Sal's Law
B.E.by Email: I have noticed that certain published Traffic Pattern Altitudes differ from what’s listed in the Airport Facility Directory. For example, one private airport directory I use shows the TPA at Bridgeport to be 1010 feet msl, while another shows it as 1000 feet. Are traffic pattern altitudes compulsory? Is it a violation to fly higher or lower than the published altitude?
Sal’s Law: Perhaps we should consider if ten feet difference really matters while we’re at it. Seriously, the recommended traffic pattern altitudes are usually between 600 and 1500 feet agl, unless there is some reason to deviate from that altitude – (for example a mountain on downwind.) . Since Bridgeport is listed as 9 feet above sea level, the typical computation would put their TPA at 1009 feet, and therefore either 1000 ft or 1010 would be close enough. While the altitude in the Airport Facilities Directory is considered “recommended”, you can imagine what will happen when you deviate from the recommended altitude and have a close encounter of the aircraft kind, which is definitely not recommended.
While 1000 feet agl usually works for most airports, watch out for those special cases. A good example is Danbury Municipal Airport in Connecticut (KDXR), with an airport elevation of 458 feet, which would usually put the TPA at 1458 (or 1500 for us mortals). However, the TPA at DXR is 1700 feet. If you need to ask why, then you have never landed on runway 35, where the tops of the hills are above you on approach. Best not deviate, or you will see the falling leaves may not break your fall. The reason for Traffic Pattern Altitudes is safety. If we are all at the same altitude, it will be easier to see and avoid. That is the best reason for flying the published TPA.
A.E. of NJ: If I fly in the right seat as a passenger with another pilot, in his plane, and he has more total hours but a lower rating than me (private pilot vs my commercial rating) and there is an incident or accident, will the FAA come after me in any kind of enforcement action. In my scenario I am not manipulating the controls or radios or in any way flying. I consider myself a passenger.
Sal’s Law: The easy answer is that you could probably not be at fault in any kind of enforcement action. (Don’t you love it when lawyers put the word “probably” in there). Unless you were a necessary crew member or operating the flight in one way or another, you are a passenger for the purposes of enforcement.
Where these issues most often raise their heads is when the “passenger” pilot is a Certified Flight Instructor. In those cases, very often the question comes down to whether the flying pilot violated an FAR that the CFI should have corrected. The case law on that question is split, but in your example the higher rating does not automatically lead to focused vicarious liability.
Blue Skies to all!
Sal A. Lagonia Esq - is an aviation attorney representing pilots, aircraft owners FBO’s and airports with offices in New York. Send questions or requests for speaking dates to 914-245-7500 or Sal@LagoniaLaw.com.