zatatime wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:25:55 GMT, m pautz
wrote:


There seems to be a discrepancy between glider landing patterns and
power landing patterns. There is a discussion on the soaring news group
about our 30-45 degree turns vs the power shallow banked turns. The
reason for our bank angle is because we fly close-in/tight patterns.


30 degrees of bank is more than sufficient to fly a power off pattern.
With more than that in a powered airplane the nose will tend to drop
and require a "significant" amount of back pressure to compensate for
which opens you up to an accelerated stall. Not a good thing. Don't
forget we have 3 or 4 hundred pounds hanging off our nose.

I can’t provide input to the power side since my power training is 30
years old and was quite different from today’s power landing patterns.
The first “glider” I ever flew was a Cessna 150 (that’s right, a Cessna
150). My instructor was teaching me to fly a close-in pattern. With
each successive landing, I was stretching out the pattern. The
instructor warned me about stretching out the pattern and told me that
one of the reasons for the pattern is so that I could ‘always’ land at
the airport even with engine failure.

This is how I teach. Once established in the pattern you should be
able to make the field regardless of any mechanical difficulties.
Many instructors think I have a strange approach to this, but whenever
I've been with one in an airplane and we're on base from a long
downwind with 15 or 1700 rpm, and I say "What would you do now if the
engine quit?" they choose somewhere off field because they know they
won't make it. Then I ask how they rationalze this to their students
(since they generally admit they do not teach them to look for fields
during the landing). I have not yet gotten an answer and have done
this with at least 4 instructors. Now if you're flying something
fairly large (T-6, Saratoga, Malibu, Caravan, etc...) you will need to
carry a little power, but not for any light airplane.
He put the plane at the *correct*

IP, turned the engine off (dead stick), and said, “ok, it’s yours”


This I would not agree with at all, but 30 years ago it was not
unheard of. You can very easily accomplish the same thing by not
allowing the student to touch the throttle while executing the
approach.


I landed with no problems. More importantly, I now had the confidence
and skills to land a plane with engine failure. Since then, I see the
power planes landing with stretched out patterns and low-angle final
approaches. The approach angle is so low, that they could not possibly
make it with engine failure. I also hear them compensate on final by
*adding* power.

Yep. I see it all the time and it irritates the heck out of me,
especially when its a 152 or 172 and you know there's someone on board
Teaching this to a student.


So, the question I have for the group is why are power planes taught to
have these wide patterns with low angled turns?

I wish I knew.
Why are the patterns

outside the glide angle of a powerless airplane?

For a normal approach again I don't have a logical answer.
I had a friend who

died because of engine failure. The pilot was within gliding distance
of the airport, but he didn’t know how to fly a power-out pattern. They
crashed short of the runway on final.


I'm very sorry. Your story epitomizes why I disagree with this
technique. Even if only 1 accident out of 1,000,00 flights has this
happen its too much since just by teaching better basics it is easily
avoided.


Hopefully, some CFIs will respond. I am curious about this issue.


I'm sure they will, and I'm sure I'll be flamed by at least a few of
them, but that's ok. I've come to learn that my approach is no longer
the social norm, even though I truly believe it is safer.



Marty Pautz
"promote a society that respects its elders; before it is too late"


Just to be clear, I do not ignore power on approaches. They are
important as well. It's just not how the majority of approaches are
flown.

Thanks Zetatime & C J Campbell,

I say thanks because you confirmed that you teach patterns the way I had
been taught 30 years ago.

To eliminate any confusion for other posters, please ignore what I said
about 30-45 degree banked turns. My issue was not with the bank of the
turns. I agree with C J that a pattern with shallow banked turns can be
made and still be within glide distance; the pattern simply has to be
flown higher and wider. My point was not really about the bank angle,
but rather being in a pattern that would enable you to get to the runway
even with a power failure.

What I often see (from the ground) at our airport is an announcement of
turn to final with no plane in sight. Sometime later, I will see a
plane come from over the trees with power. The power is sometimes
increased on final approach to make the field and is not cut to idle
until over the threshold. Although power failure is not likely, the
loss of power would result in a crash.

C J, you said, "Finally, I get a sense from your query a desire to have
everybody in the pattern doing the same thing." No, you misunderstood.
There is a King Air flying with us. His pattern is much wider,
higher and faster than ours. However, he is still within glide distance
of the airport once he enters the pattern. If he has engine failure, he
will still make the field.

Pete, I understand that airplanes spend most of their time out of glide
range of airports; so do many gliders. You mentioned that, "It's
much more important that one be able to make a gliding power-off
approach and landing to *somewhere*" That is my point exactly. My
point is that the power pilots of today are not being taught a valuable
safety feature, how to fly a pattern without power. I am not making a
judgment call on what should or should not be done as a matter of
course; that is up to you power guys. What I am saying is that it
should be taught and regularly practiced.

Pete, it is obvious that I did not expound adequately on the crash that
I referenced. You used my example as proof that being within gliding
distance of the runway was no panacea. Let me further explain: When he
lost power, he was within gliding distance of an airport, he glided
there, setup a standard landing pattern, and crashed short of the runway
on final because he never learned to fly a power-off landing pattern.
His turn from base to final was too far out and low. Both the pilot and
the passenger died.

Pete, you asked if I checked Google Groups. My apologies to the group; I
see that this was covered in the group 6 months ago. I just entered the
group for the first time today. My compliments to the group. You guys
have wealth of information.

Marty Pautz