Landing patterns

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"

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.

"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.

"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

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.

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!

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

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"

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.

"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