BOMBS AWAY!

It seems that single-engine pilots are divided–not equally–into two groups: those that fly really big traffic patterns and the others. For the sake of easy identification, I'll call the first group "bomber pilots."

"What's he think he's doing? Flying a B52?"

This phrase, of course, is spoken by members of the second group, doing their job, which is to complain about the first.

It's an unhappy situation: both groups are in unenviable shape. To the critics, the bomber pilots seem unaware of rudimentary basics. The bomber pilots–well, they're just unaware. It's not that they don't understand what the fuss is about–they don't know there is one; they fly much as they were taught, and it never occurs to them to wonder whether there's a better way. If it did, they might change.

Who's right? In fact, can the situation be reduced to right and wrong? Why not just let each group do things the way it wants? The answer is a bit complex.

Wide patterns take up lots of room and delay those who would like to get the whole thing over more quickly. Still, that's not much of an argument–no one should rush their flight activity simply to accommodate others; it might actually be dangerous to do so.

Wide patterns extend the noise footprint of an airport, perhaps inflaming those below. It's a good point, but there are similarities to the first: changing flight activity for political motives is as potentially unwise as changing to please other pilots.

Wide patterns, especially at non-towered fields, introduce unpredictability that makes it easy for other pilots to lose track of sequence, thus increasing the potential for midairs and near-misses. Of course, the bomber pilots could argue that predictability depends on everybody doing much the same thing–if everybody expected "wide" patterns, there wouldn't be a problem.

Wide patterns take pilots beyond safe gliding distance to the airport. This is viewed by many as unsafe and is the crux of the matter. To the critics, it seems inconceivable that pilots are willing to fly 800' AGL 3/4 of a mile and further away from a runway. What will they do if the engine fails?

Good point–but one that demands an additional question: do the critics themselves never do anything similar? Do they never fly low over the ocean, desert, or fruited plain? If they do, they are revealed for what they really are: mere complainers. If a pilot is willing to fly at risk away from the airport, why object when someone else does the same close in?

OK–the playing field is set. The conflict surrounding wide patterns vs. narrow ones comes down to a single issue: risk management. Lots more next time.

Next