Comments on: Pattern Police?

By: Bern Heimos

Bern Heimos — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 04:01:38 +0000

Rule #1: we don’t need any more rules. The FAA covers operations at non-towered airports just fine.
Rule #2: Pilots are “goal oriented” personality types. (Stubborn comes to mind)
Rule #3: If either close to entering the pattern or in the pattern and things don’t seem right, back off, be polite, and work to keep the traffic pattern safe.
Rule#4: To quote a line from Camelot, “It makes no difference whether the pitcher hits the stone or the stone hits the pitcher; it’s going to be bad for the pitcher.” (Okay, the quote wasn’t exactly that way, but you get the drift).

Did the point I made about being polite and doing what it takes to keep the pattern safe make it through okay?

By: John Picker

John Picker — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:14:26 +0000

I have a suggestion which would require modifying a regs, but would save both time and increase communications. I fly our of HTO (East Hampton, NY…. yes, THAT Hampton), and in the summer time there is a big mix of aircraft and lots of traffic. Most of us are taught to give :Cessna Apha 1234. I really don’t care about your numbers… if I’m close enough to read them, it’s already too close, so why clutter the airwaves with that. On the other hand, a better description might be helpful, such as a red Mooney.
One afternoon I heard the report of “Cessna 1234″ … would you have been looking for a Citation? I wasn’t. Radios, at least handhelds, should be required in this day and age, and communication is all about transferring useful information in the shortest time.

By: Dan Nelson

Dan Nelson — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:52:21 +0000

I regularly flyout of a non-towererd airport and to a towered airport a short distance away. A few years ago, the towered airport was still without a tower.
At that time, there were huge numbers of students practicing at that (now towered) airport and it wasn’t unusual to see 5 or 6 aircraft in the pattern. It was a real problem to break into that beehive of touch-and-go’s and aircraft really never exiting the pattern. Once the tower came in, they started making practicing students exit the pattern and re-enter—particularly on busy days. It is great—now I can actually land at that airport. The airport I fly out of is now experiencing the same problem with multiple aircraft in the pattern, never exiting and also a high concentration of helicopters using a parallel taxi way for their practice landings. Quite often the helicopters are also using the main runway for engine out practice. Short of obtaining a tower, we have quite a dilemma.
I would hope that in the future we might come to an arrangement of practicing students actually exiting the pattern once in a while to allow departing/arriving aircraft to use the same facility

By: Greg

Greg — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:14:56 +0000

Hmmm, Herb I’m not sure exactly what I said in my post to lead you to believe that I advocate making my own rules and everyone else should give way to me. While I can’t speak for exactly what David had in mind, I’m fairly certain he didn’t intend that impression either.

However, in reading your previous posts I feel the need to point a few things out. There is a big difference between the FAR’s which are regulations and the AIM which is guidance and not regulatory in nature. This is stated in the front of the AIM in the Flight Information Publication Policy section. As for AOPA, I’m not sure where you feel that they are encouraging any fallacies but straight in approaches are even discussed in the FAA’s own AC 90-66A (7e). Knowing the FARs and how to apply them is an important part of flying.

One of the things I was trying to do though was vector things away from the call for more regulation. In his blog Bruce was looking for solutions to the issue without regulation and all the situations you mentioned already have FAR’s that apply.

I’ll admit, I’m squarely in the see and avoid camp. Using the radio, lights, and good pattern practices are important tools but looking outside and keeping good situational awareness are required equipment.

As for finding an easier way to violate the “idiots”, a simple call to your local FSDO would get the ball rolling. It really is that simple.

By: herb ludgewait

herb ludgewait — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:13:29 +0000

Davi and Greg prove my point. They rationalise they should make thier own rules, and let everyone get out of the way. Violating their ilk is not as easy as they make if sound. Commo step ons and other electronic problems prevent radios from becoming a panica. What do you want next, requiring TAS at non-towered airports ?

By: Greg

Greg — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:07:12 +0000

I cringe whenever I hear the “there ought to be a law” argument. More regulation is not the solution here. There are already regulations on the books that cover reckless or irresponsible behavior. Realistically, there should be nothing wrong with entering the pattern at other than the standard 45 if the situation allows for it (i.e. no other traffic) and so long as you comply with 91.126. In the end though, regardless of where or how the pattern is entered, it still comes down using the Mark I eyeball and situational awareness.

Unfortunately, these days it seems the flying is more expensive and pilots have less spare time for practice than ever before. In the quest for making things as affordable as possible some things are suffering. The result: pilots are flying less frequently anymore which leads to lower skill levels, poor technique, and increased task saturation. Airfield closures are leading to more congestion as well. As this situation continues, eventually problems will occur resulting in aggravated pilots or, in the very rare extreme, accidents.

Having had flight training in the civilian, military, corporate, and law enforcement realms, I’ve seen things done a number of different ways but they all rely on the same basic elements: be prepared (i.e. be familiar with and ready to enter the pattern), maintain situational awareness (know where you and the other guy are), and keep your head on a swivel (see and avoid).

Oh, and for the errant and irresponsible pilots you encounter, report them to the FAA under 91.13 if you must. I’m certain they’ll get a visit from someone willing to help them see the light.

By: David Lemmer

David Lemmer — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:56:41 +0000

I disagree that we need more explicit regulation. The FAR’s prohibit careless and reckless operation. If you think “violating” these rude pilots will make a difference (which is questionable), then call the FAA and report them under that FAR.

The trouble with Jame’s suggestion is that many, many uncontrolled airports have very little traffic. To make all users follow your pattern is wasteful of energy and time. It will end up being yet another FAR the feds can use for a gotcha. All that just so you can “violate” a few bad pilots. Bad idea.

By: herb ludgewait

herb ludgewait — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:47:05 +0000

james is right on. Yesterday our non-tower ap was very busy with aircraft of all speeds. Some nut in a medium twin entered a right base, disrupting the entire flow. Only the profesionalism and discipline of the locals prevented an accident. We need an eisier way to violate these idiots

By: James Ferguson

James Ferguson — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:07:34 +0000

As much as I hate more regulation, I think that a new FAR is needed in the case of non-tower airports. The FAA has promulgated “guidance” for operations at non-tower airports, but it is commonly ignored, especially by the pilots of fast aircraft. For non-tower airports, it is proposed that all aircraft be “required” to make a 45 degree entriy to the pattern at pattern altitude, fly a downwind leg, a base leg and a final. In other words, outlaw the following approaches in VMC: straight-in, overhead, base entry, downwind entry, crosswind entry. It sounds harsh, but too many pilots simply barge into the pattern creating usafe conditions.

By: Bob H.

Bob H. — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 03:12:38 +0000

As coincidence would have it, I ran into the pattern police today. We ended up on the wrong side of the airport on a non-precision practice approach. I needed to show my student circling procedures, and at no time was safety of flight compromised by being opposite the established traffic pattern. The unicom operator thought differently and followed every position call we made to point out that the runway was opposite pattern.

As we turned final, another aircraft began his back taxi, stopped it, did a 180, and in doing so repositioned his plane on the runway side of the hold short line. Automatic go around for safety..

The problem with pattern police is that it contradicts FAR 91.3, and in my opinion, pilots that don’t understand the authority and responsibility granted by 91.3 to them *and others* is the dead elephant in the room.