My opinion of the best way to fly the pattern at a non-towered airport.

[Kolibri]

Wow, you're really digging in on that obviously dubious wording of one AC.

If gyroplanes were legally required to avoid the flow of fixed-wing traffic, the FAR would have explicitly stated it -- just as they did for helicopters.
It's really that simple.
Then, an Advisory Circular would have something to advise about.

AC 90-66B does not link back to any section of the FAR, and its wonky mention of "gyrocopter" hardly betokens "expert advice".
The FAA really needs to correct it.

In lay terms, you should expect any judicial officer to accept it as more than just a "best practice" and likely to see it as setting a minimum standard of care for a reasonable pilot.

A closer/lower gyro pattern could theoretically be argued in court as bad practice because fixed-wing pilots do not expect a gyro to be there.
E.g., the gyro turns base/final at the numbers in front of a surprised fixed-wing on final which hadn't a radio or was NORDO.

I believe that every pilot in the pattern (regardless of aircraft) should be capable at any point of gliding to a runway after an engine-out.
I try to fly closer/lower gyro patterns when I can for safety, not because I believe it's required of me by the FAR.
This can be a challenge to weave in a base/final with even moderate FW traffic.

______
There are low-speed fixed-wing aircraft which don't fly any faster than our modern 100+hp gyros.
Yet, they are not commanded to avoid the flow of fixed-wing traffic.

Regards,
Kolibri

 

[WaspAir]

Wow, you're really digging in on that obviously dubious wording of one AC.

If gyroplanes were legally required to avoid the flow of fixed-wing traffic, the FAR would have explicitly stated it -- just as they did for helicopters.
It's really that simple.
Then, an Advisory Circular would have something to advise about.]AC 90-66B does not link back to any section of the FAR, and its wonky mention of "gyrocopter" hardly betokens "expert advice".

Since you insist on arguing legalities, you should know that for legal purposes the FAA are the experts, by act of Congress in 1958 (codified in 49 U.S.C 1 et seq., with delegated quasi-legislative authority under the Administrative Procedures Act). Good luck getting any judge to think you know more about traffic pattern safety than the agency entrusted with that responsibility. I'd certainly bet against you.

I'm growing really weary of your unshakable confidence in your own arbitrary pronouncements on everything from aerodynamics to law, and your drumbeat of disdain for disagreeing aero engineers, CFIs, and others who might actually know more than you. On the regulatory topic, I come to this argument with a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from Stanford Law School, membership in the state bar in New York, California, the District of Columbia, and Colorado, and several decades of federal court litigation practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, District courts in California, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, New Jersey, and New York, and advocacy before a range of federal agencies. I'm pretty sure I really do know more than you do.

I suggest to other readers that they reject your amateur lawyering and treat the AC seriously, complying whenever practicable.

 

[Kolibri]

Here's what AC 90-66B says about itself.
It "recommends".

 

[Kolibri]

I'm growing really weary of your unshakable confidence in your own arbitrary pronouncements on everything from aerodynamics

Not arbitrary. You're the one who doesn't accept that lift (high pressure underneath a wing) increases in ground effect.
I posted an aeronautical paper proving that it did, as well as jpgs of a German study.
You left that thread in a huff, and then spitefully posted my private message to you.

And I'm growing weary of resident experts here such as yourself who bristle when challenged by the non-experts, and haven't the
intellectual honesty or basic courtesy to concede a point or admit error.

I appreciate your knowledge and experience, but we're all imperfect. Even attorneys from Stanford Law School.
(You couldn't even write J.D., but had to pompously spell out "Doctor of Jurisprudence degree".)

Get over yourself.

Kolibri

 

[Kolibri]

And, finally, here are side by side screenshots from the Commercial PTS for helicopters and gyroplanes.
https://www.faa.gov/training_testing...S-8081-16B.pdf

Notice the absence of the "avoids the flow of fixed wing aircraft " for gyroplane traffic patterns.

 

[WaspAir]

Not arbitrary. You're the one who doesn't accept that lift (high pressure underneath a wing) increases in ground effect.
I posted an aeronautical paper proving that it did, as well as jpgs of a German study.
You left that thread in a huff, and then spitefully posted my private message to you.

