Sometimes a short pattern is the most courteous thing to do. I often enter on a long base leg to avoid going nose to nose with a plane practicing T and G's. I've done the landing both directions thing while trying to get in some landings on a calm day but I've also been surprised to see a landing air-tractor coming at me when I rolled out of a turn onto final. AG turns in a high wing don't allow you a very good look at what's going on around you. The big thing is not over-reacting, a plane landing on the other end of the runway is still a long ways away if you don't panic. Most of my close encounters weren't caused by any particular pattern entry but by azzholes that don't use their radio or by ones that tie it up by talking too much. The 185 club traveling in flocks are the worst for causing radio traffic jams.

58Skylane wrote:

DavidB. wrote:My few little questions about pattern etiquiette aside, the more I read about the issues at other peoples airports, the more I love S10. Cheap hangars, nice people, never a chance of having noise abatement issues (look at it on Google Earth, you will see why that won't happen) and sheltered from weather a lot of the time. I may not have VFR weather beyond the top of the canyon, but at least I can fly around the airport most days. Plus we have class G to 4500 MSL over the airport.

I'm liking that strip to the north of you! That a house or Business?

Are you talking about Riverview? It is the one about 1/2 mile east and 1 mile north on the other side of the river. It is a private airpark. I inquired about a lot there when I was moving here, and it was pretty cheap, but I didn't have the time or money to build. I think there are two houses and 2 hargars there. At least thats what it looks like from the air. A resident there hangs out at S10 a bit. My guess is that it would have been, and will be a nice little airpark but not many real estate ventures are moving forwards right now. I know any land on that side of the river is a deal.
I was also looking at a place that is 15 miles SE of Mansfield. 350 Acres, 3 bedroom house, 4 silos, 2 barns, a metal hangar with no doors and a dirt floor. The runway had not been used in 20 years and needed work. Work as in finding it, because I never did. But with all the flat land it comes with, one could build cross wind runways, which would be handy up there on the plains. The owner wanted $250,000 at the time, and she would carry the contract for a decent down. I don't think it ever sold.
My wife will have her real estate license in a week if your looking.

DavidB. wrote:

58Skylane wrote:

DavidB. wrote:My few little questions about pattern etiquiette aside, the more I read about the issues at other peoples airports, the more I love S10. Cheap hangars, nice people, never a chance of having noise abatement issues (look at it on Google Earth, you will see why that won't happen) and sheltered from weather a lot of the time. I may not have VFR weather beyond the top of the canyon, but at least I can fly around the airport most days. Plus we have class G to 4500 MSL over the airport.

I'm liking that strip to the north of you! That a house or Business?

Are you talking about Riverview? It is the one about 1/2 mile east and 1 mile north on the other side of the river. It is a private airpark. I inquired about a lot there when I was moving here, and it was pretty cheap, but I didn't have the time or money to build. I think there are two houses and 2 hargars there. At least thats what it looks like from the air. A resident there hangs out at S10 a bit. My guess is that it would have been, and will be a nice little airpark but not many real estate ventures are moving forwards right now. I know any land on that side of the river is a deal.
I was also looking at a place that is 15 miles SE of Mansfield. 350 Acres, 3 bedroom house, 4 silos, 2 barns, a metal hangar with no doors and a dirt floor. The runway had not been used in 20 years and needed work. Work as in finding it, because I never did. But with all the flat land it comes with, one could build cross wind runways, which would be handy up there on the plains. The owner wanted $250,000 at the time, and she would carry the contract for a decent down. I don't think it ever sold.
My wife will have her real estate license in a week if your looking.

Thanks! But I was just curious. I'm not going anywhere anytime soon. I probably owe more than what my house is worth right now Pretty nice area your in, though.

.....I'm liking that strip to the north of you! That a house or Business?[/quote]

............. But with all the flat land it comes with, one could build cross wind runways, which would be handy up there on the plains. The owner wanted $250,000 at the time, and she would carry the contract for a decent down. I don't think it ever sold.
My wife will have her real estate license in a week if your looking.[/quote]

Thanks! But I was just curious. I'm not going anywhere anytime soon. I probably owe more than what my house is worth right now Pretty nice area your in, though.[/quote]

The Boise area has been a 2nd choice for me several times over the past 15 years. I would have given it more thought this time but we wanted to be closer to family north of Seattle and the inlaws place at Lake Wenatchee. All are a very quick flight from here, and a pretty easy drive. I still like the Boise area. Almost took over the Ducati motorcycle franchise there a few years ago. I sure you love it being is a growing metro area, but minutes away from the back country. I will shut up now before this thread goes 7500.

