How Low to Spin??

Kirk Stant wrote:


I fly my pattern based on where I want to touch down, and adjust the
pattern accoding to my altitude and the wind. I prefer low, tight,
fast patterns, so I can see what I'm getting into during a landout!

And if you don't like what you are getting into, how do you avoid if you
are low and tight? Even a high, large pattern will eventually have you
as close to the "what you are getting into", but in the mean time, you
have a lot more time to look things over and change your mind.

I don't think I like the idea of a fast landout, either.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

I have often used somewhat higher speeds on approach
as well. The logic is simple: trade a little altitude
for airspeed and you will get a better perspective
on field slope, power lines and other features that
my not be visible at higher view angles.

There is practically nothing worse than having those
hidden power lines pop up above the horizon when you
are at 30' and 50 kts on final (this is the voice of
experience from the person who had to pick up the wreck).
A little extra energy can be useful - assuming you
have good divebrakes. It also helped me this summer
at Parowan when a huge dust devil kicked off right
in the middle of the runway when I was at 100' on final.
I was able to stretch my approach so that I didn't
have to flare in the middle of the sucker.

I know this flys in the face of the traditional stabilized
approach philosophy - so I'm interested in counterpoints.

9B




At 06:00 26 August 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Kirk Stant wrote:


I fly my pattern based on where I want to touch down,
and adjust the
pattern accoding to my altitude and the wind. I prefer
low, tight,
fast patterns, so I can see what I'm getting into
during a landout!

And if you don't like what you are getting into, how
do you avoid if you
are low and tight? Even a high, large pattern will
eventually have you
as close to the 'what you are getting into', but in
the mean time, you
have a lot more time to look things over and change
your mind.

I don't think I like the idea of a fast landout, either.

--
Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

On 25 Aug 2004 12:24:25 -0700, (Mark James Boyd)
wrote:

It's too bad we can't tell the "well-trained" from the "poorly-trained"
pilots until after they've done something wrong, don't you
think?

Alll the people that I knew personally who were killed in a glider
fell under the category "extremely well-trained".


Bye
Andreas

If you had of said you used your extra speed to take
you to the dust devil and climb away I would have been
far more impressed!

At 07:00 26 August 2004, Andy Blackburn wrote:
I have often used somewhat higher speeds on approach
as well.
It also helped me this summer
at Parowan when a huge dust devil kicked off right
in the middle of the runway when I was at 100' on final.
I was able to stretch my approach so that I didn't
have to flare in the middle of the sucker.

I know this flys in the face of the traditional stabilized
approach philosophy - so I'm interested in counterpoints.

9B




At 06:00 26 August 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Kirk Stant wrote:


I fly my pattern based on where I want to touch down,
and adjust the
pattern accoding to my altitude and the wind. I prefer
low, tight,
fast patterns, so I can see what I'm getting into
during a landout!

And if you don't like what you are getting into, how
do you avoid if you
are low and tight? Even a high, large pattern will
eventually have you
as close to the 'what you are getting into', but in
the mean time, you
have a lot more time to look things over and change
your mind.

I don't think I like the idea of a fast landout, either.

--
Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Nice reference to the original topic!

:-)

At 15:36 26 August 2004, Kirk Davis wrote:
If you had of said you used your extra speed to take
you to the dust devil and climb away I would have been
far more impressed!

At 07:00 26 August 2004, Andy Blackburn wrote:
I have often used somewhat higher speeds on approach
as well.
It also helped me this summer
at Parowan when a huge dust devil kicked off right
in the middle of the runway when I was at 100' on final.
I was able to stretch my approach so that I didn't
have to flare in the middle of the sucker.

I know this flys in the face of the traditional stabilized
approach philosophy - so I'm interested in counterpoints.

9B




At 06:00 26 August 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Kirk Stant wrote:


I fly my pattern based on where I want to touch down,
and adjust the
pattern accoding to my altitude and the wind. I prefer
low, tight,
fast patterns, so I can see what I'm getting into
during a landout!

And if you don't like what you are getting into, how
do you avoid if you
are low and tight? Even a high, large pattern will
eventually have you
as close to the 'what you are getting into', but in
the mean time, you
have a lot more time to look things over and change
your mind.

I don't think I like the idea of a fast landout, either.

--
Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Slightly off topic but the following is pretty good reading, IMHO.

pdf:

http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/GB...erLandings.pdf

If you prefer html:

http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/GB...r_landings.htm


Tony V.


--

Even popularity can be overdone. In Rome, along at first, you are
full of regrets that Michelangelo died; but by and by you only regret
that you didn't see him do it.

Mark Twain

Eric Greenwell wrote in message ...

And if you don't like what you are getting into, how do you avoid if you
are low and tight? Even a high, large pattern will eventually have you
as close to the "what you are getting into", but in the mean time, you
have a lot more time to look things over and change your mind.

