![brian]](/community/data/avatars/m/21/21096.jpg?1456258959){kind=avatar}
brian]
Cleared for Takeoff
Adding flame to this fire - what about a low pass to see the sock / segmented circle?
Crossing Mid-Field at Pattern Altitude
- Thread starter Fearless Tower
- Start date
Adding flame to this fire - what about a low pass to see the sock / segmented circle?
timwinters
Ejection Handle Pulled
Because if the FAA happens to catch you (highly unlikely) they will bust you for flying a right pattern. They won't bust you for flying a mid-field crosswind...at least I don't think they will.
BTW...it's no longer "should," it's "shall."
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
That's actually closer to the point I was trying to make. What surprised me the most on this trip out to AZ and back over the last few days was how many pilots are out there monitoring and talking on the radio without making the situational awareness correlation between transmissions.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he was talking (it helped me find him), but damn.... You really have to keep your head on a swivel.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
I use this approach all the time, so long as there is no conflicting traffic. I would never cross at 500 or 1000 feet above traffic pattern altitude, since not only do I go belly up to the traffic (where I may not see it) but also have to scramble pretty hard to get into the downwind, which isn't a good way to establish a stabilized approach.
I agree that this thread involves two issues. One can cut off traffic in the downwind in a number of ways all of which involve situational awareness. Traffic pattern entry is a separate issue.
I agree that this thread involves two issues. One can cut off traffic in the downwind in a number of ways all of which involve situational awareness. Traffic pattern entry is a separate issue.
roncachamp
Final Approach
I do mean that turn. The regulation requires all turns in the approach to the airport to be made in one specific direction. That teardrop is made in the opposite direction. "Traffic pattern" does not appear anywhere in FAR 91.126 and no distance from the airport is given.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Yes. The opposite side base would be a violation of the FARs, the midfield crossing entry is not.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
I kind of suprised the OB hasn't crept into this thread...
MadseasoN
Line Up and Wait
Because the AIM is a mystery to them.
eetrojan
Pattern Altitude
I can't tell if you're merely criticizing the AOPA artist for using the phrase "traffic pattern" when that phrase doesn't appear in FAR 91.126, of if you're saying FAR 91.126 prohibits such a turn regardless of distance from the airport because it is being made "when approaching to land"? Maybe you mean something else?
Can you clarify?
In you believe that FAR 91.126 prohibits such a turn when made about 2 miles away from the runway, can you explain why (i.e. beyond simply saying that "no distance is given" in FAR 91.126?).
Although it's necessary that you first be "in the vicinity" (whatever that means), when do you also start "approaching to land" as used in FAR 91.126(b)?
Last edited:
brcase
En-Route
So why did put a list of "Related Reading Material" in the document, they didn't have to?
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I believe that, a pilot was violated for making a right base five miles from the airport. So, if you are going to do the right had tear drop, make sure to fly at least 5 miles out before making any right turns. Me, I'll make the crosswind entry, and enter the downwind prior to the mid point.
roncachamp
Final Approach
I'm simply pointing out that the regulation requires all turns made when approaching to land must be made in a specified direction. That includes turns made outside of the rectangular traffic pattern such as that teardrop turn.
No further explanation is needed.
If the turn is part of a maneuver needed to put the airplane on the runway you have started "approaching to land" as used in FAR 91.126(b). Exceptions would be turns that are part of an IAP, control tower instructions, and Part 93.
eetrojan
Pattern Altitude
Hi EF
I'd be surprised if this right-base-to-final violation established a 5-mile radius as the bright line boundary for "when approaching to land" for all circumstances. I'd love to read it though. I wonder what kind of aircraft it was...
My gut says that if I'm flying a Cessna-like aircraft, the opposite-turn maneuvering to join the standard 45 entry doesn't need to be done five miles away in order to comply with the FAR 91.126, but I'm certainly open to being convinced otherwise.
As a practical matter, it's super hard to believe that teardrop to 45 done about 2 miles from airport violates FAR 92.126 given that AOPA VERY publicly endorsed the maneuver at least as early as 1998 and, at least to my knowledge, there has been no retraction or revision from AOPA, no FAA violation proceedings, etc.
eetrojan
Pattern Altitude
That seems unworkable to me. Wouldn't that interpretation, if taken to the extreme, include every turn made after departing from airport A to putting the airplane on the runway at airport B? We'd be like NASCAR drivers, always turning left. :wink2:
Also, note that like "traffic pattern," the word "maneuvering" does not appear anywhere in FAR 91.126.
My sense is that maneuvering is pretty different from approaching (to land).
Last edited:
Larry in TN
En-Route
It was a B737.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
roncachamp
Final Approach
eetrojan
Pattern Altitude
Thanks. Not sure if it's the right one, but I found an AOPA article regarding a couple of cases, including a 1986 incident involving an Alaska Airlines 737:
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/1995/December/1/Pilot-Counsel-(11)
According to this author, the Alaska Airlines pilot “argued that he made the turn about four miles out and his approach was straight in after that.” He had actually reported to the local FSS, "Alaska 51 on a four-mile right base...."
