Pattern Madness

[Anthony]

Dan, was this at KLNS?

 

[kyleb]

Please explain how a "break into the up wind" would work?

I suspect he meant downwind.

 

[silver-eagle]

Blowing into the middle of the pattern, whether you're doing a straight in approach or a "cool" high speed break when other traffic is there is dangerous. It doesn't matter if you're flying a C150 or a RV or a Lear, the law of averages will catch up with you. Just stay away from MY airport when it does.

 

[Tom-D]

Please explain how a "break into the up wind" would work?

For this explanation Let's assume we have a north south runway.

the squadron entering from the north would be flying south overhead the runway above the traffic, and break left desending into the up wind.

as they bank left they get a good look at the up wind area, desend to traffic altitude, and do the cross wind, down wind, and base, to final.

coming from the south, add an extra left U turn at the top of the pattern.

this is a normal landing at any non towered airport in Canada, go to the center of the field, check the sock, and turn into the appropriate down wind.

 

[dmccormack]

Dan, was this at KLNS?

No, S37

 

[Tom-D]

You mean that it's like that all the time and not just on the few days before the yearly fly-in?

Pretty much any time you have 3 or more of the RV squadron flying,

I have a story about AWO which starts with looking at the NOTAMS and wondering why there would be a temporary tower there the next day. I had no idea.

This years Notam was typical of the past 10 years or so, the tower is there during the flyin. when I fly into AWO during the meet, I go early, and use normal pattern, enter from Island crossing to the 45 to the left down wind to base and final on 34. at about 0600 there is nobody up to wave stuff at you, no signs to show where you want to park. stuff like that.

and you leave right after the airshow and it's a simple climbing left 45 and I'm home.

 

[Everskyward]

This years Notam was typical of the past 10 years or so, the tower is there during the flyin.

The tower is there during the fly-in but apparently many of the planes arrive before the fly-in and camp out on the runways and beside the taxiways. Then there is the ignorant transient pilot (me) who checks the NOTAMS and realizes there is going to be temporary tower the next day but nothing rings a bell in her mind as to why because she is not clued in to the EAA and the world of fly-ins. Big surprise.

 

[nosehair]

So, how does one do "an overhead break" and if you aren't military practicing in T38s or whatever the current trainer is why would you want to even do that?

It is an excellent forced landing technique; a logical extension of the power off 180; a power-off 360.

Forced landing (gliding) skills are built with 90, 180, and 360 degree gliding turns that put you on final for a landing spot.

Of course, these maneuvers must not be in conflict with 'normal' traffic, ...but they do (can) serve a very useful purpose.

 

[kkoran]

For this explanation Let's assume we have a north south runway.

the squadron entering from the north would be flying south overhead the runway above the traffic, and break left desending into the up wind.

as they bank left they get a good look at the up wind area, desend to traffic altitude, and do the cross wind, down wind, and base, to final.

coming from the south, add an extra left U turn at the top of the pattern.

this is a normal landing at any non towered airport in Canada, go to the center of the field, check the sock, and turn into the appropriate down wind.

Good explanation, though it's not like any Canadian pattern entry I've every heard of. The Canadian entry I'm familiar involves crossing the runway from the upwind side at pattern altitude and turning downwind.

Two concerns I have with your proposal are:

1. It requires aircraft to descend in the pattern. Descending on the upwind leg is probably not as bad as descending on the downwind leg, but if there's a plan on upwind, the results could be just as unpleasant.

2. The potential for conflict with aircraft departing straight out, especially high-performance ones.
​

 

[Tom-D]

Good explanation, though it's not like any Canadian pattern entry I've every heard of. The Canadian entry I'm familiar involves crossing the runway from the upwind side at pattern altitude and turning downwind.

Two concerns I have with your proposal are:

1. It requires aircraft to descend in the pattern. Descending on the upwind leg is probably not as bad as descending on the downwind leg, but if there's a plan on upwind, the results could be just as unpleasant.

2. The potential for conflict with aircraft departing straight out, especially high-performance ones.
​

That's why you have eyes and should be using them. You can see the runway the whole time you are on the up wind, and should be able to see any departing aircraft and every one should be announcing their position including departing aircraft.

 

[RoscoeT]

Seems to me the OP got a little butthurt, and is now inciting and eliciting RV hate from folks who mostly have little contact with RVs and likely don't know any RV pilots personally. There are 7000 of these things flying, and they are not hangar queens like most of the boring spam out there. They are fun airplanes, and yes, people do have fun with them. The OP is the perfect example of a single encounter with one person who had his head up his ass, may have made an honest mistake, and is now flaming RV pilots in general as a bunch of show-off, arrogant, inconsiderate dangerous wannabes. I would imagine if the OP (and many of you) had more experience with RV pilots in general, you would have a different attitude.

