Pattern Madness

[BellyUpFish]

Just against a gaggle of aircraft showing up of *any* type in formation to a busy pattern and doing them when the option is there to just enter the pattern like anyone else would.

That's something I can't seem to get anyone to put a definition on..

What is a busy pattern? I asked the OP and he is long gone from this thread, and he wouldn't define it.

Personally, it depends on the airport. My hometown airport has a 6,000' runway and a 4,000' runway and on calm days, you can have people using both at the same time..

Jets generally get the big one. If I'm using the other, we work it out betwix ourselves so as to not meet in the middle.

I really don't understand the negative furor over the OB. Sure, I'm against anyone acting like a fool in an aircraft, but even arriving in the pattern 500' high, I don't see the huge need for the "string up the idiots" attitude that has been displayed in this thread by many..

 

[Henning]

Well when I teach patterns to my students we lose about 200' on downwind after we are abeam the numbers, lose another 400' on base, and lose the rest on final. (800' pattern at my field, lose 300',400',300' on 1000' fields). So someone on final should be at about 600' below someone coming in at a TPA OH maneuver.

Right, now I'm 1/2 mile out on a straight in and decide to go around. Pick up my feet and put the throttles in and climb. I will be at pattern altitude in very short distance because I still have 20 flaps out, and with 20*flaps, the climb angle is impressive with 520hp and I'll be at TPA pretty much before I get to the runway. If someone is on an overhead at TPA, there is a shot I'm gonna climb into them.

 

[Bob Noel]

And I'll stand by that statement -- I can't think of a single make/model of light aircraft in which I haven't seen someone do something stupid.

I don't disagree with that.

 

[Witmo]

Right, now I'm 1/2 mile out on a straight in and decide to go around. Pick up my feet and put the throttles in and climb. I will be at pattern altitude in very short distance because I still have 20 flaps out, and with 20*flaps, the climb angle is impressive with 520hp and I'll be at TPA pretty much before I get to the runway. If someone is on an overhead at TPA, there is a shot I'm gonna climb into them.

Sometimes I enter on an upwind at pattern altitude but I displace myself to the non-active side of the runway just so I can clear anyone doing what you just described. Many others I've seen, however, fly right up the extended runway centerline and you will conflict with them even though they have no intention of doing an overhead pattern. I really don't see any point in your doing a max climb prior to the runway just so you can be at pattern altitude over the numbers unless it is to show-off. At military bases low approaches or closed traffic were generally restricted below pattern altitude until past the departure end of the runway to preclude climbing into the overhead from below and being a hazard.

 

[Henning]

Sometimes I enter on an upwind at pattern altitude but I displace myself to the non-active side of the runway just so I can clear anyone doing what you just described. Many others I've seen, however, fly right up the extended runway centerline and you will conflict with them even though they have no intention of doing an overhead pattern. I really don't see any point in your doing a max climb prior to the runway just so you can be at pattern altitude over the numbers unless it is to show-off. At military bases low approaches or closed traffic were generally restricted below pattern altitude until past the departure end of the runway to preclude climbing into the overhead from below and being a hazard.

A "Go Around" is always a max performance maneuver, even in a big jet. In a 310, it does not take much to make pattern altitude from a go around, especially as light as I typically land. I don't really care if it's an OB or why someone comes in over the runway at TP altitude, it's an added hazard that is not necessary. You can side step as you do to the upwind side, or you can come in 500 high, I don't care, just don't be in my designated "out" airspace, and the designated "out" airspace when one is on final is "Climb runway heading". If you come down the extended final path at TPA, you will be in that space. So, when that occurs, what do you do with a gaggle of planes coming in in formation? They are tasked with avoiding me. Will they remain on final and do their break and hope I don't come climbing into them?

 

[Panew]

A "Go Around" is always a max performance maneuver, even in a big jet. In a 310, it does not take much to make pattern altitude from a go around, especially as light as I typically land. I don't really care if it's an OB or why someone comes in over the runway at TP altitude, it's an added hazard that is not necessary. You can side step as you do to the upwind side, or you can come in 500 high, I don't care, just don't be in my designated "out" airspace, and the designated "out" airspace when one is on final is "Climb runway heading". If you come down the extended final path at TPA, you will be in that space. So, when that occurs, what do you do with a gaggle of planes coming in in formation? They are tasked with avoiding me. Will they remain on final and do their break and hope I don't come climbing into them?

according to this diagram, even if he's right on top of you (which is not likely), I don't know how your abort can interfere with his break.

