Landing patterns

[m pautz]

There seems to be a discrepancy between glider landing patterns and
power landing patterns. There is a discussion on the soaring news group
about our 30-45 degree turns vs the power shallow banked turns. The
reason for our bank angle is because we fly close-in/tight patterns.

I can’t provide input to the power side since my power training is 30
years old and was quite different from today’s power landing patterns.
The first “glider” I ever flew was a Cessna 150 (that’s right, a Cessna
150). My instructor was teaching me to fly a close-in pattern. With
each successive landing, I was stretching out the pattern. The
instructor warned me about stretching out the pattern and told me that
one of the reasons for the pattern is so that I could ‘always’ land at
the airport even with engine failure. He put the plane at the *correct*
IP, turned the engine off (dead stick), and said, “ok, it’s yours”

I landed with no problems. More importantly, I now had the confidence
and skills to land a plane with engine failure. Since then, I see the
power planes landing with stretched out patterns and low-angle final
approaches. The approach angle is so low, that they could not possibly
make it with engine failure. I also hear them compensate on final by
*adding* power.

So, the question I have for the group is why are power planes taught to
have these wide patterns with low angled turns? Why are the patterns
outside the glide angle of a powerless airplane? I had a friend who
died because of engine failure. The pilot was within gliding distance
of the airport, but he didn’t know how to fly a power-out pattern. They
crashed short of the runway on final.

Hopefully, some CFIs will respond. I am curious about this issue.

Marty Pautz
"promote a society that respects its elders; before it is too late"

[zatatime]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:25:55 GMT, m pautz >
wrote:

>There seems to be a discrepancy between glider landing patterns and
>power landing patterns. There is a discussion on the soaring news group
>about our 30-45 degree turns vs the power shallow banked turns. The
>reason for our bank angle is because we fly close-in/tight patterns.

30 degrees of bank is more than sufficient to fly a power off pattern.
With more than that in a powered airplane the nose will tend to drop
and require a "significant" amount of back pressure to compensate for
which opens you up to an accelerated stall. Not a good thing. Don't
forget we have 3 or 4 hundred pounds hanging off our nose.
>
>I can’t provide input to the power side since my power training is 30
>years old and was quite different from today’s power landing patterns.
>The first “glider” I ever flew was a Cessna 150 (that’s right, a Cessna
>150). My instructor was teaching me to fly a close-in pattern. With
>each successive landing, I was stretching out the pattern. The
>instructor warned me about stretching out the pattern and told me that
>one of the reasons for the pattern is so that I could ‘always’ land at
>the airport even with engine failure.
This is how I teach. Once established in the pattern you should be
able to make the field regardless of any mechanical difficulties.
Many instructors think I have a strange approach to this, but whenever
I've been with one in an airplane and we're on base from a long
downwind with 15 or 1700 rpm, and I say "What would you do now if the
engine quit?" they choose somewhere off field because they know they
won't make it. Then I ask how they rationalze this to their students
(since they generally admit they do not teach them to look for fields
during the landing). I have not yet gotten an answer and have done
this with at least 4 instructors. Now if you're flying something
fairly large (T-6, Saratoga, Malibu, Caravan, etc...) you will need to
carry a little power, but not for any light airplane.
He put the plane at the *correct*
>IP, turned the engine off (dead stick), and said, “ok, it’s yours”
>
This I would not agree with at all, but 30 years ago it was not
unheard of. You can very easily accomplish the same thing by not
allowing the student to touch the throttle while executing the
approach.

>I landed with no problems. More importantly, I now had the confidence
>and skills to land a plane with engine failure. Since then, I see the
>power planes landing with stretched out patterns and low-angle final
>approaches. The approach angle is so low, that they could not possibly
>make it with engine failure. I also hear them compensate on final by
>*adding* power.
Yep. I see it all the time and it irritates the heck out of me,
especially when its a 152 or 172 and you know there's someone on board
Teaching this to a student.

>
>So, the question I have for the group is why are power planes taught to
>have these wide patterns with low angled turns?
I wish I knew.
Why are the patterns
>outside the glide angle of a powerless airplane?
For a normal approach again I don't have a logical answer.
I had a friend who
>died because of engine failure. The pilot was within gliding distance
>of the airport, but he didn’t know how to fly a power-out pattern. They
>crashed short of the runway on final.
>
I'm very sorry. Your story epitomizes why I disagree with this
technique. Even if only 1 accident out of 1,000,00 flights has this
happen its too much since just by teaching better basics it is easily
avoided.

>Hopefully, some CFIs will respond. I am curious about this issue.
>
I'm sure they will, and I'm sure I'll be flamed by at least a few of
them, but that's ok. I've come to learn that my approach is no longer
the social norm, even though I truly believe it is safer.


>Marty Pautz
>"promote a society that respects its elders; before it is too late"
>
Just to be clear, I do not ignore power on approaches. They are
important as well. It's just not how the majority of approaches are
flown.

[C J Campbell]

"m pautz" > wrote in message
news:7yEzc.44640$0y.5757@attbi_s03...

>
> So, the question I have for the group is why are power planes taught to
> have these wide patterns with low angled turns?

The planes are not taught anything. We do sometimes try to teach their
pilots something. :-)

The risks associated with an accelerated stall are greater than the risks
associated with a power failure. Students are taught to keep their bank
angle less than 30 degrees in order to avoid an accelerated stall. Steep
turns also cause powered airplanes to develop a high rate of descent.


Why are the patterns
> outside the glide angle of a powerless airplane?

Nevertheless, a shallower angle of bank does not mean that anyone has to be
beyond gliding distance from the runway. Students are supposed to be taught
to remain within gliding distance at all times while in the pattern. This is
not always possible because of noise abatement and other considerations
(apparently people would rather you die if that is what it takes for them to
maintain the illusion of peace and quiet).

