joining the traffic pattern quandary

Peter,

The inspector will object to your assessment that it is safer. They do
expect you to cross over the field 500ft or so above TPA, go a mile or
more to the other side, do a right 235 deg descending turn and then
enter the pattern in level flight on the 45.

Crossing over the field and turning left into the downwind is something
they will file on you for. Entering on base, or downwind is something
they will file on you for.

You can, if you like, take a gamble that no fed is at the airport that
day, but that did not work out for the gentleman in the remedial
program.

If you get caught, you may or may not get offered the remedial program.
Requirements for that program are that 1) the violation was
inadvertent; 2) you admit guilt; and 3) you demonstrate a compliant
attitude.

The FAA is the sole arbiter in determining if you meet these three
requirements.

Depending on the mood of the inspector at your first interview, they
make take your position that 'my way is safer' as 1) willfill
violation, 2) denial of guilt, and/or 3) a non-compliant attitude.
(That you might think this unreasonable will not help.)

Once you are on that path, you need to plan on spending at least $5k
just to defend yourself in court, and you will still probably lose.

You could always appeal, but I understand that cost $15k and up. And
you would still most likely lose.

Why not just invest an additional two minutes of flight time and go
execute the 45 like the AIM says? Seems like a lot less trouble in the
long run.

Gene

John,

In the scenario you list (KHGR), you correctly state that the
controller issued a reporting instruction, and not a pattern entry
instruction. Given that, yes technically you should go over to the
other side and enter on the 45. However, the fact that he asked you to
report on 3 mi left base makes it pretty clear that a normal pattern is
not what he expects, because unless you are flying a B52, nowhere in a
normal pattern will you be on a 3 mile left base.

If a controller said that to me in the situation you present, I would
have a stong suspicion that he is confused as to where I am, or he
misspoke. That would be a great time to query the controller with
something like 'I am in position for a right base, is that what you
meant?' or some such. I have in fact done this many times, and the
controller almost universally replies with 'oh yeah sorry enter on
right base, cessna xxxx.'

Most inspectors are respectable. But, for a few, respectable is a
subordinate value to 'being right.' Once they have filed on you, they
do not want to suffer the embarrassment of being shown to have been
'wrong.' From that point forward they will resort to every dirty trick
in the book to 'get' you on *something.* They will twist the regs,
make up stuff, change the basis for the violation in the middle of the
conversation, etc.

Yes, at a towered field. If the controllers at your field are saying
"enter left traffic" and thereby mean "by whatever means and at
whatever point you feel is best," that's fine, but you really ought to
clairfy that with the tower manager before you assume that is their
meaning. If it is, you will never run into a problem at *that* tower.

I can tell you that at my home field there is a spot listed by the FAA
task force on preventing midairs at the location where the crosswind
meets the downwind, and it is identified as a 'hot spot' for NMACs
(Near Mid Air Collisions) in the local area. The task force manager
told me (personally) that the problem at this location was people
coming in from the south (lined up for a downwind entry) and
mis-interpreting the clearance "enter right traffic" in the manner that
you are doing. They drive on straight ahead and enter the downwind
instead of going out and entering on the 45. They have NMACs with
people who have been given a right crosswind departure by the tower.

If the tower intends for you to enter via any manner but the 45, he is
supposed to specify it. If he doesn't you are supposed to go do the
45. If there is any doubt, you need to get it clarified.
Regards,

Gene

Newps,

That you regard it as baloney does not change the FAA.
It also does not change how your enforcement case will come out.

Gene

wrote:
Newps,

That you regard it as baloney does not change the FAA.
It also does not change how your enforcement case will come out.

There will be no enforcement case because you've got one guy over there
that doesn't know what's going on. We have pilot meetings with FSDO all
the time around here and traffic patterns are always a hot topic, as I
expect they are everywhere. There are no frowned upon traffic pattern
entries, as long as you make your turns in the proper direction, if you
make turns at all. And we have great FSDO guys here too. They teach
that the proper turn is only necessary for arrivals as per the FAR's. I
have flown with several of our inspectors on various flights like PACE.
To even suggest that entering on the crosswind at midfield at pattern
altitude would be a bustable offense is laughable. It's just as silly
as expecting somebody to fly away from the airport a couple of miles
just so they can reenter the pattern on a 45 to the downwind.

In the UK for example, a standard 'overhead' join is to arrive overhead
the
airport at 1000 ft above the traffic pattern, and from that point on
make
all turns in the direction of the pattern (i.e.usually left). The
descent
to pattern altitude is made on the 'deadside' of the runway (i.e.
opposite
the pattern), and the aircraft joins the pattern on a crosswind leg at
the
upwind end of the runway.

"Jose" wrote in message
om...

So one normally crosses in front of oncoming traffic at pattern
altitude? (presumably the aircraft climbing out on takeoff hasn't yet
reached pattern altitude, but climb rates vary)

Yes, the assumption is that departing traffic will not reach TPA by the end
of the runway. That may break for longer runways, but in the UK it's rare
to have very long runways without ATC to assist.

In effect, the merging happens at the point of the turn downwind, and
joining traffic should make adjustments to the crosswind leg to fit in with
traffic already in the pattern, which will usually be heading downwind from
further upwind.

Julian

Newps wrote:



wrote:

Newps,

That you regard it as baloney does not change the FAA.
It also does not change how your enforcement case will come out.


There will be no enforcement case because you've got one guy over there
that doesn't know what's going on. We have pilot meetings with FSDO all
the time around here and traffic patterns are always a hot topic, as I
expect they are everywhere. There are no frowned upon traffic pattern
entries, as long as you make your turns in the proper direction, if you
make turns at all. And we have great FSDO guys here too. They teach
that the proper turn is only necessary for arrivals as per the FAR's. I
have flown with several of our inspectors on various flights like PACE.
To even suggest that entering on the crosswind at midfield at pattern
altitude would be a bustable offense is laughable. It's just as silly
as expecting somebody to fly away from the airport a couple of miles
just so they can reenter the pattern on a 45 to the downwind.

That is the same with our FSDO. As we all know, however, FSDOs vary
greatly and some are out of touch with reality and only understand "the
book."


Matt

"Rob Montgomery" wrote in message
...

91.119(c) states that aircraft "may not be operated closer than 500 feet
to
any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure." I would argue that an airplane
(on the ground, no less) is a vehicle.

That would make taxiing a bitch!!



This isn't an isolated bust. They got a lear pilot making a low pass
on the same charge. Low passes aren't "a lower altitude necessary for
landing" so you better make sure you maintain the minimum altitudes.

500' is plenty low for a low pass.

But what about the "really low" passes that you can use to teach students
to
flare? I admit that I can't remember a student not touching the runway
slightly, but I guess I'll stop announcing "low approach". :-)

Try clearing deer or elk from a runway by flying 500 feet AGL :~)


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

In article , "Matt Barrow"
writes:

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left."

Sorry.

Chinese husband's lament when Chinese wife has Caucasian baby.

"Two Wongs don't make a White!"

Sorrier