What is the correct Pattern Altitude?

Sendero

Sendero

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
82
Location
KDCU
Display Name
Display name:
Sendero
This is for my home airport KDCU (Pryor Regional) with a elevation of 592' in a single engine piston airplane. What is the correct legal pattern altitude:

A) 1400' MSL
[noparse]B)[/noparse] 1600' MSL

The Airplane Flying Handbook says TPA is normally 1000' AGL from field elevation unless it's notated in the A/FD. The A/FD doesn't have a TPA listed for DCU. In chapter 4-3-3 the FAR/AIM is only lists a recommended range of 600-1500' AGL. AOPA's FlyQ Pocket lists TPA at 1390' MSL. Who's correct and what documentation defines who's correct? :dunno:
 
C) 1592' MSL

sTPA and A/FD supercedes all "non-official" sources, A/FD details supercedes sTPA of 1k'MSL, and NOTAM's/TFR's supercede the A/FD (non-precision and precision approaches are separated)

Aim 4-3-3 (figure 4-3-2; ex.2)
"1,000′ AGL is recommended pattern altitude unless established otherwise"

There is no modified TPA in the official A/FD details for DCU (It would have something like TPA-1000(800) next to OX 3,4). There are no remarks or notams for 18 or 36, so sTPA LTP. However FF shows a 1390(2)' MSL TPA, so it's either a typo, or there was an 800' TPA remark somewhere and it's been removed.

I would contact AOPA and FF and let them know of the discrepancy.
 
Last edited:
Listed TPA's is one of the most f*cked up things in aviation...especially when or comes to AOPA and now Foreflight.

Just like Shane said, the AF/D is the official source. TPA is standard unless listed differently there. Ignore all other references. 75% of the airports in my area have the wrong TPA listed on AOPA and in foreflight.

This is one of my (very many) pet peeves.
 
Neither ForeFlight nor AOPA's Directory have any official status. The recommended TPA for light planes remains 1000 AGL unless otherwise published by the FAA in the A/FD.
 
Ron Levy said:
Neither ForeFlight nor AOPA's Directory have any official status. The recommended TPA for light planes remains 1000 AGL unless otherwise published by the FAA in the A/FD.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this, but it highlights the problem of pilots who don't read the A/FD or for that matter pay any attention to it if they do read it. All the other "semi-official" sources are convenient, but ...

A 200 ft variance in 'accepted' pattern altitude is potentially a real problem. Perfect setup for a high/low wing conflict.
 
timwinters said:
Listed TPA's is one of the most f*cked up things in aviation...especially when or comes to AOPA and now Foreflight.

Just like Shane said, the AF/D is the official source. TPA is standard unless listed differently there. Ignore all other references. 75% of the airports in my area have the wrong TPA listed on AOPA and in foreflight.

This is one of my (very many) pet peeves.
Click to expand...

I agree. A couple of years ago I had a student get busted on a private check ride because on her diversion she entered the pattern at 1000' AGL and the examiner knew that airport was listed as 800' in the AF/D and she didn't look it up while diverting. He was technically correct and within his rights, but I thought it was a bit harsh. So now I review and highlight all the airports with different TPA's that might be used as diversions on the checkride!
 
Just for the record from a Garmin Pilot Android user, the TPA at KDCU is listed by Garmin as "Fixed Wing 1390 MSL". My suspicion is that someone forgot to update the A/FD, or the A/FD is lagging behind its submitted data.
 
RotorDude said:
Just for the record from a Garmin Pilot Android user, the TPA at KDCU is listed by Garmin as "Fixed Wing 1390 MSL". My suspicion is that someone forgot to update the A/FD, or the A/FD is lagging behind its submitted data.
Click to expand...
Doubtful, more believable is that it's been wrong forever just like 75% to the airfields around here.
 
FTFY :goofy:

Ron Levy said:
just like Shane and Tim said, neither ForeFlight nor AOPA's Directory have any official status. The recommended TPA for light planes remains 1000 AGL unless otherwise published by the FAA in the A/FD.
Click to expand...
 
The 1400 vs 1600 MSL is what I'm trying to rectify. Majority of the "locals" polled say 1400' MSL is TPA. FAA Advisory Circular AC90-66A and AERONAUTICAL CHARTING FORUM Meeting 13-01 both establish the 1000' AGL Pattern Altitude. So, does that mean someone needs to submit a correction to these entities (AOPA, FF, Garmin, etc) for a Pattern Altitude correction?

