Landing patterns

"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?

Have you used Google Groups to review past threads on this contentious
issue? It's come up in the past, and there are always the folks who believe
there's only one right way, and anyone doing it some other way is a fool.

Bottom line: in a perfect world, a powered airplane would always be within
gliding distance of an airport, and when it came time to land, whether by
design or by accident, it would be a simple matter of just gliding to the
runway. But the world's not perfect and powered airplanes spend most of
their time not within gliding distance of an airport. As it happens, in the
traffic pattern there are, as with other times, issues other than simply
being able to land without any power, and at those times, a pattern not
within gliding distance to the runway is advised or even necessary.

Gliders don't have a choice. If you're going to land on the runway, you
need to be within gliding distance, by definition. Of course, gliding
distance for a glider is quite a bit farther too. Powered airplanes have a
choice, and sometimes that involves choosing not to be within gliding
distance of the runway.

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.

Proof that flying within gliding distance of the runway is no panacea. It's
much more important that one be able to make a gliding power-off approach
and landing to *somewhere* than that they are theoretically within the
proper distance to do so on a runway.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

It's come up in the past, and there are always the folks who believe
there's only one right way, and anyone doing it some other way is a fool.

Until they get the acro bug and try to land a Pitts. :-)

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

Peter Duniho wrote:
It's come up in the past, and there are always the folks who believe
there's only one right way, and anyone doing it some other way is a fool.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
Until they get the acro bug and try to land a Pitts. :-)

And as we all know, the airshow begins when the Pitts flares/flairs to
land!

My two bits...

I fly in the SF bay area (San Carlos - class D).
Pattern altitude is 800 AGL.
The normal headwind component is 8-14 kts.
Traffic in the pattern is fairly heavy... number 3 in sequence when
you enter on the 45 is usual.

The lowish TPA & reasonably high headwinds needs fairly shortened base
& final legs to make it in poweroff from the downwind.
Doing this with traffic ahead can get you uncomfortably close...he may
not clear the runway in time...need tower clearance.

And not least , the turn radius of a 172 is subsantially larger than a
glider. At idle from downwind , from the above TPA & with headwinds ,
base & final are nearly a continuous turn.
I have flown gliders before , and fly a 152 now ... purely from a
control feedback & response perspective , I'm much happier doing the
above U turn from downwind to final in a glider than in a 152.

I suppose what I am saying is - traffic constraints , airspace &
pattern requirements , aircraft maneuverability - imply that a
somewhat poweron approach works best for the usual circumstances which
exist at GA airports.

Having said that , I'm personally much happier flying a close in
pattern , somewhat high & shortened final , and a forward slip if
needed.


Pavan Bhatnagar
(aspiring PP-ASEL)

m pautz wrote in message news:7yEzc.44640$0y.5757@attbi_s03...
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.

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. He put the plane at the *correct*
IP, turned the engine off (dead stick), and said, “ok, it’s yours”

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.

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? 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.

Hopefully, some CFIs will respond. I am curious about this issue.

Marty Pautz
"promote a society that respects its elders; before it is too late"

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

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

"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.

On 16 Jun 2004 15:23:53 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

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.

2400 feet gives a lot of room for error.

I've never experienced an updraft. The airfields here most often are
crowded with pines on either side; perhaps that has something to do
with it?

(Flying downwind at pattern altitude at Lakes Region in Wolfeboro NH,
you can't even see the runway for the pines.)

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

However rare an engine failure in the pattern might be we've all read
about them. I can't recall anyone ever hitting an updraft in a cub,
citabria, etc. on final that pushed them so high they missed the field.
Where have you seen this? I also try to be high on final and then
slip if needed.

Just curious

Dave
68 7ECA

Michael wrote:
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

dave wrote
However rare an engine failure in the pattern might be we've all read
about them.

Actually, the only ones I know of where there wasn't enough power left
to limp to the runway were indeed fuel exhaustion.

I can't recall anyone ever hitting an updraft in a cub,
citabria, etc. on final that pushed them so high they missed the field.
Where have you seen this?

In Texas, where we routinely see 500 fpm updrafts in the summer. I
was in a Cub. I knew I was a little high and a little hot and I was
already slipping - and then I hit an updraft and nothing I did was
good enough to get down. Oh, I suppose I might have managed a landing
well past midfield but at that point a go-around seemed like the hot
tip.

I also try to be high on final and then
slip if needed.

There's a difference between a little high on final and slip off the
altitude if need be, and being high, hot, and slipping like crazy on
every approach. I favor the former, but not the latter.

In a glider, the ideal approach is one where you fly your pattern with
half spoilers - in the middle of your range. That allows you to
flatten the glide if you hit sink or steepen it if you hit lift.

By the same token, in a no-flaps airplane I favor an approach that
puts me about 1/3 of the way down the runway without slipping, and a
medium slip to scrub off the altitude on short final - all of this at
normal approach speed. I believe that if you need close to a
maximum-effort slip on final, then one of two things happened - either
you set up too high and too hot, or you hit a serious updraft on
final. If you're consistently slipping hard down final, you're not
leaving yourself an out against the day you have to fly short final
over a hot parking lot.

My objection is not to power-off patterns, which I favor. I also do
not object to slipping down final a little, especially in a no-flaps
airplane. I'm just saying that you can overdo it. Too much speed and
altitude can be as bas as too little.

Michael