201er

Steep Turn Base to Final

Recommended Posts

I was one who acquired the AOA when first available, I don't think its the end all to be all, but I would't give it up. I like to use it on approaches especially GPS ones to give me another idea that I'm in the dumb blue donut I have one less item to consider, I know when I'm high its been useful in a sharp descent profile with the nose pointing at the runway I hope, since I can't see it yet, other than that it is useful in the final stages of pattern work. Did it make my landings better nope they still suck.But no broken parts yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Members that donate $10 or more do not see advertisements*

6 hours ago, Marauder said:

Personally, I have flown and misjudged a pattern like what you showed on your first landing, who hasn't? The only difference for me is that on base, I'm realizing it is screwed up and I am starting to plan my upwind go around.

On your second landing, despite your claim that you turn base to final in a position so you can make a glide to the airport, the final you showed flown was with power.

The video wasn't created for demonstrating this purpose. Just so happened that it shows it so I used it to help visualize what I'm talking about. First landing was an 800ft ceiling off a perpendicular VOR approach. With lowered visibility and clouds around, didn't want to get far from the airport. Second landing was a long straight in into Pelston. Certainly there are times when airspace, traffic, terrain, or ATC demand a wide pattern or a long final.

However, given a choice, coming into an uncontrolled airport, I prefer keeping patterns tight. There's mor control that way. Angles are more obvious. You see the glide path and profile better.

Now all you guys and dentists saying that a steep drop isn't necessary or is a botched landing haven't flown in some of the airports I have flown. Sure, if you always fly to airports with a 5000ft+ runway with an ILS, you can pussyfoot your way around the pattern, never turn steep, etc. However, our airplanes are designed and capable of going into smaller airports. You're missing out a lot if your piloting skills prohibit you from flying into ~3000ft GA airports without approaches and maybe some hills around.

Three airports come off the top of my head where you don't get that ILS/5000+ luxury. Short runways, obstacles or airspace demand tight patterns and steeper descent profiles. Linden airport, Northeast Pittsburgh (which has no IAP, closed at night, and is lodged between nearby hills), and Mellville Hall airport in Dominica. Strong wind coming in from the Ocean. Short downhill runway pointing into the Ocean. Uphill traffic pattern pointing into a volcanoe. And there's even a video for that!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I woder why the long displaced threshold.....you don't suppose it is to encourage a nice, stabilized 3:1 flightpath over obastacles?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Increasing bank angle in level turn increases load, to maintain level must increase AoA, which increases induced drag. Slows plane unless power added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've followed this discussion from the sidelines so far and have no comment on the content. There appear to be some valid points on both sides.

But I do have to say that the "presentation" leaves much room for improvement. I camped next to 201er at Oshkosh this year and he was a nice-enough guy. But when I read his statements below my respect for his opinions dropped a notch. There are a LOT of intelligent, experienced, accomplished individuals on this forum and the condescension in these statements sure leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

"Flying airspeed in the traffic pattern is stupid"

"you are going about an old fashioned, illogical, complex mind dance"

"I think pilots flying by airspeed are oblivious"

"It is the people who fly by airspeed that are in trouble. They are unaware of their margins"

"(you) haven't flown in some of the airports I have flown"

"flying by airspeed is an accident waiting to happen"

"you can pussyfoot your way around the pattern"

"your piloting skills prohibit you from flying into"

 

I'm gonna just chalk it up to youthful indiscretion and hope that his confidence never exceeds his capabilities. And maybe I'll buy him a beer next time as well.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Viewed the topic out of curiosity. Curiosity satisfied.

Me too. I agree with Mike that we should all be flying AoA. I wish all GA planes had AoA indicators in them from way back and that we were all trained to use them during our PP training, but that's not the case. Now it's a nice to have feature that I want to get one day. Other than that, I pretty much disagree with Mike on the way he flies his pattern. His overshoot, steep turn technique is not for me. No, thanks.

Just as a curiosity, why do people obsess about flying tight, in close patterns so much? They say it's so if you lose your engine, you can always make the runway, but why is there so much concern about losing an engine once we get close to an airport? Seems funny to me that after flying over oceans and rugged mountains and dense urban areas and forests full of trees, that we get to an airport and then worry about engine failure.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was based at an obstructed 3000' runway with a ridgeline between downwind and the runway for seven years. I've never banked over 30° in the pattern, and rarely go beyond standard rate.

Its the same when flying into a 2000' grass strip, except I make sure of low weight and corresponding low airspeed.