And I'm growing weary of resident experts here such as yourself who bristle when challenged by the non-experts, and haven't the
intellectual honesty or basic courtesy to concede a point or admit error.

I appreciate your knowledge and experience, but we're all imperfect. Even attorneys from Stanford Law School.
(You couldn't even write J.D., but had to pompously spell out "Doctor of Jurisprudence degree".)

Get over yourself.

Kolibri

Here's a last response to you, ever, so enjoy it.

One man's "huff" is another man's realization that it is a waste of time trying to educate the stubbornly unqualified, who don't even understand the references upon which they rely to draw their unwarranted conclusions. You're too busy scrambling for any apparent support (even if not actual support) for your positions to consider that those positions might be ill-founded. A time comes when rebutting your errors and attempting to teach you is no longer worth the effort, as happened before. We're at that brink again on this thread.

When you send me an unsolicited nasty message you have no legitimate expectation that your insult will remain private; I have no obligation to keep your rudeness to me secret just because you chose a private channel to deliver it, especially when you simultaneously publicly call for courtesy. If its publication makes you look bad, you shouldn't send it.

There are many here who generously share their knowledge and expertise, and disagreement with you is not evidence of error or need to concede. Some contribute here in the hope that safety will be enhanced by greater understanding. It would behoove you to read more open-mindedly, ask more with a willingness to learn, and pontificate less, if you ever wish to progress beyond the non-expert status you admitted above.

By the way, J.D. is a common abbreviation for the degree Juris Doctor, but my diploma reads Doctor of Jurisprudence, properly abbreviated as DJur, which I doubt you would have recognized.

You may now have all the last words you wish. I hope other readers will use caution about which sources they trust here.

Goodbye.

 

[Kolibri]

Meanwhile, this thorny olive branch showed up in my PM box:

Today, 02:21 PM
"Wing in Ground Effect Craft Review" found at
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a361836.pdf

Can you stop being such an ass to me?
Thanks.

WaspAir, first of all, there was no "meanwhile" about it.
I PMed you within a half-hour of your dismissive post #100, as the time stamp shows.
My olive branch I wrote and posted nearly 7 hours later, after some reflection.

Also, I would never publicly post a PM sent to me in private.
I am disappointed that you did, and to falsely imply my insincerity.

______________

By the way, J.D. is a common abbreviation for the degree Juris Doctor, but my diploma reads Doctor of Jurisprudence, properly abbreviated as DJur, which I doubt you would have recognized.

The Juris Doctor degree (J.D. or JD), also known as the Doctor of Jurisprudence degree (J.D., JD, D.Jur. or DJur)...

Quibble, quibble, geez.

And nary a reference to what I've just pointed out in AC 90-66B and the Rotorcraft class differences for the PTS in traffic patterns.
Your silence on the matter is my best "last word".

Good night.

 

[EdL]

And I'm growing weary of resident experts here such as yourself who bristle when challenged by the non-experts, and haven't the
intellectual honesty or basic courtesy to concede a point or admit error.

Kolibri

LOL. This from the guy who continually pokes at Abid for not being a gyro pilot. That’s hilarious!

When one walks in a room, takes careful aim and farts in the face of a speaker in the room, they should not be surprised when the pithy points they try to make later are lost in the fog of their own fart.

I highly recommend you stop the personal attacks if you want to be taken seriously. Sadly, it’s probably too late for you to be taken seriously for many, including the many whose faces you’ve hit with your farts.

/Ed

 

[Kolibri]

EdL, to some, the truth stinks like a fart if it comes from somebody they don't like.

Interesting that nobody is addressing the screenshots I posted, but instead are turning this into being about me.
Sorry, but I'm only a counter-puncher.

 

[Vance]

As I showed here, Advisory Councils are not regulatory. They haven't the force of law.
Besides, AC 90-66B mistakenly specified "gyrocopters" (a nonexistent FAA aircraft type) when the relevant law covered helicopters (and not gyroplanes).

Vance was/is incorrect. Gyroplanes are not required to avoid the flow of fixed-wing traffic.

