Steep Turn Base to Final

[mooniac15u]

36 minutes ago, 201er said:

Nobody has explained to me how my pattern flying is unsafe. It's all been character attacks and arguments over gadgets. I still have not heard a clearly articulated answer as to what is wrong with a coordinated, wing-unloaded, constant angle of attack, steep turn to lose altitude on base to final to roll out on glidepath.

Accidents are often only secondarily related to a specific action.  Have you considered whether a steep-bank, low-altitude turn with a high sink rate puts you in a position where you might be less prepared to deal with an emergency such as encountering another aircraft on final doing a straight-in approach or an aircraft taking off in the opposite direction and climbing towards you?  Is there a chance you would unintentionally react by pulling back on your yoke and loading up your wings?

[201er]

7 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

Accidents are often only secondarily related to a specific action.  Have you considered whether a steep-bank, low-altitude turn with a high sink rate puts you in a position where you might be less prepared to deal with an emergency such as encountering another aircraft on final doing a straight-in approach or an aircraft taking off in the opposite direction and climbing towards you?  Is there a chance you would unintentionally react by pulling back on your yoke and loading up your wings?

This is an interesting point to the discussion and a valid one. I don't see it as being substantially pertinent as I think about it for a few reasons. I don't think that in a normal (say 30 degree) bank turn that I can see an aircraft on final behind me either. Usually during base-final turn I'm only focused on the runway and aoai. For this reason I take a good look down final just prior to initiating my base-final turn no matter the bank angle. I don't recall ever looking out the right window while being in a left turn in the pattern regardless of bank angle so I feel that the argument is moot.

Aircraft taking off in the opposite direction is an interesting scenario to think about. Haven't encountered it yet but I do believe it is possible. Or even more likely yet, a bird getting in the way (happens every now and then). I don't see how being in a steep turn or not affects the situation here. I may not fully understand the aerodynamics involved. But as far as I can tell, if the angle of attack is the same at 50degrees vs 25degrees, the impact of a rapid pull back should be fairly similar? I'm really trying to visualize it. Maybe a slightly more violent pitch up in the case of the steeper turn because the airspeed is higher and the effectiveness of the elevator should be higher. But I can't imagine it being a defining difference. Speed is below maneuvering so not at risk of overstress, only risk of stall. Don't forget, I am not advocating constant-airspeed turns in the slightest. I am only talking about constant angle of attack turns.

So I don't see an argument for there being significantly more risk of a rapid maneuver at a higher bank angle if angle of attack is equal to the same turn at a shallower bank. If there is, please explain.

Edited September 8, 2016 by 201er

[jetdriven]

maybe the 45 degree bank turn  is safer when another airplane is departing the opposite runway. For one thing it's only a threat just as you are about to roll wings level intercepting the final approach segment. Otherwise you are still on base, not in the departure zone. 

 In Mike's case, rapidly rolling wings level will result in a flight path that is at quite an angle to the departure runway.  As opposed to someone who is in a 15 or 20 degree bank they must rapidly roll INTO a steep bank to get away.  But in all they years flying I only saw it happen once, a Bonanza had just lifted off and a homebuilt turned a rejected landing into a medium speed pass, nearly hit he bonanza then banked hard, very steep and make a turn. The bonanza guy had zero options and the homebuilt luckily saw him 

Edited September 8, 2016 by jetdriven

[cbarry]

I'm still wondering what circumstances merit setting up a pattern that results in being "too high" and then intentionally correcting a known/preventable situation with an abnormal tactic such as high bank angle (wing loaded or not) late in the pattern.  Some might say when practicing engine outs or practicing landing over obstacles...but the only reason given on the OP is energy management due to being too high.  I just hope if such high reliance is being given to AOA and the respective indicator that installing one on each wing is being considered.  This maneuver sounds very similar to what was being used by a mechanic from probably the best MSC in the country because he really enjoyed doing it but ended up in a very bad situation and didn't make it.  I think I would rather see posts by our fellow Mooniacs that talk about how they prevented things such as coming into the pattern too high than advocate for a tactic that is not widely accepted as standard pilotage.  My one and a half sense worth.  CAVU.

[Danb]

6 hours ago, N9201A said:

Danb if you PM me I will send you contact for NE group which have become very active. Seven pilots meeting this weekend to practice and they're doing a fly-in in a couple weeks. There has been a lot of growth in NE in the last year. So everyone in the NE wanting to should be able to fly with us in 2017.