I don't think I like the idea of a fast landout, either.

Eric, what I want is to have the best look at the potential landout
field before actually landing on it. That means picking the field
early, looking at it carefully while making a last attempt to climb
out (if possible, then setting up a pattern close enough to be able to
see terrain details and pick the exact point to touch down at. That
usually means being downwind at about 500' or so, and that means being
pretty close in.

By fast, I mean about 60 to 70 knots (depending on wind, etc) in my
LS6 dry. That is plenty enough for aggresive turning if necessary to
adjust my pattern, and to float over a last minute fence, but slow
enough that with full divebrakes I can quickly slow down on short
final for a low energy tail first landing.

And I practice this often at my home field, using different runways
when possible to get used to different patterns. And it has worked on
my actual landouts, when necessary (obviously not a good idea when
landing at a big controlled field - that requires a totally different
pattern technique!).

I shudder when I watch 2-33s flying wide bomber patterns, downwind at
1000', and flying long finals. It may be FAA approved textbook, but I
think it is bad technique. I like the BGA's idea of the angled base
leg, which approaches my preferred military-style one turn to final
pattern.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

Kirk

Since discussion isn't blossoming yet, here's some compost...

Once within a thousand feet of the ground, I'm generally doing two
things: dumping water and increasing speed. My thermal search
continues, but will typically be limited to an easy pattern entry for
my first choice in available fields. As I work bits of lift, the water
gets turned off and back on based on my sense of whether I can make a
save. But my airspeed stays elevated (pattern speed rather than
thermalling speed). While working on the save, I am also paying
particularly close attention to my primary and secondary fields.

I've never applied a close-in, higher speed approach for the sake of a
closer look at a field. A typical search for lift will give me a very
good look at the field from different angles for at least several
minutes. I base my understanding of obstructions on what I can see and
what I "know" about obstructions. Poles mean wires. I never assume
that just because I can see a second pole that wires don't go in some
other direction as well. Changes in crop color, even slight, are a
sign of potential obstructions. I always assume that there is a wire
between any structure and any road. I assume that every road has a
wire running along it.

I've found over the years that my critical decision point to stop
searching for lift is between 400 and 200 feet agl, depending on
conditions. This is not when I enter the pattern, but when I put the
gear down and focus ENTIRELY on landing safely. Typically, I'll be at
least half way through a modified downwind (still looking for lift).
This means that I am viewing the field from less than 400 feet above
and 400 feet displaced from my intended centerline.

I think base leg is the most critical part of the landing pattern.
I've had several minutes to look at the field. I have decided on its
suitablity. Base leg gives me a parallax view. This is when I can most
accurately judge slope(s) and irregularities. Once I've turned base,
only under the most extraordinary circumstances would I consider
another field. Instead, I measure the problems revealed during base
leg and adjust to suit. Here's my logic for this: we've proved time
and again at local aiports that a poor pattern into a good field can
produce the very worst of results. The success of a landing is based
more, I believe, on the quality of your pattern than the quality of
the field. Of course, there's a standard to be applied. A perfect
approach into a rock scramble will yield less than happy results. But
in general, I'd rather make a good pattern into a challenging (but
landable) field than a poor pattern into an ideal field.
Unfortunately, in the search for lift (and for some, under the
psychological duress of laning out), it's the pattern that usually
suffers.

If there are problems, the closer you are to a standard pattern, the
better you'll be able to address them. If you are doing something
unusual (lower and faster than usual), you've added another variable
to deal with.

Here's a simple formula to consider:

No lower than 1000 feet agl: dump water, increase speed, start
assessing the particulars of your two best choice fields. Keep
searching for lift (the best way to guarantee an uneventful landing is
to get home!).

700 feet agl: select the best of available options and start moving
into your pattern. Continue your search for lift within the limits of
the landing pattern until you reach your own personal minimum altitude
based on conditions, skill, confidence, etc., and your ability to
execute a proper base leg.

Commit to a landing before you turn base. At this point, you will not,
under any circumstances, work lift. You recognize that to do so
unsuccessfully could lead to an accident. (When my wheel goes down,
the soaring portion of my flight is complete.)

Throughout the base leg, take advantage of the parallax view to verify
your earlier assessment of the field. Pay attention to the edges of
the field as well. Add new variables as they appear and deal with
them. Make adjustments as needed on final to avoid observed or
suspected obstructions.

Once you have cleared all known obstructions, land! Don't extend your
glide down the field to get closer to a road, house, or gate. The
longer you spend at wire altitudes, the more likely it is that you'll
find one.

Land with minimum enegery. If you've failed to observe a ground
obstruction, you'll want to hit it at the lowest possible speed. Apply
your brakes immediately on touchdown.

Always assess the field after you've landed. What didn't you see? What
did you see that wasn't really a problem? This review will serve your
assessment of the next field you find yourself falling into.

