Flying straight in at uncontrolled field?

dtuuri said:
...OTOH, "one-way streets" like Friday Harbor and Ramona are using a new logic that's not documented anywhere....
Click to expand...
That's not true; it IS documented. The AFH figure that we've been discussing clearly states that the pattern indicator "indicates location of base leg."

...A government diagram reproduced in post 249 illustrated the direction of traffic flow with respect to the markers that only makes sense in terms of the departure end of the runway....
Click to expand...
Given that the AFH diagram clearly shows that pattern indicators apply to the approach end, and has done so for at least thirteen years, the fact that a diagram from a long-superseded regulation implies the opposite doesn't seem relevant today.

...I'll just have to remember from now on to reference just the landing end markers when I see a swastika and hope everybody else knows that too.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, but this may be the first time I have seen someone Godwin a traffic pattern thread!
 
Palmpilot said:
Given that the AFH diagram clearly shows that pattern indicators apply to the approach end, and has done so for at least thirteen years, the fact that a diagram from a long-superseded regulation implies the opposite doesn't seem relevant today.
Click to expand...
The diagram in #249 is consistent. The illustrator only drew part of each traffic pattern to illustrate the pattern for each runway. He happenend to choose the crosswind leg. The diagram and pattern indicators would have the same meaning if he'd illustrated the base legs instead. Dtuuri continues to infer what's not implied.
 
Lindberg said:
The diagram in #249 is consistent. The illustrator only drew part of each traffic pattern to illustrate the pattern for each runway. He happenend to choose the crosswind leg. The diagram and pattern indicators would have the same meaning if he'd illustrated the base legs instead. Dtuuri continues to infer what's not implied.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I consider it moot. There is no doubt in my mind that current guidance is capable of superseding regulations that are no longer in effect.
 
Palmpilot said:
Perhaps, but I consider it moot. There is no doubt in my mind that current guidance is capable of superseding regulations that are no longer in effect.
Click to expand...

I understand Dave to be contending the L-shaped indicator at the outbound end of the runway has long indicated the direction of turn needed to remain in the pattern. He oddly reconciles this not working with runways having right traffic at both ends by noting they're rare.

I apologize if I missed it, but what specific regulation previously in effect actually says what Dave contends?
 
register@teamandras.com said:
I understand Dave to be contending the L-shaped indicator at the outbound end of the runway has long indicated the direction of turn needed to remain in the pattern. He oddly reconciles this not working with runways having right traffic at both ends by noting they're rare.

I apologize if I missed it, but what specific regulation previously in effect actually says what Dave contends?
Click to expand...

None. But Dave continues to make the case.

Tim
 
register@teamandras.com said:
I understand Dave to be contending the L-shaped indicator at the outbound end of the runway has long indicated the direction of turn needed to remain in the pattern. He oddly reconciles this not working with runways having right traffic at both ends by noting they're rare.

I apologize if I missed it, but what specific regulation previously in effect actually says what Dave contends?
Click to expand...
Posts 243 and 249 contain the regulation and diagram that he referred to. What they "actually" say seems to be in dispute.
 
Palmpilot said:
That's not true; it IS documented. The AFH figure that we've been discussing clearly states that the pattern indicator "indicates location of base leg."
Click to expand...
I thought we were arguing about the inconsistency between the AIM (and history) and the new AFH. If the AFH isn't valid you can't cite it. It wouldn't be cricket.

Palmpilot said:
Given that the AFH diagram clearly shows that pattern indicators apply to the approach end, and has done so for at least thirteen years, the fact that a diagram from a long-superseded regulation implies the opposite doesn't seem relevant today.
Click to expand...
What do you mean "last thirteen years"? Until this thread I never saw that diagram.

Palmpilot said:
I'm not sure, but this may be the first time I have seen someone Godwin a traffic pattern thread!
Click to expand...
Ha, ha. Who's Godwinning here, me or you? You'll have to read at least half this article to find mention of Nazi use of the symbol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika. I'm referring to the symbols.

dtuuri
 
Ok, I see you all continue to be mesmerized by my explanations and drawings, so here's a different perspective. Consider the fact that the purpose of the right-hand traffic rule is not to "make right-hand traffic", but to prevent overflight of sensitive/hazardous areas. It's like closing off the eastbound lanes of an interstate and funneling traffic over to the westbound inside lane. Thus there is no more traffic interfering with the highway construction and now there's two-way traffic where there is normally one-way. Got it?

In aviation we call that a "right-hand pattern" even though it includes a "left-hand pattern" for the opposite direction too. Our signage points toward the two-way downwind leg.