 

[BellyUpFish]

They are tasked with avoiding me.

... and you them.

 

[Henning]

according to this diagram, even if he's right on top of you (which is not likely), I don't he how your abort can interfere with his break.

How not? That entire entry is my final path as well. If I bail out 3/4 mile out from the threshold at a few hundred feet, I'll be climbing right up into them.

 

[BellyUpFish]

How not? That entire entry is my final path as well. If I bail out 3/4 mile out from the threshold at a few hundred feet, I'll be climbing right up into them.

You must be JATO equipped?

 

[Panew]

How not? That entire entry is my final path as well. If I bail out 3/4 mile out from the threshold at a few hundred feet, I'll be climbing right up into them.

if you were still 3/4 miles, he would be behind you, not above you. He still needs to keep you in sight.

 

[EdFred]

this is neither a PFD, nor certified.

you are like that kid holding up an Aera and says: look, I have a glass panel.


I apologize, I guess I'm nitpicking now.

Go on, you can live your life based on your convoluted twisted mind, all you want. Hold on to your crotch when you see a Rotax crotch rocket overhead. LOL.

I only wear a PFD when fishing. You asked about synthetic vision. I have it. End of story.

 

[RyanShort1]

Anyone else notice the SST-shaped "aircraft?"

Ryan

 

[wanttaja]

I'm glad someone finally picked up on this. I get the impression that the FAA is most concerned by the number of accidents involving E-AB aircraft during the pilot's first 10 hours or so in type.

Yep. I was on an FAA flight advisory board last year, and the FAA was pushing hard to have all newly-purchased homebuilts go back into Phase 1 limitations for the first 10-20 hours (e.g., no passengers).

There is a higher accident rate among new owners of flying homebuilts, but the number of passengers killed is fairly low. In some cases, the passenger was a CFI "checking out" the new homebuilt owner.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[poadeleted20]

You must be JATO equipped?

So that's how he gets it to go 210 knots!

 

[BellyUpFish]

I only wear a PFD when fishing.

Well, you're kinda acting like you fly behind one, so I think that's why he made the reference.

 

[AEROBAT]

Yep. I was on an FAA flight advisory board last year, and the FAA was pushing hard to have all newly-purchased homebuilts go back into Phase 1 limitations for the first 10-20 hours (e.g., no passengers).

There is a higher accident rate among new owners of flying homebuilts, but the number of passengers killed is fairly low. In some cases, the passenger was a CFI "checking out" the new homebuilt owner.

Ron Wanttaja

Did they mention specific aircraft makes and models or was it more or less all homebuilts?

 

[Henning]

if you were still 3/4 miles, he would be behind you, not above you. He still needs to keep you in sight.

How do I know he has me in sight? So, now he has me in sight, realizes he is too close and needs to do something, what is the "out" for a formation flight of 5 coming into airspace with traffic converging from all directions?

Another question for the formation fliers out there, especially all those wingmen... Say you're #3 in a formation flying in VMC, how do you comply with "See and avoid"? Do you give up legal PIC status and liability to "lead"? If you are lead, do you take full liability for your entire flight? (you will be defending yourself on that front when something happens that you survive) Seems to me the only time where a formation flight would be technically legal would be when conducted in IMC.

 

[Panew]

How do I know he has me in sight? So, now he has me in sight, realizes he is too close and needs to do something, what is the "out" for a formation flight of 5 coming into airspace with traffic converging from all directions?

Another question for the formation fliers out there, especially all those wingmen... Say you're #3 in a formation flying in VMC, how do you comply with "See and avoid"? Do you give up legal PIC status and liability to "lead"? If you are lead, do you take full liability for your entire flight? (you will be defending yourself on that front when something happens that you survive) Seems to me the only time where a formation flight would be technically legal would be when conducted in IMC.

if he did not have you insight,
then he was NOT flying an OB (or anything for that matter),
he was flying recklessly.
He was a moron.

Don't mix up moronic flying with OB.

 

[Henning]

So that's how he gets it to go 210 knots!

How much 310 time you have? 210 has been book speed on the 260hp 310s for as long as I can remember, and they make book speed if you're willing to burn the fuel and punish the cylinders.

 

[Panew]

How do I know he has me in sight? So, now he has me in sight, realizes he is too close and needs to do something, what is the "out" for a formation flight of 5 coming into airspace with traffic converging from all directions?