I am that "someone", although grossly misquoted by Vance (as usual). What I wrote was this:
No, I did NOT claim such. What I wrote was quite clear for those who can accurately process the English language:
That is not the same thing as saying that 1500 feet would be enough, as I made quite clear with the next sentence:
I'm laughing to myself about all this now, because I recall composing that text and wondering if it were really necessary
to insert all sorts of caveats about reaction time, clearing terrain, etc. No, I decided, because my point was obviously so
generic and nonspecific to pilot/gyro/airport/conditions that not even Vance would try to peck it death with hypothetical details.
That's the last time I'll give him such unwarranted credit.
From there, he went on to create such a blatantly specious straw man scenario that it insults gyro pilots.
For example, he plugs in a 4 second reaction time (332 feet!) followed by a leisurely wide standard rate turn (real gyronaut stuff there!).
(He neglected to further include a 40kt headwind toward the runway, lol.)
Vance, I'm actually embarrassed for you on this one.
You've a bizarre fixation with trying to find error in everything I post, and not owning up to your own misunderstandings along the way.
____________

Wouldn't such a gyro be vulnerable to a mid-air with a FW turning base from the outside?

As for me, if I'm going to be close pattern, I want to be lower than pattern altitude. As WaspAir put it:

But, as I mentioned before, all of this "avoiding the flow of fixed-wing traffic" is moot.
It's not required for gyroplanes, but it is for helicopters.
Regards,
Kolibri

The advisory circular 90-66B 12.1.3: "In the case of a gyrocopter approaching to land, the gyrocopter pilot should avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft before making a turn to final for the runway in use to avoid turning in front of another aircraft on final approach."

AC 90-66B is advisory and that is why it is not included in the FARs.

It is however included in the practical test standards.

I feel it is safe to say the FAA wants you to have read AC 90-66B before you are given a pilot certificate.

It allows us to fly a different pattern than a fixed wing and I find value in that.

90-66B is about non-towered airports.

In my opinion flying a five hundred foot pattern one thousand to fifteen hundred feet from the runway at a non-towered airport is a bad idea.

In my opinion it is unlikely that someone can reach the runway if the engine goes quiet in a gyroplane with a three to one glide ratio from five hundred feet above the ground and a thousand to fifteen hundred feet from the runway.

Pilots are expecting aircraft to fly the pattern at pattern altitude so that is where they are looking and that is where I fly at most non-towered airports.

If any aircraft is going to go around pilots often offset to the pattern side of the airport putting them head to head with an aircraft a thousand feet from the runway at five hundred feet.

It is my observation that it is easy for a rotorcraft to get lost in the ground clutter when it is below other aircraft.

Aircraft on final are nose high making it more difficult to see aircraft below them.

I feel a close pattern at pattern altitude works best with an early turn to base. Others may choose to do it differently and to me that is the beauty of the vagueness of AC 90-66B.

A standard rate turn is defined as a 3° per second turn, which completes a 360° turn in 2 minutes. One hundred eighty degree turn with a thousand foot radius at 44kts (Vbg in many gyroplanes) is not a standard rate turn.

I feel it would be a very bad idea to land on the taxiway at any non-towered airport I have flown into in a gyroplane. I can’t speak for other FSDOs; I know the representative I talked to at the Van Nuys FSDO thinks it is a bad idea because I asked him.

 

[Vance]

And, finally, here are side by side screenshots from the Commercial PTS for helicopters and gyroplanes.
https://www.faa.gov/training_testing...S-8081-16B.pdf

Notice the absence of the "avoids the flow of fixed wing aircraft " for gyroplane traffic patterns.

I used the practical test standards for Sport Pilot Gyroplane because I felt they had more relevance for most gyroplane pilots than the commercial standards for Rotorcraft, Gyroplane.

B. TASK: TRAFFIC PATTERNS REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-3, FAA-H-8083-25; AC 90-66; AIM. Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to traffic patterns and shall include procedures at airports with CTAF, prevention of runway incursions, collision avoidance, wake turbulence avoidance, and wind shear.
2. Complies with proper local traffic pattern procedures.
3. Maintains proper spacing from other aircraft.
4. Corrects for wind drift to maintain the proper ground track.
5. Maintains orientation with the runway/landing area in use.
6. Maintains traffic pattern altitude, ±100 feet, and the appropriate airspeed, ±10 knots, if applicable.

It appears to me AC 90-66 applies to1, 2, 3 and 6.

I feel that number six makes flying at five hundred feet above the ground at a non-towered airport with a thousand foot AGL traffic pattern altitude not meet the practical test standards.

