On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 5:10:18 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
First off, I DIDN'T disparage anybody, but you certainly are. You have NO IDEA what my "sphere of experience" is, or my experience in general.
To me, telling me that the way I fly is not safe is disparaging to
me.Â* True, I don't know your experience, so why don't you tell me?Â*
I've flown single, twin, and triple engined jets, single and twin
recips, and twin turboprop beginning 43 years ago.Â* I've flown
gliders for 30 years.Â* I've never damaged an aircraft in all that
time including 5 dead stick landings due to engine failures.Â* I've
flown 66 different types of aircraft.Â* I think that qualifies me to
decide which traffic pattern is best for me and I hope you'll note
that I've never told anyone the descending 180 turn to final is
best, only best for me.Â* If you've flown more years, hours, or
types, I respect that, but I don't think that makes my opinion less
valid or yours more.Â* I get stirred up when folks tell me that their
way is the safest (or best or only) way.



This translates to up to 220 ft/sec (a 180 deg turn takes 10-20 sec and complicates the design point on when to start the turn). If you hit unexpected sinking air during this turn you could be in a real pickle!
Â*



Maybe I misunderstood you, but didn't you make reference to 220 feet
per second or 130 kts ground speed?Â* I'd need a 60 kt tail wind on
downwind to achieve that kind of ground speed.Â* If you really had a
60 kt tail wind on down wind and flew a standard pattern, I'll wager
you would not have made it back to the runway.



When I flew an actual pattern with a wind 45 degrees to my right on
downwind and the GPS indicating 32 kts, I crabbed away from the
runway and spaced further, too.Â* How much?Â* Enough to fly a parallel
ground track.Â* Did I fly past the end of the runway before beginning
my 180 deg descending turn to final?Â* Heck no!Â* I started the turn
at mid field since that was the location where I wanted to stop to
clear the runway.Â* My wife, listening to AWOS, told me afterwards
that the wind was gusting to 50 kts!



I get a sense from your description that you profess flying a ground
track.Â* If I'm wrong in that, I apologize.Â* But in the above
described case a standard ground track would have resulted in me
bouncing off the side of the bluff upon which the airport is
located.Â* Simply stating that "square is safer" is, to be blunt, a
crock.



I DIDN'T say that your ground speed increases during your downwind turn. The point was you are covering a lot of ground fast and can end up further away from the runway than you expect.



Not me.Â* I'm in control of my aircraft and won't ever end up further
away than I expect unless there's some reason to widen my pattern.Â*
And I never said "downwind turn", what I said was "in turning
flight" which is exactly what the descending turn to final is.



And I said you could lose sight of the runway if you
flew a long downwind.Â* I begin my turn from downwind at or just
slightly beyond the threshold.Â* I said "you" could lose sight, not
"I" could lose sight.



You are trying to convince others of the superiority of your technique and I am offering the opposite side of the discussion. You need to calm down and discuss things rationally.


Go back and see what I've said.Â* I'm not trying to convince you or
anyone else that my way is better, though that's what the US Air
Force taught me and I think they know a bit about flying.Â* I've only
argued that all of contentions that my way is unsafe are hogwash.Â*
What works for me works for me.Â* Fly any way you want but please
quit telling me that what I do is "unsafe".Â* PS - I thought I was
being rational but apparently not, in your opinion.




On 8/1/2016 1:42 PM, 2G wrote:



First off, I DIDN'T disparage anybody, but you certainly are. You have NO IDEA what my "sphere of experience" is, or my experience in general.

My original contention stands: a square pattern is far safer than a button hook pattern.

I DIDN'T say that your ground speed increases during your downwind turn. The point was you are covering a lot of ground fast and can end up further away from the runway than you expect.

You agreed that you CAN lose sight of the runway; not losing sight requires a tight "carrier landing" turn which precludes a stabilized final. This is okay if the situation dictates, low altitude or an expedited landing for traffic, but is generally less safe than a square pattern.

You are trying to convince others of the superiority of your technique and I am offering the opposite side of the discussion. You need to calm down and discuss things rationally.

Tom




--

Dan, 5J

Hey Dan, you're strung WAY TOO TIGHT!

1. I NEVER said what you are doing IS NOT safe! YOU said that! In fact, I listed three situations where such a pattern would be not just appropriate, but preferred. What I said is that in all other situations a square (rectangular, if you prefer) pattern would be safer.

2. I am NOT going to get into a ****ing contest with you about who has the most experience; leave it be that I have PLENTY of glider experience. You can win that contest with the heavy iron experience, for what that matters.

3. I explained this before, but let's review:
a. 80 kt IAS @ 10 kft density altitude = 100 kt TAS
b. 100 kt TAS + 10 kt tail wind = 110 kt ground speed
c. 100 kt TAS + 30 kt tail wind = 130 kt ground speed

3. I don't see how you can judge wind speed and direction in a descending turn; flying a stabilized base leg gives a far better feel because you can visually see your crab angle. Same thing goes for the final approach.

4. It sounds like, but you never said, you descending turn is quite wide. Perhaps not that dissimilar to a square pattern with the two turns merged into one.

5. It seems like the CFIGs here agree with me.

6. You can fly whatever pattern you feel comfortable with, as far as I am concerned - you ARE NOT my target audience.

Tom