On Oct 28, 1:08*pm, bildan wrote:
On Oct 28, 2:25*am, Surfer! wrote:





In message , ZZ
writesTom:

How many patterns have you flown since you began your training? Until
you develop a clear picture in your mind of how your airfield looks at
different points in the pattern,

Snip

I would say it's 'how the reference point looks'. *We can have a
reference point anywhere, but if landing out we won't be seeing our own
familiar airfield. *Is the reference point technique taught in the US?

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net

The best 'reference point' is the intended landing surface. *Anything
else is likely to be misleading. *Even telephone poles are not all the
same height or spacing.

There are lots of clues to height which taken together can give a
pretty accurate estimate. *Pilots may not even be aware of all the
clues they're using, just that with increasing experience, their
estimates begin to work.

One old skydiver clue is that when people stop looking like ants and
start looking like people, it's time to pull. *That's about 2000' AGL
and not a bad height to be over the landing area looking for wind and
obstacles.

Anyone try using the wing vs. runway relationship? In the Skyhawk I
was taught to keep the runway 1/2 to 2/3 up the strut, correcting for
wind. I know that this would lead to flying an ever closer pattern as
you descend, but could it not be used to get you in the groove up to
abeam the touchdown point? Then it would be a matter of TLAR from
there to touchdown.

I offer this as a question, not a suggestion. I've done very little
flying away from the home field, and I live in a very flat state.