But this also generates another question (confusion on my part). The Circular above states:
FAA Advisory Circular AC90-66A Section 8 Subsection C said:
It is recommended that airplanes observe a lOOO-foot above ground level (AGL) traffic pattern altitude. Large and turbine-powered airplanes should enter the traffic pattern at an altitude of 1,500 feet AGL or 500 feet above the established pattern altitude. A pilot may vary the size of the traffic pattern depending on the aircraft’s performance characteristics.
Click to expand...

592' + (500' above TPA) = 2092' MSL and a bust of KHSV's outer ring?

There's something that makes me think DCU's TPA is supposed to be 800' AGL and it's just not published in the A/FD like it's supposed to be. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
1000' AGL works for me, unless there is a local reason preventing, maybe airspace above or near.
 
There are probably lots of examples of non-standard pattern altitudes that never got submitted or were dropped from the A/FD for some reason. While I was training at 76G, the owner had the TPA dropped from 1000 to 800 AGL. It took a couple of cycles for the lower TPA to show up in the A/FD, but we flew the lower TPA from the get-go. Today it's no longer in the A/FD, but ForeFlight lists the TPA as 1413 MSL (field elevation is 613). Which is correct? Legally the A/FD is the authoritative source. What TPA do the locals fly today? Beats me. :dunno:

Tim said, that listed TPAs are totally f***ed up, but you could just as easily say that common practice TPAs are f***ed up when they disagree with the A/FD. One thing is for sure, that transients who are unaware of local practice will usually follow the A/FD. Everyone needs to be extra careful out there in the pattern.
 
RotorDude said:
"Wrong forever" as in nobody ever bothered to submit it?
Click to expand...

I have no idea were AOPA gets their information from. I've asked on a couple of occasions, and they can't answer. When I tell them they need to change the TPA of our local field, they tell me that that the airport manager needs to call them to do so. I tell them to look it up in the AFD as that should be all the documentation they need...the airport mgr isn't the final authority on TPA, the FAA is.

They are idiots, on this and so many other things.
 
Last edited:
StevieTimes said:
It could be to let twins pattern 500 feet higher without busting Charlie.
Click to expand...

Sendero said:
But this also generates another question (confusion on my part). The Circular above states:


592' + (500' above TPA) = 2092' MSL and a bust of KHSV's outer ring?

There's something that makes me think DCU's TPA is supposed to be 800' AGL and it's just not published in the A/FD like it's supposed to be. :dunno:
Click to expand...

That's what I said! Maybe you could contact the airport manager or FAA and make it happen.
 
In that case "large and turbine powered aircraft" would likely already be cleared into the Charlie as they were likely on a flight plan. I don't think light "twins" are considered "large or turbine powered" and thus would fly a standard 1000' pattern but not sure on that one.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
In that case "large and turbine powered aircraft" would likely already be cleared into the Charlie as they were likely on a flight plan. I don't think light "twins" are considered "large or turbine powered" and thus would fly a standard 1000' pattern but not sure on that one.
Click to expand...

I've flown light twins with a couple of different instructors. Neither they nor the DPE said I should be at a different altitude than light piston singles were using. :dunno:
 
timwinters said:
In that case "large and turbine powered aircraft" would likely already be cleared into the Charlie as they were likely on a flight plan. I don't think light "twins" are considered "large or turbine powered" and thus would fly a standard 1000' pattern but not sure on that one.
Click to expand...
I was forewarned by my CFI when I was getting my ATP that the examiner considered the mighty Duchess a "large or turbine powered aircraft" and wanted to see the pattern flown at 1500 AGL. So I did. And got a compliment for doing so. Cooperate and graduate.

Technically "large" is >12,500 lbs, which the Duchess is clearly not, and it is only turbine powered in its dreams.
 
azure said:
There are probably lots of examples of non-standard pattern altitudes that never got submitted or were dropped from the A/FD for some reason. While I was training at 76G, the owner had the TPA dropped from 1000 to 800 AGL. It took a couple of cycles for the lower TPA to show up in the A/FD, but we flew the lower TPA from the get-go. Today it's no longer in the A/FD, but ForeFlight lists the TPA as 1413 MSL (field elevation is 613). Which is correct? Legally the A/FD is the authoritative source. What TPA do the locals fly today? Beats me. :dunno:

Tim said, that listed TPAs are totally f***ed up, but you could just as easily say that common practice TPAs are f***ed up when they disagree with the A/FD. One thing is for sure, that transients who are unaware of local practice will usually follow the A/FD. Everyone needs to be extra careful out there in the pattern.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking about 76G!
And, my answer is, hell if I know.