Aircraft coming in low on approach and adding power at the last moment may
have legitimate reasons for doing so, such as practicing short and soft
field landings, practicing techniques for correcting faulty approaches,
balked landings, and so forth. Or the approach may simply have been botched
by the pilot, which is common enough.

One reason students tend to do wider patterns than they should not is that
they are behind the airplane. They are still trying to find the throttle and
flaps when they should be turning on base, for example, so they delay
turning base. Although instructors try to prevent this, it is wearying to
remind the student what he should be doing each time around the pattern when
it appears that the student has his hands full already. Granted, if
instructors taught the student to stay ahead of the airplane in the first
place then they would not have this problem.

The problem also comes from instructors who are behind the student, just as
the student is behind the airplane. The instructor knows when he would turn
on the carburetor heat, reduce power, add flaps, etc., so he tells the
student to do these things when the instructor would do them. Unfortunately,
if you tell a student to reduce power to 1500 rpm, he will look at you
blankly for a moment, look around for the throttle, look around for the
tach, then tentatively pull the power back a little bit. By the time he has
done this it is well past the time he should be doing a whole bunch of other
things. It takes instructors a little experience to realize this and to
start staying ahead of the student just as a pilot stays ahead of his
airplane.

By the time the student has flown several patterns he has developed some bad
habits. Now he flies bomber patterns and the instructor has to waste time
and money trying to break the student of a habit he should never have
developed in the first place.

There are things that help inexperienced instructors to overcome these
problems. First of all, pattern work is not introduced in most syllabi until
the student has had an opportunity to become familiar with the controls.
Still, it is tempting to start on pattern work even though the student still
has not figured out where the throttle is. The instructor is anxious to push
the student (experienced instructors are even more prone to this) and it is
often a fine balance between challenging the student and overwhelming him.

Finally, I get a sense from your query a desire to have everybody in the
pattern doing the same thing. This is simply not possible. Gliders and
ultralights will fly patterns inside those of heavier powered aircraft. High
performance aircraft may be required to fly a wider pattern at higher
altitude. Helicopters will fly opposite patterns. Aircraft on instrument
approaches are likely to fly circle to land patterns both inside and below
anyone else, etc. The airport pattern is not a road with stripes painted on
the shoulders and centerline, and little signs floating in the air
announcing your speed and altitude. Nor should it be. The airspace around an
airport is four dimensional, changing dynamically moment by moment as well
as in height, width and depth. Look for traffic to come from anywhere at any
time, not where you arbitrarily think it is 'supposed' to be. It is probably
more helpful to think of the pattern less as a rectangle at a fixed height
above the runway than to think of it as funnel shaped with aircraft at any
point on the wall of the funnel.

[Peter Duniho]

"m pautz" > wrote in message
news:7yEzc.44640$0y.5757@attbi_s03...
> [...]
> So, the question I have for the group is why are power planes taught to
> have these wide patterns with low angled turns? Why are the patterns
> outside the glide angle of a powerless airplane?

Have you used Google Groups to review past threads on this contentious
issue? It's come up in the past, and there are always the folks who believe
there's only one right way, and anyone doing it some other way is a fool.

Bottom line: in a perfect world, a powered airplane would always be within
gliding distance of an airport, and when it came time to land, whether by
design or by accident, it would be a simple matter of just gliding to the
runway. But the world's not perfect and powered airplanes spend most of
their time not within gliding distance of an airport. As it happens, in the
traffic pattern there are, as with other times, issues other than simply
being able to land without any power, and at those times, a pattern not
within gliding distance to the runway is advised or even necessary.

Gliders don't have a choice. If you're going to land on the runway, you
need to be within gliding distance, by definition. Of course, gliding
distance for a glider is quite a bit farther too. Powered airplanes have a
choice, and sometimes that involves choosing not to be within gliding
distance of the runway.

> I had a friend who
> died because of engine failure. The pilot was within gliding distance
> of the airport, but he didn’t know how to fly a power-out pattern. They
> crashed short of the runway on final.

Proof that flying within gliding distance of the runway is no panacea. It's
much more important that one be able to make a gliding power-off approach
and landing to *somewhere* than that they are theoretically within the
proper distance to do so on a runway.

Pete

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> It's come up in the past, and there are always the folks who believe
> there's only one right way, and anyone doing it some other way is a fool.

Until they get the acro bug and try to land a Pitts. :-)

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[EDR]

> Peter Duniho wrote:
> > It's come up in the past, and there are always the folks who believe
> > there's only one right way, and anyone doing it some other way is a fool.

G.R. Patterson III > wrote:
> Until they get the acro bug and try to land a Pitts. :-)

And as we all know, the airshow begins when the Pitts flares/flairs to
land!

[m pautz]

