Are 'Single 180 Turn From Downwind to Final' and 'Stall-spin on Turnfrom Base to Final' mutually exclusive?

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 1:04:40 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Hi Evan,



Of course you think there's a right answer because you're a
proponent of the square pattern which, if you've read my posts, I'm
not at all against.Â* I just prefer to fly the pattern which works
best for me and to date, nobody has complained about.



That said, I start monitoring the local field from about 20 miles
out and am aware of the traffic situation so I plan ahead and don't
get into the situation of being #3 but should it still happen:



1.Â* I can reduce my speed considerably and pull up to give time to
others.

2.Â* Take a thermal and climb

3.Â* Land on the parallel taxiway

4.Â* Land on the cross wind runway

5.Â* Land opposite direction (we have a long runway)

6.Â* Land way long

7.Â* Make a close in pattern in front of the 1-34 who's probably at
twice my distance from the runway.Â* I'll be clear at the taxiway
likely before he turns final.



I'm sure I can think of more ways to mitigate the situation but I
don't feel constrained to drive an aircraft as though it were a
train stuck on the tracks.Â* That's the main problem I see with "by
the book" flying.Â* I'm not an outlaw and don't mean to come across
that way, but I have to sniff when I'm told that there's only one
right way to do something.Â* One of my EE professors back in the
early 70s (an old German) used to sniff at what he called "cooking
book engineers".Â* I took that to heart and try to do what I think is
best for a given situation and what works best for me.Â* I understand
that, as a CFI you're pretty much constrained to teach by the book,
but let me ask you this:Â* Is there anything in the FAA's Glider
Flying Handbook that you know to be wrong?Â* Do you teach it wrong if
it's so published or do you teach it right? I do what needs to be
done and yes, I could fly a square pattern in the situation you
described.Â*



And another question:Â* Have you ever seen someone really get into
trouble because the pilot in front of him in the pattern flew way
too far out before turning base and #2 felt that he had to fly even
further to maintain spacing?Â* I have.



Now please tell me your correct answer.Â* I'm genuinely interested
and I've enjoyed this discussion and hope that others less
experienced might undertake to learn to think outside the box.



Regards,

Dan




On 8/1/2016 5:59 AM, Tango Eight wrote:



On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 10:32:02 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:



Fly what works for you and don't disparage techniques that are out
of your sphere of experience.


...pop quiz then.

You're #3 in the pattern behind a student in a 1-34 flying a standard glider pattern and a tow plane. Behind you is another student + CFI in an L-23. What kind of pattern are you going to fly, and why?

I think there's a right answer to this question.

best,
Evan






--

Dan, 5J

As an instructor I spend most of my time trying to get pilots to get in the box and stay there.
That box involves the use of a rectangular pattern with adjustments as needed for the situation at hand. Cook book- Yes. That said following a cook book doesn't often lead to disaster.
UH

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 1:04:40 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
Hi Evan,



Of course you think there's a right answer because you're a
proponent of the square pattern which, if you've read my posts, I'm
not at all against.Â* I just prefer to fly the pattern which works
best for me and to date, nobody has complained about.



That said, I start monitoring the local field from about 20 miles
out and am aware of the traffic situation so I plan ahead and don't
get into the situation of being #3 but should it still happen:



1.Â* I can reduce my speed considerably and pull up to give time to
others.

2.Â* Take a thermal and climb

3.Â* Land on the parallel taxiway

4.Â* Land on the cross wind runway

5.Â* Land opposite direction (we have a long runway)

6.Â* Land way long

7.Â* Make a close in pattern in front of the 1-34 who's probably at
twice my distance from the runway.Â* I'll be clear at the taxiway
likely before he turns final.



I'm sure I can think of more ways to mitigate the situation but I
don't feel constrained to drive an aircraft as though it were a
train stuck on the tracks.Â* That's the main problem I see with "by
the book" flying.Â* I'm not an outlaw and don't mean to come across
that way, but I have to sniff when I'm told that there's only one
right way to do something.Â* One of my EE professors back in the
early 70s (an old German) used to sniff at what he called "cooking
book engineers".Â* I took that to heart and try to do what I think is
best for a given situation and what works best for me.Â* I understand
that, as a CFI you're pretty much constrained to teach by the book,
but let me ask you this:Â* Is there anything in the FAA's Glider
Flying Handbook that you know to be wrong?Â* Do you teach it wrong if
it's so published or do you teach it right? I do what needs to be
done and yes, I could fly a square pattern in the situation you
described.Â*



And another question:Â* Have you ever seen someone really get into
trouble because the pilot in front of him in the pattern flew way
too far out before turning base and #2 felt that he had to fly even
further to maintain spacing?Â* I have.