Last time I was there, a local CFI (working with a student) asked me what the pattern altitude was.

I answered, "1000' unless otherwise published in the A/FD. What's it say?"
(I'd come in by car, so hadn't needed to know it.)

He told me he flew it at 900' but it was really 800' - go ahead, look it up in the Michigan Airport Directory.-Rationale was that it was safer that way. :eek:

I remarked that it was not an official publication and I preferred to use FAA sources.

FWIW - Naviator has 76G at 1000'. (Actually, it doesn't mention pattern altitude at all, thereby implying 1000'.)
 
Traffic pattern direction and pattern altitude seem to be all ****ed up between portables, sectionals, A/FD, and panel mounted sources.

At uncontrolled fields I use a left hand pattern and 1000' AGL unless something blares out at me on one of the gizmo's to use a right pattern or other altitude.
 
txflyer said:
Traffic pattern direction and pattern altitude seem to be all ****ed up between portables, sectionals, A/FD, and panel mounted sources.

At uncontrolled fields I use a left hand pattern and 1000' AGL unless something blares out at me on one of the gizmo's to use a right pattern or other altitude.
Click to expand...

Altitudes aside, is anyone aware of any airport where the side (left/right) of the pattern is in conflict among the sources? (I don't mean by default of not specifying therefore meaning left.)
 
JoeSelch said:
He told me he flew it at 900' but it was really 800' - go ahead, look it up in the Michigan Airport Directory.-Rationale was that it was safer that way. :eek:

I remarked that it was not an official publication and I preferred to use FAA sources.
Click to expand...
Yep, it's all totally f***ed up. :hairraise:

Personally I'll go with FAA sources unless I know that the locals fly a different TPA *and* there aren't any transients in the pattern. In the case of 76G, assuming it's still 800 by local custom and no transients, I'd prolly do just what the CFI said.

Did he explain why he flew it at 900? That sounds TOTALLY nuts, though there might be a good reason.

BTW the reason they started the 800 TPA was explained to me as so that the pattern would be in the Class G, allowing 1 mile and clear of clouds. I countered that 800 is still in the Class E. They didn't have an answer... :dunno:
 
RotorDude said:
Altitudes aside, is anyone aware of any airport where the side (left/right) of the pattern is in conflict among the sources? (I don't mean by default of not specifying therefore meaning left.)
Click to expand...


I know on Garmin Pilot and my 430W it isn't going to tell you without a lot of knob cranking that the 24 traffic pattern is to the right, and the 6 pattern is left like the airport below. You have to look at a sectional or have sectionals up on GP or look in A/FD.


uncontrolledfuelnobeaconinfo.jpg
 
txflyer said:
I know on Garmin Pilot and my 430W it isn't going to tell you without a lot of knob cranking that the 24 traffic pattern is to the right, and the 6 pattern is left like the airport below. You have to look at a sectional or have sectionals up on GP or look in A/FD.


uncontrolledfuelnobeaconinfo.jpg
Click to expand...

I just checked 3N6 on Garmin Pilot Android, and it says that rwy 24 is right traffic, matching the sectional.
So my question remains: given that pattern altitudes seem to be all over the place among the various sources, is there a single case of any US airport where a pattern direction is in conflict, i.e. one source says "right", the other "left" (not just by default of not saying, or the direction being hard to find)?
I accept that not specifying the direction at all implies "left", but only if it does specify "right" for other runways/airports.
 
Last edited:
RotorDude said:
Just for the record from a Garmin Pilot Android user, the TPA at KDCU is listed by Garmin as "Fixed Wing 1390 MSL". My suspicion is that someone forgot to update the A/FD, or the A/FD is lagging behind its submitted data.
Click to expand...
If it's in the A/FD, it's official. The problem with those other sources is you have no idea who submitted the data, which is why they're not official. If the letter from AOPA requesting that data ends up on the desk of the receptionist at the FBO, and s/he fills in a bunch of guesses and sends it back, it gets published in the AOPA Directory regardless of what the airport manager really wants. OTOH, the FAA will only accept A/FD data from the official airport management as listed with the FAA signed by the designated responsible official as listed with the cognizant FAA Airport Certification Office.

