If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"BTIZ" wrote in message:
There are aircraft currently flying that qualify as a "light sport"..that fit just fine in the standard traffic pattern.. Agreed, but there will also be sport aircraft with approach speeds as low as 25 knots. At some point, the speed differential between aircraft in the pattern should become a concern. Agreed.. isn't that why they created an "Ultra light" pattern.. so if you are that slow.. fly the ultra light pattern.. if you can keep up with a J-3.. fly the regular pattern... and as for the SEL and MEL differences at some patterns.. I agree there can be problems... and "at most times but not always".. the MEL pattern if higher is also out farther from the runway so he can see the SEL downwind and base. BT |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
So, Mac, you're saying that there's no better way to conduct
operations at non-towered airports? Rather closed minded of you. And I'll bet you haven't even examined any alternatives, have you? Like so many in aviation, the "We've always done it that way" argument is good enough for you. As has been pointed out in previous posts, the increase in sport aircraft is probably going to increase the speed differential found in the traffic pattern. At airports where there is sufficient room, slower speed traffic is segregated into their own pattern (obviously, because somebody recognizes that large speed differentials in the pattern are not a good thing). But at airports without sufficient room, the only option currently is to assign smaller, larger, higher, and/or lower traffic patterns to different aircraft. I've never seen an analysis for the basis of these assignments. I'm skeptical that the current traffic patterns, that have evolved piecemeal over the years, is a better solution than one formulated from scratch that takes all factors into account from the beginning. Ace (Mackfly) wrote in message ... From: (Ace Pilot) And on and on and on it goes--- Gawd ! I've flown with a helo and a blimp giving rides while gliders were up soaring, landing, and towing off the runway. Ya look out the dang window and try real hard not to hit any thing. If you have a radio, short, to the point position transmissions are in order. Don't trust ATC to keep you from having a mid-air! Your eyes and ears are your best bet---turn the music OFF! Fly the plane. (the "ears" are for hearing your airspeed) Nothing is risk free! But do race trains when you have the chance. ha ha ha Mac |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Absolutely right, BT. At airports that have space for a separate
ultralight pattern and runway (typically grass), I think it is an ideal solution. But there are airports that don't have this luxury and all aircraft have to share the same runway. Putting the ultralights on the "inside and lower" from the regular (SEL) traffic pattern, which may be "inside and lower" the MEL puts the burden for see and avoid on the faster aircraft. As you point out, the MEL pattern is outside and above the SEL pattern so the MEL guy can see the SEL on downwind and base. However, the SEL will have a great deal of difficulty seeing the MEL that is overtaking him. Likewise, the ultralights will have difficulty seeing any SEL or MEL that are overtaking them. Is this system really the best way to minimize the risk in the traffic pattern? "BTIZ" wrote in message news:cqgUb.7670$IF1.5507@fed1read01... "BTIZ" wrote in message: There are aircraft currently flying that qualify as a "light sport"..that fit just fine in the standard traffic pattern.. Agreed, but there will also be sport aircraft with approach speeds as low as 25 knots. At some point, the speed differential between aircraft in the pattern should become a concern. Agreed.. isn't that why they created an "Ultra light" pattern.. so if you are that slow.. fly the ultra light pattern.. if you can keep up with a J-3.. fly the regular pattern... and as for the SEL and MEL differences at some patterns.. I agree there can be problems... and "at most times but not always".. the MEL pattern if higher is also out farther from the runway so he can see the SEL downwind and base. BT |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Pete - I'm not sure if the increase in air traffic from sport aircraft