zatatime wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:25:55 GMT, m pautz >
> wrote:
>
>
>>There seems to be a discrepancy between glider landing patterns and
>>power landing patterns. There is a discussion on the soaring news group
>>about our 30-45 degree turns vs the power shallow banked turns. The
>>reason for our bank angle is because we fly close-in/tight patterns.
>
>
> 30 degrees of bank is more than sufficient to fly a power off pattern.
> With more than that in a powered airplane the nose will tend to drop
> and require a "significant" amount of back pressure to compensate for
> which opens you up to an accelerated stall. Not a good thing. Don't
> forget we have 3 or 4 hundred pounds hanging off our nose.
>
>>I can’t provide input to the power side since my power training is 30
>>years old and was quite different from today’s power landing patterns.
>>The first “glider” I ever flew was a Cessna 150 (that’s right, a Cessna
>>150). My instructor was teaching me to fly a close-in pattern. With
>>each successive landing, I was stretching out the pattern. The
>>instructor warned me about stretching out the pattern and told me that
>>one of the reasons for the pattern is so that I could ‘always’ land at
>>the airport even with engine failure.
>
> This is how I teach. Once established in the pattern you should be
> able to make the field regardless of any mechanical difficulties.
> Many instructors think I have a strange approach to this, but whenever
> I've been with one in an airplane and we're on base from a long
> downwind with 15 or 1700 rpm, and I say "What would you do now if the
> engine quit?" they choose somewhere off field because they know they
> won't make it. Then I ask how they rationalze this to their students
> (since they generally admit they do not teach them to look for fields
> during the landing). I have not yet gotten an answer and have done
> this with at least 4 instructors. Now if you're flying something
> fairly large (T-6, Saratoga, Malibu, Caravan, etc...) you will need to
> carry a little power, but not for any light airplane.
> He put the plane at the *correct*
>
>>IP, turned the engine off (dead stick), and said, “ok, it’s yours”
>>
>
> This I would not agree with at all, but 30 years ago it was not
> unheard of. You can very easily accomplish the same thing by not
> allowing the student to touch the throttle while executing the
> approach.
>
>
>>I landed with no problems. More importantly, I now had the confidence
>>and skills to land a plane with engine failure. Since then, I see the
>>power planes landing with stretched out patterns and low-angle final
>>approaches. The approach angle is so low, that they could not possibly
>>make it with engine failure. I also hear them compensate on final by
>>*adding* power.
>
> Yep. I see it all the time and it irritates the heck out of me,
> especially when its a 152 or 172 and you know there's someone on board
> Teaching this to a student.
>
>
>>So, the question I have for the group is why are power planes taught to
>>have these wide patterns with low angled turns?
>
> I wish I knew.
> Why are the patterns
>
>>outside the glide angle of a powerless airplane?
>
> For a normal approach again I don't have a logical answer.
> I had a friend who
>
>>died because of engine failure. The pilot was within gliding distance
>>of the airport, but he didn’t know how to fly a power-out pattern. They
>>crashed short of the runway on final.
>>
>
> I'm very sorry. Your story epitomizes why I disagree with this
> technique. Even if only 1 accident out of 1,000,00 flights has this
> happen its too much since just by teaching better basics it is easily
> avoided.
>
>
>>Hopefully, some CFIs will respond. I am curious about this issue.
>>
>
> I'm sure they will, and I'm sure I'll be flamed by at least a few of
> them, but that's ok. I've come to learn that my approach is no longer
> the social norm, even though I truly believe it is safer.
>
>
>
>>Marty Pautz
>>"promote a society that respects its elders; before it is too late"
>>
>
> Just to be clear, I do not ignore power on approaches. They are
> important as well. It's just not how the majority of approaches are
> flown.

Thanks Zetatime & C J Campbell,

I say thanks because you confirmed that you teach patterns the way I had
been taught 30 years ago.

To eliminate any confusion for other posters, please ignore what I said
about 30-45 degree banked turns. My issue was not with the bank of the
turns. I agree with C J that a pattern with shallow banked turns can be
made and still be within glide distance; the pattern simply has to be
flown higher and wider. My point was not really about the bank angle,
but rather being in a pattern that would enable you to get to the runway
even with a power failure.

What I often see (from the ground) at our airport is an announcement of
turn to final with no plane in sight. Sometime later, I will see a
plane come from over the trees with power. The power is sometimes
increased on final approach to make the field and is not cut to idle
until over the threshold. Although power failure is not likely, the
loss of power would result in a crash.

C J, you said, "Finally, I get a sense from your query a desire to have
everybody in the pattern doing the same thing." No, you misunderstood.
There is a King Air flying with us. His pattern is much wider,
higher and faster than ours. However, he is still within glide distance
of the airport once he enters the pattern. If he has engine failure, he
will still make the field.

Pete, I understand that airplanes spend most of their time out of glide
range of airports; so do many gliders. You mentioned that, "It's
much more important that one be able to make a gliding power-off
approach and landing to *somewhere*" That is my point exactly. My
point is that the power pilots of today are not being taught a valuable
safety feature, how to fly a pattern without power. I am not making a
judgment call on what should or should not be done as a matter of
course; that is up to you power guys. What I am saying is that it
should be taught and regularly practiced.

Pete, it is obvious that I did not expound adequately on the crash that
I referenced. You used my example as proof that being within gliding
distance of the runway was no panacea. Let me further explain: When he
lost power, he was within gliding distance of an airport, he glided
there, setup a standard landing pattern, and crashed short of the runway
on final because he never learned to fly a power-off landing pattern.
His turn from base to final was too far out and low. Both the pilot and
the passenger died.

Pete, you asked if I checked Google Groups. My apologies to the group; I
see that this was covered in the group 6 months ago. I just entered the
group for the first time today. My compliments to the group. You guys
have wealth of information.

Marty Pautz

[Pavan Bhatnagar]

My two bits...

I fly in the SF bay area (San Carlos - class D).
Pattern altitude is 800 AGL.
The normal headwind component is 8-14 kts.
Traffic in the pattern is fairly heavy... number 3 in sequence when
you enter on the 45 is usual.

The lowish TPA & reasonably high headwinds needs fairly shortened base
& final legs to make it in poweroff from the downwind.
Doing this with traffic ahead can get you uncomfortably close...he may
not clear the runway in time...need tower clearance.

And not least , the turn radius of a 172 is subsantially larger than a
glider. At idle from downwind , from the above TPA & with headwinds ,
base & final are nearly a continuous turn.
I have flown gliders before , and fly a 152 now ... purely from a
control feedback & response perspective , I'm much happier doing the
above U turn from downwind to final in a glider than in a 152.

I suppose what I am saying is - traffic constraints , airspace &
pattern requirements , aircraft maneuverability - imply that a
somewhat poweron approach works best for the usual circumstances which
exist at GA airports.