As for lag time, if the airport manager wants the TPA changed before the next A/FD date, s/he need only submit a NOTAM to that effect. So, if the data in those unofficial sources don't match the A/FD, check NOTAMs. If there's no NOTAM giving the same TPA as the unofficial source, the unofficial source is wrong.
 
Sendero said:
The 1400 vs 1600 MSL is what I'm trying to rectify. Majority of the "locals" polled say 1400' MSL is TPA. FAA Advisory Circular AC90-66A and AERONAUTICAL CHARTING FORUM Meeting 13-01 both establish the 1000' AGL Pattern Altitude. So, does that mean someone needs to submit a correction to these entities (AOPA, FF, Garmin, etc) for a Pattern Altitude correction?
Click to expand...
No. It means pilots need to refer to official data rather than relying on unofficial and uncertified commercial products. But it wouldn't hurt to let airport management know that certain unofficial publications are promulgating incorrect data on that airport.
 
Palmpilot said:
I've flown light twins with a couple of different instructors. Neither they nor the DPE said I should be at a different altitude than light piston singles were using. :dunno:
Click to expand...

The higher patten is usually for large/turbine aircraft. Light twins normally use the light plane pattern. That said, if airport management really wants Seminoles at 1500 AGL, that is their prerogative, and they should say so in the A/FD.
 
LDJones said:
I agree. A couple of years ago I had a student get busted on a private check ride because on her diversion she entered the pattern at 1000' AGL and the examiner knew that airport was listed as 800' in the AF/D and she didn't look it up while diverting.
Click to expand...
Are you effing kidding me?
 
LDJones said:
I agree. A couple of years ago I had a student get busted on a private check ride because on her diversion she entered the pattern at 1000' AGL and the examiner knew that airport was listed as 800' in the AF/D and she didn't look it up while diverting. He was technically correct and within his rights, but I thought it was a bit harsh.
Click to expand...
There are two issues here. First, the altitude criterion is +/- 100 feet. If the TPA is 1000, then flying the pattern at 800 feet is well outside standards. Second, the PTS says satisfactory performance includes that the applicant "Applies pertinent information from AFD, NOTAMs, and NOTAMS relative to airport, runway and taxiway closures, and other flight publications." Sounds like that applicant failed on both counts on that one event. However, the PTS says you pass unless there are consistent deviations from the standards. If this was the only deviation from the standards on the test, then I'd have to say the examiner was wrong.
 
Last edited:
Lots of Effing going on in this thread, Maybe we should have a fly-in at Effingham Il, I hear they have an effing good time with a big effing breakfast at the Effingham Restaurant.
 
If I wanted to help my local airport fix the Pattern Altitude in the A/FD would FAA Form 7480-1 be the correct document?
 
timwinters said:
Listed TPA's is one of the most f*cked up things in aviation...especially when or comes to AOPA and now Foreflight.

Just like Shane said, the AF/D is the official source. TPA is standard unless listed differently there. Ignore all other references. 75% of the airports in my area have the wrong TPA listed on AOPA and in foreflight.

This is one of my (very many) pet peeves.
Click to expand...

Yep, I don't know when or how all these airport guides decided to lower the pattern altitude to 800' AGL, but as one who does reference official source material, I have found it is incorrect much more frequently than correct..:dunno:
 
Sendero said:
If I wanted to help my local airport fix the Pattern Altitude in the A/FD would FAA Form 7480-1 be the correct document?
Click to expand...

That is correct. Here's the reference.

https://nfdc.faa.gov/xwiki/bin/view/NFDC/PublicADC

Good luck getting the Airport Manager to submit the form. The data is usually wrong for a reason -- someone hasn't gotten off their duff in the last decade to submit the form through the proper process.



2. Traffic Pattern Altitude, Right Traffic, Declared Distances

If this submission requires changes to any of the following items:

  • Traffic Pattern Altitude
  • Right Traffic
  • Declared Distances
then you must submit an FAA Form 7480-1 to the appropriate Airports District Office (ADO).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top