Now please tell me your correct answer.Â* I'm genuinely interested
and I've enjoyed this discussion and hope that others less
experienced might undertake to learn to think outside the box.



Regards,

Dan

Hi Dan,

No, it wasn't a trick question (good one, Bob :-)), the answer is "the standard pattern".

My $0.02: There's no science, no engineering, no product development going on, just traffic sequencing for landing.

The standard pattern makes you predictable, adaptable within wide bounds, visible, unhurried. What's not to like? It's the perfect way to sequence.

If you have the pattern to yourself (which is often the case where I mostly fly), then knock yourself out. There's the guy that can precision park the G-103 ride glider every time without using the wheel brake, the 2-33 pilot who likes his no-spoiler, no wheel brake precision landings and the XC hotshots doing their low passes in formation. I love that stuff. But when it's time to share with other traffic, particularly other traffic that includes student pilots, the best practice is a standard pattern.

And yes, the glider handbook has some issues.

best,
Evan

All good points, Evan. And, to be fair, our pattern is rarely clogged
with another aircraft so predictability is rarely an issue. And yes, I
can fly a square pattern and do occasionally, and I've made my
preference clear but my precision is better with a curved final turn so
that's what I use If I have to land out. Fortunately, with the Stemme,
that's pretty much a thing of the past.

On 8/1/2016 2:02 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
Hi Dan,

No, it wasn't a trick question (good one, Bob :-)), the answer is "the standard pattern".

My $0.02: There's no science, no engineering, no product development going on, just traffic sequencing for landing.

The standard pattern makes you predictable, adaptable within wide bounds, visible, unhurried. What's not to like? It's the perfect way to sequence.

If you have the pattern to yourself (which is often the case where I mostly fly), then knock yourself out. There's the guy that can precision park the G-103 ride glider every time without using the wheel brake, the 2-33 pilot who likes his no-spoiler, no wheel brake precision landings and the XC hotshots doing their low passes in formation. I love that stuff. But when it's time to share with other traffic, particularly other traffic that includes student pilots, the best practice is a standard pattern.

And yes, the glider handbook has some issues.

best,
Evan

--
Dan, 5J

On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 7:32:02 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
In all other situations a square pattern (or a modified square pattern) is far safer. Flying a button hook pattern puts the runway out of sight to the pilot, so it is hard to judge how far you have flown, making it much more likely that an overshoot or undershoot landing will occur.

What???Â* I always fly a descending 180 to short final and I never
lose sight of the runway.Â* What are you doing that puts you in that
position?Â* It's trivial to keep the landing point in view over your
shoulder until you begin the turn, unless you're flying way too far
out before beginning your final.


An important aspect of the square pattern, in addition to the visibility part, is to assess the winds aloft by the amount of crab required.

It's easy to assess winds on downwind and continuously through the
final turn without losing sight of the touchdown point. Drift is
recognized with peripheral vision and quick glances down at the
ground.Â* Final and opposite patterns are monitored from downwind
throughout the final turn.Â* Angle of descent is easily controlled by
keeping the angle to the touchdown point constant.




I have been flying lately in conditions of high cross winds (10-20 kt) and even higher gusts (20-30 kt). Having a stabilized base leg is essential to judge this

As said above, it's easy to judge during the downwind and throughout
the turn.


(the AWOS is just to old to be relied upon).

Very true!


If I were to fly a button hook pattern I would have a ground speed of 110-130 kt, given the high density altitudes we are flying and an 80 kt IAS (100 kt TAS + 10-30 kt tail wind)!

Why would you have a higher ground speed in turning flight than in
straight flight?


This translates to up to 220 ft/sec (a 180 deg turn takes 10-20 sec and complicates the design point on when to start the turn). If you hit unexpected sinking air during this turn you could be in a real pickle!

No, you're close enough that reducing dive brake will compensate for
any sink.Â* If you're in a location with known high sink on final,
e.g., Salida, CO, you should make your turn at the proper height and
distance from the runway.


You may not experience these conditions where you fly, but a lot of accidents occur when flatlanders venture into high density altitude airports.