Having said that , I'm personally much happier flying a close in
pattern , somewhat high & shortened final , and a forward slip if
needed.


Pavan Bhatnagar
(aspiring PP-ASEL)

m pautz > wrote in message news:<7yEzc.44640$0y.5757@attbi_s03>...
> There seems to be a discrepancy between glider landing patterns and
> power landing patterns. There is a discussion on the soaring news group
> about our 30-45 degree turns vs the power shallow banked turns. The
> reason for our bank angle is because we fly close-in/tight patterns.
>
> I can’t provide input to the power side since my power training is 30
> years old and was quite different from today’s power landing patterns.
> The first “glider” I ever flew was a Cessna 150 (that’s right, a Cessna
> 150). My instructor was teaching me to fly a close-in pattern. With
> each successive landing, I was stretching out the pattern. The
> instructor warned me about stretching out the pattern and told me that
> one of the reasons for the pattern is so that I could ‘always’ land at
> the airport even with engine failure. He put the plane at the *correct*
> IP, turned the engine off (dead stick), and said, “ok, it’s yours”
>
> I landed with no problems. More importantly, I now had the confidence
> and skills to land a plane with engine failure. Since then, I see the
> power planes landing with stretched out patterns and low-angle final
> approaches. The approach angle is so low, that they could not possibly
> make it with engine failure. I also hear them compensate on final by
> *adding* power.
>
> So, the question I have for the group is why are power planes taught to
> have these wide patterns with low angled turns? Why are the patterns
> outside the glide angle of a powerless airplane? I had a friend who
> died because of engine failure. The pilot was within gliding distance
> of the airport, but he didn’t know how to fly a power-out pattern. They
> crashed short of the runway on final.
>
> Hopefully, some CFIs will respond. I am curious about this issue.
>
> Marty Pautz
> "promote a society that respects its elders; before it is too late"

[EDR]

In article <urJzc.46043$0y.44191@attbi_s03>, m pautz
> wrote:

> Pete, I understand that airplanes spend most of their time out of glide
> range of airports; so do many gliders. You mentioned that, "It's
> much more important that one be able to make a gliding power-off
> approach and landing to *somewhere*" That is my point exactly. My
> point is that the power pilots of today are not being taught a valuable
> safety feature, how to fly a pattern without power. I am not making a
> judgment call on what should or should not be done as a matter of
> course; that is up to you power guys. What I am saying is that it
> should be taught and regularly practiced.

It is not "required" until the Commercial checkride. The standard that
took effect last year is a 180 degree, power off abeam the approach end
of the runway, landing.

[Peter Duniho]

"m pautz" > wrote in message
news:urJzc.46043$0y.44191@attbi_s03...
> [...]
> My point is that the power pilots of today are not being taught a valuable
> safety feature, how to fly a pattern without power.

How can you say that?

I almost never fly an ILS when I land at an airport. Does the fact that you
never see me fly an ILS imply that I have not been taught to fly one, or
that I don't know how to? No.

Likewise, just because all of the airplanes you see in the pattern are not
making power-off gliding approaches and landings, that does not mean that
the pilots haven't been taught to, nor that they don't know how to. For
that matter, just because the pilot in the example you mentioned crashed,
that does not mean that he had not been taught to make a power-off gliding
approach and landing, or that he did not know how to.

All you can conclude from the specific accident is that the pilot failed to
make it to the runway; whether that's because of or in spite of that pilot's
particular skillset, we don't know. The example of the pilots in the
pattern is even less usable for conclusion-making; every single pilot might
indeed be capable of making a perfectly fine power-off approach and landing.
Just because they choose not to, that doesn't imply they don't know how to.

Now, it may well be that training is deficient and that the concept of a
power-off approach and landing is not emphasized well enough. But when the
bulk of your post talks about pilots who regularly don't do so in a normal
traffic pattern, it sure looks as though you're missing the point, and/or
are trying to use a false example to prove a point. All that business about
what pilots normally do in a traffic pattern is completely irrelevant to the
question of whether pilots are being properly trained to make power-off
approaches and landings.

Pete

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:56:11 GMT, EDR > wrote:

>In article <urJzc.46043$0y.44191@attbi_s03>, m pautz
> wrote:
>
>> Pete, I understand that airplanes spend most of their time out of glide
>> range of airports; so do many gliders. You mentioned that, "It's
>> much more important that one be able to make a gliding power-off
>> approach and landing to *somewhere*" That is my point exactly. My
>> point is that the power pilots of today are not being taught a valuable
>> safety feature, how to fly a pattern without power. I am not making a
>> judgment call on what should or should not be done as a matter of
>> course; that is up to you power guys. What I am saying is that it
>> should be taught and regularly practiced.
>
>It is not "required" until the Commercial checkride. The standard that
>took effect last year is a 180 degree, power off abeam the approach end
>of the runway, landing.

<:-)) On my last bi-ennual check ride we did a bunch of instrument
work and then the instructor said "as this is your airplane I'd like
you to simulate an engine out in what ever manner you are most
comfortable." I pulled it back to idle. He then said, "OK we've had a
power failure, how about finding a place to land.

We were over 4 miles...I think close to 5 miles west of the airport.

Having just come out from under the hood I had a good idea of our
location. I established best glide while "looking for a spot" which in
this case was the airport. We were at 4000 as I recall.

At any rate, at best glide we were *high* when we reached the airport.
I actually flew the pattern (more or less) with a steep slipping
U-turn to the end of the runway. We were down and stopped in about
900 feet. He commented that from our altitude he thought I'd never
get it on that 3000 foot runway let alone stopped in the first 900
feet.

I do this in a 3100# high performance retract and the flight schools,
or instructors drill it into to the students in the trainers.

