Patterns

[Yetti]

So patterns are the same as being able to fly a square box on the PTS or whatever it is called now.

We have a place that happens to be 1.25 km off the downwind threshold of the popular lunch place.   So if a plane is inside, over or outside the I know what size their pattern is.

droidefb tracks all your flights and uploads them to the interweb.

my downwinds are 0.8 miles wide.  (lets not count last night getting night current as those were very sucky patterns)

So if you are in a cessna 172 flying a 1.5 mile from the runway downwind, are you proficient? or just doing what you learned?

 

[201er]

1 hour ago, Yetti said:

So if you are in a cessna 172 flying a 1.5 mile from the runway downwind, are you proficient? or just doing what you learned?

He's just training to fly a 737

[Bob - S50]

I think it is mostly what the individual is comfortable with.  Since very few airports publish an established location for downwind, it's just an eyeball TLAR.  I've flown inside and outside of others in the pattern.  I'll never give anyone a hard time for flying what I think is a wide pattern.  As long as I know where they are and can compensate, I would never want to push someone out of their comfort zone.

[bonal]

For those that always fly into airports that have nothing but flat open spaces all around Sticking to a same pattern is fine but for those that fly into fields with challenging terrain best be practiced on different patterns and comfortable with steeper approach and turns. And since there is really no standard makes it all the more important to communicate at uncontrolled fields. With so many regs I'm always amazed that one can fly with out a radio. When flying into controlled fields it's not uncommon to be extended or put into orbits at any location around the airspace so it's a good idea IMHO to be practiced in as many types of pattens as you can.

[201er]

1 hour ago, Bob - S50 said:

I think it is mostly what the individual is comfortable with.  Since very few airports publish an established location for downwind, it's just an eyeball TLAR.  I've flown inside and outside of others in the pattern.  I'll never give anyone a hard time for flying what I think is a wide pattern.  As long as I know where they are and can compensate, I would never want to push someone out of their comfort zone.

Easier said than done. When one guy in a slow airplane makes a huge pattern, that's going to mess it up for EVERYONE behind him for a while to come. If the guy in the light sport makes a pattern that leads to a 2 mile final, the cessna behind him will be forced to make a 3 mile final not to overrun him, and the mooney behind the cessna... well he's just SOL.

If only people would fly the traffic pattern appropriate to their aircraft, the rest of us can work with that.

[bonal]

1 minute ago, 201er said:

Easier said than done. When one guy in a slow airplane makes a huge pattern, that's going to mess it up for EVERYONE behind him for a while to come. If the guy in the light sport makes a pattern that leads to a 2 mile final, the cessna behind him will be forced to make a 3 mile final not to overrun him, and the mooney behind the cessna... well he's just SOL.

If only people would fly the traffic pattern appropriate to their aircraft, the rest of us can work with that.

Not too often you and I agree but definitely on this one. Pilots should always strive to increase their comfort zones

[carusoam]

Doesn't this have something to do with keeping within gliding range..?

This question is based on engine failures are/may be caused by changes in throttle settings after being stable for long periods of time...

1) wide patterns are comfortable for their shallow bank turns, but are terribly uncomfortable for their distance to touch down when the engine croaks.

2) Tight patterns are close for a dead stick landing, but may require steeper banks to execute.

3) if you are slightly uncomfortable about both, the bank angle, and glide distance, you have it done perfectly!

Or did I miss the point or something? 

Best regards,

-a-

[201er]

47 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Doesn't this have something to do with keeping within gliding range..?

This question is based on engine failures are/may be caused by changes in throttle settings after being stable for long periods of time...

1) wide patterns are comfortable for their shallow bank turns, but are terribly uncomfortable for their distance to touch down when the engine croaks.

2) Tight patterns are close for a dead stick landing, but may require steeper banks to execute.

3) if you are slightly uncomfortable about both, the bank angle, and glide distance, you have it done perfectly!

Or did I miss the point or something? 

Best regards,

-a-

It's all about angles and AOA. Were any of you taught to fly traffic pattern by reference angles? I remember stuff like put the strut on the runway sort of stuff which essentially just helps visualize an angle. Angle is better than lateral distance because if you fly a higher or lower pattern, it adjusts the distance accordingly. 

I started in gliders so there wasn't any of this fly a big pattern and ride the power nonsense. In a glider, every landing is a full stop. Every landing is a "what if the engine quits?" landing. Try it some time.

Fly your Mooney like you stole it. But fly traffic patterns by angular distance, AOA, and without dependence on power and you'll be AOK.