 

[DavePA11]

I almost always landed long at my home airport which was uncontrolled grass runway so I could turn off the runway right next to my hanger where I knew there was no one around so I could let the rotors stop turning. Otherwise would have to taxi off the runway in a common area and wait for rotors to stop and always people around. I didn’t want anyone to walk up to the gyro before rotors stopped.

 

[Kolibri]

Unfortunately our desired touchdown is not straight ahead. The steeper we turn the more energy we will use so we make a constant rate turn.
Half of the circumference a 1,000 foot circle is 1,571 feet.

A standard rate turn is defined as a 3° per second turn, which completes a 360° turn in 2 minutes.
One hundred eighty degree turn with a thousand foot radius at 44kts (Vbg in many gyroplanes) is not a standard rate turn.

Vance, this is where your deliberately negative criterion is embarrassingly specious.

Your 180° scenario is erroneous, for it applies to an engine-out after takeoff, not on downwind, and who the hell would attempt a standard rate turn then?
Do you really imagine this forum's readers to be so obtuse not to see this?

An engine-out on downwind occurs 90° from the runway, not 180°.
Simply turn 90°and dive for the runway at Vg, and make a brisk turn into the wind low over the surface.
That will load up the rotor nicely for a safe roundout, flare, and landing.

An engine out is certainly a PAN-PAN urgency, if not a MAYDAY emergency.
Declare a MAYDAY, and the airport is legally "yours" -- runways, taxiways, and ramp -- within the bounds of safety, of course.
Other aircraft are required to hold short, extend downwind, go around, etc.

I expect you'll try to peck even this explanation apart, but I'm confident that folks will properly discern your motivation.


____________

AC 90-66B is advisory and that is why it is not included in the FARs.

Who ever said that ACs are included in the FARs?
ACs illuminate the intent of the FARs.
The issue I have about AC 90-66B 12.1.3 is that it does not touch on any FAR for gyroplanes in the pattern, as I've amply proven.

I used the practical test standards for Sport Pilot Gyroplane because I felt they had more relevance for most gyroplane pilots
than the commercial standards for Rotorcraft, Gyroplane.

As you wish, but the Sport Pilot PTS doesn't include the "avoids the flow of fixed wing aircraft " helicopter verbiage, either.

I feel that number six makes flying at five hundred feet above the ground at a non-towered airport
with a thousand foot AGL traffic pattern altitude not meet the practical test standards.

6. Maintains traffic pattern altitude, ±100 feet, and the appropriate airspeed, ±10 knots, if applicable.

Technically, you've a point there, although "if applicable" might weaken the argument.

The advisory circular 90-66B 12.1.3:
"In the case of a gyrocopter approaching to land, the gyrocopter pilot should avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft
before making a turn to final for the runway in use to avoid turning in front of another aircraft on final approach."

OK, let's muse aloud how we might possibly succeed in achieving that stated purpose of AC 90-66B 12.1.3:

"to avoid turning in front of another aircraft on final approach"

Theoretically, the safest way to maintain pattern separation, visibility, and not disrupt FW pattern flow is to fly it just as they do,
daisy-chaining with them at the same altitude and distance from the runway, and following them in on base and final.
(Most 2-place gyros have the ability to match pattern speeds of the common Skyhawk or Piper 180.)

However, when we do fly with FW in their pattern (i.e., a half-mile or more from the runway on downwind) we may exceed our ability to safely glide over during an engine-out.

WaspAir's technique (which I agree with, and was well stated) is:

For me, what makes a gyro fit in the best with lots of fixed wing traffic is flying a pattern that takes similar time to complete and is always visible to other pilots. If you fly a smaller, closer in pattern, at lower speed, the total time elapsed can be very close; this lets you fit in between fixed wing pilots flying a bigger, faster route, to slot in between other arriving aircraft (in timing, not in space), and to maintain that slot as the pattern proceeds. Your slot won't change if you have matched the time to complete the pattern.

As to visibility, when flying a closer pattern I also fly it a bit lower.

Vance's technique (which I've no real aversion to) is:

My recommendation based on my experience and judgment is to fly a closer pattern (1,500 feet from the runway centerline) at pattern altitude
making a steep descent on final, touching down abeam a taxiway and quickly taxiing off the runway.