My point is although not called that, the emergency procedures are
exactly that... Power off landings to a particular spot and they are
often far more than just doing the pattern. I see a lot of power off
landings in the trainers at 3BS. Normally the ones with the wide
patterns are the pilots who have been flying a while, who don't like
stalls and haven't done one since the last bi-ennual flight review.
They don't like anything other than something close to a standard rate
turn and when landing add 10 MPH for safety, 5 for the kids, 10 for
the wife and at least the full gust factor if not more. Oh, and they
rarely fly with an instructor except for the dreaded bi-ennual flight
review.

Perhaps other areas are not doing so, but I see both power and non
powered landings. Every few weeks I pull the power abeam the
numbers on the way out just to keep in practice.

However I would point out that a so called "normal, by-the-book
landing" in mine is carrying quite a bit of power. No, that is not a
shallow, dragging it in final, it's steep! Far steeper than a power
off landing and quite a bit slower. It varies between 75 to 80 with a
power off landing being at 90 MPH. That extra 10 to 15 MPH uses a
*LOT* of runway.

The real eye opener is to do a power off, "no flap" landing. You
will use most of the 3000 foot runway even with heavy braking and the
nose is so high you can only see the runway through the side windows.
I have to admit though, you can barely even tell when the mains touch
down. <:-))

Of course the real ego deflator is landing in a gusty wind only to
find 6 or 7 pilots standing by the gate holding up signs to grade the
landing <snicker>

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:25:55 GMT, m pautz >
wrote:

>So, the question I have for the group is why are power planes taught to
>have these wide patterns with low angled turns?

I have the same problem you do with the normal pattern, particularly
the long haul on the 45, during which you can't possibly glide to the
airport (usually after having flown over the airport!).

Personally, I have gone back to power-off landings for just this
reason. And I try, not always successfully, to come in "high, hot, and
slipping like crazy" since I don't have the option of raising the
flaps.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[OtisWinslow]

Gee .. that requirement was there back in the 70s. Did they
remove it at some point?

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
> In article <urJzc.46043$0y.44191@attbi_s03>, m pautz
> > wrote:
>
> > Pete, I understand that airplanes spend most of their time out of glide
> > range of airports; so do many gliders. You mentioned that, "It's
> > much more important that one be able to make a gliding power-off
> > approach and landing to *somewhere*" That is my point exactly. My
> > point is that the power pilots of today are not being taught a valuable
> > safety feature, how to fly a pattern without power. I am not making a
> > judgment call on what should or should not be done as a matter of
> > course; that is up to you power guys. What I am saying is that it
> > should be taught and regularly practiced.
>
> It is not "required" until the Commercial checkride. The standard that
> took effect last year is a 180 degree, power off abeam the approach end
> of the runway, landing.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>
> Of course the real ego deflator is landing in a gusty wind only to
> find 6 or 7 pilots standing by the gate holding up signs to grade the
> landing <snicker>

No <snicker> about it; I had three line boys in Hays, Kansas do that to me
several years ago.

[Paul Sengupta]

"m pautz" > wrote in message
news:7yEzc.44640$0y.5757@attbi_s03...
> So, the question I have for the group is why are power planes taught to
> have these wide patterns with low angled turns? Why are the patterns
> outside the glide angle of a powerless airplane?

Light the blue touch paper, stand well back.

Paul

[Edward Todd]

In article >,
"OtisWinslow" > wrote:

> > It is not "required" until the Commercial checkride. The standard that
> > took effect last year is a 180 degree, power off abeam the approach end
> > of the runway, landing.
>
>

Got my ticket in '76. The first landings I was taught in a C-150 were no
flap, no power landings. Pulled the power abeam the numbers and set up a
glide at 70 mph.

Edward

[Roger Halstead]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:21:38 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:

>
>"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Of course the real ego deflator is landing in a gusty wind only to
>> find 6 or 7 pilots standing by the gate holding up signs to grade the
>> landing <snicker>
>
>No <snicker> about it; I had three line boys in Hays, Kansas do that to me
>several years ago.
>
I was speaking from experience<:-)) I have been on both ends of the
grading from being the grader to the gradee.

I've stopped over in Hays due to haze (for real) to and from BJC when
taking the southern route to keep out of the storms.

Man, there ain't nuthin between Salina and Hays. Not much more to
Goodland. The one thing I remember about Hays (after the haze lifted)
was seeing what appeared to be a bluff way off to the west. It's
really a series of hills, but from the airport it darn near looked
like a cliff.

Well, time to close the windows. There's another storm headed this
way.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Michael]

Cub Driver > wrote
> Personally, I have gone back to power-off landings for just this
> reason. And I try, not always successfully, to come in "high, hot, and
> slipping like crazy" since I don't have the option of raising the
> flaps.

And what happens when you eventually hit an updraft? If you're
already high, hot, and slipping like crazy, that updraft will put you
too high and hot to land, and you will need to go around.

Here's a bit of reality - unless you run out of gas, it is highly
unlikely that an engine that was working just fine when you entered
the pattern will fail so suddenly and so completely that it won't
produce enough power to flatten your glide enough for you to make the
runway given a reasonable pattern. On the other hand, it may well
crap out badly enough that you won't have the power to go around -
especially if you are flying a 65 hp Cub, which is a marginal
performer anyway.

I'm all for keeping the pattern close in, but there are limits to
everything.

Michael

[Michael]

Edward Todd > wrote
> Got my ticket in '76. The first landings I was taught in a C-150 were no
> flap, no power landings. Pulled the power abeam the numbers and set up a
> glide at 70 mph.

And there is a good reason to learn that way - it reduces complexity.
You don't screw around with anything after the downwind abeam point.
You set throttle to idle, pull carb heat, trim to the correct
airspeed, and after that all you do is fly the airplane. Obviously
your instructor understood the concept of starting simple and moving
to the complex. I'm sure you learned to do full flap landings at some
point - but flaps are additional complexity you don't need while
learning to fly a pattern and land. On top of that, the flare becomes
less critical since the sink rate is reduced.

