John H. Campbell wrote:

whereas in gliders we're taught to bank at about 45 degrees or so.

I don't think so.

[multo snippo]

...how much steeper (and more stressful) are you planning to go
if your path is going past the line of the runway?

I guess I'd use as much bank as I need, whether 60 or 90, and whatever airspeed
and wing loading it takes to do the job, since I don't expect to be able to make
a go around. How about you? If I don't like the situation, I'll simply avoid
repeating it. Of course I have the advantage of having begun flying when the
laws of physics were considered to be useful rather than something of which to
be unduly terrified.

When the FAA again change the PTS, this time to something like a steep turn = 35
degrees, where will we be? Sixty degrees is a steep turn: 45 degrees is merely
an inappropriate pattern planning parameter. I generally fly my patterns fairly
close-in at around 20 to 25 degrees of bank. I mean, really, it's a glider after
all, not an F-105. On the other hand, if bank angle equals stress, perhaps we
should be advocating something other than flying gliders for more folks.

And Michael's following post:

...the quality of power instruction is, on the whole,
dramatically worse than the quality of glider instruction.
The majority of power instructors...teach their students
(wide, shallow bank patterns) because they don't know
anything else.

hits the nail on the head. Today's CFI-ASEL must teach wide shallow bank
patterns because that's what everyone uses, and to fly a proper pattern has
become nearly impossible when their are other aircraft in the pattern ahead, and
of course the ones behind won't know where to look for you and seem unaware of
the many possibilities.

Now if it would just stop raining, I could go out and soar instead of taking my
frustration out on good ol' John H., who is, after all, just doing what he
thinks is right.



Jack