Thanks for following up on the traffic pattern entry debate spurred by the FAA’s guidance in its Airplane Flying Handbook (“Traffic Pattern Entries,” February 2024). Special thanks to Jerrold Seckler for following up with the FAA and nailing down their position.
It seems to me that the FAA’s recommended procedure is the best answer to a complicated question. But it also should be remembered that the guidance relies on intentionally placing aircraft only 500 feet apart on the downwind. So, the correct altitude is important. Also important is gauging your distance from the pattern before the 270-degree right turn. And then there’s the possible lack of experience even making descending right turns.
One solution not discussed in the various examples is to simply fly well outside the pattern while maneuvering for a conventional downwind leg entry.
Let’s all be careful out there!
—Mike Stevens, Via email
Yes; as important as the ambiguity between the FARs and guidance is, the depicted pattern entry isn’t the only one we can use—it’s not regulatory; the FARs are. Staying well clear of the pattern until joining the downwind is always an option.
The One You Use
Matt Johnson’s article, “What Is A Good Checklist?” in December’s issue struck a chord with me as I have frequently cobbled together “roll your own” checklists when the original either wore out or new equipment made it obsolete. It’s important, of course, that any checklist you employ includes the correct procedures in the correct order.
A 2017 Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO 17006) from the FAA has some specific cautions for developing checklists. It concludes that pilots “should meticulously compare them to the manufacturer’s checklist and placards contained in the POH/AFM to confirm they are consistent.”
That’s good advice. So is Matt’s comment that “a good checklist is one that you will use.”
—Tom Garcia, Via email
Inflight Icing Conditions?
Your February 2024 article, “Anti-Ice Systems, And How To Use Them,” by Ryan Motte, sort of tiptoed around the question of what constitutes icing conditions. Typically, the FAA seems happy to give pilots enough rope to hang themselves with its definition.
This issue has had a long history, including policy reversals. While there doesn’t seem to be a good, clear, definitive answer—and it’s likely the powers that be don’t really want one—at least “reasonable” pilots can disagree.
—Stephen Probst, Via email
To reiterate, in its most recent policy statement on this topic, the FAA said, “‘Known icing conditions’ involve…circumstances where a reasonable pilot would expect a substantial likelihood of ice formation on the aircraft based upon all information available to that pilot.”
So, yeah, the agency is throwing the issue back to the pilot community. Another way to look at it is: Can you defend your actions at the hearing?
There may also be some reverse top spin going on in the FAA’s definition. Knowing that evidence of dismissing the likelihood of airframe ice will be used against them, maybe pilots will tend to err on the side of caution?
CO Poisoning Reminder
The accident in February’s issue (“Carbon Monoxide Impairment”) reminds me of how often I’ve smelled engine exhaust when the airplane is facing downwind during a pre-takeoff engine run-up. Thanks for pointing out that can have major consequences.
—William Baker, Via email