75 mph on short final heavy minus 5 mph for every 300 lbs below gross. Fuel is 300 lbs. It's easy to do the math in my fingers. Since I missed the group buy in AoA, I've not put one in yet; ASI works well as originally taught and as transitioned into my Mooney and as refined by two MAPA PPPs.

Minimal float, I'm usually down by the third stripe. Guess I need to measure the exits at my new 3200' no approach / no PAPI field, there are two between the ends but not at the center. I usually don't even brake for them going either direction.

Note that I'm not calling any names, I'm just saying that while AoA may be nice to have, it's not necessary even for short fields maybe superfluous would be a better description. Rather like an iPad in flight . . .

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 201er said:

The video wasn't created for demonstrating this purpose. Just so happened that it shows it so I used it to help visualize what I'm talking about. First landing was an 800ft ceiling off a perpendicular VOR approach. With lowered visibility and clouds around, didn't want to get far from the airport. Second landing was a long straight in into Pelston. Certainly there are times when airspace, traffic, terrain, or ATC demand a wide pattern or a long final.

However, given a choice, coming into an uncontrolled airport, I prefer keeping patterns tight. There's mor control that way. Angles are more obvious. You see the glide path and profile better.

Now all you guys and dentists saying that a steep drop isn't necessary or is a botched landing haven't flown in some of the airports I have flown. Sure, if you always fly to airports with a 5000ft+ runway with an ILS, you can pussyfoot your way around the pattern, never turn steep, etc. However, our airplanes are designed and capable of going into smaller airports. You're missing out a lot if your piloting skills prohibit you from flying into ~3000ft GA airports without approaches and maybe some hills around.

Three airports come off the top of my head where you don't get that ILS/5000+ luxury. Short runways, obstacles or airspace demand tight patterns and steeper descent profiles. Linden airport, Northeast Pittsburgh (which has no IAP, closed at night, and is lodged between nearby hills), and Mellville Hall airport in Dominica. Strong wind coming in from the Ocean. Short downhill runway pointing into the Ocean. Uphill traffic pattern pointing into a volcanoe. And there's even a video for that!

 

C's E's F's and J's can be slipped like this, but don't do this in a long body with full flaps unless you enjoy tail stalls.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chuck, it's true a lot of content has been lost in the static of tone here. I am trying this forum to connect with other aviators who are continually trying to expand their personal envelopes. Having flown with you, I know you are one of those.

I've ignored the unfortunate incivility which is not a monopoly of any one poster here. Perhaps others felt provoked? Or maybe there is some background of which I'm unaware.

But cutting through the ego-driven BS, and what's more disturbing, is how reluctant some pilots seem to be to challenge what they "know" to be true...even when they can't explain why or how they "know" it.

The fundamental premise I took away from the OP was that AoA is more useful than airspeed. It's irrelevant to anyone without an AoA indicator (of whom I am one), but could have provoked a great discussion about how our wings work...load factor, what a stall really is, why do we crash in the pattern..

Instead we've got posters whose airplanes "cannot stall" (wow-can l get that STC?!) and "always" do it one way no matter what and that way nothing bad will ever happen to them. Uh, OK...wonder if that is a common thread in every NTSB post-incident pilot interview - if the pilot survived.

Fascinating...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok! I agree that distractions and corrections can creep into our workload. I wouldn't say I would never need an AOA, but if I was going to install one, this guy below seems to have a great idea.

I have always been able to fly well with an airspeed indicator and my rear end. I could see a device like this helping in a  scenario where you might be at gross weight Hi DA, some strange approach. Basically the perfect accident waiting to happen. With all the help available today,  It would be foolish to fully rely on the seat of my pants to get me home. 

For those that have not been able to fly from the seat of their pants, it would be neat to learn they cues they have learned and developed for the rest of us. Why not take advantage of what has helped them?

Check it out the guy was really neat. The theater in the woods presentation at OSH was really cool.

http://www.eaa.org/en/airventure/eaa-airventure-news-and-multimedia/eaa-airventure-news/eaa-airventure-oshkosh/07-27-2016-airball-wins

http://www.sonexbuilders.net/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1764

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok! I agree that distractions and corrections can creep into our workload. I wouldn't say I would never need an AOA, but if I was going to install one, this guy below seems to have a great idea.

I have always been able to fly well with an airspeed indicator and my rear end. I could see a device like this helping in a  scenario where you might be at gross weight Hi DA, some strange approach. Basically the perfect accident waiting to happen. With all the help available today,  It would be foolish to fully rely on the seat of my pants to get me home. 

For those that have not been able to fly from the seat of their pants, it would be neat to learn they cues they have learned and developed for the rest of us. Why not take advantage of what has helped them?