I know lots of RV pilots and used to fly one myself. In my opinion, based on my experience they are (on the whole) MORE conscientious, responsible, and professional than others. Maybe there are pockets of a few folks out there who have a different "culture", but I have not observed this.

As far as a group or single overhead break goes, it's no different or more dangerous than making a midfield crosswind entry...except you're doing it from an overhead upwind rather than from an extended crosswind from the upwind side. Got to the http://www.vansairforce.net site and search for "overhead break". You will read lots of conscientious, considerate, well-informed and responsible opinions from folks who are highly-experienced. There is a practical aspect of flying an overhead break in an RV. They are very clean and fast, and with a FP prop, they take a little time to slow down to pattern speed. The break is an uncomplicated way to scrub speed and get the plane on the ground quickly, with no disruption if properly done. It also minimizes exposure in the pattern.

I've never understood people who are hard line on the 45 entry to the point of demanding an overfly (if on the upwind side) and teardropping back around to the 45. Seems this is a good way to get tangled up with folks who are already entering the 45. The safest place in the pattern to be is right over the runway at pattern altitude. Pattern safety is more about good judgement, using your eyeballs, and communicating than adherence (or prohibition) of some specific procedure.

So for those of you who think RVers are so dangerous, find me the NTSB stats that support the notion that they are significantly more likely to cause an accident involving anyone but themselves. Yes, there have been some low-level acro type of accidents (along with all the other usual causes), but this has always been the case with aerobatic airplanes. RVs just get a lot more exposure due to their extreme numbers. There are more RVs flying than all the other aerobatic airplanes (experimental and TC'd) in the country combined.

This thread seems to involve more bandwagon flaming based on isolated anecdotes and hearsay than it does any real up-close experience AMONG RV pilots in a broader sense. Nobody will admit it, but folks can also be jealous of others who are having more fun than they are. Anyway, show me the facts supporting the idea that RV pilots are such an increased danger to everybody else, and I will take some of the statements here a little more seriously. Also, get to know some RV pilots. They really aren't any different from other pilots.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Canadian pattern entry for uncontrolled airports:

Note that there is no 45° entry.

And as for the comment that "the safest place to be is over the runway at pattern altitude," I've nearly had a midair right there. I was crossing to join downwind, and another pilot came across straight at me, having cut through the downwind leg at pattern altitude. Multiple collision points.

Dan

 

[Tom-D]

The tower is there during the fly-in but apparently many of the planes arrive before the fly-in and camp out on the runways and beside the taxiways. Then there is the ignorant transient pilot (me) who checks the NOTAMS and realizes there is going to be temporary tower the next day but nothing rings a bell in her mind as to why because she is not clued in to the EAA and the world of fly-ins. Big surprise.

The fun part is leaving, the tower shuts down, and hand it over to the paddles, pictures are from 1999 leaving in 2801C the 170B. that was the largest attendance they have ever had. it took about 30 minutes to empty the place because a storm was coming in and every one wanted out.

the last two pictures are of coming in, #18 on the down wind, which extended almost to PAE

 

[Tom-D]

Canadian pattern entry for uncontrolled airports:

Note that there is no 45° entry.

And as for the comment that "the safest place to be is over the runway at pattern altitude," I've nearly had a midair right there. I was crossing to join downwind, and another pilot came across straight at me, having cut through the downwind leg at pattern altitude. Multiple collision points.

Dan

That's a new diagram for me, I guess I need to go get a new Canadian rule book.

 

[kkoran]

That's why you have eyes and should be using them. You can see the runway the whole time you are on the up wind, and should be able to see any departing aircraft and every one should be announcing their position including departing aircraft.

My concern about conflict with departures isn't on the upwind leg, it's when the plane is approaching the airport (using your example) from the north while planes are departing and climbing to the north.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Actually it doesn't matter what type of engine you have as much as a method of getting a 10 aircraft squadron over head and then separated to land.
The Navy at sea, will have the returning air group arrive over head the ship for the boss to see how many aircraft he has to land, then break at 30 second intervals ahead of the ship and enter into the down wind. to land 2 minutes apart.

That is true, but there is even less of a practical purpose in using a carrier break in the general aviation world.

 

[Tom-D]

That is true, but there is even less of a practical purpose in using a carrier break in the general aviation world.