Unfortunately, most of today's instructors don't really understand
this. They start the student doing landing procedures that involve
multiple power, flap, and airspeed changes in the pattern. Each of
those changes requires a change in trim. The result - the student has
too damn much to do. His airspeed control goes to hell (because with
all those configuration changes the plane is perpetually out of trim)
and he just doesn't have enough time to simply fly the plane.

So what happens? Power is added and the pattern is made wider to slow
things down and give the student more time to do everything that he
doesn't really need to be doing yet. Accelerated stall becomes a
concern because the student may not be able to tell that he is pulling
back too much - he's gotten used to flying out of trim. On top of
that, the student is still fumbling for throttle, flaps, and trim -
and is late making power reductions and flap additions, so the pattern
gets even bigger. The instructor spends his time reminding the
student to perform the "procedure" instead of watching his flying.
Everything is worse.

Michael

[Dave Stadt]

"Michael" > wrote in message
m...
> Cub Driver > wrote
> > Personally, I have gone back to power-off landings for just this
> > reason. And I try, not always successfully, to come in "high, hot, and
> > slipping like crazy" since I don't have the option of raising the
> > flaps.
>
> And what happens when you eventually hit an updraft? If you're
> already high, hot, and slipping like crazy, that updraft will put you
> too high and hot to land, and you will need to go around.

You have obviously never slipped a Cub. An updraft that can keep a Cub from
making the numbers has not been invented. My wife came in over the numbers
at pattern altitude and we were down and stopped on the first third of a
3,000 foot runway. Gotta love a plane with a real rudder.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, m pautz > posted:
>
> So, the question I have for the group is why are power planes taught
> to have these wide patterns with low angled turns?
>
I was taught similarly to you to fly tight patterns. A dead stick landing
while in the pattern was a part of my check ride. It's in the PTS. FWIW,
I'm as good as "dead stick" on final most of the time. So, I suspect that
these stretched patterns at low altitudes are just bad habits built up
over time.

> Why are the
> patterns outside the glide angle of a powerless airplane? I had a
> friend who died because of engine failure. The pilot was within
> gliding distance of the airport, but he didn’t know how to fly a
> power-out pattern. They crashed short of the runway on final.
>
There are no "patterns outside the glide angle of a powerless plane"
AFAIK. Pattern altitudes are typically at least 1,000' above GL, and if in
the pattern, it's up to the pilot to make sure that the field can be made
in the event of an engine failure. It seems that your friend failed on
that last part, possibly not due to a lack of know-how.

Neil

[Roger Halstead]

On 16 Jun 2004 15:42:24 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

>Edward Todd > wrote
>> Got my ticket in '76. The first landings I was taught in a C-150 were no
>> flap, no power landings. Pulled the power abeam the numbers and set up a
>> glide at 70 mph.
>
>And there is a good reason to learn that way - it reduces complexity.
>You don't screw around with anything after the downwind abeam point.
>You set throttle to idle, pull carb heat, trim to the correct
>airspeed, and after that all you do is fly the airplane. Obviously

Wellll, it's not quite that simple. This is where you learn to correct
for wind such as how much to lead a turn or how much to shorten down
wind (how close in to fly base) In some planes this can make a big
difference. Still, this is where to start the stabilized pattern and
I think most do.

>your instructor understood the concept of starting simple and moving
>to the complex. I'm sure you learned to do full flap landings at some
>point - but flaps are additional complexity you don't need while
>learning to fly a pattern and land. On top of that, the flare becomes
>less critical since the sink rate is reduced.

At this point I was taught to hold it off till it stalled. To this
day I still normally make full stall landings even in the Deb.

>
>Unfortunately, most of today's instructors don't really understand
>this. They start the student doing landing procedures that involve

I really don't see that around here and I'd be surprised if it were
true except in isolated instances.

>multiple power, flap, and airspeed changes in the pattern. Each of
>those changes requires a change in trim. The result - the student has

Again, I was taught to trim for airspeed on final. Adding or reducing
power did not require trim changes in the 150s, 172s, or Cherokees.
Changes is speed did as did changes in the flap settings.

>too damn much to do. His airspeed control goes to hell (because with
>all those configuration changes the plane is perpetually out of trim)
>and he just doesn't have enough time to simply fly the plane.

That is why the basic pattern is the "stabilized" pattern. *Most* of
the instructors I know start with the stabilized pattern. Learn the
airplane, learn the speeds and power settings, learn to adjust for the
wind. THEN work with power such as short and soft field landings.

Once the student/pilot learns "the numbers" the rest is easy. Well...
more so than if they didn't start out with the stabilized pattern.

>
>So what happens? Power is added and the pattern is made wider to slow
>things down and give the student more time to do everything that he
>doesn't really need to be doing yet. Accelerated stall becomes a
>concern because the student may not be able to tell that he is pulling
>back too much - he's gotten used to flying out of trim. On top of
>that, the student is still fumbling for throttle, flaps, and trim -
>and is late making power reductions and flap additions, so the pattern
>gets even bigger. The instructor spends his time reminding the
>student to perform the "procedure" instead of watching his flying.
>Everything is worse.

I'm sure this must happen on occasion, but I've not seen much
indication of it being common place. OTOH any pilot, be they student
or old timer can slip up and get behind the plane for any number of
reasons.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Michael

[Cub Driver]

On 16 Jun 2004 15:23:53 -0700, (Michael) wrote:

>And what happens when you eventually hit an updraft? If you're
>already high, hot, and slipping like crazy, that updraft will put you
>too high and hot to land, and you will need to go around.

2400 feet gives a lot of room for error.

I've never experienced an updraft. The airfields here most often are
crowded with pines on either side; perhaps that has something to do
with it?