Tight patterns.

During my first training flight at the airline 40 years ago we trained in the airplane. It was night landings at Quincy, Il. I was a bit awed by the DC-9, biggest airplane that I had flown up to that time. Making a VFR approach for touch and go landings my downwind leg must have been 2 miles wide. The check pilot laughed at me and said..."Hey Bob...this ain't no 707....tighten her up a bit."

By the time we finished training, a few days later, he had me making circling approaches at 400 ft. agl and 1 mile visibility...turning 1/2 mile finals at 200 ft.

A few years later I was the copilot flying the DC-9 into MSP. Right downwind visual for runway 11 right. A Pan Am 707 was on a left downwind for runway 11 left parallel to us. As we turned base the tower said..."Pan Am has overshot runway 11L could you swing over to runway 11L and let him have 11R" My captains said sure. I widened out to enter final for 11L. A minute later the tower said..."Unbelievable...Pan Am has just over shot runway 11R also and is going around!"

Somebody needed practice making visual pattern approaches. I chuckled as I remembered by old check airman's comments during my first landing in the DC-9 at Quincy and his comments about ..."this is no 707."

With that my captain keyed the mike and to everyone's embarrassment said about Pan AM....."There goes the World's most experienced airline...with another experience!"


BACK TO LIGHT AIRPLANE PATTERNS:

In my fast climbing Skybolt and Pitts I routinely made it around the pattern in about 45 seconds when no one was around at our very quiet uncontrolled airport. Flew the pattern as I wish when no other traffic. Often used and still sometimes in the Maule do the cropduster turn and land both directions.

Of course one time I flew down the runway at 200 ft.(checking the wind drift.....haa ha) in my Pitts. When I got on the ground an FAA inspector approached me and threatened a violation for "approaching the airport for reasons other than to land." I asked him if he had ever flown a squirrly Pitts? Answer NO. Well then I said...."If you ever land on a narrow strip at an uncontrolled airport without first checking the wind drift...you are likely to end up in the weeds."

He bought it. Or at least he walked away with his violation pad in his hip pocket.

Have fun.

Bob

I was at a flyin Saturday and had to break out of the pattern three times in a row due to other aircraft pulling out on the runway to depart while I was trying to land. No big deal; I wasn't in a hurry.

flyer wrote:hicountry

I agree with you that we should be able to do all types of patterns and landings. HOWEVER, if you do not do the standard pattern or non standard where called for, you are violating FARs. The FAA can and probably will violate you if they catch you. If your non standard pattern in any way impacts another plane and they have an accident, you may be liable.

It does not matter if there are no other planes in the pattern or if the runway is in the middle of nowhere. Make sure you are not caught. Have very small numbers on your plane, etc.

I would also not put that kind of information on a forum. You were probably referring to something someone told you.

outlaw

Careful now. The FARS are written so that it gives the pilot the final authority. If you're doing anything that can reasonably explained as practice for competency and safety then you should be okay. There's absolutely nothing illegal about flying non-standard patterns. Despite the paranoid interpretation of a FAR.

Silly to think that you would get a violation for flying a non-standard pattern. Rule of thumb, be safe, operate with courtesy and fly to the performance of your aircraft...

I'm speaking from personal experience having had some anonymous asshat FAR quoter attempt to notify the FAA of my alleged illegal pattern. (I was turning crosswind 1/2 way down the runway because I had already achieved pattern altitude, and I also tend to fly within a reasonable gliding distance to the runway 'close in'- this individual apparently was a CFI that likes to instruct his students to operate a damned 747 pattern)

I enjoyed my time with the FAA and learned alot about the interpretation of the FARs. Relax and be safe - that is the goal... and don't be a douche...

Hey Beasty,
Great find!
Thanks
GT

Since nobody has mentioned the dangerous, when low, downwind turn, I will. When alone at an uncontrolled field with a strong left crosswind, it is safer to make right traffic. The easy way to remember what would be safe is to always, when practicable, fall off the target (runway) downwind so that the base to final turn will be at the slowest ground speed possible and the crosswind will actually increase the rate of turn at no pressure airspeed or load factor cost. Headwind, whether on base or final, is free energy. In ground reference maneuvers, like takeoff and landing, ground speed is the speed at which we are closing with terrain and obstructions. The more time we have to evaluate the situation, the easier it is to maneuver around things and keep the down wing from hitting things.

