The Army teaches nine Principles of War covering general strategy. The principal Mass, for instance, doesn't sanction the number of troops, tanks, helicopters, etc, just suggests strength on weakness. From this general orientation, specific but fluid tactics are formulated. Guerilla tactics come to mind.

The FAA, started by mostly former military officers, followed suit for awhile. The introduction of Practical Test Standards in the 70s changed this general to specific paradigm, however. Now sanctioned specific altitude, V speeds, bank angle restrictions, pitch angle restrictions, and canned scenario solutions are the specific numbers, rather than general principles, students are indoctrinated with. Fluid tactical growth through examination of various techniques is too often considered poor judgement within the pilot/instructor community.

IFR operations and overall safety has benefited from this numerically specific orientation. Contact flying, by definition, cannot function fluidly using this paradigm. Vertical space available is fluid and cannot be defined 500' AGL. Safe maneuvering airspeed, sufficient to miss stuff without stalling, cannot be defined Vx or Vy as appropriate. Safe maneuvering bank angle, sufficient to acquire target, must be fluid with energy management, rather than restricted to 30 degrees. Zoom reserve is assurance of the outcome rather than a specific V speed. Safely just over the obstacle retaining max practable kinetic energy cannot be a defined altitude. Down drainage is not a specific heading. There is no procedural track, even around uncontrolled airports and landing zones. Outside ATC, outside IFR, the tactical situation is just too fluid. See and avoid is not a number.

Safe maneuvering flight techniques are based on general principles of flight as in "Stick and Rudder." They mature through fluid tactical application of those principles, that orientation.

Wow, lots of wisdom and truth there, well thought and presented Jim!

Thanks Marcus. I very much appreciate the comments, criticism, and questions. I am running out of new ideas for my bi-weekly original post.

contactflying wrote:...There is no procedural track, even around uncontrolled airports and landing zones...

.

Is this true in all cases and all non-towered airports? Would a pilot involved in a mishap or arbitrarily doing his or her own thing when other traffic is present and flying the AIM recommended pattern at any one of the Class E non-backcountry public use airports risk violating 91.13 for careless & reckless operations?

oops. Tapped submit twice

This from experience rather than going back through regs current at the time: Military helicopters were to avoid normal traffic as much as practicable. Again, fluid. It worked well, however. Part 137 implied that crop dusters would be also outside the normal pattern, but not waivered.

Much of what happens with complaint is not regulatory but what pilots believe is unsafe. When the FAA receives the complaint, they want the agency to look good, and to help.

I operated 3-200 feet AGL around uncontrolled airports, without radio, from 1979 to 2009 in crop dusters and from 1997 in pipeline patrol Cessnas with radio. Both were safer, in my opinion, than climbing up into traffic from below. I tried using the radio in the Cessnas, but found that it caused much confusion. Low aircraft are hard to see in the ground clutter.

That is why I gave way to all always in Army helicopters, crop dusters, and patrol Cessnas. That is why I always approached well away from any final on any runway in Army helicopters and at an angle to the runway so as to stay off the centerline extended in airplanes. Wind management determined which side of the centerline extended.

Yes, these techniques not only kept me from any near misses but I was seldom, very seldom, known to have operated differently in airplanes. By giving way to and landing behind all other airplanes, very few saw me and only one two complained.

A DPE complained about all three crop dusting operations at Fabens Texas using the taxiway for landing and a pilot who turned off the last turnoff while I was turning off the first at Oxford Mississippi and saw me really laid into me. I continuously repeated, "You're probably right," until he left.

In answer to your question, with complaint a civil penalty or civil sanction can result. I feel I stayed more alive and less scared operating that way. Some things are hard to computerize.

Most pilots see greater danger in concurrent pattern altitude with low altitude operations than does ATC. Especially in B airspace, ATC much prefers the pipeline patrol airplane to be at 200' verses 1,000'. Approach control doesn't desire or need to be contacted and tower prefers us down and less conflicting. Airline pilots fussing about CTAS have often been told, "He's fifty feet off the trees, he's not traffic!"

By flexible ground control or voluntary lower aircraft, with much better target background (the sky), giving way, high low is actually safer distribution than high with lower climbing up at close range. The pipeline must be inspected up to and even across the active of both controlled and uncontrolled airports.

Towers are much better with traffic separation and flow at D than pilots are with separation and flow at uncontrolled airports. Many, many more operations can be safely separated. At uncontrolled fields, we pilots do better when we stay calm, vigilant, and flexible. The traffic situation at uncontrolled airports is much more variable. Most are easy to parallel closely or cross, depending on the pipeline, and heavy training fields are not common pit stops.