Edited October 3, 2016 by 201er

[carusoam]

I'm onboard lining up the eyeball, wing strut and runway.  

Mooney...

0) level at TPA, power setting for 90kias, gear down, flaps one notch and trim. (Small decisions and adjustments, checking trim by letting loose on the yoke, trim more if the nose sinks or rises, check again.)

1) Power pulled back at the numbers, when the numbers are back at 45°, begin turn to base.  

2) New power setting based on altitude lost compared to target, next flap setting, next balance of trim. Test trim again (nose sinks or rises when yoke is released)  LB only has two flap settings other than full up.

3) before coming up on extended runway centerline, begin turn to final, adjust attitude and trim for final approach speed.

4) 30° banks, or less are my preference.  Verify Nose down, if getting near or past the 'preference'

5) no strut, so... wing tip or less, eyeball and runway... (we are all different in eye height)

6) my TPA is 1200', the target at the turn to base is 800', the target at the turn to final is 400'

7) my Power settings,  Typical?

- 14" not descending very fast <400fpm

- 13" descending pretty well ..500 fpm (target descent rate)

- 12" descending pretty quickly ...600fpm

- 10" probably made a power mistake, or I'm floating in ground effect ... >800fpm

8) I'm using +/- 1" of power to approximate +/- 100fpm.  

9) Too much of a cut in power generates a very high rate of descent which takes more skill to arrest.

10) @90kias, the ground is going by quickly. A bad initial power setting, or slow adjustment leaves little time to get to the next target altitude.

11) I don't think anyone uses a bracketing technique, do they?  Just removing and not putting back...

This is off the top of my head, it may not represent how I actually fly.  Great discussion points.  Please enlighten me if I have missed something or mis typed something...

Fuzzy memories of a PP.

Best regards,

-a-

 

[Yetti]

And then there was the Bonanza who called 10 mile straight in RNAV final 4 times coming off a IFR Plan for the downwind runway.  I guess he went into a hover there out at the 10 mile point.    It was no big deal, I just switched and flew the whole pattern.   Then he suggested I go in front of him.  Worked out fine.

Knowing that I am flying a tighter pattern than most people out there I would guess increases my safety since I will have more of a chance to see them.   Flying a faster pattern than most may not be the best since I may over run them if they are on the wrong frequency or not talking.

It was an amazing sunset.   Did not get pictures.

[Marauder]

8 hours ago, 201er said:

It's all about angles and AOA. Were any of you taught to fly traffic pattern by reference angles? I remember stuff like put the strut on the runway sort of stuff which essentially just helps visualize an angle. Angle is better than lateral distance because if you fly a higher or lower pattern, it adjusts the distance accordingly. 

I started in gliders so there wasn't any of this fly a big pattern and ride the power nonsense. In a glider, every landing is a full stop. Every landing is a "what if the engine quits?" landing. Try it some time.

Fly your Mooney like you stole it. But fly traffic patterns by angular distance, AOA, and without dependence on power and you'll be AOK.

There is another pattern challenge I have seen. The guy in the gyrocopter who insists on flying a really tight pattern at 40 MPH. We have a guy at my airport that does this routinely. I can't tell you the number of times someone is on short final and he calls for his shortened base. 

[Yetti]

Is that not why Helicopters are supposed to fly the opposite pattern from real airplanes.  Every time my wife sees a gyrocopter the response is the same "no way in hell"

[Jerry 5TJ]

Just now, Marauder said:

There is another pattern challenge I have seen. The guy in the gyrocopter who insists on flying a really tight pattern at 40 MPH. We have a guy at my airport that does this routinely. I can't tell you the number of times someone is on short final and he calls for his shortened base. 

If he is too close for missiles, switch to guns. 

[Bob - S50]

9 hours ago, 201er said:

It's all about angles and AOA. Were any of you taught to fly traffic pattern by reference angles? I remember stuff like put the strut on the runway sort of stuff which essentially just helps visualize an angle. Angle is better than lateral distance because if you fly a higher or lower pattern, it adjusts the distance accordingly. 

I started in gliders so there wasn't any of this fly a big pattern and ride the power nonsense. In a glider, every landing is a full stop. Every landing is a "what if the engine quits?" landing. Try it some time.

Fly your Mooney like you stole it. But fly traffic patterns by angular distance, AOA, and without dependence on power and you'll be AOK.