I'm actually not arguing against either technique, however neither will fulfill the purpose of the AC.
Why not? Because any "closer pattern" risks a gyro "turning in front of another aircraft on final approach".
This is not a criticism of Vance's recommendation, but an illustration of why flying any pattern other than what fixed-wing aircraft fly risks putting a gyro in their way.

Pilots are expecting aircraft to fly the pattern at pattern altitude so that is where they are looking and that is where I fly at most non-towered airports.

That's true, but incomplete; they're also expecting aircraft ahead of them in the pattern to be right in front, not hundreds of yards inside.
They also may not be used to aircraft turning inside them on base and final.

Moral: there is no completely right answer to this, and in my opinion AC 90-66B 12.1.3 actually adds confusion to the matter.
Happily, it is only a (flawed) recommendation, and we are free to use our individual judgment.
Every experience in the pattern and every landing is unique.

Regards,
Kolibri

 

[EdL]

Braap

 

[Vance]

Vance, this is where your deliberately negative criterion is embarrassingly specious.

Your 180° scenario is erroneous, for it applies to an engine-out after takeoff, not on downwind, and who the hell would attempt a standard rate turn then?
Do you really imagine this forum's readers to be so obtuse not to see this?

An engine-out on downwind occurs 90° from the runway, not 180°.
Simply turn 90°and dive for the runway at Vg, and make a brisk turn into the wind low over the surface.
That will load up the rotor nicely for a safe roundout, flare, and landing.

An engine out is certainly a PAN-PAN urgency, if not a MAYDAY emergency.
Declare a MAYDAY, and the airport is legally "yours" -- runways, taxiways, and ramp -- within the bounds of safety, of course.
Other aircraft are required to hold short, extend downwind, go around, etc.

I expect you'll try to peck even this explanation apart, but I'm confident that folks will properly discern your motivation.


____________

Who ever said that ACs are included in the FARs?
ACs illuminate the intent of the FARs.
The issue I have about AC 90-66B 12.1.3 is that it does not touch on any FAR for gyroplanes in the pattern, as I've amply proven.


As you wish, but the Sport Pilot PTS doesn't include the "avoids the flow of fixed wing aircraft " helicopter verbiage, either.



Technically, you've a point there, although "if applicable" might weaken the argument.


OK, let's muse aloud how we might possibly succeed in achieving that stated purpose of AC 90-66B 12.1.3:

WaspAir's technique (which I agree with) is:


Vance's technique (which I've no real aversion to) is:

I'm actually not arguing against either technique, however neither will fulfill the purpose of the AC.
Why not? Because any "closer pattern" risks a gyro "turning in front of another aircraft on final approach".
This is not a criticism of Vance's recommendation, but an illustration of why flying any pattern other than what fixed-wing aircraft fly risks putting a gyro in their way.


That's true, but incomplete; they're also expecting aircraft ahead of them in the pattern to be right in front, not hundreds of yards inside.
They also may not be used to aircraft turning inside them on base and final.

Theoretically, the safest way to maintain pattern separation, visibility, and not disrupt FW pattern flow is to fly it just as they do,
daisy-chaining with them at the same altitude and distance from the runway, and following them in on base and final.
(Most 2-place gyros have the ability to match pattern speeds of the common Skyhawk or Piper 180.)

However, when we do fly with FW in their pattern (i.e., a half-mile or more from the runway on downwind) we may exceed our ability to safely glide over during an engine-out.

Also, our commonly turning base at the numbers risks turning in front of fixed-wing on their typical final.

There is no completely right answer to this, and in my opinion AC 90-66B 12.1.3 actually adds confusion to the matter.
Happily, it is only a (flawed) recommendation, and we are free to use our individual judgment.
Every experience in the pattern and every landing is unique.

Regards,
Kolibri

In my opinion based on my gyroplane flying experience it is best to land into the wind as most gyroplanes don't land well with a tail wind.

If I have an engine fail on downwind I make a 180 degree turn so I can land into the wind on the runway if it is within my gliding range.

If the runway is not within gliding range I still turn into the wind to land.

If I had an engine failure I would declare an emergency by saying Mayday three times and describe the reason and what I am going to do about it.

This allows others to assist in not exacerbating the emergency.

