Base leg altitude

[Maverick10]

At a non-towered airport generally what is the lowest altitude I should be flying on base leg if there are homes situated under the base leg (and not risk a FAR 91 violation). No homes are located under the path on final approach. Pattern altitude 1000 AGL. Equipment - Beechcraft Bonanza 36

 

[rk911]

A few thoughts...​

- 14 CFR § 91.119 - Minimum safe altitudes: General. Especially paragraph A.​

- Any notes on the chart or chart supplement?​

- First time at this field? If not, what is the common practice?​

 

[Lindberg]

At a non-towered airport generally what is the lowest altitude I should be flying on base leg if there are homes situated under the base leg (and not risk a FAR 91 violation). No homes are located under the path on final approach. Pattern altitude 1000 AGL. Equipment - Beechcraft Bonanza 36

High enough that you can glide to the runway.

 

[Clip4]

At a non-towered airport generally what is the lowest altitude I should be flying on base leg if there are homes situated under the base leg (and not risk a FAR 91 violation). No homes are located under the path on final approach. Pattern altitude 1000 AGL. Equipment - Beechcraft Bonanza 36

How about flying a normal size pattern and using a stabile descent rate the has you turning final at 400 ft AGL? You will be in position for a 3°approach on the visual approach indicators.

 

[luvflyin]

At a non-towered airport generally what is the lowest altitude I should be flying on base leg if there are homes situated under the base leg (and not risk a FAR 91 violation). No homes are located under the path on final approach. Pattern altitude 1000 AGL. Equipment - Beechcraft Bonanza 36

The FAR 91 is 91.119. It starts with “Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:”. All that congested uncongested 500 feet from etc stuff does not apply.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Where is that base leg? Normal 1-1.5 mile pattern or miles from the threshold?

 

[William Pete Hodges]

I was taught to turn base at about 700 feet with the numbers about 45 defrees behind you. Turn final to line up with the runway, that puts you at about 500 feet.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

I teach students to lose about 200 feet on the end of downwind (starting when abeam the touchdown point) and another 300 on base, so that the airplane is 500 AGL when turning final. This is assuming a normal pattern when the base turn is started with the touchdown point about 45 degrees behind.

There are no altitude restrictions when taking off or landing.

 

[midlifeflyer]

How about flying a normal size pattern and using a stabile descent rate the has you turning final at 400 ft AGL? You will be in position for a 3°approach on the visual approach indicators.

This is very close to my approach.

Basically, we have three legs to the normal pattern. Downwind is 1-1.5 miles from the runway (Cessna 152s taught to fly 737 patterns excepted). From abeam the touchdown point, each leg is about the same 1-1.5 miles. So we have 3 roughly equal legs from abeam to touchdown.

Maintaining target airspeeds along the way, we are going to lose extra altitude in the turns, so subtract about 100' from the 1,000. We are left with 900' equally divided among three legs. Lose about 300' per leg and we are in a small ballpark that gets most of its tweaking on the base leg.

 

[EdFred]

Where is that base leg? Normal 1-1.5 mile pattern or miles from the threshold?

1 - 1.5 miles is not normal, and way way more than what I fly or teach.

 

[midlifeflyer]

1 - 1.5 miles is not normal, and way way more than what I fly or teach.

It is when you watch people flying 2 and 3 mile wide patterns.

(Yeah I know it "should be" 1/2 to 1)

 

[mandm]

The altitude restrictions (from people/objects) do not apply when taking off and landing.

I would say the answer depends. If the runway is long enough, it’s ok to be high. If the winds are howling you might need more floating distance. If the runway is short you might want to land on the numbers. If your engine is being weird, you would want to have gliding distance to the field.

Generally 1000’ is probably a little too high at base for a controlled descent but maybe you want to practice your slips that’s ok too depending on your passengers and baggage. I like to hear the 500’ alert on final from foreflight but that’s me.

 

[Racerx]

Once abeam, power to 1500, first notch of flaps, pitch to 85 per the poh. Base at 80. Final at 75. Altitude tends to take care of itself.

I keep it a little tighter when tpa is 800'agl.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

Well there's this, not sure how much strength people put into it any more.

"The downwind leg is a course flown parallel to the landing runway, but in a direction opposite to the intended landing direction. This leg is flown approximately 1/2 to 1 mile out from the landing runway and at the specified traffic pattern altitude."

So I was taught to maintain the specified TPA til base, then start down.
Ie 1000' or 1500' is most common til starting the turn.
I mostly don't care what is below me (ie Catalina Island, the buildings of Dallas Love, Sedona - I try to stick to the same vertical profile).

 

[dbahn]

There are no altitude restrictions when taking off or landing.