"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message
om...
Since discussion isn't blossoming yet, here's some compost...

Once within a thousand feet of the ground, I'm generally doing two
things: dumping water and increasing speed. My thermal search
continues, but will typically be limited to an easy pattern entry for
my first choice in available fields. As I work bits of lift, the water
gets turned off and back on based on my sense of whether I can make a
save. But my airspeed stays elevated (pattern speed rather than
thermalling speed). While working on the save, I am also paying
particularly close attention to my primary and secondary fields.

I've never applied a close-in, higher speed approach for the sake of a
closer look at a field. A typical search for lift will give me a very
good look at the field from different angles for at least several
minutes. I base my understanding of obstructions on what I can see and
what I "know" about obstructions. Poles mean wires. I never assume
that just because I can see a second pole that wires don't go in some
other direction as well. Changes in crop color, even slight, are a
sign of potential obstructions. I always assume that there is a wire
between any structure and any road. I assume that every road has a
wire running along it.

I've found over the years that my critical decision point to stop
searching for lift is between 400 and 200 feet agl, depending on
conditions. This is not when I enter the pattern, but when I put the
gear down and focus ENTIRELY on landing safely. Typically, I'll be at
least half way through a modified downwind (still looking for lift).
This means that I am viewing the field from less than 400 feet above
and 400 feet displaced from my intended centerline.

I think base leg is the most critical part of the landing pattern.
I've had several minutes to look at the field. I have decided on its
suitablity. Base leg gives me a parallax view. This is when I can most
accurately judge slope(s) and irregularities. Once I've turned base,
only under the most extraordinary circumstances would I consider
another field. Instead, I measure the problems revealed during base
leg and adjust to suit. Here's my logic for this: we've proved time
and again at local aiports that a poor pattern into a good field can
produce the very worst of results. The success of a landing is based
more, I believe, on the quality of your pattern than the quality of
the field. Of course, there's a standard to be applied. A perfect
approach into a rock scramble will yield less than happy results. But
in general, I'd rather make a good pattern into a challenging (but
landable) field than a poor pattern into an ideal field.
Unfortunately, in the search for lift (and for some, under the
psychological duress of laning out), it's the pattern that usually
suffers.

If there are problems, the closer you are to a standard pattern, the
better you'll be able to address them. If you are doing something
unusual (lower and faster than usual), you've added another variable
to deal with.

Here's a simple formula to consider:

No lower than 1000 feet agl: dump water, increase speed, start
assessing the particulars of your two best choice fields. Keep
searching for lift (the best way to guarantee an uneventful landing is
to get home!).

700 feet agl: select the best of available options and start moving
into your pattern. Continue your search for lift within the limits of
the landing pattern until you reach your own personal minimum altitude
based on conditions, skill, confidence, etc., and your ability to
execute a proper base leg.

Commit to a landing before you turn base. At this point, you will not,
under any circumstances, work lift. You recognize that to do so
unsuccessfully could lead to an accident. (When my wheel goes down,
the soaring portion of my flight is complete.)

Throughout the base leg, take advantage of the parallax view to verify
your earlier assessment of the field. Pay attention to the edges of
the field as well. Add new variables as they appear and deal with
them. Make adjustments as needed on final to avoid observed or
suspected obstructions.

Once you have cleared all known obstructions, land! Don't extend your
glide down the field to get closer to a road, house, or gate. The
longer you spend at wire altitudes, the more likely it is that you'll
find one.

Land with minimum enegery. If you've failed to observe a ground
obstruction, you'll want to hit it at the lowest possible speed. Apply
your brakes immediately on touchdown.

Always assess the field after you've landed. What didn't you see? What
did you see that wasn't really a problem? This review will serve your
assessment of the next field you find yourself falling into.


Chris has a lot of good points but let me suggest something else.

Most of us pretty well know the routes we will use on XC flying. Get your
handheld GPS, a digital camera and a good map with a Lat/Long grid and go
driving. Looking over fields from ground level is much better than from
1000' feet while stressed out.

You don't need to find many fields, just enough to fill in the gaps between
airports. When you find a good one, note the GPS coordinates and take
photos and notes. Maybe include the name of the landowner and a phone
number. If you can, walk the landing area. Then, post them on your club
web site. The Albuquerque Soaring Club is a good example of this.

Scratching for a save when within an easy glide of a known safe landing site
is a lot less stressful.

Bill Daniels

(Kirk Stant) wrote in message

Not the same as max performance low altitude turning (thermalling),
which are definitely NOT ground reference maneuvers.


Thermalling close to the ground is not intended to be a ground
reference maneuver, but the visual feedback from the ground can have a
strong influence on control inputs. It is very important to keep
airspeed in the scan and not to be influenced by ground speed. The
input from ground reference can be very compelling, and misleading,
when thermalling low in a strong wind.

Andy