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

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:08:22 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:

The existence of stupid pilots is not a reason for you to behave
stupidly, but a reason for you to be even more punctilious in doing
the expected thing. In the case you describe, there is one hazard at
the airport. But you are declaring your right to add a second one!


Thank you. Stated better than I could have, but my sentiments
exactly.

z

Cub Driver wrote:

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


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

Nope.


Please don't fly in southeastern New Hampshire. Promise?

I'm on my way.

Cub Driver wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:42:49 -0600, Newps wrote:


It is not uncommon for others to enter just like me except they will
then make a right turn(approax 45 degrees) and fly away from the pattern
on a southwesterly heading, into the face of other traffic entering on
the 45, fly out a couple miles and then do a 180 for the sole purpose of
entering the pattern on the 45. These people are nuts


Yes, they are. But so are you, declaring that "nope" it doesn't bother
you that you may create a hazard by flyiing at a non-standard altitude
in the pattern.

Oh please. There's 800 foot patterns, 1000 foot patterns and all
numbers in between so they can be a round number(My airport TPA is 851
feet). Now you fly to West Nowhere Muni where the nearest altimeter
setting is 100 miles away. Nobody is at the same altitude even if they
all agreed to the same pattern altitude. I work at a towered field and
see everyday that pattern altitudes vary. 800, 900, 1000, it's like
worrying if your tire has 30 or 31 psi.

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

... but the procedure you describe
doesn't have you leaving the pattern in order
to re-enter on the 45. [...] you
were ABOVE the pattern.


Correct. I was expanding a bit.

Maybe you can expand just a little more? You wrote, in response to the
statement "I've honestly never seen anyone leave the pattern just to
re-enter on a 45", the words "I do sometimes".

Do you, or do you not, ever leave the pattern just to re-enter on a 45? You
seem to have said that you do, but the example you gave was not an example
of you doing so.

Honestly, I can't say it matters one way or the other...but I'd at least
like to get straight what it is you said you do.

Pete

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Cub Driver wrote:

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:42:49 -0600, Newps wrote:


It is not uncommon for others to enter just like me except they will
then make a right turn(approax 45 degrees) and fly away from the pattern
on a southwesterly heading, into the face of other traffic entering on
the 45, fly out a couple miles and then do a 180 for the sole purpose of
entering the pattern on the 45. These people are nuts


Yes, they are. But so are you, declaring that "nope" it doesn't bother
you that you may create a hazard by flyiing at a non-standard altitude
in the pattern.

Oh please. There's 800 foot patterns, 1000 foot patterns and all
numbers in between so they can be a round number(My airport TPA is 851
feet). Now you fly to West Nowhere Muni where the nearest altimeter
setting is 100 miles away. Nobody is at the same altitude even if they
all agreed to the same pattern altitude. I work at a towered field and
see everyday that pattern altitudes vary. 800, 900, 1000, it's like
worrying if your tire has 30 or 31 psi.


My guess is if you were to ask 10 pilots what the TPA is at their home
airport you would get at least 8 different answers.

Maybe you can expand just a little more? You wrote, in response to the
statement "I've honestly never seen anyone leave the pattern just to
re-enter on a 45", the words "I do sometimes".

Do you, or do you not, ever leave the pattern just to re-enter on a 45?


No, I do not. I misspoke. I enter above the pattern as I later stated.

What I did with the words was expand the definition of "pattern" to include not
only the region at an appropriate altitude, but also the regions above and
below to some degree. Since the discussion included variations in what is
percieved as pattern altituted, I did not think this too much of a nonce
expansion for the purposes of the post.

I'll agree that 1000 feet is not "somewhat" above TPA, but if one were from the
days of four course ranges g,d,r (and thought the pattern were 800 AGL, given
no mention of TPA in the AF/D), and because of a cloud deck, cheated a bit
(coming in at 800 feet above what he thought was TPA, making it 1600 AGL) at an
airport whose TPA was actually 1200 AGL but still not mentioned in the AF/D),
he'd be only 400 feet above the real TPA on the overhead and out to the 45.
This is "somewhat" above.

Somebody a little high as she's coming in to one of the legs (say 1350 AGL)
might find herself not too far from the bloke who thinks he's a thousand feet
above. An altimeter setting from a different airport (if the destination has
none) might increase the pucker factor even more.

I'll grant that 800 AGL undocumented in the AF/D is probably more common for
historical reasons than an undocumented 1200 AGL pattern, but the principle is
the same. Fly as precisely as you can, but be aware that there are sources of
variance that can pile up. I'm not even counting the squirrel chasers who
arrive overhead at their cruise altitude (1000 AGL) before seeing the airport.

So, I did not think it unreasonable to include discussion of a proper 45 entry
in the discussion about variances in TPA and folks who come in at pattern
altitude overhead, looking for the 45.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

AWOS won't necessarily give you the active runway.

Far as I know AWOS will never give an active runway.

Technology hasn't progressed to that point -- yet.

However, if AWOS is reporting "wind 250 at 15" you can bet your bottom
dollar that the "active" runway here in Iowa City will be Rwy 25.

It's, of course, true that someone doing crosswind practice might be using
(for example) Rwy 30 instead, but this just presents our hapless (mapless,
clueless) arriving pilot from my original example with another challenge --
should he believe that the radio calls from the guy doing (unbeknownst to
him) crosswind practice represents the runway that is most favoring the
wind?

The answer, of course, is no -- which is yet another reason to never enter
the pattern unprepared.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Our FBO manager loves to play with these guys, telling them stuff like
"winds are variable -- you have your choice of 6 runways..." or he'll
simply
give them the AWOS frequency, laconically stating that "our AWOS will
give
you the complete weather every 30 seconds...

Your FBO manager is a jerk, but he is correct. He should not be directing
traffic into the airport.

Actually, he's a helluva nice guy. He's just (a) worried about directing
pilots (as you state), and (b) trying to subtlely teach these folks a
lesson.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

No he didn't. He said he had his choice of six which is true no matter
what
the wind might be. What liability would they be trying to assess?

And just like *that* (snapping his fingers) we're back to the liability
attorney/insurance thread!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:



Actually, he's a helluva nice guy. He's just (a) worried about directing
pilots (as you state), and (b) trying to subtlely teach these folks a
lesson.

That's part of the fun of ATC. You get a stupid guy on the freq and it
won't be long before everybody else knows it too.