When maneuvering low around uncontrolled airports, both courtesy and safety dictate that we make whatever turns necessary to see if anybody else is around and give way to anybody else around. They are high and cannot see us down low. We are low and can see them up high. It is less confusing for them if we make no radio call. We do not legally have to have a radio. Give way and land behind them. That way they will not see you do something they think is unlawful.

The regulations are fair and practical. It's the other pilots that will get your number. If they do see you and confront you, the best answer is, "you are probably right." You may have to repeat that several times.

While I was taking my PP check ride, tower requested "82 victor make short approach if able". As I recall we were about half way along on downwind at San Jose Muni as it was called in those days. My check pilot says "Let me have it" and pulled full flaps and cut the power and we were on the taxiway about 10 seconds later. I've always thought that was a worthwhile maneuver to practice when you can. Check the gear first if you practice this one in a retract.....

EB

mtv wrote:If we'd all just be courteous to others, AND keep our heads up and on a swivel...

MTV

I think this is good advice for all areas of life. Not just aviation.

contactflying wrote:............ They are high and cannot see us down low. We are low and can see them up high. It is less confusing for them if we make no radio call. We do not legally have to have a radio. Give way and land behind them. That way they will not see you do something they think is unlawful........

I disagree. Whether you're flying a standard pattern or not, IMHO making accurate, concise position reports improves safety. I've had guys "maintain radio silence" around the airport, and esp if they're doing something non-standard it's almost impossible to anticipate what they're gonna do and fly accordingly. There's been times when I thought I had everyone else in sight, and been surprised by a timely position report from a so-far unseen aircraft.

Here is the point, when it is safe to do so. Tower gives deviation to standard procedures all the time, do a right pattern, intercept crosswind, and so on. So if your intentions are communicated and all participating int he pattern know and agree then deviations are acceptable as long as they are safe. Being in an aircraft, let alone maneuvering, is considered unsafe by some people So perceptions come into play. There are also poorly trained FAA inspectors, some who received binoculars upon graduation, out there as well. They will fail to interpret rules and guidance correctly.

I will replicate our Navy's FCLP pattern at certain airports that no traffic (which is a standard accepted practice). We have a few here in Norther AZ that see perhaps 1 landing a week, on a good week. Most practice for taildraggers is required in the last 10-20 seconds and right after touchdown. So the other part is just contributing to our carbon problem, wasting gas. A good practice is a pattern that puts you at the 180° position that will allow a power off, glide to land from that position, while keeping the landing point constantly in sight, all adjusted for wind. The FCLP pattern does the same, but lower. So we could do 20-30 landings in 30 minutes in huge aircraft. We did practice these at airports in the middle of nowhere, like the Great Dismal Swamp or the middle of Texas.

hotrod150 wrote: I disagree.... There's been times when I thought I had everyone else in sight, and been surprised by a timely position report from a so-far unseen aircraft.

So what would your answer be for the guy that fits your entire scenario, but actually doesn't have a radio, or who's radio just went t!ts up ? ...

I am not against radio's or radio calls by any means mind you, I just tend to believe that guys who develop a dependency on radio chatter, are as a whole more dangerous than guys who grew up without one and learned to look out the window.

Rob wrote:

hotrod150 wrote: I disagree.... There's been times when I thought I had everyone else in sight, and been surprised by a timely position report from a so-far unseen aircraft.

So what would your answer be for the guy that fits your entire scenario, but actually doesn't have a radio, or who's radio just went t!ts up ?

I was taught that the point of standard patterns was to allow pilots to concentrate their scans on where airplanes were expected to be. It's not that they should cease to look elsewhere, but it's a reality that it's hard to spot planes sometimes and knowing where to expect them enhances safety. So that's a strike against flying a non-standard pattern.

If you are going to fly a non-standard approach, then it's absolutely essential that you be making radio calls so that someone doesn't descend out of base on top of your 'wrong way' traffic because they didn't see you low and against the trees instead of at his altitude and in front of him. If you're making radio calls at least he'll know someone else is there and flying a non-standard approach.

If you have no radio or your radio crapped out, and with the above arguments being my position, I'd say that you have to make a very strong case to do anything other than a standard approach (e.g. if my radio is out because of an electrical problem, I'm taking the shortest route to the ground before a potential fire starts). If you don't have a radio your best odds of survival will be to have your plane where others are expecting to see you and, as a by product, puts you in the best position to see them as well.