(Flying downwind at pattern altitude at Lakes Region in Wolfeboro NH,
you can't even see the runway for the pines.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[dave]

However rare an engine failure in the pattern might be we've all read
about them. I can't recall anyone ever hitting an updraft in a cub,
citabria, etc. on final that pushed them so high they missed the field.
Where have you seen this? I also try to be high on final and then
slip if needed.

Just curious

Dave
68 7ECA

Michael wrote:
> Cub Driver > wrote
>
>>Personally, I have gone back to power-off landings for just this
>>reason. And I try, not always successfully, to come in "high, hot, and
>>slipping like crazy" since I don't have the option of raising the
>>flaps.
>
>
> And what happens when you eventually hit an updraft? If you're
> already high, hot, and slipping like crazy, that updraft will put you
> too high and hot to land, and you will need to go around.
>
> Here's a bit of reality - unless you run out of gas, it is highly
> unlikely that an engine that was working just fine when you entered
> the pattern will fail so suddenly and so completely that it won't
> produce enough power to flatten your glide enough for you to make the
> runway given a reasonable pattern. On the other hand, it may well
> crap out badly enough that you won't have the power to go around -
> especially if you are flying a 65 hp Cub, which is a marginal
> performer anyway.
>
> I'm all for keeping the pattern close in, but there are limits to
> everything.
>
> Michael

[m pautz]

Michael wrote:

> Cub Driver > wrote
>
>>Personally, I have gone back to power-off landings for just this
>>reason. And I try, not always successfully, to come in "high, hot, and
>>slipping like crazy" since I don't have the option of raising the
>>flaps.
>
>
> And what happens when you eventually hit an updraft? If you're
> already high, hot, and slipping like crazy, that updraft will put you
> too high and hot to land, and you will need to go around.
>
> Here's a bit of reality - unless you run out of gas, it is highly
> unlikely that an engine that was working just fine when you entered
> the pattern will fail so suddenly and so completely that it won't
> produce enough power to flatten your glide enough for you to make the
> runway given a reasonable pattern. On the other hand, it may well
> crap out badly enough that you won't have the power to go around -
> especially if you are flying a 65 hp Cub, which is a marginal
> performer anyway.
>
> I'm all for keeping the pattern close in, but there are limits to
> everything.
>
> Michael


>high, hot, and slipping like crazy
High: correct, but as I will explain later high is better than low.
Hot: A normal power-off landing need not be any hotter than than a
powered approach. I was taught to come in with normal approach speed.
Cub D. comes in hot because there is no runway too short for a cub and
he is using the kenetic energy as a safety buffer instead of power. The
same buffer can be provided with potential energy (coming in high)
Slipping: Not needed unless your flaps are boken. Cub driver uses slips
because he is experienced and practices this (Also because he likes
them). Dave already explained how his wife made the runway with an
extemely high approach.

> And what happens when you eventually hit an updraft? If you're
> already high

On a peice of paper draw a side view of the runway, a high approach and
a low approach. You will see that *minor* changes in the approach angle
with the low approach has a *major* change on your touch-down spot. The
same angle change of a high approach has a *minor* change on the
touch-down spot. For example: presume that you come in with a
powered-approach that has a glide angle of 40:1 and Mr. C150 comes in
with a high approach that has a 10:1 glide angle. If an updraft raises
you 50 feet, your touch down spot has moved 2000 feet. If that same
updraft raises Mr. C150 50 feet, his touch down spot only moves 500 feet.

When I was being taught power-off approaches 30 years ago, I asked my
instructor the same question about getting too high. He setup an
approach that was so high above the numbers, I didn't think we would
make the other end of the runway. He pulled full flaps and I was amazed
at how short we landed.

> and you will need to go around.
>
I have been flying power-off landings and have not done a go-around in
30 years.

> Here's a bit of reality - unless you run out of gas, it is highly
> unlikely...
I agree with you completely. Due to the unlikely nature of a power
failure, maybe it has been proven that a powered approach is safer;
maybe not. I don't know. That is why I asked the original question.
However, here is another bit of reality from Wolfgang Langewiesche, "But
meanwhile it can't be denied that engine failure, though very
unlikely, is very serious if it does happen, and that the accuracy of
his power-off approach can thus suddenly become the most important thing
in he pilot's life."

Even a 767 was successfully landed with no power because the pilot had
extensive practice in power-off landings.
http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html

My main point is that if you don't practice power-off landings when your
power works, you won't be able to do it when the the power doesn't work.

Marty Pautz
"promote a society that respects its elders; before it is too late."

[Michael]

dave > wrote
> However rare an engine failure in the pattern might be we've all read
> about them.

Actually, the only ones I know of where there wasn't enough power left
to limp to the runway were indeed fuel exhaustion.

> I can't recall anyone ever hitting an updraft in a cub,
> citabria, etc. on final that pushed them so high they missed the field.
> Where have you seen this?

In Texas, where we routinely see 500 fpm updrafts in the summer. I
was in a Cub. I knew I was a little high and a little hot and I was
already slipping - and then I hit an updraft and nothing I did was
good enough to get down. Oh, I suppose I might have managed a landing
well past midfield but at that point a go-around seemed like the hot
tip.

> I also try to be high on final and then
> slip if needed.

There's a difference between a little high on final and slip off the
altitude if need be, and being high, hot, and slipping like crazy on
every approach. I favor the former, but not the latter.

In a glider, the ideal approach is one where you fly your pattern with
half spoilers - in the middle of your range. That allows you to
flatten the glide if you hit sink or steepen it if you hit lift.

By the same token, in a no-flaps airplane I favor an approach that
puts me about 1/3 of the way down the runway without slipping, and a
medium slip to scrub off the altitude on short final - all of this at
normal approach speed. I believe that if you need close to a
maximum-effort slip on final, then one of two things happened - either
you set up too high and too hot, or you hit a serious updraft on
final. If you're consistently slipping hard down final, you're not
leaving yourself an out against the day you have to fly short final
over a hot parking lot.