Sounds great I'm in Manchester this  weekend for MAPA clinic

[AndyFromCB]

22 minutes ago, cbarry said:

I'm still wondering what circumstances merit setting up a pattern that results in being "too high" and then intentionally correcting a known/preventable situation with an abnormal tactic such as high bank angle (wing loaded or not) late in the pattern.  Some might say when practicing engine outs or practicing landing over obstacles...but the only reason given on the OP is energy management due to being too high.  I just hope if such high reliance is being given to AOA and the respective indicator that installing one on each wing is being considered.  This maneuver sounds very similar to what was being used by a mechanic from probably the best MSC in the country because he really enjoyed doing it but ended up in a very bad situation and didn't make it.  I think I would rather see posts by our fellow Mooniacs that talk about how they prevented things such as coming into the pattern too high than advocate for a tactic that is not widely accepted as standard pilotage.  My one and a half sense worth.  CAVU.

Making videos for us to argue about would be my take...Chia pet is still unimpressed...

[carusoam]

Summing up what I think I read today. Summing up In my own sort of way...

 

The risk is adding up. One small piece at a time.  What if...

1) The AOA indicator stops telling the truth?  It falls out of calibration, or a bug sticks to it, or a bird gets stuck on it...

2) Relying on one instrument would be a large risk.

3) Relying on a memory of flap position, bank angle and stall speed chart could be risky if you are memory challenged.

4) thinking you unweighted the wing, but didn't do it enough.

5) the traffic pattern is full, Mav... Distractions are everywhere.

6) a cross check against the ASI was forgotten.

7) power, configuration, weight and performance parameters are forgotten on the last leg of the long arduous flight in the O2 flight levels?

8) Wind sheer, wind sheer, wind sheer...

9) The unknown happens... Is this worse than the unknown at a mild bank?

 

What if you are young, in tip top shape, you can multi-task more tasks than any mid-age guy, you have tons of experience, plenty of recency, and are adept and well practiced at 45° banks, at slow speeds, in a nose down descent, at an airport you are really familiar with, out in the middle of nowhere?

 

There are going to be risks of flying that some of us are not participating in.  One of Mine is not flying at night without a lot of prior recency.

Recency, is that a word?  Currency...?  Lot of experience in the last few weeks..... Weeksency.....

Summary of the summary....

if you fly steep banks in the traffic pattern, your risk has increased.  Stay on top of all the important details.  Use your cross references to verify your instruments, keep your head on a swivel, come home safely, and don't hit any houses...

 

[201er]

24 minutes ago, cbarry said:

I'm still wondering what circumstances merit setting up a pattern that results in being "too high" and then intentionally correcting a known/preventable situation with an abnormal tactic such as high bank angle (wing loaded or not) late in the pattern.  Some might say when practicing engine outs or practicing landing over obstacles...but the only reason given on the OP is energy management due to being too high.  I just hope if such high reliance is being given to AOA and the respective indicator that installing one on each wing is being considered.  This maneuver sounds very similar to what was being used by a mechanic from probably the best MSC in the country because he really enjoyed doing it but ended up in a very bad situation and didn't make it.  I think I would rather see posts by our fellow Mooniacs that talk about how they prevented things such as coming into the pattern too high than advocate for a tactic that is not widely accepted as standard pilotage.  My one and a half sense worth.  CAVU.

I already answered this:

http://mooneyspace.com/topic/19671-steep-turn-base-to-final/?do=findComment&comment=294182

I even included a video of the airport with Mountains on 3 sides and ocean with strong headwind on the other. The video posted in the first post was dealing with a low ceiling/visibility situation on a circling approach. Had to stay tight to the airport because of weather. Linden Airport is surrounded by airspace and smokestacks that force you into a pretty tight pattern.

And so when an air traffic controller urges you to keep your pattern tight, that you don't do this:

https://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/narrative.cfm?ackey=1&evid=20120229X12019

 

It's not abnormal if you practice and make it normal... just sayin.

[Guest]

When ATC instructs you to do something you can't/won't do because you feel it is unsafe, you can always reply "unable"  If you're happy to comply and can do so safely, fill your boots.

Clarence

[AndyFromCB]

12 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Summing up what I think I read today. Summing up In my own sort of way...

 

The risk is adding up. One small piece at a time.  What if...

1) The AOA indicator stops telling the truth?  It falls out of calibration, or a bug sticks to it, or a bird gets stuck on it...

2) Relying on one instrument would be a large risk.

3) Relying on a memory of flap position, bank angle and stall speed chart could be risky if you are memory challenged.

4) thinking you unweighted the wing, but didn't do it enough.

5) the traffic pattern is full, Mav... Distractions are everywhere.

6) a cross check against the ASI was forgotten.

7) power, configuration, weight and performance parameters are forgotten on the last leg of the long arduous flight in the O2 flight levels?

8) Wind sheer, wind sheer, wind sheer...

9) The unknown happens... Is this worse than the unknown at a mild bank?