Generally that's true, but you can't buzz someone just because you're in the process of taking off or landing. The regulation includes "when necessary" for take off or landing, so a FSDO could pursue a violation in some circumstances and end up with an administrative law judge making a determination of certificate action. I doubt that happens very often, but it's something to consider.

 

[John Collins]

High enough that you can glide to the runway.

A Bonanza A36 can't make the runway from a normal pattern, especially with gear and flaps down. If gear is extended abeam the numbers, you can barely make the runway if you turn right away. With full flaps down, no chance.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Generally that's true, but you can't buzz someone just because you're in the process of taking off or landing. The regulation includes "when necessary" for take off or landing, so a FSDO could pursue a violation in some circumstances and end up with an administrative law judge making a determination of certificate action. I doubt that happens very often, but it's something to consider.

Not very often, but I do recall reading one like that.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Work backwards from the runway with your desired speeds/descent rates. The altitude for base leg is predicated on turning final in an appropriate position to make the runway.

 

[texasclouds]

At night I ensure 500’ agl until turning final and then adjust for the PAPI/VASO lights. In the Cezna

 

[Maverick10]

I want to thank everyone for their thoughts. Reading all the replies there is a range in how one should go about the landing in view of 91.119. Yes I am a newbie, a bit of a rebel, but I want to learn to fly safely and frankly I heard about the Trent Palmer case and I know my situation is different, I am landing at a non-towered airport, but not really different in the broad sense of how 91.119 was explained to me. A smart guy that I know explained Palmer and 91.119 to me and said it has nothing to do with a suitable place to land, the FAA screwed up making that the heart of their case, it's an appealable error. He told me that the case really has to do with the meaning of necessary and that you cannot use "I am landing" as a blanket excuse to qualify for the exception. So at the airport I described, the smart guy (who is a pilot and a lawyer) tells me you cannot fly 100, 200 or maybe even 300 ft AGL over homes located at the beginning of base leg when there are plenty of higher altitude and flight path options to safely get you to the final approach leg and all along the route, like what was said in the replies above, the ability to glide to the runway should equipment failure occur.

To answer some questions above: Runway end to end 2700ft. The published pattern puts base leg about a 1/2 mile or so from the beginning of the runway (which if you fly the published pattern the homes would be about 1/4 mile outside the pattern). Most pilots either extend the pattern and go around the homes, fly straight ins or just approach the other end of the runway to land (there are a lot of open fields around these homes). It is a rare few pilots that have no concern about flying at very low altitude (100-300 AGL) over the homes maybe because there is no enforcement at the airport and complaints to the airport go unresolved, or they just feel, like some have replied above, that you are at an airport and the 91.119 exception applies at any altitude. As a humble newbie from the replies I read above it makes sense to avoid the homes or at least be above 500ft AGL at the beginning of final leg. However, I really need help with this because you all have more experience than me (some are instructors) but you are not all in unison about 91.119. Please advise. Thank you in advance for your help!

 

[Clip4]

This is very close to my approach.

Basically, we have three legs to the normal pattern. Downwind is 1-1.5 miles from the runway (Cessna 152s taught to fly 737 patterns excepted). From abeam the touchdown point, each leg is about the same 1-1.5 miles. So we have 3 roughly equal legs from abeam to touchdown.

Maintaining target airspeeds along the way, we are going to lose extra altitude in the turns, so subtract about 100' from the 1,000. We are left with 900' equally divided among three legs. Lose about 300' per leg and we are in a small ballpark that gets most of its tweaking on the base leg.

I am assuming a typo. Downwind and base legs are supposed to be 1/2 - 1 mile from runway. (8083 page 8-3 and 8-4)

 

[Salty]

I am assuming a typo. Downwind and base legs are supposed to be 1/2 - 1 mile from runway. (8083 page 8-3 and 8-4)

8083 8-3 covers engine replacement and removal. If you’re going to be so pedantic, might want to be more clear what document you mean.

Ps> I’d love to see you fly that pattern in a 747.

 

[Clip4]

8083 8-3 covers engine replacement and removal. If you’re going to be so pedantic, might want to be more clear what document you mean.

Ps> I’d love to see you fly that pattern in a 747.

Only you would research a maintenance publication looking for information on traffic patterns. And no, the OP in this thread wasn’t flying a 747 and neither are you.

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/00_afh_full.pdf

 

[Salty]

Only you would research a maintenance publication looking for information on traffic patterns. And no, the OP in this thread wasn’t flying a 747 and neither are you.

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/00_afh_full.pdf

missed the point again

 

[midlifeflyer]

I am assuming a typo. Downwind and base legs are supposed to be 1/2 - 1 mile from runway. (8083 page 8-3 and 8-4)

No. It wasn’t a typo. Sadly.

