Right hand traffic

[Doozer]

I think that if you used left-hand 270-degree turns, you could fly the right hand pattern & still be legal.

 

[avbug]

Calling the FBO to query or complain won't likely do you much good. The FBO is a tennant: you need to talk to the landlord. Talk to the airport authority or airport manager, or in many cases, the city or county airport council.

Calling the FBO on this issue is much like calling the FSDO for a regulatory question or guidance: you're wasting your time, and they can't help you.

 

[tarp]

And for all the dimestore lawyers out there, I know exactly what will happen when you do it wrong. Standing on the ground at GAI and talking to both the D.E. there and an FAA inspector who was performing ramp checks, we all went eyes to the sky when a hapless and visiting Bonanza decided to do it by left turns to runway 32. There was also a C-172 doing a proper right hand pattern at the same time. They both turned base at the same time and the Cessna saw the Bonanza and made an escaping move.

One month later, thru the DE, I found out the Bonanza pilot was charged with:

91.13 Careless and reckless
91.103 Improper preflight (all information pertaining to runways and flight)
91.113 Failure to see and avoid.

The Bonanza pilot got to take a form ride and probably actually looks at an A/FD now.

The moral of the story - on every flight you probably bust at least one regulation, so you better use some sense because if someone doesn't like the way you fly, you're gonna get busted.

 

[CaptainRon]

Just out of curiosity Tarp, as I am not familiar with Gaithersburg, is there a visual indicator on the ground to indicate right hand traffic on 32? I can't tell from the picture on AirNav.

 

[100LL... Again!]

It is important to remember that the FARs are not a carefully harmonized group of regs. They are a patchwork, and sometimes omissions and contradictions can be found. Go with the A/FD. There is a reason they put that data in there.

 

[CaptainRon]

Whatever the reason they put it in there, it is, for some reason, not official. The AFD, the AIM, a Sectional, etc., are all "informational" only. The only thing that is regulatory is 14CFR. You can't be cited for "violating" the AFD.

Don't get me wrong. If the AFD says the airport has Right Hand Traffic on a runway, it is probably a very good idea to use Right Hand traffic. I would much rather live and be cited than to die knowing I wasn't violating 91.127.

 

[avbug]

Captainron,

A lot of pilots have made that mistake. You don't think you can be vilolated for failing to comply with published information in the airport facility directory, or aeronautical information manual?

Refer to 14 CFR 91.103...it covers all information regarding a flight, not just what's listed. A lot of pilots who failed to take note of this have realized their error when facing enforcement action.

You can, and will be held accountable for obtaining, and adhering to all information regarding the flight. Additionally, you may be held as careless and reckless in accordance with 91.13 if a problem is created, or an inspector feels that a problem may have resulted (weather it did or not is not relevant).

 

[bobbysamd]

AIM and A/FD

I second all the above opinions about flying right-hand traffic. If the A/FD or any other official, i.e. FAA or U.S. Government pub says right-hand traffic, fly it.

This reminds me of the many debates we had at Riddle about the "regulatory" nature of the AIM. Most of these debates turned on the required v. recommended reports for IFR. I had students argue to death with me that AIM commentary about position reporting or other procedures need not be followed. While not strictly regulatory, as far as I was concerned, if the AIM recommended doing something a certain way, it was good enough for me. I'd hate to argue that the AIM is not "regulatory" at an NTSB certificate action hearing.

Avbug makes a good point about taking up with the airport manager the lack of segmented circle and traffic pattern indicators.

 

[ksu_aviator]

For what its worth I heard this story about a pilot back in the days of TRSA's.

GA Jim will call him, was flying a run from Western KS to Northern CO. Denver was a newly designated TRSA and GA Jim's Route took him right through it. GA Jim, being the good little pilot bought a brand new sectional and used it to determine the airspace he would be flying in. The sectional had become effective just 2 days prior and the Denver TRSA had been left off of the sectional. GA Jim, following the information on his sectional flew through the TRSA and was subsequently violated for it. The reason was he did not have all available information. What GA Jim was suppose to have done, according to the FAA, was consult the previous and out of date sectional which had depicted the new TRSA that was mistakenly left off of the second edition.

My opinion is, if they want to bust ya, they'll bust ya. Do what will keep ya from saying "Oh Shucks!" or something more lude.

I would also like to add that if you asked an 3 FAA examiners you'd get 4 or 5 different answers.

 

[CaptainRon]

You are absolutely correct, ksu_aviatior, if they want to bust you, you will get busted. However, there is no requirement to talk to anybody when flying into, out of, or through a TRSA. With the advent of the ICAO airspace classification system (Class A, B, C, D, E & G) TRSAs were left out in the cold. In fact, they are not even addressed in 14CFR. A lot of TRSAs were converted to Class C. While most GA pilots don't deal much with TRSAs, my home Sectional has 5 of them! Except where a TRSA overlaps other airspace (it is normally overlayed at a Class D airport) it is basically Class E airspace and there are no restrictions to enter, leave or transit it.

Interestingly enough, although participation in TRSA services are voluntary on the part of the VFR pilot, it is mandatory on the part of ATC. If you request it, they must provide it. Even if you are landing at the airport served by the TRSA, you can tell approach control that you do not wish to participate. The same applies to departures. Tell Ground or the Tower "negative radar service" and when the Tower cuts you loose, you're on your own.

Now, why anyone would decline a service that could possibly make their flight a little safer is a topic for a whole other thread!

Perhaps Denver was an ARSA at the time.