That TLAR doesn't look right

I am not critisizing the method, as a matter of fact is the way I fly patte=
rns. Except for the 45 degree dip angle. Did any one try to actually stand=
at a wall, put one foot in front of the other and move away five or six fe=
et (not steps)? Now look at where the wall joins te floor and imagine there=
is a runway there. Did anyone checked google earth?
I think the problem is that pilots see a dip angle of 30 degrees and think =
it looks like 45 degrees. Any skier will tell you stories of skiing down a =
wall when in reality de slope was well below 45 degrees.
So if you are teaching a student and you are at the right distance and angl=
e, it doesn't matter what you call that angle, that is what is retained in =
his or her mind. So it looks about right, whether you call it 25, 30, 45, o=
r 60 degrees. I'm not worried about it. I am worried about someone actua=
lly trying to fly the downwind at 600 feet.
I talked to an instructor today that told me the same, he uses a 45 degree =
dip angle to the runway. Then he flew a couple of patterns at what I estima=
te was 1200 feet from the runway. I know because I measured 600 feet from t=
he runway and nobody was even close to that line.
So the problem may be a matter of perception and calling 45 degrees what in=
reality is 30 degrees.
Tomorrow I will post what it is said on several books about distances and a=
ngles, including one by the author of the article.

I'm with you, Santirago.

I /_think_/ I fly downwind with about a 45 deg look down angle, but who
knows? I hold my head and eyes at about the same position as I look at
the runway while planning my final turn (180 deg descending turn to
final). It doesn't really matter what the angle actually is. It's
unfortunate to link TLAR (that looks about right) and a specific number
in the same article. Admittedly I haven't read the article yet. I'm
just commenting on what I've read here.

On 7/11/2015 7:22 PM, wrote:
I am not critisizing the method, as a matter of fact is the way I fly patte=
rns. Except for the 45 degree dip angle. Did any one try to actually stand=
at a wall, put one foot in front of the other and move away five or six fe=
et (not steps)? Now look at where the wall joins te floor and imagine there=
is a runway there. Did anyone checked google earth?
I think the problem is that pilots see a dip angle of 30 degrees and think =
it looks like 45 degrees. Any skier will tell you stories of skiing down a =
wall when in reality de slope was well below 45 degrees.
So if you are teaching a student and you are at the right distance and angl=
e, it doesn't matter what you call that angle, that is what is retained in =
his or her mind. So it looks about right, whether you call it 25, 30, 45, o=
r 60 degrees. I'm not worried about it. I am worried about someone actua=
lly trying to fly the downwind at 600 feet.
I talked to an instructor today that told me the same, he uses a 45 degree =
dip angle to the runway. Then he flew a couple of patterns at what I estima=
te was 1200 feet from the runway. I know because I measured 600 feet from t=
he runway and nobody was even close to that line.
So the problem may be a matter of perception and calling 45 degrees what in=
reality is 30 degrees.
Tomorrow I will post what it is said on several books about distances and a=
ngles, including one by the author of the article.

--
Dan Marotta