My objection is not to power-off patterns, which I favor. I also do
not object to slipping down final a little, especially in a no-flaps
airplane. I'm just saying that you can overdo it. Too much speed and
altitude can be as bas as too little.

Michael

[Paul Sengupta]

"m pautz" > wrote in message
news:IEhAc.62559$0y.6475@attbi_s03...
> Cub driver uses slips
> because he is experienced and practices this (Also because he likes
> them).

And he hasn't got any flaps?

Paul

[m pautz]

Paul Sengupta wrote:

> "m pautz" > wrote in message
> news:IEhAc.62559$0y.6475@attbi_s03...
>
>>Cub driver uses slips
>>because he is experienced and practices this (Also because he likes
>>them).
>
>
> And he hasn't got any flaps?
>
> Paul
>
>
oops,
My lack of knowledge is showing. I just presumed that all cubs had
flaps. I just checked the internet and found out that the flaps didn't
exist until the super cub.

Fortunately I seem to learn something new every day. I should be real
smart by my 200th birthday. :-)

[Dave Stadt]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> dave > wrote
> > However rare an engine failure in the pattern might be we've all read
> > about them.
>
> Actually, the only ones I know of where there wasn't enough power left
> to limp to the runway were indeed fuel exhaustion.
>
> > I can't recall anyone ever hitting an updraft in a cub,
> > citabria, etc. on final that pushed them so high they missed the field.
> > Where have you seen this?
>
> In Texas, where we routinely see 500 fpm updrafts in the summer. I
> was in a Cub. I knew I was a little high and a little hot and I was
> already slipping - and then I hit an updraft and nothing I did was
> good enough to get down. Oh, I suppose I might have managed a landing
> well past midfield but at that point a go-around seemed like the hot
> tip.

In IL we get 1000 fpm thermals. Not sure why but at low altitudes, such as
on final, they have little effect. They need altitude to develop or some
such thing. As someone else explained, thermals have very little effect on
touchdown point when flying a steep approach. Had you stayed with it you
would have found you would have touched down very near your original
touchdown point. Sink sems to be a much bigger issue than lift. The
antidote for sink is high and slipping like crazy if you have to.

[Cub Driver]

Thanks for the additional information - Dan

> >high, hot, and slipping like crazy
>High: correct, but as I will explain later high is better than low.
>Hot: A normal power-off landing need not be any hotter than than a
>powered approach. I was taught to come in with normal approach speed.
>Cub D. comes in hot because there is no runway too short for a cub and
>he is using the kenetic energy as a safety buffer instead of power. The
>same buffer can be provided with potential energy (coming in high)
>Slipping: Not needed unless your flaps are boken. Cub driver uses slips
>because he is experienced and practices this (Also because he likes
>them). Dave already explained how his wife made the runway with an
>extemely high approach.
>
> > And what happens when you eventually hit an updraft? If you're
> > already high
>
>On a peice of paper draw a side view of the runway, a high approach and
>a low approach. You will see that *minor* changes in the approach angle
>with the low approach has a *major* change on your touch-down spot. The
>same angle change of a high approach has a *minor* change on the
>touch-down spot. For example: presume that you come in with a
>powered-approach that has a glide angle of 40:1 and Mr. C150 comes in
>with a high approach that has a 10:1 glide angle. If an updraft raises
>you 50 feet, your touch down spot has moved 2000 feet. If that same
>updraft raises Mr. C150 50 feet, his touch down spot only moves 500 feet.
>
>When I was being taught power-off approaches 30 years ago, I asked my
>instructor the same question about getting too high. He setup an
>approach that was so high above the numbers, I didn't think we would
>make the other end of the runway. He pulled full flaps and I was amazed
>at how short we landed.
>
> > and you will need to go around.
> >
>I have been flying power-off landings and have not done a go-around in
>30 years.
>
> > Here's a bit of reality - unless you run out of gas, it is highly
> > unlikely...
>I agree with you completely. Due to the unlikely nature of a power
>failure, maybe it has been proven that a powered approach is safer;
>maybe not. I don't know. That is why I asked the original question.
>However, here is another bit of reality from Wolfgang Langewiesche, "But
> meanwhile it can't be denied that engine failure, though very
>unlikely, is very serious if it does happen, and that the accuracy of
>his power-off approach can thus suddenly become the most important thing
>in he pilot's life."
>
>Even a 767 was successfully landed with no power because the pilot had
>extensive practice in power-off landings.
>http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html
>
>My main point is that if you don't practice power-off landings when your
>power works, you won't be able to do it when the the power doesn't work.
>
>Marty Pautz
>"promote a society that respects its elders; before it is too late."

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

[Michael]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote
> In IL we get 1000 fpm thermals. Not sure why but at low altitudes, such as
> on final, they have little effect.

I once saved a flight (in a glider) by working one of those thermals
that have little effect at low altitude - starting at about 400 ft.
Every glider pilot I know has a story like that.

> As someone else explained, thermals have very little effect on
> touchdown point when flying a steep approach. Had you stayed with it you
> would have found you would have touched down very near your original
> touchdown point.

My instructor felt otherwise. We were already close to midfield and
still not down when he called the go-around.

> Sink sems to be a much bigger issue than lift. The
> antidote for sink is high and slipping like crazy if you have to.

In my experience the magnitude of sink and lift tends to be about the
same. Conservation of mass, I suppose...

Michael

[m pautz]

This week has been my first visit to this group.

Thanks to everyone for your responses and thanks for not flaming me on
what I later found out was a hot topic.

As I said, there is a wealth of knowledge in this group.


> Marty Pautz
> "promote a society that respects its elders; before it is too late"
>
>