Landing patterns

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:56:11 GMT, EDR wrote:

In article urJzc.46043$0y.44191@attbi_s03, m pautz
wrote:

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.

It is not "required" until the Commercial checkride. The standard that
took effect last year is a 180 degree, power off abeam the approach end
of the runway, landing.

:-)) On my last bi-ennual check ride we did a bunch of instrument
work and then the instructor said "as this is your airplane I'd like
you to simulate an engine out in what ever manner you are most
comfortable." I pulled it back to idle. He then said, "OK we've had a
power failure, how about finding a place to land.

We were over 4 miles...I think close to 5 miles west of the airport.

Having just come out from under the hood I had a good idea of our
location. I established best glide while "looking for a spot" which in
this case was the airport. We were at 4000 as I recall.

At any rate, at best glide we were *high* when we reached the airport.
I actually flew the pattern (more or less) with a steep slipping
U-turn to the end of the runway. We were down and stopped in about
900 feet. He commented that from our altitude he thought I'd never
get it on that 3000 foot runway let alone stopped in the first 900
feet.

I do this in a 3100# high performance retract and the flight schools,
or instructors drill it into to the students in the trainers.

My point is although not called that, the emergency procedures are
exactly that... Power off landings to a particular spot and they are
often far more than just doing the pattern. I see a lot of power off
landings in the trainers at 3BS. Normally the ones with the wide
patterns are the pilots who have been flying a while, who don't like
stalls and haven't done one since the last bi-ennual flight review.
They don't like anything other than something close to a standard rate
turn and when landing add 10 MPH for safety, 5 for the kids, 10 for
the wife and at least the full gust factor if not more. Oh, and they
rarely fly with an instructor except for the dreaded bi-ennual flight
review.

Perhaps other areas are not doing so, but I see both power and non
powered landings. Every few weeks I pull the power abeam the
numbers on the way out just to keep in practice.

However I would point out that a so called "normal, by-the-book
landing" in mine is carrying quite a bit of power. No, that is not a
shallow, dragging it in final, it's steep! Far steeper than a power
off landing and quite a bit slower. It varies between 75 to 80 with a
power off landing being at 90 MPH. That extra 10 to 15 MPH uses a
*LOT* of runway.

The real eye opener is to do a power off, "no flap" landing. You
will use most of the 3000 foot runway even with heavy braking and the
nose is so high you can only see the runway through the side windows.
I have to admit though, you can barely even tell when the mains touch
down. :-))

Of course the real ego deflator is landing in a gusty wind only to
find 6 or 7 pilots standing by the gate holding up signs to grade the
landing snicker

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

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

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

I have the same problem you do with the normal pattern, particularly
the long haul on the 45, during which you can't possibly glide to the
airport (usually after having flown over the airport!).

Personally, I have gone back to power-off landings for just this
reason. And I try, not always successfully, to come in "high, hot, and
slipping like crazy" since I don't have the option of raising the
flaps.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

Gee .. that requirement was there back in the 70s. Did they
remove it at some point?

"EDR" wrote in message
...
In article urJzc.46043$0y.44191@attbi_s03, m pautz
wrote:

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.

It is not "required" until the Commercial checkride. The standard that
took effect last year is a 180 degree, power off abeam the approach end
of the runway, landing.

"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...

Of course the real ego deflator is landing in a gusty wind only to
find 6 or 7 pilots standing by the gate holding up signs to grade the
landing snicker

No snicker about it; I had three line boys in Hays, Kansas do that to me
several years ago.

"m pautz" wrote in message
news:7yEzc.44640$0y.5757@attbi_s03...
So, the question I have for the group is why are power planes taught to
have these wide patterns with low angled turns? Why are the patterns
outside the glide angle of a powerless airplane?

Light the blue touch paper, stand well back.

Paul

In article ,
"OtisWinslow" wrote:

It is not "required" until the Commercial checkride. The standard that
took effect last year is a 180 degree, power off abeam the approach end
of the runway, landing.