I also like to have A LOT of altitude when entering the pattern (2,000 ft).

There goes flying where other pilots expect to see you!


It is easy to burn off that altitude in modern gliders and it gives me options if something unexpected happens (like a plane pulling out onto the runway unannounced). Altitude lost is like runway behind you - it doesn't do you any good.

Tom


Fly what works for you and don't disparage techniques that are out
of your sphere of experience.


--

Dan, 5J



On Sunday, July 31, 2016 at 7:32:02 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
In all other situations a square pattern (or a modified square pattern) is far safer. Flying a button hook pattern puts the runway out of sight to the pilot, so it is hard to judge how far you have flown, making it much more likely that an overshoot or undershoot landing will occur.

What???Â* I always fly a descending 180 to short final and I never
lose sight of the runway.Â* What are you doing that puts you in that
position?Â* It's trivial to keep the landing point in view over your
shoulder until you begin the turn, unless you're flying way too far
out before beginning your final.


An important aspect of the square pattern, in addition to the visibility part, is to assess the winds aloft by the amount of crab required.

It's easy to assess winds on downwind and continuously through the
final turn without losing sight of the touchdown point. Drift is
recognized with peripheral vision and quick glances down at the
ground.Â* Final and opposite patterns are monitored from downwind
throughout the final turn.Â* Angle of descent is easily controlled by
keeping the angle to the touchdown point constant.




I have been flying lately in conditions of high cross winds (10-20 kt) and even higher gusts (20-30 kt). Having a stabilized base leg is essential to judge this

As said above, it's easy to judge during the downwind and throughout
the turn.


(the AWOS is just to old to be relied upon).

Very true!


If I were to fly a button hook pattern I would have a ground speed of 110-130 kt, given the high density altitudes we are flying and an 80 kt IAS (100 kt TAS + 10-30 kt tail wind)!

Why would you have a higher ground speed in turning flight than in
straight flight?


This translates to up to 220 ft/sec (a 180 deg turn takes 10-20 sec and complicates the design point on when to start the turn). If you hit unexpected sinking air during this turn you could be in a real pickle!

No, you're close enough that reducing dive brake will compensate for
any sink.Â* If you're in a location with known high sink on final,
e.g., Salida, CO, you should make your turn at the proper height and
distance from the runway.


You may not experience these conditions where you fly, but a lot of accidents occur when flatlanders venture into high density altitude airports.

I also like to have A LOT of altitude when entering the pattern (2,000 ft).

There goes flying where other pilots expect to see you!


It is easy to burn off that altitude in modern gliders and it gives me options if something unexpected happens (like a plane pulling out onto the runway unannounced). Altitude lost is like runway behind you - it doesn't do you any good.

Tom


Fly what works for you and don't disparage techniques that are out
of your sphere of experience.


--

Dan, 5J

First off, I DIDN'T disparage anybody, but you certainly are. You have NO IDEA what my "sphere of experience" is, or my experience in general.

My original contention stands: a square pattern is far safer than a button hook pattern.

I DIDN'T say that your ground speed increases during your downwind turn. The point was you are covering a lot of ground fast and can end up further away from the runway than you expect.

You agreed that you CAN lose sight of the runway; not losing sight requires a tight "carrier landing" turn which precludes a stabilized final. This is okay if the situation dictates, low altitude or an expedited landing for traffic, but is generally less safe than a square pattern.

You are trying to convince others of the superiority of your technique and I am offering the opposite side of the discussion. You need to calm down and discuss things rationally.

Tom

First off, I DIDN'T disparage anybody, but you certainly are. You have NO IDEA what my "sphere of experience" is, or my experience in general.

To me, telling me that the way I fly is not safe is disparaging to me.
True, I don't know your experience, so why don't you tell me? I've flown
single, twin, and triple engined jets, single and twin recips, and twin
turboprop beginning 43 years ago. I've flown gliders for 30 years.
I've never damaged an aircraft in all that time including 5 dead stick
landings due to engine failures. I've flown 66 different types of
aircraft. I think that qualifies me to decide which traffic pattern is
best for me and I hope you'll note that I've never told anyone the
descending 180 turn to final is best, only best for me. If you've flown
more years, hours, or types, I respect that, but I don't think that
makes my opinion less valid or yours more. I get stirred up when folks
tell me that their way is the safest (or best or only) way.

