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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"David Cartwright" wrote in message ... Now how did you guess? By the reference to "V bombers" and "circuits". |
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 |
joining the traffic pattern quandary | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 77 | January 17th 05 05:07 PM |