midlifeflyer

Makes sense…so long as it comports with requirements.

I’ve seen the same thing. I pull breakers during complex transition training too. Don’t be shocked. People get fixated and distracted.

Despite a start that had me (and the judge) laughing, Ken did pretty well in his law practice. OTOH, I’m the one who’s been accused of doing stand-up in courtrooms, so maybe the lesson stuck.

Fortunately, since I use a checklist I haven't been placed in a situation where I had to be rescued by one because I didn't use it and then decided to. I'm not sure what you are asking about but it reminds me of something non-aviation that happened ages ago. I was still in law school and my friend Ken got a student prosecutor position with the local DA's office. He was going to have his first trial that day, so I came to watch. The case was about a kid sniffing airplane model glue (aha! an aviation connection!) from a paper bag, a popular albeit stupid pastime of the era. Anyway, the police never secured the bag in a sealed enclosure so, by the time of the trial, the evidence was gone. Undeterred, in response to the defense motion to dismiss, Ken valiantly argued, "Airplane glue smell dissipates with time, so the fact that it's not there now means it was airplane glue."

Could be. But I think it's more likely that the term "teardrop" just puts a picture of a teardrop into some people's brains. So that's what they do. Fly away from the runway just enough to get back to it quicky after a descending turn when we are really being asked to fly about 2 miles from the downwind leg as it exists at the time . If we could find a another shorthand, it might help.

That's probably exactly why they added "not to scale." No one (including you?) was reading (quoting from your picture) "fly clear of traffic pattern (approx. 2 mi.). Descend to pattern altitude, then turn." But that's the way it's been described in print as far back as I can recall, not as a descending teardrop turn onto the Cessna below you.

That's probably the reason for the term "teardrop" instead of "crossing midfield at [altitude] to return on a 45." The problem I have with the term is the number of pilots who treat is as a teardrop. They say "words mean somehing," but the way we phrase things often leads of mirroring behavior. I notice, for example, that @201er's teardrop depiction actually looks like a teardrop and is the way I see pilots do it all the time. But that is not what the FAA recommends for that entry. Here's the FAA's graphic for comparison. I think there's quite a bit of difference between: (1) flying "clear of the pattern" - 2 miles beyond the patten which may be wider and possibly higher than normal that day (i.e, at least 3+ miles past the runway), then descending to pattern altitude (which will put you another 0.5 to 1 mile away from traffic in the pattern, then turning around for what is basically a 45° entry 3-4 miles from the airport; and (2) a descending teardrop turn into a pattern that has pilots in 152s doing 737 downwinds.

Paranoia is definitely one of mine. So's a consistent point in time when I deploy it (habits are hard to break), although IFR and VFR and different. But one is actually a bit counterintuitive. I fly a number of different airplanes. Some fixed gear, some retract but, what they have in common is different target landing speeds. As a result, I pretty much always have to use the before landing checklist as a pre-landing briefing. That acts as a big reminder and is the trigger for the later multiple flow/memory confirmations.

Paranoia can be a pretty effective mitigation strategy.

Just a little of that FAA "invulnerability" hazardous attitude mixed in? There's really no guarantee about this, just ways to mitigate the risk. All most of us do is choose the methods we think will do the job for us. I can guarantee one thing: no one who ever landed unintentional gear up thought they would.

Don't forget the twin and Part 135 guys, including even with a crew of two. Out of curiosity, I went to the NTSB accident database and input Part 135 flights landing accidents with the word "gear" in the narrative. I wasn't sure what I would find because many gear-ups are not reported and others are going to involve mechanical failures or other factors (the second hit was a pilot who hit an Elk). But by sheer coincidence, of the 138 hits I got, the third one involved a 15,000 hour scheduled air taxi pilot landing a Baron gear up simply because he forgot to put it down. Obviously one of those junior old farts who rarely flies

I couldn’t answer the first question since whether I do a crosswind to downwind at pattern altitude vs cross the airport above the pattern and return on a 45 (I will not say “teardrop”) depends on traffic flow. As Mr Miyagi might say, “there is no typically.” On the other, I fly approved procedures which pretty much cover everything other than violating the regs, so that was an easy one.

If I were still living on the extended final to 17R at KAPA, I’d give you a call.

I wonder what the stats would show about that. Most gear ups are not reported, but the ones I hear about tend to involve what I think of as experienced pilots more often than newbies. That might also depend on what we consider “very junior.”

Of course not. But it’s usually a good idea to understand what your practice is giving you.