This translates to up to 220 ft/sec (a 180 deg turn takes 10-20 sec and complicates the design point on when to start the turn). If you hit unexpected sinking air during this turn you could be in a real pickle!



Maybe I misunderstood you, but didn't you make reference to 220 feet per
second or 130 kts ground speed? I'd need a 60 kt tail wind on downwind
to achieve that kind of ground speed. If you really had a 60 kt tail
wind on down wind and flew a standard pattern, I'll wager you would not
have made it back to the runway.

When I flew an actual pattern with a wind 45 degrees to my right on
downwind and the GPS indicating 32 kts, I crabbed away from the runway
and spaced further, too. How much? Enough to fly a parallel ground
track. Did I fly past the end of the runway before beginning my 180 deg
descending turn to final? Heck no! I started the turn at mid field
since that was the location where I wanted to stop to clear the runway.
My wife, listening to AWOS, told me afterwards that the wind was gusting
to 50 kts!

I get a sense from your description that you profess flying a ground
track. If I'm wrong in that, I apologize. But in the above described
case a standard ground track would have resulted in me bouncing off the
side of the bluff upon which the airport is located. Simply stating
that "square is safer" is, to be blunt, a crock.

I DIDN'T say that your ground speed increases during your downwind turn. The point was you are covering a lot of ground fast and can end up further away from the runway than you expect.


Not me. I'm in control of my aircraft and won't ever end up further
away than I expect unless there's some reason to widen my pattern. And I
never said "downwind turn", what I said was "in turning flight" which is
exactly what the descending turn to final is.

And I said _you_ could lose sight of the runway if _you_ flew a long
downwind. I begin my turn from downwind at or just slightly beyond the
threshold. I said "you" could lose sight, not "I" could lose sight.

You are trying to convince others of the superiority of your technique and I am offering the opposite side of the discussion. You need to calm down and discuss things rationally.


Go back and see what I've said. I'm not trying to convince you or
anyone else that my way is better, though that's what the US Air Force
taught me and I think they know a bit about flying. I've only argued
that all of contentions that my way is unsafe are hogwash. What works
for me works for me. Fly any way you want but please quit telling me
that what I do is "unsafe". PS - I thought I was being rational but
apparently not, in your opinion.

On 8/1/2016 1:42 PM, 2G wrote:
First off, I DIDN'T disparage anybody, but you certainly are. You have NO IDEA what my "sphere of experience" is, or my experience in general.

My original contention stands: a square pattern is far safer than a button hook pattern.

I DIDN'T say that your ground speed increases during your downwind turn. The point was you are covering a lot of ground fast and can end up further away from the runway than you expect.

You agreed that you CAN lose sight of the runway; not losing sight requires a tight "carrier landing" turn which precludes a stabilized final. This is okay if the situation dictates, low altitude or an expedited landing for traffic, but is generally less safe than a square pattern.

You are trying to convince others of the superiority of your technique and I am offering the opposite side of the discussion. You need to calm down and discuss things rationally.

Tom

--
Dan, 5J

On Monday, August 1, 2016 at 5:10:18 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
First off, I DIDN'T disparage anybody, but you certainly are. You have NO IDEA what my "sphere of experience" is, or my experience in general.
To me, telling me that the way I fly is not safe is disparaging to
me.Â* True, I don't know your experience, so why don't you tell me?Â*
I've flown single, twin, and triple engined jets, single and twin
recips, and twin turboprop beginning 43 years ago.Â* I've flown
gliders for 30 years.Â* I've never damaged an aircraft in all that
time including 5 dead stick landings due to engine failures.Â* I've
flown 66 different types of aircraft.Â* I think that qualifies me to
decide which traffic pattern is best for me and I hope you'll note
that I've never told anyone the descending 180 turn to final is
best, only best for me.Â* If you've flown more years, hours, or
types, I respect that, but I don't think that makes my opinion less
valid or yours more.Â* I get stirred up when folks tell me that their
way is the safest (or best or only) way.



This translates to up to 220 ft/sec (a 180 deg turn takes 10-20 sec and complicates the design point on when to start the turn). If you hit unexpected sinking air during this turn you could be in a real pickle!
Â*



Maybe I misunderstood you, but didn't you make reference to 220 feet
per second or 130 kts ground speed?Â* I'd need a 60 kt tail wind on
downwind to achieve that kind of ground speed.Â* If you really had a
60 kt tail wind on down wind and flew a standard pattern, I'll wager
you would not have made it back to the runway.