should be the main concern. Rather, it is the increase in speed difference brought on by some of the slower sport aircraft. For example, assume you have two C172s sharing the pattern at a non-towered airport. What would increase the risk more - adding a single sport aircraft that flies at 25-30 knots, or adding TWO more C172s? My gut says the sport aircraft would cause more problems, but I haven't done or seen any simulations to support this. Would you agree? "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Ace Pilot" wrote in message om... [...] Advisory Circular 90-66A provides guidelines for traffic patterns by ultralight operators at non-towered airports. One suggestion is to use a traffic pattern that is lower than the single-engine traffic pattern and inside of it. Would this be the best option for sport aircraft? A "sport plane" that is more like an ultralight than a typical spam can might warrant doing just that, I'd agree. However, I would guess that most "sport planes" will wind up closer in performance to the slower GA planes that already exist (Pacer, Champ, Cub, 150, etc.) and will have no trouble blending in with existing traffic. Also, while I hope that the Sport certificate helps improve the pilot population, I would be surprised if the increase in air traffic turns out to be significant enough to even be worth thinking about how they are going to fit in with other traffic. Pete |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Ace Pilot" wrote in message om... But there are airports that don't have this luxury and all aircraft have to share the same runway. Putting the ultralights on the "inside and lower" from the regular (SEL) traffic pattern, which may be "inside and lower" the MEL puts the burden for see and avoid on the faster aircraft. Back when our airport had a fairly active ultralight activity. They flew the opposite pattern, obviously lower and tighter than the regular pattern. It was quite easy as a result for them to adjust on base leg to fit into the higher performance traffic. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On 2004-02-05, Ace Pilot wrote:
Pete - I'm not sure if the increase in air traffic from sport aircraft should be the main concern. Rather, it is the increase in speed difference brought on by some of the slower sport aircraft. Difference in performance AND pilot preference make keeping track of planes hard, but I don't know that different entry paths (midfield crosswind - 45 degree) are that much of a problem. I fly a Pitts, normal power off decent rate is about 2,000fpm so I start turning base just past the numbers and take about 15 seconds to touchdown. This so different from a C172 flying a "normal" pattern that I ASSUME that aircraft waiting to take off WILL pull onto the runway after I call base. Leagle or not, anyone not using a radio in the pattern is a fool and and anyone not understanding and thinking about the differences in performace between aircraft is taking a big risk. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug Carter" wrote in message ... I fly a Pitts, normal power off decent rate is about 2,000fpm so I start turning base just past the numbers and take about 15 seconds to touchdown. This so different from a C172 flying a "normal" pattern that I ASSUME that aircraft waiting to take off WILL pull onto the runway after I call base. What's wrong with an airplane pulling on the runway after you call base? Around here, you'd never take off if you waited for nobody to be on base leg. Leagle or not, anyone not using a radio in the pattern is a fool and and anyone not understanding and thinking about the differences in performace between aircraft is taking a big risk. Anybody who assumes everybody else in the pattern is using the radio is a fool. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Ace Pilot" wrote in message
om... [...] What would increase the risk more - adding a single sport aircraft that flies at 25-30 knots, or adding TWO more C172s? The problem with your concern is that there are ALREADY airplanes flying that slow, mixed in the pattern with more traditional airplanes, and there doesn't seem to be a problem. IMHO the answer to your question is that slow planes will do whatever slow planes are doing now. Seems to be working just fine. Pete |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On 2004-02-05, Ron Natalie wrote:
What's wrong with an airplane pulling on the runway after you call base? The Pitts pattern is so close in and with the 2000fpm decent rate they just about get lined up on the center line when I pass overhead on my go-around. I was just illustrating the point that other aircraft in your pattern may be markedly faster, slower, flying big or little patterns. I'm sure we have all been flying a "normal" pattern (for a Cessna or Piper) and realized there was someone else more than a half mile further away on, effectivly a parallel downwind. Anybody who assumes everybody else in the pattern is using the radio is a fool. I completly agree. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Logging time on a PCATD | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | December 18th 04 05:25 PM |
FAA Application -- kinds of time | Gary Drescher | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | November 23rd 04 02:33 PM |
Logging approaches | Ron Garrison | Instrument Flight Rules | 109 | March 2nd 04 05:54 PM |
they took me back in time and the nsa or japan wired my head and now they know the idea came from me so if your back in time and wounder what happen they change tim liverance history for good. I work at rts wright industries and it a time travel trap | tim liverance | Military Aviation | 0 | August 18th 03 12:18 AM |