I agree with some of this with one caution.  I use runway position on the wing to help judge my downwind spacing.  However, I disagree with using a fixed visual angle if the pattern altitude changes.  If you already fly a tight pattern 'just in case' and the pattern altitude drops, using a fixed angle will put you in closer.  This will require a tighter turn on base and set you up for a potential final turn stall or overshoot and unstable final.  On the other hand, if the pattern is higher, you'll be further from the runway and someone will be pissed at you for flying a bomber pattern and screwing it up for everybody behind you.

I'm probably in the minority (again), but I don't fly my patterns in anticipation of a possible engine failure.  If I did, then every pattern would be flown at idle from the time I put the gear down all the way to the runway.  Instead, I fly my patterns to fit in with other traffic, using reasonable bank angles, allowing me to slow to my calculated final approach speed well before the threshold, and being stable on final (well as stable as I can be anyway) with some amount of power (usually not much).

[mooniac15u]

11 hours ago, carusoam said:

Doesn't this have something to do with keeping within gliding range..?

This question is based on engine failures are/may be caused by changes in throttle settings after being stable for long periods of time...

1) wide patterns are comfortable for their shallow bank turns, but are terribly uncomfortable for their distance to touch down when the engine croaks.

2) Tight patterns are close for a dead stick landing, but may require steeper banks to execute.

3) if you are slightly uncomfortable about both, the bank angle, and glide distance, you have it done perfectly!

Or did I miss the point or something? 

Best regards,

-a-

Are engine failures in the pattern a real problem?  It seems to me we hear about:

-Stalls on base-to-final turns

-Engine failure on takeoff

-Loss of control on takeoff (overloaded?)

-Loss of control on go-around

-Runway overrun (likely due to too much speed on final)

 

Engine failures in the pattern?  Not so much...

[Marauder]

36 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

Are engine failures in the pattern a real problem?  It seems to me we hear about:

-Stalls on base-to-final turns

-Engine failure on takeoff

-Loss of control on takeoff (overloaded?)

-Loss of control on go-around

-Runway overrun (likely due to too much speed on final)

 

Engine failures in the pattern?  Not so much...

It happens. I agree not frequently though. We had a plane land short of the runway a month back from carb ice and not making the glide back.

[carusoam]

15U,

My mid 90s training mentioned that engine failures often occur when changing power settings.

Sounds like an OWT with no data behind it to tell...?

Best regards,

-a-

[mooniac15u]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

15U,

My mid 90s training mentioned that engine failures often occur when changing power settings.

Sounds like an OWT with no data behind it to tell...?

Best regards,

-a-

I was told the same thing during training.  I wonder if it was a concern with older engine designs?

[Hank]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

15U,

My mid 90s training mentioned that engine failures often occur when changing power settings.

Sounds like an OWT with no data behind it to tell...?

Best regards,

-a-

I think it was more of a problem in the days of yore. Found a couple of Apple books about flying "back in the day," and engine problems were quite common. In the Teens, engines were actually shut off for the landing glide. By the Twenties, engines only broke down regularly, but to be fair, so did the airframes. The advice was to find a flight school with several planes,ma few spare engines and a crew of mechanics in staff.

I've not been flying too long, but it certainly appears that engines are much more reliable (even if engine technology hasn't advanced much). I don't know anyone who in their first couple of years has had multiple engine failures resulting in off-airport landings. 

[201er]

2 hours ago, Bob - S50 said:

Instead, I fly my patterns to fit in with other traffic, using reasonable bank angles...

What is a "reasonable bank angle?"

[thinwing]

On October 2, 2016 at 9:39 AM, bonal said:

Not too often you and I agree but definitely on this one. Pilots should always strive to increase their comfort zones

Same here...not to long ago there was a tounge in cheek video showing a j3 cub flying a multistate wide pattern...I think it was Bertilucci ..very funny as his shoulder kept growing epaulets!!

[Yetti]

So my last flight was to one of the "never landed there before"  

.61 km downwind and .5 mile stabilized final

1700 feet landing distance.

No need for any 45 degree turns

This had one of those slots cut out of the trees that makes you think.... "OooooHhhh I should really make it good for this one"

 

[201er]

In regards to the power loss in the pattern discussion...

There are many ways to get rid of excess speed or altitude:

Lower gear

Extend flaps

Extend pattern

Slow down

S Turn

Fly circles

Slip

Steep turn

Overshoot turn and turn back in

Heavy braking on the ground

Go around

 

There is only one way to increase speed or altitude:

Power

[Yetti]

Money increases speed. 

[Hank]

33 minutes ago, 201er said:

What is a "reasonable bank angle?"

Less than 30°  , where you don't need to worry about the bank angle increasing your stall speed significantly.