Another question for the formation fliers out there, especially all those wingmen... Say you're #3 in a formation flying in VMC, how do you comply with "See and avoid"? Do you give up legal PIC status and liability to "lead"? If you are lead, do you take full liability for your entire flight? (you will be defending yourself on that front when something happens that you survive) Seems to me the only time where a formation flight would be technically legal would be when conducted in IMC.

if he had you in sight,
you can climb all you want,
he still had you at the same distance.
By the time he's at the fence (the break point),
you are already way down the runway.

 

[Henning]

if he did not have you insight,
then he was NOT flying an OB (or anything for that matter),
he was flying recklessly.
He was a moron.

Don't mix up moronic flying with OB.

When you're 5 miles out, how can you be sure what you're coming into in the pattern, especially at a pancake breakfast? This is where the complaints with the overhead entry come into play when the pattern gets turned into a CF because a gaggle of "morons" as you say comes barging in and displaces everone from their planned position. I have seen it happen on a couple of occasions.

I'm not mixing anything, it's just that there are a sector of people out there who use the OB as their preferred method of demonstrating the adeptness at being morons. As for 500 over TPA, that's in the published description of the OB.

 

[Panew]

How do I know he has me in sight? So, now he has me in sight, realizes he is too close and needs to do something, what is the "out" for a formation flight of 5 coming into airspace with traffic converging from all directions?

Another question for the formation fliers out there, especially all those wingmen... Say you're #3 in a formation flying in VMC, how do you comply with "See and avoid"? Do you give up legal PIC status and liability to "lead"? If you are lead, do you take full liability for your entire flight? (you will be defending yourself on that front when something happens that you survive) Seems to me the only time where a formation flight would be technically legal would be when conducted in IMC.

as soon as you request the tower for an OB,
your IFR flight plan is closed.

 

[wanttaja]

OK, let's look at the 2009 Nall Report. These stats are for the entire GA non-commercial fleet, not specifically E/AB.

[snip]

So let's look at the "Amateur-Built Aircraft" stats. According to the Nall Report, 18% of all non-commercial fixed-wing accidents were in E/AB aircraft, vendor not specifically named.

"Amateur-built aircraft logged less than 5% of the corresponding flight time. 2008 saw the highest number of fatal accidents in the past decade and more total accidents than any year except 2007.

You'd best check out the 2010 Nall Report, where they admit to statistical problems regarding homebuilts in the 2009 report. They counted Experimental Light Sport aircraft accidents as Amateur-Built, but didn't include the ELSA flight hours in the fleet total.

The Nall report assumes that the average GA aircraft flies 200 hours per year. It assumes that the average homebuilt flies 29. This obviously has an effect on comparative accident rates. AOPA claims to have gotten these numbers from the FAA.

I took a look at the accidents in my 1997-2008 homebuilt accident database, and the C172 accidents over the same time period. There's no separate category for "hot dogging," of course. But I've got one I call SALA ("Stupidity at Low Altitude") which includes classical buzz jobs as well as abrupt pull-ups after low passes, aerobatics down low, and flying into box canyons.

4.7% of the overall homebuilt accidents involved SALA, vs 4.5% of the Vans...close enough to be the same. The 172 rate was 3.2%.

One third of the SALA homebuilt accidents involved low-level aerobatics, vs. just 3% of the 172 cases. 89% of the homebuilt low-level aerobatics cases were fatal accidents.

The midair rate for Vans is a bit more than twice that of the overall homebuilt fleet. However, the midair rate for 172s is approximately between the two.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Henning]

if he had you in sight,
you can climb all you want,
he still had you at the same distance.
By the time he's at the fence (the break point),
you are already way down the runway.

No sir, by the description the RV guys give, they come into the break at 150, I'm on final until short at 120 and climb at 112-120, plus it's a hypotenuse. They would be over taking me and I can easily be in their blindspot beneath their cowl. for a long way since they are not nose down on my path. I have no assurance they have me in sight.

 

[Panew]

Well, you're kinda acting like you fly behind one, so I think that's why he made the reference.

yup... there's a clown in every crowd.

 

[BellyUpFish]

How much 310 time you have? 210 has been book speed on the 260hp 310s for as long as I can remember, and they make book speed if you're willing to burn the fuel and punish the cylinders.

Local guy has one with IO-540's in it. I think he cruises around 250kts or so.

 

[BellyUpFish]

No sir, by the description the RV guys give, they come into the break at 150, I'm on final until short at 120 and climb at 112-120, plus it's a hypotenuse. They would be over taking me and I can easily be in their blindspot beneath their cowl. for a long way since they are not nose down on my path.