When I flew an actual pattern with a wind 45 degrees to my right on
downwind and the GPS indicating 32 kts, I crabbed away from the
runway and spaced further, too.Â* How much?Â* Enough to fly a parallel
ground track.Â* Did I fly past the end of the runway before beginning
my 180 deg descending turn to final?Â* Heck no!Â* I started the turn
at mid field since that was the location where I wanted to stop to
clear the runway.Â* My wife, listening to AWOS, told me afterwards
that the wind was gusting to 50 kts!



I get a sense from your description that you profess flying a ground
track.Â* If I'm wrong in that, I apologize.Â* But in the above
described case a standard ground track would have resulted in me
bouncing off the side of the bluff upon which the airport is
located.Â* Simply stating that "square is safer" is, to be blunt, a
crock.



I DIDN'T say that your ground speed increases during your downwind turn. The point was you are covering a lot of ground fast and can end up further away from the runway than you expect.



Not me.Â* I'm in control of my aircraft and won't ever end up further
away than I expect unless there's some reason to widen my pattern.Â*
And I never said "downwind turn", what I said was "in turning
flight" which is exactly what the descending turn to final is.



And I said you could lose sight of the runway if you
flew a long downwind.Â* I begin my turn from downwind at or just
slightly beyond the threshold.Â* I said "you" could lose sight, not
"I" could lose sight.



You are trying to convince others of the superiority of your technique and I am offering the opposite side of the discussion. You need to calm down and discuss things rationally.


Go back and see what I've said.Â* I'm not trying to convince you or
anyone else that my way is better, though that's what the US Air
Force taught me and I think they know a bit about flying.Â* I've only
argued that all of contentions that my way is unsafe are hogwash.Â*
What works for me works for me.Â* Fly any way you want but please
quit telling me that what I do is "unsafe".Â* PS - I thought I was
being rational but apparently not, in your opinion.




On 8/1/2016 1:42 PM, 2G wrote:



First off, I DIDN'T disparage anybody, but you certainly are. You have NO IDEA what my "sphere of experience" is, or my experience in general.

My original contention stands: a square pattern is far safer than a button hook pattern.

I DIDN'T say that your ground speed increases during your downwind turn. The point was you are covering a lot of ground fast and can end up further away from the runway than you expect.

You agreed that you CAN lose sight of the runway; not losing sight requires a tight "carrier landing" turn which precludes a stabilized final. This is okay if the situation dictates, low altitude or an expedited landing for traffic, but is generally less safe than a square pattern.

You are trying to convince others of the superiority of your technique and I am offering the opposite side of the discussion. You need to calm down and discuss things rationally.

Tom




--

Dan, 5J

Hey Dan, you're strung WAY TOO TIGHT!

1. I NEVER said what you are doing IS NOT safe! YOU said that! In fact, I listed three situations where such a pattern would be not just appropriate, but preferred. What I said is that in all other situations a square (rectangular, if you prefer) pattern would be safer.

2. I am NOT going to get into a ****ing contest with you about who has the most experience; leave it be that I have PLENTY of glider experience. You can win that contest with the heavy iron experience, for what that matters.

3. I explained this before, but let's review:
a. 80 kt IAS @ 10 kft density altitude = 100 kt TAS
b. 100 kt TAS + 10 kt tail wind = 110 kt ground speed
c. 100 kt TAS + 30 kt tail wind = 130 kt ground speed

3. I don't see how you can judge wind speed and direction in a descending turn; flying a stabilized base leg gives a far better feel because you can visually see your crab angle. Same thing goes for the final approach.

4. It sounds like, but you never said, you descending turn is quite wide. Perhaps not that dissimilar to a square pattern with the two turns merged into one.

5. It seems like the CFIGs here agree with me.

6. You can fly whatever pattern you feel comfortable with, as far as I am concerned - you ARE NOT my target audience.

Tom

Sorry I don't know your name, 2G, nor do I know where you fly, and I'm
not trying to get into a ****ing contest. But let me offer you this:
Should you ever come to Moriarty or I come to wherever you are, let's
fly my Stemme together and demonstrate our patterns to each other. Then
we can laugh about it over a beer. Keyboards and time delays do make
for too much acrimony!

