Landing patterns

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.