That TLAR doesn't look right

It's always surprised me that the 360 overhead pattern hasn't been taught in glider flying, because it is probably the easiest way to setup a consistent pattern into an unfamiliar field.

The military way, you fly over the field at pattern height and above pattern speed, make a 180 turn once past your touchdown point, slow and configure on downwind (which is located by the radius of your turn at a higher than approach speed), then when the angle to the touchdown point "looks about right", do a 180 turn to final. No problem overshooting final (unless you neglect a strong crosswind) since you know you can do the same 180 turn (or 2 90s to check final) as you did to get your downwind distance. Easy to adjust by waiting for the right angle to the field to start the turn.

If you like a longer base, then just add a short crosswind leg after an intial 90 turn; your base will be about the same length (use time to set the distance, say a 5-count before the second 90 turn to downwind.

This is not new, militaries have been doing it since before WW2, and it has the beauty that it works anywhere with no ground references needed.

Unfortunately, if you do it at most glider fields with other glider traffic in the pattern you will probably fly you pattern way inside them and cut them off!

If you think about it, it's a variation of how XC students are taught to fly a pattern for an off field landing.

Finally, I really think glider pilots (well, all pilots) should be able to setup a successful landing from just about anywhere near the airfield, from a steep straight-in to a button-hook reversal when you realize the wind just switched directions.

It's called airmanship...

Kirk
66

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 11:03:41 AM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
It's always surprised me that the 360 overhead pattern hasn't been taught in glider flying, because it is probably the easiest way to setup a consistent pattern into an unfamiliar field.

This is not new, militaries have been doing it since before WW2, and it has the beauty that it works anywhere with no ground references needed.

If you think about it, it's a variation of how XC students are taught to fly a pattern for an off field landing.

Finally, I really think glider pilots (well, all pilots) should be able to setup a successful landing from just about anywhere near the airfield, from a steep straight-in to a button-hook reversal when you realize the wind just switched directions.

It's called airmanship...

Kirk
66

I think you meant, "With no altimeter reference", not "Ground reference".

I use the same basic pattern for my home field as well as "off airport". You should always practice what you'll use.
An off airport landing can be stressful enough, why add yet another thing to deal with/stress out over?

And yes, I tend to agree with the "airmanship" comment.

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 10:44:00 AM UTC-5, Charlie M. (UH & 002

I think you meant, "With no altimeter reference", not "Ground reference".

By "Ground Reference" I meant using a known feature on the ground to initiate actions in the pattern: IP at the lake, turn downwind over the farm, base over the gas station, etc. The airfield/landing zone is the only "ground reference" that should be used.

Agree, once the pattern is started, what's the point of looking at the altimeter?

Kirk

On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 1:21:43 PM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
On Monday, July 13, 2015 at 10:44:00 AM UTC-5, Charlie M. (UH & 002

I think you meant, "With no altimeter reference", not "Ground reference".

By "Ground Reference" I meant using a known feature on the ground to initiate actions in the pattern: IP at the lake, turn downwind over the farm, base over the gas station, etc. The airfield/landing zone is the only "ground reference" that should be used.

Agree, once the pattern is started, what's the point of looking at the altimeter?

Kirk

Ahhhhh..... Gotcha. Correct I don't use/didn't teach using fixed ground references, the angle was all it took.
Thus if you started early in the pattern (and you used angles), you should be further away "if it looks OK".
If you started low (and you used angles), you should be closer "if it looks OK".

Farmer Browns field does not have the lake/tree/parking lot/etc. your home field does, so the angles work there as well.

We're in agreement. ;-)

I routinely look at traces for the patterns flown to our airport, and I fly closer than all but one or two (out of roughly 75 pilots) to the runway. Measuring traces, I fly roughly 1000' offset from the runway (800' out to a max of 1200'). Entering the pattern (TLAR) and using standard trigonometry, I may be no closer than a 45 look down to be at 1000'out. I do not like to be closer than that, and I flew USAF closed patterns in a previous life. Abeam touch down point, I look to be not lower than, and hopefully right near 30 degree look down/dip...less than 30 degrees I feel low and move it in and turn in sooner. I tend to do curvilinear patterns all the way around from this range and it is smooth and easily corrected at half speed brakes.

Measuring on Google Earth, to make the same turn from 600' seems like it would require me to fly way past my normal turn in point (45 back) or really play for a full speed brake, higher bank turn--needing a much higher level of flying perfection to make the landing spot than one should safely plan for. Simple math, 2D flight: 30 degree banked turn at 55 knots = 932 foot turn diameter. Same 55 knots, 45 degree bank = 538 foot turn diameter--not much margin for error at 600' offset (Seen anyone doing that for 180 degrees of turn and maintaining full boards to get down?? Didn't think so). I routinely fly the 30 degree bank around so I guess the math is close.

I agree with others based on the traces I've seen. If someone is claiming they use 45 degree dip/lookdown abeam touchdown point, on downwind, they aren't judging the angles correctly. I see most high performance sailplanes at least 2000 to 2500 feet away on average-much further than my little Pilatus likes to be. Which is fine, if they are consistently landing correctly as stated, that is TLAR to them no matter what they choose to name that angle. Having spent years rolling into 10, 20, 30, 45 and 60 degree dive bomb patterns, I can agree with others: they are thinking they are steeper than they really are (until they get more practice most new guys are always shallow). Same reason most pilots do not really get to 45 and 60 degrees of bank in thermals when they say they do....

Oh, and Kirk, I still do come up initial, pitch out and land in my glider like we did in fighters. The radio call confuses half the club: "Inbound, 1 mile north for initial, left break, stop south."

Squeaky