True..... but when your ego requires it to be done

 

[Tom-D]

My concern about conflict with departures isn't on the upwind leg, it's when the plane is approaching the airport (using your example) from the north while planes are departing and climbing to the north.

that far out you aren't in the pattern. and altitude separation rules should be in effect.

 

[kkoran]

that far out you aren't in the pattern. and altitude separation rules should be in effect.

It is entirely possible for a departure to be at 1,500 AGL (500 ft above a 1,000 AGL pattern) within 2 miles of the runway and the hemispheric altitude rule don't apply below 3,000 AGL.

 

[murphey]

So for those of you who think RVers are so dangerous, find me the NTSB stats that support the notion that they are significantly more likely to cause an accident involving anyone but themselves. Yes, there have been some low-level acro type of accidents (along with all the other usual causes), but this has always been the case with aerobatic airplanes. RVs just get a lot more exposure due to their extreme numbers. There are more RVs flying than all the other aerobatic airplanes (experimental and TC'd) in the country combined.

Anyway, show me the facts supporting the idea that RV pilots are such an increased danger to everybody else, and I will take some of the statements here a little more seriously.

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

Weather is the #1 cause of accidents with 70% resulting in one or more fatalities. Maneuvering is the #2 category of accidents with 68.7% resulting in one or more fatalities. And I quote from the report

"Some of the accident maneuvers were necessary, such as turns in the airport traffic pattern, but poorly executed. Others were needlessly risky activities like buzzing attempts, low-altitude night flights, or attempted aerobatics by untrained pilots and/or in unapproved aircraft. Most were initiated at low altitudes, giving the pilots little time or room to respond if anything went wrong."

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. The 27% lethality rate in these accidents was 10 full percentage points higher than that of accidents in type-certificated airplanes".

The trend for fatal accidents has been trending up between 1999 and 2008. For this category, weather-related accidents is #2 and the #1 type of accident is .... Maneuvering with an 82.4% fatality rate.

"Since 1999, amateur-built aircraft have consistently had accident rates from 3.6 to 5.1 times higher than those of type-certificated fixed-wing airplanes in noncommercial operation, and fatal-accident rates from 4.3 to 7.6 times as high."

As you point out, there are more RVs than any other type of E/AB aircraft. Hence it's reasonable and logical to apply these statistics in proportion to the number of RVs vs all other E/AB aircraft.

Are these sufficient facts for you?

Also, get to know some RV pilots. They really aren't any different from other pilots.

I know a large number of RV pilots - they're in my EAA chapter. Me? I fly a Cherokee and have NEVER been jealous of an RV. 'Specially when Oshkosh time comes around and I get multiple requests..."gee, can you carry my camping gear" because I have a 1000# load and they have about 20#.

 

[RoscoeT]

Are these sufficient facts for you?

LOL, you completely ducked the question. If you don't like RV's and their pilots, nobody is forcing you set foot in one. I asked for significant data trends showing RVs represent a significant increased "danger to everyone else"...as in others in the sky. Do you fly around with this perpetual fear of an RV plowing into you?

I know a large number of RV pilots - they're in my EAA chapter.

So would you generalize them as a bunch of arrogant, reckless, show-off wannabes?

I fly a Cherokee and have NEVER been jealous of an RV. 'Specially when Oshkosh time comes around and I get multiple requests..."gee, can you carry my camping gear" because I have a 1000# load and they have about 20#.

I'm glad there are lots of Cherokee pilots in the world. Otherwise, they'd just drive up the prices of the fun airplanes.

 

[murphey]

My my my...touched a nerve, have we?

LOL, you completely ducked the question.

No, you asked for facts and I presented facts from the Nall Report. I did not offer opinion.

If you don't like RV's and their pilots, nobody is forcing you set foot in one. I asked for significant data trends showing RVs represent a significant increased "danger to everyone else"...as in others in the sky. Do you fly around with this perpetual fear of an RV plowing into you?

Do you hang around boards deliberately mis-interpreting statements? Point out any specific statement that implied or indicated I do or do not like a type of aircraft?

So would you generalize them as a bunch of arrogant, reckless, show-off wannabes?

I repeat - show me where I generalized any category of pilots in this manner?

I'm glad there are lots of Cherokee pilots in the world. Otherwise, they'd just drive up the prices of the fun airplanes.

And I'm dismayed at the inability to read and comprehend.

 

[RoscoeT]

Do you hang around boards deliberately mis-interpreting statements? Point out any specific statement that implied or indicated I do or do not like a type of aircraft?

Forget that. With the data you posted, you still have not shown how RVs are more dangerous to other pilots in the air. That's what I was after. What am I misinterpreting?