I have declared an emergency twice for engine failure and there were no problems from the mayday call. A call to the NTSB with no paperwork because there were no injuries of damage to the aircraft.

An engine failure is usually on the list of reasons to declare an emergency.

If I was speaking to ATC I would also say the number of souls on board.

The tower at SMX has declared an emergency for me twice for failed communication

Pan-pan is for a problem that may become an emergency. A failing charging system or being lost comes to mind.

I used Pan-pan when I lost sight of the runway at SBP.

I have seen situations where a pilot was hesitant to declare an emergency because of fear of consequences.

I am quick to declare an emergency.

I want all the resources available for a happy outcome I can muster.

It appears to me I can't help you with your confusion about AC 90-66B.

I feel it is about judgement.

 

[Kolibri]

Vance, your comments about declaring a MAYDAY are helpful, thank you.

I've once had to declare PAN-PAN when I lost an exhaust valve in a FW, but was making sufficient partial power to make it to the airport 8 miles away,
arriving at pattern altitude left base.

If I have an engine fail on downwind I make a 180 degree turn so I can land into the wind on the runway if it is within my gliding range.

So, during an engine fail on downwind, you would attempt to make a standard rate 180 degree turn?

Regards,
Kolibri

 

[Vance]

Vance, your comments about declaring a MAYDAY are helpful, thank you.

I've once had to declare PAN-PAN when I lost an exhaust valve in a FW, but was making sufficient partial power to make it to the airport 8 miles away,
arriving at pattern altitude left base.



So, during an engine fail on downwind, you would attempt to make a standard rate 180 degree turn?

Regards,
Kolibri

A standard rate turn is defined a three degrees per second turn.

I would not attempt to make a standard rate 180 degree turn if my engine failed on down wind.

 

[Kolibri]

I would not attempt to make a standard rate 180 degree turn if my engine failed on down wind.

That's good to hear, because you wouldn't make it.

Yet, in your math to describe my example of 500' AGL 1000' radius downwind you did apply a standard rate turn:

Unfortunately our desired touchdown is not straight ahead. The steeper we turn the more energy we will use so we make a constant rate turn.
Half of the circumference a 1,000 foot circle is 1,571 feet.

Why did you do so for me, yet not for yourself?

Regards,
Kolibri

 

[Vance]

That's good to hear, because you wouldn't make it.

Yet, in your math to describe my example of 500' AGL 1000' radius downwind you did apply a standard rate turn:


Why did you do so for me, yet not for yourself?

Regards,
Kolibri

A standard rate turn is defined as three degrees per second.

I do not recall recommending a standard rate turn for an engine out landing in any post.

I did not use a standard rate turn for the math to describe your example of a three to one glide ratio engine failure on down wind a thousand feet out and five hundred feet above the ground.

 

[Kolibri]

Ah, apologies on my misreading of "standard" vs. "constant". A lack of lunch, which I'm about to remedy.
But, no matter.

I have often read it typically takes four seconds to understand that you have a problem and make a decision to make an emergency landing.
At 50kts indicated air speed that uses up about 332 feet of our glide and have about 1,168 feet before touching down.

Unfortunately our desired touchdown is not straight ahead. The steeper we turn the more energy we will use so we make a constant rate turn.
Half of the circumference a 1,000 foot circle is 1,571 feet.

But I wouldn't attempt your 1571 feet "constant rate turn".

Assuming even your 4 second reaction time for myself, I am 1000 feet from the runway, with 1168 feet of glide distance left.
Heading directly to the runway via a 90 degree turn from downwind gets me there with 168 lateral feet to spare, with sufficient altitude to turn another 90 degrees (at most) into the wind and land.

And that's assuming that I couldn't simply land widthwise on the runway, thus dispensing with any second turn.

Also, as I originally qualified, in my 500' AGL close patterns I am usually within 1000 feet from the runway.

Actually, to be accurate and honest, I should plug in the cosine factor.

With 1168 feet of glide distance allowed after an extremely befuddled 4-second response, I've still 50 feet left.
Furthermore, to be realistic, I probably would choose to land on an inside taxiway, to avoid plugging up the active runway.
Such a taxiway would be closer still.

So, I disagree with your artificially deleterious assessment of my close pattern example.


_____________
I'm off to lunch, and then flying on this sunny day.

Regards,
Kolibri