Cleared for the Visual Approach (Traffic Pattern)

ASpilot2be said:
We do. Even our GOM has traffic pattern entries for each of our destinations. But we also have far fewer destinations.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you can't do that with 100 destinations. :) But I never even had that info when we only had 20 destinations at the Stream or early on at Pinnacle. It's just not something that the airlines do.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Airline pilots don't carry sectionals. Or AFDs. Or anything else that tells them what kind of traffic pattern an airport has.
Click to expand...
Is that a serious statement? I'm soooo hoping you forgot the wink emoji.
 
has this thread really turned into mr. "Everyone should be required to have ADSB everywhere all the time... because Safety" guy attempting to proclaim willful ignorance to justify a lack of pattern adherence?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I'm not arguing about what the law is. You certainly know that better than I. I'm just telling you what people actually do. And after 14 years of representing airline pilots, I never encountered a case of a pilot receiving an LOI for this. I'm sure it happens. It's just so incredibly rare that it's not something I personally would worry about. Everyone has different risk tolerances with their certificate, though.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt it. It's kind of like grey charter. No one notices until someone notices. My WAG is the pattern violation comes up when there is an incident or a GA pilot that got cut off, probably more than once, and finally decided to make that FSDO call. As I said, for some folks it's all about whether they are likely to get caught or not.

For cases where it has happened, you might want to look at the Alaska Airlines case I linked. You can also search the NTSB case database for 91.126 and 91.89 (the predecessor to 91.126 and 127). I think there's about 10 of them all together. That is pretty few, but I guess one could guestimate the number of LOIs to be 20-30 times that number since very few ALJ cases get to the full Board, and very few FAA enforcement cases get to an ALJ, Probably a higher percentage of LOIs get to the enforcement stage but it's still going to be pretty low.
 
I know of two cases that resulted in suspensions yet are not in the data base. In each case no other airplane was involved. The same "Dudley Do Right" heard the aircraft call right traffic on the radio and turned them into the local FSDO.

When I worked in NM our local airport was north traffic only. There was a drop zone and an aerobatic box on the south side. We had a case of a few fractional airplanes flying the wrong pattern and getting close to jumpers or airplanes in the box. After being blown off by the pilots involved (one tried to lecture me about jets), I contacted their chief pilot, though I left out names. We never had the problem again.
 
Itchy said:
How about if IFR wx, and doing a circling approach?
Click to expand...
The FAA Chief Counsel has specifically said that is not a reason to violate the pattern direction rule. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...s/2014/Krug - (2014) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Probably left open is when the procedure notes say "circling NA" in the correct regulatory direction.

Here's the problem I think the rule is concerned about (I don't necessarily agree, but I don't get to make the rules). Unless we are dealing with a Class E surface area, VFR exists with only one mile visibility so long as clear of clouds below either 1200 or 700 AGL. Same for most circling minimums. Consider the problem of popping out on an instrument approach to find traffic in the pattern. Now, make that traffic opposite your direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top