 

What if you are young, in tip top shape, you can multi-task more tasks than any mid-age guy, you have tons of experience, plenty of recency, and are adept and well practiced at 45° banks, at slow speeds, in a nose down descent, at an airport you are really familiar with, out in the middle of nowhere?

 

There are going to be risks of flying that some of us are not participating in.  One of Mine is not flying at night without a lot of prior recency.

Recency, is that a word?  Currency...?  Lot of experience in the last few weeks..... Weeksency.....

Summary of the summary....

if you fly steep banks in the traffic pattern, your risk has increased.  Stay on top of all the important details.  Use your cross references to verify your instruments, keep your head on a swivel, come home safely, and don't hit any houses...

 

Anthony, have you ever actually made a single, unambiguous, unqualified statement in your entire life? Just wondering ;-) 

Edited September 8, 2016 by AndyFromCB

[201er]

Just now, carusoam said:

Summing up what I think I read today. Summing up In my own sort of way...

 

The risk is adding up. One small piece at a time.  What if...

1) The AOA indicator stops telling the truth?  It falls out of calibration, or a bug sticks to it, or a bird gets stuck on it...

2) Relying on one instrument would be a large risk.

if you fly steep banks in the traffic pattern, your risk has increased.  Stay on top of all the important details.  Use your cross references to verify your instruments, keep your head on a swivel, come home safely, and don't hit any houses...

 

Hey Anthony, since you're such a great guy I'll briefly answer a few of your points.

 

1) The AOA indicator stops telling the truth?  It falls out of calibration, or a bug sticks to it, or a bird gets stuck on it...

I've had 3-4 ASI problems but zero AOAi problems in 11 years. I find the AOAi to be more robust/reliable. It is electric so kiss it bye bye in a power out. But this is good. It runs on an entirely independent system as the ASI so they are good back ups to each other. The sucky thing about the ASI is that it can fail partially and really lead you astray. Not only are you dealing with the instrument itself but also a mechanical system that relies on tubing and sealing. Leaks, bugs, water, ice, etc are problems additional to the instrument itself. The 2 ASI failures I had in the Mooney would have put me into stalls if I hadn't used common sense and the AOAi as a cross reference. The way the gear speed sense switch is piped into the system seems to occasionally cause below-actual speed readouts on the ASI sometimes. ASI seems to me to be more laggy as well. A glider I'd flown once had water in the pitot that iced over turning the ASI into an altimeter. So the question should really be why isn't AOAi primary and ASI secondary.

PS did you know that the 2 year pitot/static check doesn't actually check the pitot? There is no mandatory test of the pitot system or the ASI. They will only test them if you voluntarily ask them to and pay extra. How many of you get your ASIs regularly checked?

 

2) Relying on one instrument would be a large risk.

Yes, relying on one instrument is more risky! I have both AOAi and ASI! I do cross reference both every single flight. I probably look at the ASI once for every 5 or 10 glances at the AOAi. Mainly this has helped me diagnose ASI failures but it is also a good reassurance that the AOAi is good. It's a bit like the IFR instrument scan but between looking out and looking at those two instruments on approach.

 

3) Relying on a memory of flap position, bank angle and stall speed chart could be risky if you are memory challenged.

Yes! I'm no Chuck Yaeger. So I use an AOA indicator.

 

4) thinking you unweighted the wing, but didn't do it enough.

You're right. Why guess? This is where an AOAi or G meter tells you something you're otherwise only guessing at.

 

5) the traffic pattern is full, Mav... Distractions are everywhere.

Agreed. This is why I'd prefer to refer to an AOAi with the actual information I need instead of doing mental acrobatics in reference to speed to judge AOA or just be an idiot and fly strictly by airspeed.

 

6) a cross check against the ASI was forgotten.

Not sure what that means. Old habits die hard. I foolishly learned flying from the same sort of old school instructions as everyone else that teach airspeed airspeed airspeed. So I still check it every now and then. I find the AOAi to be more reliable and consistent so over time, the ASI has been playing a smaller function.

 

7) power, configuration, weight and performance parameters are forgotten on the last leg of the long arduous flight in the O2 flight levels?

Yes! This is why using an AOAi is way to go. Doesn't require any thinking except flying one of several reference AOAs depending on the phase of flight. Flying by airspeed leaves far more room for failure. When things go out of the norm like certain examples given. If you're following the AOAi, no matter how steep you bank, no matter how heavy you are, no matter how much you're tempted to pull back, you always have real time information of what the wing is doing.

 

8) Wind sheer, wind sheer, wind sheer...