Rw2,
I'm going to say, "you're probably right," and not be sarcastic. You should contact Neil Cosentino, a co-winner with me in an iaftp.org best training practices contest, about his project to get the new gps rather than radar system for uncontrolled airports. He, like you I think, would rather call them pilot controlled. It will probably happen in the lifetime of you younger pilots. The FAA will have to abandon "see and avoid" for "hear and gps identify and avoid." When there is a conflict or a problem, I guarantee the FAA will be there "to help." Some of us old guys may just go to the woods instead.
When flying pipeline under Class B, I kept the transponder on, didn't say a word until I got to Class D, and maintained 200' AGL. The Class B controllers who didn't hear me, and didn't want to hear me, and weren't required to hear me, were happy. The Class D controllers, who often told airliner pilots, "He's fifty feet off the trees, He's not traffic," when they were fussing about their CTAS going off, were happy. When in Class C and too far away from any airport to be a factor, I turned the transponder off. They would make me leave my line, climb up and get identified, and fuss when I went back down to my line and continued my patrol. Why? Safety? No, they just wanted to make me make the call and be identified so they might get enough countable traffic to become a Class B. That is the way the federal government works.
Jim Dulin

contactflying wrote:I'm going to say, "you're probably right," and not be sarcastic.

Too late! I'm on to you!

contactflying wrote:You should contact Neil Cosentino, a co-winner with me in an iaftp.org best training practices contest, about his project to get the new gps rather than radar system for uncontrolled airports. He, like you I think, would rather call them pilot controlled. It will probably happen in the lifetime of you younger pilots. The FAA will have to abandon "see and avoid" for "hear and gps identify and avoid."

Yes, given the amount of explaining I've (and I'm sure others) had to do lately about how the sequester isn't going to cause dozens of planes to fall from the sky, "pilot controlled" has a very nice ring to it. I would only tweak the final comment to "see, hear, gps and avoid". I'm not taking the position that looking out the window should be done away with. I want to use *all* the tools at my disposal and believe that radio calls do enhance safety.

contactflying wrote:When flying pipeline under Class B, I kept the transponder on, didn't say a word until I got to Class D, and maintained 200' AGL. The Class B controllers who didn't hear me, and didn't want to hear me, and weren't required to hear me, were happy. The Class D controllers, who often told airliner pilots, "He's fifty feet off the trees, He's not traffic," when they were fussing about their CTAS going off, were happy. When in Class C and too far away from any airport to be a factor, I turned the transponder off. They would make me leave my line, climb up and get identified, and fuss when I went back down to my line and continued my patrol. Why? Safety? No, they just wanted to make me make the call and be identified so they might get enough countable traffic to become a Class B. That is the way the federal government works.
Jim Dulin

Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing it. I think we agree that the class C example is silly. There is negative safety value in having someone climb simply to be identified. The area under a B is huge, so I think no argument there either. If you are under it, you aren't in their airspace anyway and making a bunch of calls for the benefit of other pilots also not in that airspace doesn't seem like a value add. Sounds like you were talking when you were actually in the D, so how did you handle when a pipeline crossed a pilot controlled terminal area? Did you make position reports as you transitioned?

Yes, I called them. My bladder was weak in those days, so I usually landed at every uncontrolled airport my line bordered or crossed. Slowing up, in an apparent rate of closure approach, gives one a tremendous ground speed safety factor. I am very uncomfortable with flight review pilots approaching at 1.3 Vso. It just doesn't give one much time to react to complications.

Rob wrote: So what would your answer be for the guy that fits your entire scenario, but actually doesn't have a radio, or who's radio just went t!ts up ? ...
I am not against radio's or radio calls by any means mind you, I just tend to believe that guys who develop a dependency on radio chatter, are as a whole more dangerous than guys who grew up without one and learned to look out the window.

I don't depend on radio calls, but they can be helpful. If someone don't have a radio, they don't have one & they can't make them calls. No problem, there's a fair number of nordo op's at my local airports & I don't have a problem with it. But as RW2 pointed out, it's a good idea for nordo airplanes to fly standard patterns etc at a busy airport for the very reason that they can't make position reports. I've seen a couple of the nordo operators at my airport do a tight 180 on dowwind to reverse the pattern-- changing the pattern to land into the wind was a good idea, but the way it was done was kind of rude to the two airplanes on downwind behind the nordo plane.
See and avoid is #1 priority, and I do my best, but a timely position report is an aid to see and avoid tactics. If someone's got radios, why not use them to enhance safety as much as possible?

Anyone else ever heard a pilot call out position reports on the wrong frequency? Being an amateur radio operator and pilot I often have a radio or scanner listening to 122.7, 122.8, 122.9, 123.0 and so on and it is surprising how many times I've heard pilots transmitting on the wrong frequency. The most recent was about 2 weeks ago when someone was transmitting their position reports on the local AWOS frequency while doing touch and goes.