Tire options for CTLS

[ABQ CTLS]

My situation is unique because my airport is class Delta and importantly, as I mentioned above, the whole area is flat. Not even a tree in sight. No houses, no people. I watched the video of the pattern in Georgia by FastEddieB above. The runway is in the middle of a forrest. No place to land easily except that runway.

Near my airport a C-172 made an emergency off field landing due to engine problems. There was no damage whatsoever to his plane. Nice flat hard packed dirt.

[procharger]

Looks like somebody needs to use a chain saw cool runway

[FlyingMonkey]

 

 

 

2700? That's alot of touch and go's.

 

Yeah...over ten landings per hour?? I can't even get around the pattern that fast.

[Tom Baker]

One Sunday morning here at the airport the subject of how many landing could be done in an hour came up. I stated that I thought I could do 1 per minute, and one of the old time flyers said he would like to see it. I pulled my dad's Taylorcraft out and went out to try. I found I could do 1 every 50 seconds. I didn't get over 100 feet, speed was 70 +/- 5 MPH, and a very tight pattern. I always had plenty of speed and options if the engine did quit.

[Tom Baker]

Thats not a landing to be just 100 feet off the ground in a pattern. Its a violation and its dangerous. Most of us can easily see this guy is smoking something saying he can do 40 or more landings an hour and still comply with airport pattern and traffic rules.

 

I think by all defintions it would be considered a landing because of the 360° change in dirrection, and not just up and down on the same heading and runway. What makes you think it is a violation and dangerous? I can only think of one regulation that I might have broken, and it is one that is just an opinion with no definite line to cross.

[FastEddieB]

I didn't get over 100 feet, speed was 70 +/- 5 MPH, and a very tight pattern. I always had plenty of speed and options if the engine did quit.

 

Beyond my comfort zone.

 

I would have thought that most of us were taught never to make turns below xxx feet.

 

For me, it was 500', and the pattern dimensions were set to allow that.

 

To never go above 100' in the pattern, you must have been turning almost right off the deck. Certainly doable, but I would say highly unwise.

[ABQ CTLS]

Have you tried to climb at Vx or slower on take off and abruptly bring the engine to idle at 100' (while still over the runway)? That's not in anyone's comfort zone but it could happen and if you haven't practiced it, while you have an engine to keep you from fixing a botched 'recovery' & landing, then you're in for a nasty surprise in case you have an engine failure close to the ground while your nose is high. The first few times I tried this, it was a real eye-opener. One hundred feet, nose high & slow -- that concrete looks massive & close. I believe one should practice emergency procedures in case something does go wrong.

How does this relate to pattern work? As a new student I was to do the exact same pattern every time. If something was unusual, I reasoned, adapting would be difficult if not prepared for. So, with the consent of the tower, I began getting experience with other than the standard left pattern from 1000'. I don't get much out of long down winds at 1000'. [Again - no other planes in the class D airspace, no trees, people or buildings around and flat employ dirt all around the airport.]

[Tom Baker]

Beyond my comfort zone.

 

I would have thought that most of us were taught never to make turns below xxx feet.

 

For me, it was 500', and the pattern dimensions were set to allow that.

 

To never go above 100' in the pattern, you must have been turning almost right off the deck. Certainly doable, but I would say highly unwise.

 

I don't know that I would do it now, but at the time I was very comfortable in the airplane. I was also flying 200 hours a year at tree top height doing pipeline patrol. My speed was 1.7 above stall and I always had some place to go if I had a problem.

Besides I would much rather do the touch and goes, than fly a fuel ladden ag plane across the water.

[FastEddieB]

 

Besides I would much rather do the (100 ft. pattern) touch and goes, than fly a fuel laden ag plane across the water.

 

We all have our individual ways of assessing and accepting risk.

 

Bear in mind, I was getting paid a respectable amount to get those cropdusters delivered. Of course there was risk involved, but I attempted to minimize it by wearing a vest, carrying a raft (tethered) and a modicum of survival gear.

 

As to the relative risk of the two activities, I guess we can agree to disagree.

[Tom Baker]

We all have our individual ways of assessing and accepting risk.

 

Bear in mind, I was getting paid a respectable amount to get those cropdusters delivered. Of course there was risk involved, but I attempted to minimize it by wearing a vest, carrying a raft (tethered) and a modicum of survival gear.

 

As to the relative risk of the two activities, I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

Eddie, while the T&G's were not for hire I did get paid to fly at 100 feet. At one time I had considerably more time at around 100 feet than I had above. I guess withou being there it is hard for someone to say how safe or unsafe it was.

[Tom Baker]

Without knowing where this was it shouldn't need to be said that flying at 70 plus kts 100 feet AGL even over open ground is dangerous and irresponsible. If this was done anywhere near people or structures on the ground, then its also against FAA regs.

 

One can vary their pattern work by flying at different airports with different pattern altitudes. This is more practical than touring the same field hundreds of times as quickly as one can do it. There is no real reason to make the cirucuit so fast unless one is racing. If one is racing doing pattern and landings, thats also dangerous, and rude to others in the air.

 

Almost half my 7000 hours plus flying time was spent at around 100 feet flying AT&T telephone cable and pipeline patrol at a speed of about 110 kts. We had a waiver from the FAA for minimum altitude requirements. For you to go out and do it would be irresponsible, but for me it was a job I was trained for.

[FlyingMonkey]

Without knowing where this was it shouldn't need to be said that flying at 70 plus kts 100 feet AGL even over open ground is dangerous and irresponsible. If this was done anywhere near people or structures on the ground, then its also against FAA regs.