On 8/1/2016 7:07 PM, 2G wrote:
3. I don't see how you can judge wind speed and direction in a descending turn; flying a stabilized base leg gives a far better feel because you can visually see your crab angle. Same thing goes for the final approach.

I'll only reply to the above statement hopefully to explain but it's so
much easier to demonstrate. You can judge wind velocity during a turn
by your drift across the ground at low altitude. Then small corrections
can be made to fly the necessary ground track to arrive at the desired
location. Check it out next time you're thermalling down low.


--
Dan, 5J

2G wrote on 7/31/2016 4:07 PM:
I also like to have A LOT of altitude when entering the pattern
(2,000 ft). It is easy to burn off that altitude in modern gliders
and it gives me options if something unexpected happens (like a plane
pulling out onto the runway unannounced). Altitude lost is like
runway behind you - it doesn't do you any good.

I like to have a lot altitude in the pattern, generally entering at 1000
feet agl. I don't like to be any higher, because I worry about
descending onto aircraft below me in the standard pattern (they can be
hard see, and usually are not looking up for aircraft above them). To
avoid that, I descend away from the airport, watching below me, until I
can make a "standard" 45 degree entry to downwind, arriving there in the
1000' - 1200' range. I don't use spoilers until I've turned final, so my
turns to base and to final are relatively high.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"

https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf

Really, if you look at patterns that people actually fly, there is not so much difference in philosophy as you think. I challenge everybody to download log files from your airport, or contest, plot them, and see what they look like. Some base legs have long straight segments between sharp turns, some are merely connected gentle turns from downwind to final, but we all end up in the same place, on a controlled glide path and airspeed, safely aligned with the runway. The only thing that is confusing to students is authoritarian pronouncements of single and often incorrect ways to fly it. For example, nobody really flies downwind with a 45 degree lookdown angle to the runway, that would put them 800' away at 800 AGL, with no hope of flying a controlled base leg. Even the author of that silly guideline doesn't fly that close, if you look at his igc files at competitions. Most people fly downwind 2000-2500 away from the runway, which is more like a 20 degree lookdown angle. Do the math, look at what you actually fly, look at what other people fly. For example, see http://noss.ws/temp/patterns.jpg for a sampling of patterns a dozen or so experienced pilots flew and logged on OLC in varying conditions at the same location on the same runway.

Originally Posted by NG[_2_]

Really, if you look at patterns that people actually fly, there is not so much difference in philosophy as you think. I challenge everybody to download log files from your airport, or contest, plot them, and see what they look like. Some base legs have long straight segments between sharp turns, some are merely connected gentle turns from downwind to final, but we all end up in the same place, on a controlled glide path and airspeed, safely aligned with the runway. The only thing that is confusing to students is authoritarian pronouncements of single and often incorrect ways to fly it. For example, nobody really flies downwind with a 45 degree lookdown angle to the runway, that would put them 800' away at 800 AGL, with no hope of flying a controlled base leg. Even the author of that silly guideline doesn't fly that close, if you look at his igc files at competitions. Most people fly downwind 2000-2500 away from the runway, which is more like a 20 degree lookdown angle. Do the math, look at what you actually fly, look at what other people fly. For example, see http://noss.ws/temp/patterns.jpg for a sampling of patterns a dozen or so experienced pilots flew and logged on OLC in varying conditions at the same location on the same runway.

Now this part is true and very believable. I have seen this and when I look at traces from others at my gliderport they are definitely twice as wide (or wider) than I fly for my pattern. As previously mentioned, being an ex USAF guy, and used to using angles to set up patterns for bomb deliveries, I did try to do exactly what the books say, and at 1000 feet entering down wind I'd try to be at a 45 degree look down. By my 'rough' calculations (trig and all that), that means I'm on downwind 1000 feet away from the runway. Aint no one else at our glider port that close...

I then check air brakes and leave them out in order to start getting down and aim to hit abeam my touchdown point at a 30 degree look down angle (from texts, 500' alt abeam touch down point, and trig again). That position, rolling off downwind into a 25 degree bank rocks you nicely around to final with a continuous not too hard turn, plenty of correction, easy to see wind effect, roll out 1/4 mile aligned with runway, simple.

I'm not sure who came up with the angles, but they either do not understand trig, or did not do the calculations and compared them to suggested altitudes at each point. As mentioned, since I see almost no one else running down downwind at 1000 feet off set from the runway (and usually at 2000') I'm pretty sure no one else is using that 45 degree look down number.