I am assuming you skipped the post where I responded to @EdFred pointing this out.

I wish it were a typo. I have been based at a relatively busy nontowered airport for the past dozen years. I rarely see tight patterns by anyone other than a tail dragger. I’ve seen tighter patterns a busy towered airports! Half the time I look at a 152 ahead and waaay to the right of me on downwind and wonder where the heck they are going. I have to widen mine to keep them in sight. That’s without even considering airplanes with faster Vrefs, some of whom don’t know how to slow down.

I guess for me , “normal” is what is, not what should be.

 

[Hang 4]

I wish it were a typo. I have been based at a relatively busy nontowered airport for the past dozen years. I rarely see tight patterns by anyone other than a tail dragger. I’ve seen tighter patterns a busy towered airports! Half the time I look at a 152 ahead and waaay to the right of me on downwind and wonder where the heck they are going. I have to widen mine to keep them in sight. That’s without even considering airplanes with faster Vrefs, some of whom don’t know how to slow down.

I guess for me , “normal” is what is, not what should be.

Join us in FL in the land of puppy mill pilots practicing for their 747 jobs in a 172. At non-towered airports, I could pretty much do a power off 180 and be on the crosswind in the time it takes for "Echo Romeo" pilots to get from abeam the numbers to short final.

 

[ateamer]

It’s not uncommon down here to hear a trainer call short final, look and look for him, and finally spot the plane well over a mile from the runway.

 

[EdFred]

No. It wasn’t a typo. Sadly.

I am assuming you skipped the post where I responded to @EdFred pointing this out.

I wish it were a typo. I have been based at a relatively busy nontowered airport for the past dozen years. I rarely see tight patterns by anyone other than a tail dragger. I’ve seen tighter patterns a busy towered airports! Half the time I look at a 152 ahead and waaay to the right of me on downwind and wonder where the heck they are going. I have to widen mine to keep them in sight. That’s without even considering airplanes with faster Vrefs, some of whom don’t know how to slow down.

I guess for me , “normal” is what is, not what should be.

When I see that, I just fly my normal pattern and turn inside them.

 

[luvflyin]

I want to thank everyone for their thoughts. Reading all the replies there is a range in how one should go about the landing in view of 91.119. Yes I am a newbie, a bit of a rebel, but I want to learn to fly safely and frankly I heard about the Trent Palmer case and I know my situation is different, I am landing at a non-towered airport, but not really different in the broad sense of how 91.119 was explained to me. A smart guy that I know explained Palmer and 91.119 to me and said it has nothing to do with a suitable place to land, the FAA screwed up making that the heart of their case, it's an appealable error. He told me that the case really has to do with the meaning of necessary and that you cannot use "I am landing" as a blanket excuse to qualify for the exception. So at the airport I described, the smart guy (who is a pilot and a lawyer) tells me you cannot fly 100, 200 or maybe even 300 ft AGL over homes located at the beginning of base leg when there are plenty of higher altitude and flight path options to safely get you to the final approach leg and all along the route, like what was said in the replies above, the ability to glide to the runway should equipment failure occur.

To answer some questions above: Runway end to end 2700ft. The published pattern puts base leg about a 1/2 mile or so from the beginning of the runway (which if you fly the published pattern the homes would be about 1/4 mile outside the pattern). Most pilots either extend the pattern and go around the homes, fly straight ins or just approach the other end of the runway to land (there are a lot of open fields around these homes). It is a rare few pilots that have no concern about flying at very low altitude (100-300 AGL) over the homes maybe because there is no enforcement at the airport and complaints to the airport go unresolved, or they just feel, like some have replied above, that you are at an airport and the 91.119 exception applies at any altitude. As a humble newbie from the replies I read above it makes sense to avoid the homes or at least be above 500ft AGL at the beginning of final leg. However, I really need help with this because you all have more experience than me (some are instructors) but you are not all in unison about 91.119. Please advise. Thank you in advance for your help!

Sounds like some folk are ‘Except when taking off or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes, instead of “Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:”

 

[midlifeflyer]

When I see that, I just fly my normal pattern and turn inside them.

As tempting as that sounds. we have very different attitudes about that.

 

[flyingron]

At a non-towered airport generally what is the lowest altitude I should be flying on base leg if there are homes situated under the base leg (and not risk a FAR 91 violation). No homes are located under the path on final approach. Pattern altitude 1000 AGL. Equipment - Beechcraft Bonanza 36

What makes you think there is a FAR violation? I start a descent abeam the numbers and continue it around the rest of the pattern. The minimum altitude rule 91.119 begins: Except when necessary for takeoff or landing,...

 

[EdFred]

As tempting as that sounds. we have very different attitudes about that.

