those tricky to spot teeny-tiny
parachute logos and keep ear on the CTAF when coming in or coming
through the area to hear the "Jumpers away" call and/or avoid the
drop-zone altogether if you're familiar, or just give the airport a wide
berth if you're not specifically familiar with local operations.

Take care,
-Patrick Dirks.

1. 2-3k probably is more the norm for parachute opening, It has been a
while since I have dropped any on a regular basis. However I do recall
that for certification the are required to do a drop from low altitude,
It seems to me it somewhere between 3,000 and 3,500 ft agl to be
dropped from.

Anyway the point being the lower I am the more time and easer the
parachute will be to see.

2. I agree you would never be able to see or avoid a free falling
skydiver.

3. Funny my Sectional doesn't show a Parachute symbol, yet the are
skydiving almost Dawn to Dusk 7 days a week. On the other hand they are
very good about making Radio calls for dropping parachutes, and If you
are aware that they are there they are easy to avoid.

Brian

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
But isn't a straight-in approach part of a perfectly valid VFR pattern?
Why
bother flying around the town when you're already lined up for finals?
The way it was explained to me, if there are already aircraft in the
pattern, doing a straight in would likely cut them off, and would
increase exposure to a base-to-final/straight-in final midair (I'm
assuming this is also attempting to comply with 91.113(g), don't get
lower on a straight in just to have right-of-way).

I see what you mean, though joining on any leg runs the risk of cutting up
someone on the preceding leg (e.g. if you join on an extended downwind, you
have to keep your eye out for people on their crosswind leg).

I guess the main difference with joining on final is that when you're within
three miles or so of the runway, you are probably descending and so someone
on base has to look in three dimensions (i.e. down as well as sideways) in
order to spot you, thus increasing the risk of them not seeing you.

Sure enough, one reads incident reports (mostly near misses, but not always)
of conflicts between aircraft on straight-in approaches and those that have
come in on the circuit. In most cases, though, the problems are related to
human factors - not least confusion/bolshieness over the statement that
priority should be given to an aircraft on its final approach. That is, in
many such cases the straight-in aircraft knows there's traffic in the
circuit, but deliberately adopts the "I'm on final so the other guy can go
whistle" attitude - illegally, because to put themselves in this position
they've broken the rule that when entering the circuit/pattern, you
shouldn't get in the way of other aircraft already in it.

With the application of some common sense, though, straight-in approaches
can be perfectly safe. A good lookout on the part of both pilots, combined
with the application of "blind" radio calls (just because you don't have ATC
doesn't mean you shouldn't talk just in case someone's listening - I do it
all the time and it's amazing how many times someone replies who you hadn't
seen) should do the trick. The only downside is that if you're a Cessna
pilot, you can't really see up and left because someone put a wing in the
way, so the lookout has to be top-notch on the part of the straight-in
pilot.

D.

Agreed. Over the airport in a descent, enter left dowwind and land. Eyes
and ears peeled the whole way. Broadcast my intentions in as concise a
manner as I can. Or just enter behind the last pilot.

Frankly, If I were approaching from the NW and saw someone from the NE do a
"cross, fly out, RH 225 to the 45 entry", I would be totally confused and
surprised to see that you are landing at the same airport I was aimed at.
But my eyes would be on you the whole way.

The only thing I wouldn't do is fly a right hand pattern at a LH runway.
Otherwise enter whatever leg is shortest or follow the last plane in the
pattern.

"Newps" wrote in message
...
Fly an extra 10 miles? For what purpose? Just enter the left downwind
and land. Don't make this more difficult than it has to be. The more
time you spend in the terminal area the more risk you have.

Maule Driver wrote:
Agreed. Over the airport in a descent, enter left dowwind and land. Eyes
and ears peeled the whole way. Broadcast my intentions in as concise a
manner as I can. Or just enter behind the last pilot.

Frankly, If I were approaching from the NW and saw someone from the NE do a
"cross, fly out, RH 225 to the 45 entry", I would be totally confused and
surprised to see that you are landing at the same airport I was aimed at.
But my eyes would be on you the whole way.

Well, I've managed to stay out of this thread 'til now, but the pressure is
irresistible.

I see some merit in the 225 deg turn to the 45 entry.

Descending onto the downwind from across the field puts any traffic already on
the downwind underneath me and made more difficult to see due to my low wings
and the ground-clutter background. As I make a descending left turn, my view of
the airplane I am about to cut off is blocked by my rising right wing.

On the other hand, with the 225 deg turn to the 45 entry method, I cross the
downwind safely above pattern altitude, and in my 225 deg right turn I have a
full view of the downwind and my lowered right wing is out of the way. I view
the downwind from pattern altitude, so I am looking for traffic against the sky
instead of against ground clutter. My own airplane is in a turn for several
seconds, presenting a more visible profile and increasing the opportunity for
other pilots to see me.

"Dave Butler" wrote in message
news:1107529116.31256@sj-nntpcache-3...


Well, I've managed to stay out of this thread 'til now, but the pressure
is
irresistible.

I see some merit in the 225 deg turn to the 45 entry.

Descending onto the downwind from across the field puts any traffic
already on
the downwind underneath me and made more difficult to see due to my low
wings
and the ground-clutter background. As I make a descending left turn, my
view of
the airplane I am about to cut off is blocked by my rising right wing.

On the other hand, with the 225 deg turn to the 45 entry method, I cross
the
downwind safely above pattern altitude, and in my 225 deg right turn I
have a
full view of the downwind and my lowered right wing is out of the way. I
view
the downwind from pattern altitude, so I am looking for traffic against
the sky
instead of against ground clutter. My own airplane is in a turn for
several
seconds, presenting a more visible profile and increasing the opportunity
for
other pilots to see me.

I agree with you Dave. This is the way I was taught, for the reasons you
mentioned, and it's always made the most sense to me from the safety "see
and be seen" point of view.

"David Cartwright" wrote in message
...

Now how did you guess?

By the reference to "V bombers" and "circuits".