Got my ticket in '76. The first landings I was taught in a C-150 were no
flap, no power landings. Pulled the power abeam the numbers and set up a
glide at 70 mph.

Edward

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:21:38 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:


"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
.. .

Of course the real ego deflator is landing in a gusty wind only to
find 6 or 7 pilots standing by the gate holding up signs to grade the
landing snicker

No snicker about it; I had three line boys in Hays, Kansas do that to me
several years ago.

I was speaking from experience:-)) I have been on both ends of the
grading from being the grader to the gradee.

I've stopped over in Hays due to haze (for real) to and from BJC when
taking the southern route to keep out of the storms.

Man, there ain't nuthin between Salina and Hays. Not much more to
Goodland. The one thing I remember about Hays (after the haze lifted)
was seeing what appeared to be a bluff way off to the west. It's
really a series of hills, but from the airport it darn near looked
like a cliff.

Well, time to close the windows. There's another storm headed this
way.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Cub Driver wrote
Personally, I have gone back to power-off landings for just this
reason. And I try, not always successfully, to come in "high, hot, and
slipping like crazy" since I don't have the option of raising the
flaps.

And what happens when you eventually hit an updraft? If you're
already high, hot, and slipping like crazy, that updraft will put you
too high and hot to land, and you will need to go around.

Here's a bit of reality - unless you run out of gas, it is highly
unlikely that an engine that was working just fine when you entered
the pattern will fail so suddenly and so completely that it won't
produce enough power to flatten your glide enough for you to make the
runway given a reasonable pattern. On the other hand, it may well
crap out badly enough that you won't have the power to go around -
especially if you are flying a 65 hp Cub, which is a marginal
performer anyway.

I'm all for keeping the pattern close in, but there are limits to
everything.

Michael

Edward Todd wrote
Got my ticket in '76. The first landings I was taught in a C-150 were no
flap, no power landings. Pulled the power abeam the numbers and set up a
glide at 70 mph.

And there is a good reason to learn that way - it reduces complexity.
You don't screw around with anything after the downwind abeam point.
You set throttle to idle, pull carb heat, trim to the correct
airspeed, and after that all you do is fly the airplane. Obviously
your instructor understood the concept of starting simple and moving
to the complex. I'm sure you learned to do full flap landings at some
point - but flaps are additional complexity you don't need while
learning to fly a pattern and land. On top of that, the flare becomes
less critical since the sink rate is reduced.

Unfortunately, most of today's instructors don't really understand
this. They start the student doing landing procedures that involve
multiple power, flap, and airspeed changes in the pattern. Each of
those changes requires a change in trim. The result - the student has
too damn much to do. His airspeed control goes to hell (because with
all those configuration changes the plane is perpetually out of trim)
and he just doesn't have enough time to simply fly the plane.

So what happens? Power is added and the pattern is made wider to slow
things down and give the student more time to do everything that he
doesn't really need to be doing yet. Accelerated stall becomes a
concern because the student may not be able to tell that he is pulling
back too much - he's gotten used to flying out of trim. On top of
that, the student is still fumbling for throttle, flaps, and trim -
and is late making power reductions and flap additions, so the pattern
gets even bigger. The instructor spends his time reminding the
student to perform the "procedure" instead of watching his flying.
Everything is worse.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
m...
Cub Driver wrote
Personally, I have gone back to power-off landings for just this
reason. And I try, not always successfully, to come in "high, hot, and
slipping like crazy" since I don't have the option of raising the
flaps.

And what happens when you eventually hit an updraft? If you're
already high, hot, and slipping like crazy, that updraft will put you
too high and hot to land, and you will need to go around.

You have obviously never slipped a Cub. An updraft that can keep a Cub from
making the numbers has not been invented. My wife came in over the numbers
at pattern altitude and we were down and stopped on the first third of a
3,000 foot runway. Gotta love a plane with a real rudder.