I repeat - show me where I generalized any category of pilots in this manner?

I never said you did. I ASKED you for your opinion (for the benefit of others here) on whether you would characterize these RV pilots as others (who I feel do NOT actually know any) seem to be doing.

And I'm dismayed at the inability to read and comprehend.

Maybe you're right, because I don't get your point. Not much to work with here.

 

[Panew]

AWO is one of them, and the RV squadron is mostly old military pilots and old retired airline pilots (maybe both) running on ego.

that's a pretty ignorant way to describe those who served.

 

[BellyUpFish]

So I'm flying with a new student -- hour 6 -- and we're doing the normal pattern entry. on a 45...

Just curious, this "normal" 45" pattern entry, is this mandatory or recommended?

Now -- someone please tell me -- why, oh why is it always these blasted RV drivers who feel compelled to do overhead breaks over public use, busy GA fields?

Just curious, how many aircraft other than you were in the pattern. Does 1 aircraft in the pattern constitute a "busy field?"

An overhead break to an airport with multiple aircraft in the pattern could be a bit much. An overhead break to an airport with one guy in a 150 doing bounces, I don't see the issue.

I've yet to hear or see a Cessna or Piper or even Cirrus call "Overhead break" and ignore all pattern protocol (though I have had close calls with the same when they mis-called position, etc).

Again, I guess "pattern protocol" is the "mandatory" 45* entry?

Also, the non-standard radio use, the complete disdain for other traffic seems unique among these wannabes. What am I missing?

Just curious, what sort of radio calls do you use when you're inbound to an airport? Do the words "Any traffic in the area please advise!" come across your mic?

What sort of wannabe's are these guys who do overhead breaks? Does a pilot doing an overhead break because it's an enjoyable act to perform make him a wannabe?

 

[dmccormack]

Just curious, this "normal" 45" pattern entry, is this mandatory or recommended?

Just curious, how many aircraft other than you were in the pattern. Does 1 aircraft in the pattern constitute a "busy field?"

An overhead break to an airport with multiple aircraft in the pattern could be a bit much. An overhead break to an airport with one guy in a 150 doing bounces, I don't see the issue.

Again, I guess "pattern protocol" is the "mandatory" 45* entry?

Just curious, what sort of radio calls do you use when you're inbound to an airport? Do the words "Any traffic in the area please advise!" come across your mic?

What sort of wannabe's are these guys who do overhead breaks? Does a pilot doing an overhead break because it's an enjoyable act to perform make him a wannabe?

So, the RV-apologists signed up and posted last night I see..



Dr Bruce is absolutely right -- ya'll need to recognize the problems and address them, or the problem will be addressed for you, and all will suffer.

 

[dmccormack]

that's a pretty ignorant way to describe those who served.

Many of us served -- some to retirement. And we're not as sensitive as you.

 

[Dan Thomas]

That's a new diagram for me, I guess I need to go get a new Canadian rule book.

Save your money. Canadian AIM:
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/publications/tp14371-menu-3092.htm

Canadian Regs:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/menu.htm

Dan

 

[dmccormack]

Just curious, this "normal" 45" pattern entry, is this mandatory or recommended?

Just curious -- is flying upwind at pattern altitude in a standard left pattern on the downwind side recommended?

Or is it just insanely stupid and dangerous?

Well....?

 

[Dr. O]

Interesting that I see an auto rant in the middle of this scrum...

Just be aware that there are many who drive 5 under - me included... That it forces you to slow down is NOT my problem... I could not care less if I tried (not trying)...

As far as my driving below the speed limit making me some sort of incompetent likely to hit you - bwaaa haaa haaa haa, heeee - that's a good one...

denny-o

 

[dmccormack]

Interesting that I see an auto rant in the middle of this scrum...

Just be aware that there are many who drive 5 under - me included... That it forces you to slow down is NOT my problem... I could not care less if I tried (not trying)...

As far as my driving below the speed limit making me some sort of incompetent likely to hit you - bwaaa haaa haaa haa, heeee - that's a good one...

denny-o

5 MPH under the posted limit?

Don't drive on I-95 between NY and Richmond much, do ya?

 

[EdFred]

Interesting that I see an auto rant in the middle of this scrum...

Just be aware that there are many who drive 5 under - me included... That it forces you to slow down is NOT my problem... I could not care less if I tried (not trying)...

As far as my driving below the speed limit making me some sort of incompetent likely to hit you - bwaaa haaa haaa haa, heeee - that's a good one...

denny-o

Just stay in the right lane on 4 laners, and don't crowd the center line on the 2 lanes.