They won't even be turning to final before I'm off the runway. I make the call that I'm turning base.

I am not flying a 1.5 mile wide downwind and play follow the leader because Captain CFI Head Up His Ass is teaching his students wrong. Just like when the 'active runway' is 23 even though over the course of the day the winds have shifted to 060@10. I let them know I'm not landing 10 knots of tailwind.

If they want to talk to me and get in my face about it on the ground, they can. But those epaulets haven't said squat when I've had 8" and 50lbs on them.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

What makes you think there is a FAR violation? I start a descent abeam the numbers and continue it around the rest of the pattern. The minimum altitude rule 91.119 begins: Except when necessary for takeoff or landing,...

This is what I teach.

 

[EdFred]

This is what I teach.

Reported to FSDO.

 

[Racerx]

Had a guy doing a 747 pattern in a 172. He had just turned base when I launched and departed the area. He wasn't happy and claimed I cut him off. So, some people have no concept of space and timing.

 

[robin ardoin]

At my home non-towered airport, KIYA, we have a fish spotting base. It is very common to have them launch when I turn base in my 182. Early on it bothered me a little, however, they have never caused me to alter my flight path as they are up and gone way before I am on short final. Conversely, they will chop and drop with a power off 180 coming back home and high speed taxi to the turn off before I have time to think about complaining about it. LOL Again, never interrupted my plans, but not flying like the majority of pilots using the airfield.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Had a guy doing a 747 pattern in a 172. He had just turned base when I launched and departed the area. He wasn't happy and claimed I cut him off. So, some people have no concept of space and timing.

Kinda like the guy who called “short final” when I announced my departure…apparently he went around, because the next guy. Who I saw on final when I was ready to depart, crossed the threshold almost a minute and a half later.

 

[Maverick10]

Sounds like some folk are ‘Except when taking off or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes, instead of “Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:”

Thanks luvflyin for summarizing my concern. Regarding my follow up below sounds like there are differing opinions so I guess the better question is how might the FAA react based on the scenario I presented below

Maverick10 said:
I want to thank everyone for their thoughts. Reading all the replies there is a range in how one should go about the landing in view of 91.119. Yes I am a newbie, a bit of a rebel, but I want to learn to fly safely and frankly I heard about the Trent Palmer case and I know my situation is different, I am landing at a non-towered airport, but not really different in the broad sense of how 91.119 was explained to me. A smart guy that I know explained Palmer and 91.119 to me and said it has nothing to do with a suitable place to land, the FAA screwed up making that the heart of their case, it's an appealable error. He told me that the case really has to do with the meaning of necessary and that you cannot use "I am landing" as a blanket excuse to qualify for the exception. So at the airport I described, the smart guy (who is a pilot and a lawyer) tells me you cannot fly 100, 200 or maybe even 300 ft AGL over homes located at the beginning of base leg when there are plenty of higher altitude and flight path options to safely get you to the final approach leg and all along the route, like what was said in the replies above, the ability to glide to the runway should equipment failure occur.

To answer some questions above: Runway end to end 2700ft. The published pattern puts base leg about a 1/2 mile or so from the beginning of the runway (which if you fly the published pattern the homes would be about 1/4 mile outside the pattern). Most pilots either extend the pattern and go around the homes, fly straight ins or just approach the other end of the runway to land (there are a lot of open fields around these homes). It is a rare few pilots that have no concern about flying at very low altitude (100-300 AGL) over the homes maybe because there is no enforcement at the airport and complaints to the airport go unresolved, or they just feel, like some have replied above, that you are at an airport and the 91.119 exception applies at any altitude. As a humble newbie from the replies I read above it makes sense to avoid the homes or at least be above 500ft AGL at the beginning of final leg. However, I really need help with this because you all have more experience than me (some are instructors) but you are not all in unison about 91.119. Please advise. Thank you in advance for your help!

 

[flyingron]

I'm going to suggest we not go down the Trent Palmer rathole here. TP even by his own story (which the FAA and many others find suspect), HE WAS NOT LANDING. That's distinct from your supposition that you were flying the pattern to a landing. If you had to maintain 500' from every person, vessel, or structure during landing, you couldn't land at many airports at all. I'm sitting here in my office less than 100' from the runway edge right now (precisely 13 smoots....who the hell put my Google Earth into smoots?).

 

[Witmo]

A Bonanza A36 can't make the runway from a normal pattern, especially with gear and flaps down. If gear is extended abeam the numbers, you can barely make the runway if you turn right away. With full flaps down, no chance.

Don't Bonanza A36s have engines? Even without an operable engine, I suspect more than a few commercial pilots could demonstrate a successful power-off 180 in a Bonanza.