Man, if you're at 3/4 mile out and go around, you won't reach TPA at the break point. This makes it a non-event.

Of course, I guess it depends on what altitude you were at when you went around, but assuming a normal approach, you'd be out of the way and low before the inbound aircraft broke.

 

[Panew]

No sir, by the description the RV guys give, they come into the break at 150, I'm on final until short at 120 and climb at 112-120, plus it's a hypotenuse. They would be over taking me and I can easily be in their blindspot beneath their cowl. for a long way since they are not nose down on my path.

if he didn't have you in sight and maintain separation,
he's a moron.
Don't confuse moron with an RV flyer.
There are morons in every group.


ps. I don't have an RV.

 

[AEROBAT]

You'd best check out the 2010 Nall Report, where they admit to statistical problems regarding homebuilts in the 2009 report. They counted Experimental Light Sport aircraft accidents as Amateur-Built, but didn't include the ELSA flight hours in the fleet total.

The Nall report assumes that the average GA aircraft flies 200 hours per year. It assumes that the average homebuilt flies 29. This obviously has an effect on comparative accident rates. AOPA claims to have gotten these numbers from the FAA.

I took a look at the accidents in my 1997-2008 homebuilt accident database, and the C172 accidents over the same time period. There's no separate category for "hot dogging," of course. But I've got one I call SALA ("Stupidity at Low Altitude") which includes classical buzz jobs as well as abrupt pull-ups after low passes, aerobatics down low, and flying into box canyons.

4.7% of the overall homebuilt accidents involved SALA, vs 4.5% of the Vans...close enough to be the same. The 172 rate was 3.2%.

One third of the SALA homebuilt accidents involved low-level aerobatics, vs. just 3% of the 172 cases. 89% of the homebuilt low-level aerobatics cases were fatal accidents.

The midair rate for Vans is a bit more than twice that of the overall homebuilt fleet. However, the midair rate for 172s is approximately between the two.

Ron Wanttaja

Thanks Ron, I will read the report.

 

[BellyUpFish]

Does the Nall report break down the crashes into categories of cause?

How many of those crashes were pilots acting a fool?
How many of those crashes were structural issues?
Fuel issues?
Ability issues?
Etc..
Etc..

 

[poadeleted20]

How do I know he has me in sight?

How do you know any overtaking aircraft has you in sight? It's just one of those things. In any event, since the formation is overtaking you, it's up to the flight leader to take appropriate action. But in all my years of formation flying, I've yet to see a situation where an aircraft going around has climbed into a formation entering the break. Unless you are really trying to cause a conflight, it's just not going to happen.

So, now he has me in sight, realizes he is too close and needs to do something, what is the "out" for a formation flight of 5 coming into airspace with traffic converging from all directions?

I'm trying to figure out how there can be "traffic converging from all directions." I should have clearance to the non-pattern side of the runway, and probably above (unless there's a flight of F-4's coming in to the break 500 feet over my head, but they really shouldn't be doing that). But if it's really that busy, I'll just stay out about five miles and orbit until things settle down.

Another question for the formation fliers out there, especially all those wingmen... Say you're #3 in a formation flying in VMC, how do y,ou comply with "See and avoid"? Do you give up legal PIC status and liability to "lead"? If you are lead, do you take full liability for your entire flight?

#3 doesn't give up PIC status with regard to his/her own plane, but lead is ultimately responsible for visual lookout and avoidance of other traffic for the entire formation. #3's primary responsibility is to maintain his/her assigned position in the flight, and everything else is secondary. If one of the wingmen does spot conflicting traffic, s/he should point it out to Lead and, if necessary, be directive ("Tahoe lead come left, traffic right one o'clock level converging"). And yes, that's all part of proper formation training.

 

[poadeleted20]

as soon as you request the tower for an OB,
your IFR flight plan is closed.

Actually, it's when you hit initial, not when you request the overhead. That request might be made 40 miles out.

 

[Panew]

Actually, it's when you hit initial, not when you request the overhead. That request might be made 40 miles out.

Thank you for the correction and clarification.

 

[Henning]

Man, if you're at 3/4 mile out and go around, you won't reach TPA at the break point. This makes it a non-event.

Of course, I guess it depends on what altitude you were at when you went around, but assuming a normal approach, you'd be out of the way and low before the inbound aircraft broke.