Great point! Margins tighten up as conditions becoming more challenging or unsteady. More likely to go-around and play it extra safe when there's wind sheer. That said, AOAi gives you more useful information than ASI when it comes to wind sheer. But in both cases, they're bouncing around so they are hard to follow. Keep the nose down and punch your way through it.

 

9) The unknown happens... Is this worse than the unknown at a mild bank?

Yup. Some argue that practice makes perfect while others argue to avoid things that are more challenging. Based on the FAAs latest treatment of VFR into IMC (teach VFR pilots how to deal with it if it happens instead of just telling them not to do it), I would think that practicing steep turns in the pattern may also be a good idea.

11 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

When ATC instructs you to do something you can't/won't do because you feel it is unsafe, you can always reply "unable"  If you're happy to comply and can do so safely, fill your boots.

Clarence

I completely agree! But if you go for it or the situation makes you go for it, it's best to be well-practiced at it.

[Immelman]

I'm late to the party here... and I'm sure its been said but, that is not a video to set an example for others, sorry. The steep turn, overshooting final, and still energy to fly 1500' past the threshold is poor form. I would not come out and say this but the video is up for critique...

My background: CFI / ATP / etc. And I am not at all the type to suggest that a tight pattern / power off approach / forward slip / turning slip are bad things in a Mooney! I do them all the time, they work great.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2016 by Immelman

[N9201A]

An Immelman criticizing a steep turn? What would Grandpa Max say? ;^)

[N9201A]

Mike how did your ASI failure almost cause a stall? I'm a Ralph Butcher devotee where I read of the concepts of "gaits," and I use them. So setting power and pitch yields what it yields in your plane, every time (assuming you HAVE power).

Cover up the ASI and the airplane doesn't know the difference. Those settings yield the same performance.

Were you being misled you were too fast and cued to pitch to slow down? What was the situation?

[DaV8or]

An Immelman criticizing a steep turn? What would Grandpa Max say? ;^)

Nothing. He died a long time ago doing something crazy in an airplane.

Edited September 9, 2016 by DaV8or

[N9201A]

Actually there remains some controversy over whether friendly AA, British gunfire, or a mechanical defect brought Max Immelmann down. But no one claimed it was his signature maneuver...or a steep turn.

[jetdriven]

What regulatory authority decided a 45 degree bank in the pattern is a "steep bank" to begin with ?  Perhaps he would have been better served limiting bank to 30 and dragging it around more with the rudder. I see a lot of that. 

[201er]

21 minutes ago, N9201A said:

Mike how did your ASI failure almost cause a stall? 

It did not. What I said was that if I were an airspeed following fool, I would have followed the ASI into a stall. It was over reading 15-20 knots on departure. To climb Vx/Vy by airspeed, I would have slowed down (ex reading 90 with 70 desired). But a cross reference to AOAi plus pitch, ground speed, wind speed, etc indicated the ASI was wrong and the AOAi was right so I continued to pitch based on the AOAi.

Another time when the door popped in flight, AOAi and ASI were in disagreement. I don't know how the turbulence created by the ajar door affects either but the AOAi took me on a fast than normal approach speed so in that unknown case I erred on the device that took me faster. Don't know if flying airspeed would have been more accurate or not, but frankly don't care. If ASI were wrong and I didn't choose to fly faster based on AOAi, not good.

[carqwik]

Parts of this video may be relevant to this discussion...mostly the danger of the skidded turn when low and slow:

 

[carqwik]

Angle of Attack vs Airspeed discussion:

 

[N9201A]

Nihil sub sole novum ("nothing new under the sun", to save you time:

[thinwing]

On September 5, 2016 at 8:35 AM, cnoe said:

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.

Hopefully we won't at some later date be buying a beer to toast his ghost.

[Andy95W]

1 hour ago, 201er said:

What I said was that if I were an airspeed following fool,

So, first you said I was "an accident waiting to happen", then you said I was stupid ("Flying airspeed in the traffic pattern is stupid."), and now you're calling me a fool.  What's more, you're calling all of my instructors through the years stupid fools as well.  

Your message is getting lost because you've turned into a condescending ass.

[Hank]

21 minutes ago, carqwik said:

Parts of this video may be relevant to this discussion...mostly the danger of the skidded turn when low and slow:

 

Mike avoids this known danger by being low and fast! He'll not land like that where I'm based, 3200' with open approaches and a drop to the river at one end. Nor where I earned my license, bought my Mooney and was based for seven years, 3000' with trees at both ends. It should work well for him if he stays at mile-long or longer, wide runways. But he gives up a lot of utility, like my visit to Mom & Dad, 2770 x 30, landing on rolling hills towards the church at the end. If he's not careful, he'll give up more than that.

Wish I could reply without the video, but my iPad crashes every time I try to delete it . . .

[Marauder]

I feel a fat woman walking into the room...