Check it out the guy was really neat. The theater in the woods presentation at OSH was really cool.

[/url] http://www.eaa.org/en/airventure/eaa-airventure-news-and-multimedia/eaa-airventure-news/eaa-airventure-oshkosh/07-27-2016-airball-wins

http://www.sonexbuilders.net/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1764

 

Pretty cool technology. Personally though, I would have selected a name something other than "blue ball". I try to stay away from having "blue balls".

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crap, that video was only the simulator. There is one where he has it flying in an RV-9. Really neat. It attaches to the pitot tube. Has all of its own air data sensors, and blue tooths to the device. Has  wind generator for power, with battery back up. The sensor fits in the palm of your hand!!

-Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the experts on that panel. And it looks like a competing solution was third. This is an impressive accomplishment. Hope he can commercialize it. Might save some lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The top 3  finalist were awesome. I really liked Andy Scowls presentation. He already is working with some serious buyers. 

The Airball guy is so  enthusiastic he'll be  successful. 

Ill try to find the RV-9 clip. It makes much more sense in the airplane for those that are currently scoffing at the idea. 

-Matt

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, N9201A said:

 

Instead we've got posters whose airplanes "cannot stall" (wow-can l get that STC?!) and "always" do it one way no matter what and that way nothing bad will ever happen to them. Uh, OK...wonder if that is a common thread in every NTSB post-incident pilot interview - if the pilot survived.

 

I assume you are referring to me. Well, what I said is 100% correct: within certain parameters, an aircraft cannot stall, if that was not the case, each time you fly, you would be playing Russian roulette. Stalls are not some sort of a random event. They occur at a specific angle of attack, which can be approximated by IAS, angle of bank and G-load. Correct me if I am wrong. So a M20M, in a 3 degree descent, wings level, flaps and gear down, simply will not stall below a certain speed, as listed in the good book. You don't need an STC for that, you have a POH for that, it's included in the base package. Stalls are not some sort of unpredictable, magical event, like you seem always claim. 17 years of flying here, not once have I stalled an aircraft that was not of purpose. Without any fancy gizmos. Without needing to look at my IAS most of the time until final. I know the aircraft I fly, I know the power settings, I get ATIS, do a quick calculation of headwind and know exactly how much MP it will take to maintain a certain airspeed, +/-2 knots down on final. It's not that complicated. Our corporate King Air pilot has a mental, 3D torque table in his head to the point that I've never seen him move the throttle from final approach point to over the fence when he goes idle. He just knows where the aircraft will end up at once things stabilize. Like I said, you all make it sound so complicated, depending on gizmos. I depend on math and procedure.

As to the comments about the capabilities of our little GA aircraft and berating pilots that don't push things to the max and prefer flying like airlines do, just look at airline safety record vs ours. Hard to kill yourself flying from one ILS to another. This isn't some sort of a video game for me, this is about transporting myself, my family, my friends and my coworkers as safely as possible, not playing energy management games close to the ground. If I needed to do a steep approach in the mooney, I has speed brakes for that. Now I know why insurance rates for turbine equipment are so much lower than they are for pistons. 

Edited by AndyFromCB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read my posts. No "berating" anywhere. No "push" - things or people - either, unless promoting more understanding is berating. You clearly have some other agenda unknown to me, so I'm going to disengage. You've already figured everything out anyway, that's great for you. I will get back to trying to improve my understanding.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, N9201A said:

Read my posts. No "berating" anywhere. No "push" - things or people - either, unless promoting more understanding is berating. You clearly have some other agenda unknown to me, so I'm going to disengage. You've already figured everything out anyway, that's great for you. I will get back to trying to improve my understanding.

My agenda is simple: When I see people doing steep turns close to the ground, I think about my next insurance renewal, because I know how the story eventually ends. It always end the same way, hole in the ground, "great" news coverage for GA and higher rates.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Increasing bank angle in level turn increases load, to maintain level must increase AoA, which increases induced drag. Slows plane unless power added.

But in the pattern you aren't trying to maintain level altitude, if you need make a tight turn, let the nose drop, then after level and on final, adjust for glide slope and speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"But in the pattern you aren't trying to maintain level altitude, if you need make a tight turn, let the nose drop, then after level and on final, adjust for glide slope and speed."

I don't know what you are doing. My original post was about using bank to scrub speed. That assumes maintaining altitude, which is why it scrubs speed. Someone wrote drag never changed; that's not true. Higher AoA = higher induced drag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, AndyFromCB said:

My agenda is simple: When I see people doing steep turns close to the ground, I think about my next insurance renewal, because I know how the story eventually ends. It always end the same way, hole in the ground, "great" news coverage for GA and higher rates.