 

[kirkrv8]

To the OP may I ask what day this "incident" happened?
I am based out of S37 was it Saturday?

 

[Panew]

So I'm flying with a new student -- hour 6 -- and we're doing the normal pattern entry. on a 45, closer to the upwind end of the runway, but fairly close, etc. Winds are light but favoring 28, all traffic that has landed in past 45 minutes has landed on 28.

He announced 3 miles from the field, entering the pattern, downwind for 28. I can hear other chatter on the radio but no airport ID -- just typical "Yeah, Jerry, I'm over here.." stupidity.

We're nearly abeam the numbers when I see a glint of silver ahead -- airplane, our altitude, right at us.

"My airplane."

I do a right turn out of the pattern (C150, so a right turn lets me keep an eye on him), and watch as hero does a steep 360 then heads for the upwind side. I also hear , "Yeah, uhh, gonna head over to upwind side.."

Again, no identifier, no nuthin.

I get us back on downwind and see it's a silver RV.



Now -- someone please tell me -- why, oh why is it always these blasted RV drivers who feel compelled to do overhead breaks over public use, busy GA fields?

I've yet to hear or see a Cessna or Piper or even Cirrus call "Overhead break" and ignore all pattern protocol (though I have had close calls with the same when they mis-called position, etc).

Also, the non-standard radio use, the complete disdain for other traffic seems unique among these wannabes. What am I missing?

How could you know that's an RV?
Do you know how an RV looks like?
did you get the tail number?

I do not think it is right to NOT follow generally accepted procedures,
but it serves no purpose to call out the RVs when you have no proof it is an RV,
and generalization of one individual on 7,000+ RV fliers is just plain ignorant. This is as bad as calling a Cessna a spam can, or a Cirri a doc-killer.


ps. I do not have an RV, nor do I fly one.

 

[PeteJE]

I AM RVDriver on the Red Board. "They" don't have a problem, nor do I. A few individuals may have a problem, and the problem may have a high profile, but don't extend that to the bigger group.

Similarly, just because doctors have a reputation for cashing in their chips crashing expensive airplanes that were beyond their competency level doesn't mean I lump you or any other doctor into that group or that I say doctor/pilots are a menace to society. Certainly, a few probably are, but that's an individual thing to be addressed on that basis.

Even if you are one of the good ones (pilots), you DO have a problem, the FAA says so and they will bring a solution. This should be of paramount concern to you. I, too, would hate to see e/ab drastically limited and the op. limits changed. But, they see an up to 7X worse fatality rate and will move to fix it. How much more direct do they have to be, you've followed what Van wrote?

 

[ajstoner21]

 

[ScottM]

Does anyone know if there are high wing RVs?

 

[kirkrv8]

Does anyone know if there are high wing RVs?

No there are not

 

[RoscoeT]

Just curious -- is flying upwind at pattern altitude in a standard left pattern on the downwind side recommended?

Or is it just insanely stupid and dangerous?

Well....?

What is your other direct and personal experience with RVers besides this single idiot? How many do you know personally? And don't tell me you have ever seen another RV enter upwind on the downwind. Still waiting for you to describe how a proper overhead pattern is disruptive or dangerous. How about the midfield crosswind? Does the same thing. I see all these "blasted" "wannabe" Cessna drivers fly midfield crosswinds. I've never had a pattern incident involving an RV. There are lots of RVs in my area. I must be divinely lucky or something. I have had pattern incidents with Cherokees, Cessnas, Cirrus', Allegros, and even a TBM. I guess I need to rant about TBM pilots now...because Cessnas and Pipers are just too broad a target.

 

[dmccormack]

What is your other direct and personal experience with RVers besides this single idiot? How many do you know personally? And don't tell me you have ever seen another RV enter upwind on the downwind. Still waiting for you to describe how a proper overhead pattern is disruptive or dangerous. How about the midfield crosswind? Does the same thing. I see all these "blasted" "wannabe" Cessna drivers fly midfield crosswinds. I've never had a pattern incident involving an RV. There are lots of RVs in my area. I must be divinely lucky or something. I have had pattern incidents with Cherokees, Cessnas, Cirrus', Allegros, and even a TBM. I guess I need to rant about TBM pilots now...because Cessnas and Pipers are just too broad a target.

You're intentionally conflating my post with the entire thread, then diverting attention from my specific example towards some ambiguous universal.

The overhead break maneuver at pattern altitude is unnecessary when other airplanes are in the pattern -- if you have your own strip do whatever you want.

Flying opposite to established direction is stupid, and an RV driver was doing it -- what else do you want to hear?