Now along comes some local mayor and says (of the highway analogy), "When that road gets fixed I want the noisy eastbound trucks using their Jake Brakes to keep using the eastbound lanes on the north side of the median and the quieter westbound traffic to start using the southern lanes. It's made a real big improvement to the expensive homes south of the freeway." Of course, the town is Friday Harbor.

I don't think the FAA ever meant for the symbology to change the direction of overflights of sensitive/hazardous areas. They meant to avoid the overflights.

But I'd rather folks got back to saying why they dismiss my arguments against crossing overhead the airport into the downwind at pattern altitude.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
But I'd rather folks got back to saying why they dismiss my arguments against crossing overhead the airport into the downwind at pattern altitude.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

It has been too many pages. What is the issue?

Tim
 
dtuuri said:
But I'd rather folks got back to saying why they dismiss my arguments against crossing overhead the airport into the downwind at pattern altitude.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

The midfield entry to downwind from the upwind side puts most of the worry in front of me with my wings level. Traffic on the 45 and the down wind are moving across my field of view, So I'm likely to pick them out quicker, rather than looking for them in the ground clutter as I pass overhead and descend prior to the teardrop. Also, the teardrop to the 45 has me blocking my view of the 45, and the base to downwind, at least part of the time.

Some times the pattern is just to busy for this. So, I don't push the issue. But, at those quiet fields I prefer this way of entering from the upwind side.
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
I thought we were arguing about the inconsistency between the AIM (and history) and the new AFH.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that FAA guidance is inconsistent. I dispute the assertion that the meaning of Friday Harbor's and Ramona's pattern indicators isn't documented anywhere.

If the AFH isn't valid you can't cite it. It wouldn't be cricket.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the invalidity of the AFH diagram was part of what you were trying to prove. If so, the above is a circular argument. You can't use a premise to prove itself.

In any case, the diagram is in a current FAA publication and has been for at least thirteen years. Therefore the average Joe or Jane Pilot has the opportunity to find out what pattern indicators like the ones at those two airports mean.

What do you mean "last thirteen years"? Until this thread I never saw that diagram.
Click to expand...

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that the 2004 edition of the AFH depicted pattern indicators in the same way. (See attachment, page 7-3.)

Ha, ha. Who's Godwinning here, me or you?
Click to expand...
You.

You'll have to read at least half this article to find mention of Nazi use of the symbol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika. I'm referring to the symbols.
Click to expand...
It looked like you were using the term because of its emotional impact.
 

Attachments

  • FAA-H-8083-3A Chapter 7.pdf
    2.7 MB · Views: 3
wilkersk said:
The midfield entry to downwind from the upwind side puts most of the worry in front of me with my wings level. Traffic on the 45 and the down wind are moving across my field of view, So I'm likely to pick them out quicker, rather than looking for them in the ground clutter as I pass overhead and descend prior to the teardrop. Also, the teardrop to the 45 has me blocking my view of the 45, and the base to downwind, at least part of the time.

Some times the pattern is just to busy for this. So, I don't push the issue. But, at those quiet fields I prefer this way of entering from the upwind side.
Click to expand...
My best argument against it is:

Unlike minds.jpg​
Somebody else could be doing exactly the same thing from the other side for the other runway. Maximum closing speed and minimum frontal area, each pilot looking out the side window.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
My best argument against it is:

Somebody else could be doing exactly the same thing from the other side for the other runway. Maximum closing speed and minimum frontal area, each pilot looking out the side window.

dtuuri
Click to expand...
For the other side of the runway? Nope. You make up too much stuff.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't dispute that FAA guidance is inconsistent. I was under the impression that the invalidity of the AFH diagram was part of what you were trying to prove. If so, the above is a circular argument. You can't use a premise to prove itself.
Click to expand...
If it's inconsistent, it's invalid. See Front Matter:

"It is essential for persons using this handbook to become familiar with and apply the pertinent parts of 14 CFR and the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM)."​

dtuuri
 
Clark1961 said:
How many horses have to die before this ends?
Click to expand...

One thread on BeechTalk ran over a three hundred pages, mostly debating the merit of single engine versus twin engine for jets (Cirrus SF50 was the subject). So we have many more horses to beat.

Tim
 
dtuuri said:
If it's inconsistent, it's invalid. See Front Matter:

"It is essential for persons using this handbook to become familiar with and apply the pertinent parts of 14 CFR and the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM)."​
Click to expand...
Thank you for replacing a circular argument with a non-circular one. ;)

It's regrettable that inconsistencies exist in FAA documentation, but the agency is run by human beings, after all. As for pattern indicators like the ones at Friday Harbor and Ramona, the fact that they exist is justification enough for the diagram in the AFH, and I doubt that either the airports involved or the FAA is going to want to spend the money to tear them out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top