I don't know your performance capabilities, but my plane will typically climb 2500fpm or better down low, especially when I'm light, and if I turn the eight knots between 120 and 112(Vyse) into climb, I can exceed that by a long margin so call it 40'/sec. 3/4 of a mile at 112 is what, about 18 seconds or a climb of 720' by the time I get to the threshold. At 3/4 mile out, there's a good chance I'll still be > 280' (or 80' for those 800' patterns) so that means our paths do suffer a risk of collision. Now lets say I Broke off my approach because someone rolled out onto the runway infront of me and I decide I'll do an OB style "loop back from the threshold" to get him off the ground and me on in the minimal lost time. Now we have a continued path of convergence and conflict.

This is what I mean by failed analysis. You failed to to add variables to the analysis. Your performance criteria were lacking. There are plenty of planes with way more excess HP than most RVs. While most RVs perform well when compared to a 172 or a Warrior, they do not outperform most twins.

 

[AEROBAT]

Does the Nall report break down the crashes into categories of cause?

How many of those crashes were pilots acting a fool?
How many of those crashes were structural issues?
Fuel issues?
Ability issues?
Etc..
Etc..

Did you read the report? It doesn't look good for homebuilts.

 

[Henning]

I'm trying to figure out how there can be "traffic converging from all directions." I should have clearance to the non-pattern side of the runway, and probably above (unless there's a flight of F-4's coming in to the break 500 feet over my head, but they really shouldn't be doing that). But if it's really that busy, I'll just stay out about five miles and orbit until things settle down.

"Clearance" to a magenta colored airport? Are you flying IFR?

#3 doesn't give up PIC status with regard to his/her own plane, but lead is ultimately responsible for visual lookout and avoidance of other traffic for the entire formation. #3's primary responsibility is to maintain his/her assigned position in the flight, and everything else is secondary. If one of the wingmen does spot conflicting traffic, s/he should point it out to Lead and, if necessary, be directive ("Tahoe lead come left, traffic right one o'clock level converging"). And yes, that's all part of proper formation training.

Can you show me in the FARs where formation flight is legal for the wingmen in VMC? I think I'm going to write to Chief Counsel on this one, because I don't see how a wingman can meet his VFR-IFR/VMC- See and Avoid obligations.

 

[poadeleted20]

"Clearance" to a magenta colored airport? Are you flying IFR?

OK -- "clear space." Better?

Can you show me in the FARs where formation flight is legal for the wingmen in VMC?

Can you show me where it isn't? Nothing says you have to do your own see-and-avoid as PIC -- you can legally delegate that task to someone else, such as your safety pilot under the hood or flight lead in a formation. Of course, as PIC, you remain responsible if the person to whom you delegate the task screws it up, but delegation of tasks is a well-accepted practice. Or are you one of those who believe the safety pilot for hooded flight must be the PIC?

I think I'm going to write to Chief Counsel on this one, because I don't see how a wingman can meet his VFR-IFR/VMC- See and Avoid obligations.

Since the FAA recognizes FAST and FFI formation cards (among others), it's pretty obvious they've already considered and rejected your thesis.

That said, at this point, I'm thinking you're just yanking chains -- please don't prove me right.

 

[Henning]

OK -- "clear space." Better?

Can you show me where it isn't? Nothing says you have to do your own see-and-avoid as PIC -- you can legally delegate that task to someone else, such as your safety pilot under the hood or flight lead in a formation. Of course, as PIC, you remain responsible if the person to whom you delegate the task screws it up, but delegation of tasks is a well-accepted practice. Or are you one of those who believe the safety pilot for hooded flight must be the PIC?

Since the FAA recognizes FAST and FFI formation cards (among others), it's pretty obvious they've already considered and rejected your thesis.

That said, at this point, I'm thinking you're just yanking chains -- please don't prove me right.

"Safety Pilot" is in the same plane with you and has access to the controls (required IIRC), completely different than turning it over to lead in another airplane.

I don't think Chief Counsel has ever considered it, I'm gonna ask as I'd like to know the logic they use in making the determination.

 

[kkoran]

Man, if you're at 3/4 mile out and go around, you won't reach TPA at the break point. This makes it a non-event.

Of course, I guess it depends on what altitude you were at when you went around, but assuming a normal approach, you'd be out of the way and low before the inbound aircraft broke.

What if the break is delayed due to traffic on downwind?

 

[Tom-D]

see and avoid,, 91.113

AS I read it there is no set distance to meet the avoid portion of this FAR.

I guess 1 inch or more is legal.

that brings up whats a "Near miss"

The last civil formation flying I witnessed looked more like a flag waving imitation, than a Blue Angles Delta formation.