Yesterday, as I held short for takeoff, I watched a Grob overshoot final
out of a "square" pattern. It appeared to me that the pilot did not
check, comprehend, or compensate for the crosswind from the right on
downwind (left-hand pattern), and the wind blew him across the final
approach requiring a great steepening of the bank to pull it back around
and then a turn reversal to line up with the final approach. Note that
there was a CFI-G on board and I'll assume that he was letting the
student make the mistake as a training event.

My opinion on the turning approach is that it gives me continuous
feedback as to my ground track and allows me to continually correct for
the effects of cross winds. Of course I listen to AWOS entering the
pattern and set up a crab on downwind for the expected drift, and
correct that as required. I also watch the final approach course on
downwind and during my turn to final.

This is not rocket science, it's being aware of your situation and
surroundings, a condition less and less apparent these days. And
frankly, it's a lot easier, for me at least, to note and correct for
wind drift during a turn than to notice any effect of a tail wind while
flying a square base leg and then overshooting during the turn to final.

On 7/29/2016 8:52 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
Some of the reasons for standard patterns rather than 180:
- it's what other traffic at airports expects. It's what most instructors checking you out on their planes, airports, BFRs, or FAA examiners expect.
- it gives you good time to look from base to see if there is other traffic on final
- many stall spin accidents come from overshooting base to final, then ham-handed corrections. That's more likely from a 180
- many off field accidents come from being too close to the field. planning a 180 puts you close automatically
- less adjustment room if things go wrong.
- A test: try doing your no-spoiler approach that way.

John Cochrane BB

--
Dan, 5J