 

If you are referring to the "500 feet from any person, vehicle, or structure" rule, that rule does not apply to operations involved in landing, which this was. All arguments of the wisdom of this activity aside, I'm not sure any regs were violated.

[Tom Baker]

If you are referring to the "500 feet from any person, vehicle, or structure" rule, that rule does not apply to operations involved in landing, which this was. All arguments of the wisdom of this activity aside, I'm not sure any regs were violated.

 

Andy, you are correct. The only one would be 91.13, and there is no solid line to cross on that one, it is strictly an opinion call.

[FlyingMonkey]

Andy, you are correct. The only one would be 91.13, and there is no solid line to cross on that one, it is strictly an opinion call.

 

Without the FARs in front of me, isn't that the blanket "careless and reckless" section? The FAA's "and anything else we don't like" clause...

[Tom Baker]

Without the FARs in front of me, isn't that the blanket "careless and reckless" section? The FAA's "and anything else we don't like" clause...

 

Yep!

[Anticept]

Speaking of the 500 feet rule, how many of you have actually read 91.119? Go read it. It's funny how the FAA words it, in particular ( c ).

 

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.2.4.10&idno=14

 

So, where exactly does the 500 foot above the surface rule apply?

[FastEddieB]

Speaking of the 500 feet rule, how many of you have actually read 91.119?

 

I have. Many times. At one point could probably have recited it almost by heart.

 

So, where exactly does the 500 foot above the surface rule apply?

 

Trick question?

 

After a quick review, to paraphrase, other than when necessary for takeoff and landing, any time you're not over a congested area (more altitude required), or open water or sparsely populated area (potentially OK down to the deck, as long as you give any "person, vessel, vehicle or structure" the requisite 500'.)

 

Above, the word "necessary" could come into play. IOW, if something bad happened at 100' on short final, I think one could make a good case for it being a "necessary" part of the landing process. If something bad happened when flying a 100' downwind, I can see where it could reasonably be asked if that was a "necessary" part of the landing process.

 

Of course, then the catchall "Careless or Reckless" of 91.13 might get thrown into the mix as well.

 

I rarely fly low. But I have flown at 100' or less - over the swamps west of Miami, over some mesas in the area around Page and Monument Valley, that sort of thing. Legal, but with the decreased options if something goes wrong at that altitude, something which I rarely, rarely do.

[FastEddieB]

Just posted on the Pilots of America site:

 

 

Hard to tell, but at times I think they may have been less than 500' from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure!

[Anticept]

Here's what I am referring to:

 

( b ) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

 

( c ) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

 

So tell me, WHERE does the 500 feet above the surface rule apply? If you are over congested areas, it's 1,000. If you are over non-congested, it says 500 feet above the surface, but then it turns around and says "except over open water or sparsely populated areas". Is there an "average populated area"? I've only ever heard the FAA talk about "Congested Area" and "Everything Else". Why do they even have the 500 foot above surface rule? Where is any of this defined in the regs for that matter?

 

That's why I asked, has anyone actually read 91.119? I don't mean that to be condescending to any of you, I'm trying to point out the way it is written is goofy as hell.

[FastEddieB]

I don't mean that to be condescending to any of you, I'm trying to point out the way it is written is goofy as hell.

 

Sorry.

 

Try as I might I don't see the goofy*.

 

Over my house, it's not a congested area, so that does not apply.

 

It is not open water, nor would I call it "sparsely populated", though that's a matter of opinion, I suppose.

 

And so, over my house I can fly down to 500' agl and not violate 91.119.

 

What's complicated?

 

 

 

*Well, if I try really hard...

 

[Anticept]

The 500 foot rule applies to ANY area that has houses, like a city or town.

 

You would have to show me in the regs where they say this. I know what is accepted, but what is regulatory?

 

If you cant make 500 feet on takeoff by the time you reach the fence in an airport, then you are probably violating this rule, and you are likely also violating noise abatement.

 

There are airports where there are houses just at the end of the runway, and you will buzz them on a takeoff or landing. 04I is one (Columbus Southwest Airport). That's why they have the "except when taking off or landing" clause. If the airport needs you to hit certain takeoff minima, they publish it in the departure procedures.

 

FastEddieB: What's complicated?

 

They don't define it. That's what's complicated . It's one of those well known FAA nuances where they refuse to define congested, sparsely populated, etc, but will be heavy handed if they want to nail you . I find it easier to just say "stay 500 feet away from everything, and make sure you can land without hurting someone if the fecal matter impacts the rotating oscillator"

[FastEddieB]

FastEddieB: What's complicated?

 

They don't define it. That's what's complicated . It's one of those well known FAA nuances where they refuse to define congested, sparsely populated, etc, but will be heavy handed if they want to nail you .

 

OK, THAT I understand.

 

My rule of thumb is that if its yellow on a sectional, then its a congested area.

 

But lots of "grey" areas, as I intimated.

 

For instance, the yellow arrow marks my humble abode:

 

 

Like I said, I don't consider that "sparsely populated" in the same way the swamps west of Miami are, and I don't think its congested, so its in that middle ground of 500' required.

 

But lots of subjectivity there, to be sure.

[Anticept]

Yeah the yellow zones are largely accepted as congested. There's also the "how do they know you are 500 feet?" question (if anyone asks, you were 550 feet!). It's all written for lawyers .

[Tom Baker]

OK guys legal or not the statute of limitations has long past. At the time I felt like there were not any problems with safety, legalities of what I did. Would I do it now? Probably not, but things have changed since I started flying and since I did the T&G's.

[Mike Koerner]

Does anyone know what constitutes a structure?

A road?

A fence line?

A telephone pole?

A high tension power line?

A radio antenna?

Or just buildings?