After he was suspended for 25 days, he appealed to the NTSB where the administrative law judge found even worse facts that he original contended, i.e. that the turn was made one to two miles out from the runway. Based on this, the law judge sustained the violation, holding that the turn to final was close enough to the airport to be considered "a turn approaching to land" under the regulation. As such, all turns were required to be made to the left.
Of significance, the law judge suggested that a turn in anticipation of a straight-in approach, made five or six miles out, would not be considered a violation.
So, if turning right-base to final five miles out is OK for a 737 because it’s far enough away to not be considered “a turn approaching to land,” I’m guessing that turning right to the 45 when two miles out is probably OK for a Cessna.
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,614
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
No it doesn't and you are demonstrating classic over analysis when people read and re-read advisories and regulations and falsely determine that they mean something beyond their actual intent. The left turn rule is for the traffic pattern into which you enter downwind by making a RIGHT turn from the 45.
poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
If you can't see the sock/segmented circle from 500 above TPA, you shouldn't be there VFR.brian];1681314 said:Adding flame to this fire - what about a low pass to see the sock / segmented circle?
roncachamp
Final Approach
If that was the case "traffic pattern" would appear in the regulation.
Last edited:
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Somebody forgot to tell the FAA and NTSB that in the Boardman case (which I linked above).
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
The 45 entry has nothing to do with the Boardman case.Somebody forgot to tell the FAA and NTSB that in the Boardman case (which I linked above).
eetrojan
Pattern Altitude
Tautological. But moving on...
You said, "If the turn is part of a maneuver needed to put the airplane on the runway you have started "approaching to land" as used in FAR 91.126(b)."
The assertion that a turn is part of the "approaching to land" if it is "needed" doesn't seem helpful to me.
An NTSB judge said that if a 737 had been 5-6 miles away while flying a right base, it would have been far enough away that its turn to final would not have been considered "a turn approaching to land." However, I assume you would agree, it it was certainly "needed" to put the airplane on the runway.
Also, if the FAA doesn't have any heartburn over a 45-degree right turn from entry leg to the downwind leg because "we have long considered that this rule does not prohibit maneuvers necessary to safely enter the flow of traffic" (Gossman letter), why would they object to a right turn onto that same entry leg while maneuvering 2 miles further away from the traffic pattern?
eetrojan
Pattern Altitude
Thank you!
danhagan
En-Route
Once had a windsock that was off it's frame and on the ground, took a low pass to see that (Dell City TX). Have also had "light spots" start moving on the runways at both Silver City NM fields (coyotes) when on final. Had a tire on the runway at Horizon TX (not in TDZ, but shortly after) am guessing as they use them to hold the roofs of the trailer on nearby in high wind. I low pass slow fields now for debris, animals, etc.
roncachamp
Final Approach
That which the FAA has no heartburn with is not necessarily consistent with the FARs.
brian]
Cleared for Takeoff
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
Could you tell me who publishes the AIM?
MBDiagMan
Final Approach
I've done this many times, BUT..... only when there is no one else in the pattern or I am hearing anyone even close to entering the pattern. This works for me because I'm a boondocks flyer, more often than not landing as the only person in the pattern or even the only person at the airport.
Doing this in a busy pattern is something that I would not consider.
Doing this in a busy pattern is something that I would not consider.
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,614
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
This is the sort of thinking that has lead you to your incorrect conclusions. The left turn rule means downwind to base and base to final as well as upwind to crosswind and crosswind to downwind- that's ALL it means.
Last edited:
Silvaire
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,614
- Display Name
Display name:
Silvaire
Somebody forgot to tell the FAA and NTSB that in the Boardman case (which I linked above).
He made a RIGHT BASE to final. How has that got anything to do with what we're talking about?
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Perhaps, but "The left turn rule is for the traffic pattern" is inconsistent with that case.
eetrojan
Pattern Altitude
That which the FAA has no heartburn with is necessarily consistent with the FARs as interpreted by the FAA.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Are you sure about that? I'm not. From the appeal:
"The Board finds that the evidence of record supports the law judge’s order, although we do not adopt all of his findings.6
6. For example, the law judge determined that a turn in anticipation of a straight-in approach, made at 5 or 6 miles out, would not be considered a violation."
6. For example, the law judge determined that a turn in anticipation of a straight-in approach, made at 5 or 6 miles out, would not be considered a violation."
dtuuri
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Unless you consider Boardman to have been in the traffic pattern, it has the same relevance as "The left turn rule is for the traffic pattern..."
eetrojan
Pattern Altitude
Pretty sure. At the time I had only read the article that was describing the Appeal, and not the decision itself, but unless I'm missing something, that footnote 6 supports what I wrote.
In other words, at least according to one judge, making a right turn to final for a "straight-in" at 5-6 miles out would not be considered a violation for a 737. That same judge decided that the accused was much closer (1-2 miles) and, therefore, in violation, but he did say that 5-6 miles would have been "ok."
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Footnote six goes on to say "We need not address that question, as it goes beyond the facts in this case," so it is an example of findings that the Board does not necessarily adopt.
dtuuri
Final Approach
The appeal board didn't accept all the judge's findings, specifically that 5-6 miles is ok.
dtuuri
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,484
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
But didn't reject or overrule it, either, as it wasn't necessary to do so under the facts of this specific case.