THAT is the bottom line.  No stalls on base turn to final.  Tone Shome..egos be egos.  Again, that statement above is also my statement:  Doing a steep turn on base turn to final with an AOA doesn't help GA be safer through "knowledge building"...

If ANY Mooney pilot works this in his/her head and comes up with steep turns final good....NOT GOOD.  If any read this and come up with steep turns base to final bad...GOOD.

AOA's are a tool to help keep you safe or AOA's are a tool to push the envelope in an airplane designed to transport people and stuff quickly and efficiently cross country.  I go with former and condemn the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DaV8or said:

Just as a curiosity, why do people obsess about flying tight, in close patterns so much? They say it's so if you lose your engine, you can always make the runway, but why is there so much concern about losing an engine once we get close to an airport? Seems funny to me that after flying over oceans and rugged mountains and dense urban areas and forests full of trees, that we get to an airport and then worry about engine failure.

To some degree, it's one of those "things" in aviation. 

There are plenty good reasons to fly a tight pattern. First of all, it's simply efficient. Perhaps more importantly, if we all fly the same standardized distances, it really helps avoid ruining into each other at nontowered airports. All you need to do is watch the traffic at a busy nontowered airport or a nontowered fly-in to see how important that can be. Even when it's not busy, what a pain to be flying a reasonably tight pattern just to hear someone else call a base turn and have to look way off into East Middlefart to find the traffic.

But the obsession about losing your engine? IMO, historical. Just one of those things that was very, very important in the early days of aviation when engines quit if you sneezed. It's hung on as though it were some kind of gospel.  The idea that after a 3 hour flight running perfectly, there is an appreciable likelihood that 2 minutes from touchdown, the engine would choose to suddenly quit has always struck me as a bit silly. Heck, I've heard people rant and rave about that to the extent I wondered whether they ever actually flew anywhere or just amassed a lifetime of hours within power-off gliding distance of the runway at their home base.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

To some degree, it's one of those "things" in aviation. 

There are plenty good reasons to fly a tight pattern. First of all, it's simply efficient. Perhaps more importantly, if we all fly the same standardized distances, it really helps avoid ruining into each other at nontowered airports. All you need to do is watch the traffic at a busy nontowered airport or a nontowered fly-in to see how important that can be. Even when it's not busy, what a pain to be flying a reasonably tight pattern just to hear someone else call a base turn and have to look way off into East Middlefart to find the traffic.

But the obsession about losing your engine? IMO, historical. Just one of those things that was very, very important in the early days of aviation when engines quit if you sneezed. It's hung on as though it were some kind of gospel.  The idea that after a 3 hour flight running perfectly, there is an appreciable likelihood that 2 minutes from touchdown, the engine would choose to suddenly quit has always struck me as a bit silly. Heck, I've heard people rant and rave about that to the extent I wondered whether they ever actually flew anywhere or just amassed a lifetime of hours within power-off gliding distance of the runway at their home base.

MyQki.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DaV8or said:

Just as a curiosity, why do people obsess about flying tight, in close patterns so much? They say it's so if you lose your engine, you can always make the runway, but why is there so much concern about losing an engine once we get close to an airport? Seems funny to me that after flying over oceans and rugged mountains and dense urban areas and forests full of trees, that we get to an airport and then worry about engine failure.

A very interesting point. Here is why I disagree. The engine is most likely to quit in the beginning or end of a flight. On takeoff from fuel contamination, a break that was waiting to happen under stress, corrosion from sitting, etc. Come time to land, you are more likely to run out of fuel or unport the tank. More fatigued pilot may forget to put on carb heat or switch tanks. More likely to have a bird strike or midair in the pattern as well. Enroute we hopefully have more altitude to deal with a problem and might glide to an airport. In the pattern, only a tight pattern gets you back to the airport if the engine stops turning.

To sum up like Anthony does. In the pattern is the more likely place to have an engine failure and if the pattern is too wide it may not provide enough glide to get back to the airport. For pilots that are incapable of adequately controlling the planes angle of attack throughout all phases of the pattern, it may be advisable to fly shallow turns and wide patterns. Those pilots are statistically a weaker link than their motors. Their head is more likely to quit than their engine. For pilots that understand and apply angle of attack to their flying (notice I am not strictly talking about angle of attack indicators but the approach to thinking about flight), I am suggesting that even steep turns down low can be a useful tool.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now