15
« on: May 24, 2006, 02:13:21 PM »
Again - this is a Student Pilot speaking...
Steve,
The FAA can be maddening in the way it does things; but calling established procedures "nonsense" is a bit dangerous IMHO.
I agree with you that flying an offset upwind gives you a good way to observe the pattern while staying out of it - and then immediately merging into it smoothly.
However, there are several issues with doing this:
1) What about noise and hazards? Many airports are set up with traffic patterns designed to keep the planes over one side of the airport as much as possible (occassionally for a good reason). If you start overflying the other side in order to do an offset upwind, you negate all this.
2) Does this technique gain you anything (other than shaving maybe 5 minutes of flight time) that a quick over-flight at 1000' above pattern altitude doesn't? The higher over-flight means less noise on the ground, less likelihood of a traffic conflict or close call with a pilot that's busy in the pattern (and not visually scanning like he should because he's busy), and less likelihood of coming close to a ground-based hazard near the airport. We are taught that "higher is safer" in most aspects of flight. Since the airport vicinity is home to a lot of traffic - AND a large portion of GA accidents - every safety advantage should be valued, in the eyes of this novice. And if that extra 5 or 10 minutes is _truly_ a critical issue, then I think that pilot failed to adequately plan for their flight.
3) Tens of thousands of pilots are trained to expect traffic to merge in at a 45-degree angle on the downwind. When they are on the departure/upwind/crosswind legs, they will be looking over there for traffic. They will NOT be looking for a plane making an offset upwind on the opposite side of the airport, which may turn toward them or cross close in front of them (if they're still on the upwind when the non-standard-pattern pilot turns crosswind). And since a departing pilot is probably departing in a Vx or Vy climb, visibility over the nose is going to be crappy for them. Yes, all pilots are supposed to maintain a visual scan at all times; but we all know that when workload is high, the chances of spotting traffic are lower. We're human and fallible. Therefore the chances of spotting traffic where we expect it to be (on the 45-entry to the downwind) are much higher than the chances that traffic will be spotted when its NOT where it is expected to be. As a plane entering the pattern in a non-standard method, you effectively remove the other pilot's eyes from the equation. For most planes, this instantly halves the equipment being used to detect and avoid collisions in the air...
Again, I agree with you Steve that your idea is a cool technique - but unfortunately it goes against years of standard practice and official guidelines. For better or worse, those guidelines were adopted and have been put into practice by thousands upon thousands of pilots. As a computer professional, I've seen the "best solution" tossed aside for the "industry standard" time and time again - so I know its frustrating. But since flying can entail life and death decisions, being safe may be better than being right.
Take care,
--Noel
Show Posts
