This diagram is not well-written. It is not of a professional standard. It creates confusion as to the flight path of the pattern by introducing dotted line segments.
This diagram is not comprehensive; it neglects major facts of differences between countries, exclude details of other possible pattern entries and exits, and creates an unclear context for the simpler subject of flying a traffic pattern.
This diagram is based on original research. It is a representative only of some USA traffic patterns. It introduces and illustrates unpublished ideas (see Policy on original images).
This diagram is not referenced to a reliable source. Its claims are not verifiable against any reliable sources.
This diagram is not neutral. It presents a particular view for general aviation traffic at non-towered airports in the USA. It is not readily adapted for use by other countries or other languages.
This diagram is not stable. Its content changed significantly to include an unnamed extension to the Base leg connecting from Final to Upwind.
This diagram was created based on original research and subsequently modified pursuant to arguments raised when it was first nominated to be delisted. See Wikipedia:NOR#Original images.
The diagram is misleading, incomplete, and incorrect. It proposes an unlabeled ghost leg between the turn from base to final.
This diagram is not verifiable. It is contradicted by facts in the article and by references cited; it is not from a source noted for its accuracy.
This diagram illustrates the subject in a controversial and complex yet incomplete way, leaving the viewer with questions about how a circuit is defined, entered, and exited.
This diagram is not among Wikipedia's best work. It is a diagram which is a poor example of the subject. Superior diagrams exist in the public domain.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The entries and departures shown are not international and not all acceptable possibilities are shown. Australia has a very different standard entry from any shown in this diagram. Therefore, this diagram lacks global relevance even to English-speaking countries. 75.210.33.24302:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
??? ; ICAO (international) ; authoritative, but no publication cited.
Climb out ; NZ ; authoritative. Note that 'climb out' is opposite 'final'; 'upwind' is unlabeled.
Initial ; AU ; authoritative. Note that 'initial' is opposite 'final'; 'upwind' is unlabeled.
Departure ; US ; authoritative. Note that 'departure' is opposite 'final'; 'upwind' (in regard to maneuvers) is opposite 'downwind'.
Upwind/Departure ; UK ; unreliable.
Upwind ; EASA ; Actual source is a NASA safety report regarding where collisions occur.
Upwind ; BE ; English is not an official language of the country.
Take-off arm (Italian: braccio di decollo) ; IT ; English is not an official language of the country. Other "arms" are: counterbase (controbase), downwind (sottovento), base (base), and final (finale).
Start (German: Start); DE ; English is not an official language of the country. Authority not verified.
(take-off) (Russian: (взлёта)) ; RU ; English is not an official language of the country. Circuit is identified by its I разворот (first turn), II разворот (second turn), III разворот (third turn), and IV разворот (fourth turn) counting from взлёта ("take-off"). Technically speaking, the turns are numbered sequentially, but the legs are not named.
Start (Polish: starcie; in the context of aviation, this means "take-off") ; PL ; English is not an official language of the country. The numbering is the same as that in RU except that the Polish word zakręt is used for "turn".
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
There has been much discussion here on Wikipedia about the details of this diagram and especially the upwind leg. That discussion, being on a historical vote, is now closed.
I have taken the bold action of updating the diagram as I see fit, in particular to add an upwind leg which bypasses the runway and allows a circuit round the airfield.
The diagram does not reflect a neutral point-of-view. You cannot fix it by adding any elements to it. The only possible "fix" is to delete elements from it. In this case, the upwind leg serves no purpose by being illustrated at all. Whatever you do represents original research. You will never end up with a diagram that agrees with published sources of the various national aviation authorities around the world. For example, the US traffic pattern and the Australian traffic circuit are markedly different and best illustrated by separate images. 75.208.124.17916:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
The Upwind leg is not flown as part of a closed traffic circuit. Left and right hand traffic patterns as depicted in the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge issued by the Federal Aviation Administration in the United States of America.75.208.124.17916:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
Please keep in mind that the original image was the best on Wikipedia, has been modified based on original research, and continues to be a featured image.
It seems inappropriate to be discussing or making changes to a picture that the user community has already determined is Wikipedia's finest work.
Delist attempt failed with only one vote. 75.208.124.17916:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Anybody who does not like my changes may revert the Commons file to its previous version. At least that would make clear what is being designated/questioned as our finest work. Or, if a consensus here emerges, I don't mind reverting my own changes. It was just that the discussion seemed bogged down in conflicting suggestions with the arguments in favour of each scattered around and never getting resolved. Changing the image seemed the only way to move the discussion on.
Can an image be re-nominated for deletion delisting so soon after the previous one failed? That seems a mockery of the time-bound procedure.
As far as I know, the image was never nominated for deletion and was nominated only once for delisting as 'featured'. The only mockery I see is discussing modifying an image that has already attained featured status and successfully withstood a challenge to strip it of that status. 75.208.124.17917:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
I do not know how to revert and even whether I could. But if you do it, then it won't appear to be war. Nominating it for deletion might have been the better strategy. 75.208.124.17902:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
That is so kind of you, Adam. The image still has numerous problems which I listed in the delist nomination which have not been addressed and cannot be addressed. There is no unified global pattern, not even among English-speaking nations. At best, this could be turned into a US version. But why do that when the FAA publishes in the public domain recommended patterns? I like Steelpillow's work. It's just that he is creating something that can't possibly qualify as a featured picture. Whatever he makes inherits the FP status from a prior image that was not properly vetted by persons with ample expertise. 75.208.123.10907:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Here's a simple challenge: Let anyone take the revised image or revise it further under a new name and nominate it to become a featured picture as the 'best available'. I really would like to hear the arguments in favor of crowning it with FP status. 75.208.123.10907:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Add upwind leg, broadly per discussion - diagram is now more generic international and shows less national bias.
-- Steelpillow
No, what you did was to apply the FAA-approved terminology exclusively. Reliable evidence has been presented from authoritative sources that the climb out leg has other names in other countries. Furthermore, the pattern shown is still that of the US with an upwind leg added. To make it more international, you would have to delete the US entry and exits and the entire upwind leg. 75.210.181.18700:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
To be clear, I like Steelpillow's changes and I think they are a clear improvement to a diagram which never deserved FP status. I also thank Steelpillow for his vote to delist. Given that the delist failed and cannot be revived, I think his changes should be kept, not reverted. 75.210.181.18700:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your kind remarks. I now think you are probably right that an international or universal diagram is not possible. I will not make any more changes now, unless further discussion shows a clear need for it. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
