Interesting pattern technique

While attending an advanced x/c seminar last week I had the pleasure of
riding in the back seat of a Nimbus 3DM, and the PIC used a landing
pattern & technique I had not seen or heard of before, but I sure took
note of.

First think I noticed was that even though he'd been flying gliders
since before I was born 44 years ago, he made sure to arrive at the
airport with enough altitude to fly directly over the center of the
active runway to check out the wind sox and other windicators prior to
committing to a pattern. If the crosswind component exceeded 10 or 15
knots the wrong way, he would switch sides (e.g. right-hand pattern
instead of left-hand) so that his base leg would be into the wind.

Second was the fact that on downwind, he accelerated to 80+ knots while
dropping down to just two or three hundred feet AGL tops. Whoa! Base
and turn to final that low to the ground were new to me. But it made
complete sense. In a glider with such a large wing span, this was cheap
insurance against the worst possible wind sheer. Once on final, he
slowed down to 60 or 65 knots before he was 40 or 50 feet above the
runway.

I'll prolly get hollered at if I do that on my BFR this fall but it
strikes me as good practice, especially when flying something bigger
than 18M.

-ted/2NO

What would such a fuzzy behavior have to do with wing span ?!

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


a écrit dans le message de news:
...
While attending an advanced x/c seminar last week I had the pleasure of
riding in the back seat of a Nimbus 3DM, and the PIC used a landing
pattern & technique I had not seen or heard of before, but I sure took
note of.

First think I noticed was that even though he'd been flying gliders
since before I was born 44 years ago, he made sure to arrive at the
airport with enough altitude to fly directly over the center of the
active runway to check out the wind sox and other windicators prior to
committing to a pattern. If the crosswind component exceeded 10 or 15
knots the wrong way, he would switch sides (e.g. right-hand pattern
instead of left-hand) so that his base leg would be into the wind.

Second was the fact that on downwind, he accelerated to 80+ knots while
dropping down to just two or three hundred feet AGL tops. Whoa! Base
and turn to final that low to the ground were new to me. But it made
complete sense. In a glider with such a large wing span, this was cheap
insurance against the worst possible wind sheer. Once on final, he
slowed down to 60 or 65 knots before he was 40 or 50 feet above the
runway.

I'll prolly get hollered at if I do that on my BFR this fall but it
strikes me as good practice, especially when flying something bigger
than 18M.

-ted/2NO

wrote:
Second was the fact that on downwind, he accelerated to 80+ knots while
dropping down to just two or three hundred feet AGL tops. Whoa! Base
and turn to final that low to the ground were new to me. But it made
complete sense. In a glider with such a large wing span, this was cheap
insurance against the worst possible wind sheer. Once on final, he
slowed down to 60 or 65 knots before he was 40 or 50 feet above the
runway.

I'll prolly get hollered at if I do that on my BFR this fall but it
strikes me as good practice, especially when flying something bigger
than 18M.

-ted/2NO

I always understood that wind shear was "worse" nearer the ground. The
idea of deliberately doing turns this low with one wing very likely to
be in a different windspeed than the other, doesn't seem entirely
sensible to me. This experienced fellow may well handle the situation,
but I suggest it sets a poor example to any watching novice who may not
have the abilities to deal with whatever happens next.

Martin, UK.

At 10:24 12 July 2005, wrote:
wrote:
Second was the fact that on downwind, he accelerated
to 80+ knots while
dropping down to just two or three hundred feet AGL
tops. Whoa! Base
and turn to final that low to the ground were new
to me. But it made
complete sense. In a glider with such a large wing
span, this was cheap
insurance against the worst possible wind sheer. Once
on final, he
slowed down to 60 or 65 knots before he was 40 or
50 feet above the
runway.

I'll prolly get hollered at if I do that on my BFR
this fall but it
strikes me as good practice, especially when flying
something bigger
than 18M.

-ted/2NO

Trying this into a field in the Costwolds could have
interesting results. For the benefit of those who do
not know the UK the fields are on the small side with
stone hedges.

Many years ago, I landed near the end of the day at a remote airport
south of Minden, NV with another pilot during a U.S. national contest.
While we were waiting, we were treated to the sight of yet another
competitor doing a [very] low high-speed pass followed by a steep pull
up to a normal pattern and landing. The rationale offered by the young
man was wanting to inspect the runway closely before landing.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

Um, I thought everyone did that ?
Besides, helps spot any rough spots on the ground.
See ya, Dave

At 10:24 12 July 2005, wrote:
I always understood that wind shear was 'worse' nearer
the ground. The
idea of deliberately doing turns this low with one
wing very likely to
be in a different windspeed than the other, doesn't
seem entirely
sensible to me. This experienced fellow may well handle
the situation,
but I suggest it sets a poor example to any watching
novice who may not
have the abilities to deal with whatever happens next.

Martin, UK.


I suspect the pattern speed goes up faster than the
wind shear does as you trade altitude for airspeed
so the stall margin would actually go up. Not sure
that wind shear is the main reason CH (or anyone else)
does this. I'd ask him.

I tend to carry a little extra airspeed until I'm set
up on short final. It's harder to stall/spin on the
turn to final with a little extra airspeed margin (you
never know what distraction will pop up when you are
the most busy in the pattern). I also find you get
a slightly lower angle view of the approach end of
the field sooner so in outlanding situations it can
expose hidden wires while you still have the energy
to get over them. Having talked to pilots who have
hit wires on approach, they report that the first time
they saw the wires was when the glider got low enough
that the wires came up out of the ground clutter -
by then they were too close to react and too slow to
do anything but fly into the wires.

It's important to understand how much time you need
(using landing flaps/airbrakes) to bleed off the airspeed
or you will have problems at short fields.

9B

wrote:

While attending an advanced x/c seminar last week I had the pleasure of
riding in the back seat of a Nimbus 3DM, and the PIC used a landing
pattern & technique I had not seen or heard of before, but I sure took
note of.

First think I noticed was that even though he'd been flying gliders
since before I was born 44 years ago, he made sure to arrive at the
airport with enough altitude to fly directly over the center of the
active runway to check out the wind sox and other windicators prior to
committing to a pattern. If the crosswind component exceeded 10 or 15
knots the wrong way, he would switch sides (e.g. right-hand pattern
instead of left-hand) so that his base leg would be into the wind.

Second was the fact that on downwind, he accelerated to 80+ knots while
dropping down to just two or three hundred feet AGL tops. Whoa! Base
and turn to final that low to the ground were new to me. But it made
complete sense. In a glider with such a large wing span, this was cheap
insurance against the worst possible wind sheer. Once on final, he
slowed down to 60 or 65 knots before he was 40 or 50 feet above the
runway.

I'll prolly get hollered at if I do that on my BFR this fall but it
strikes me as good practice, especially when flying something bigger
than 18M.

-ted/2NO



"Once on final, he
slowed down to 60 or 65 knots before he was 40 or 50 feet above the
runway."


Now let me quote one of the requirements for a private license exam,
"Maintains recommended approach airspeed, +10/-5 knots."

The commercial requirement is,
"Maintains recommended approach airspeed, +-5 knots."

In article ,
m pautz wrote:

"Once on final, he
slowed down to 60 or 65 knots before he was 40 or 50 feet above the
runway."


Now let me quote one of the requirements for a private license exam,
"Maintains recommended approach airspeed, +10/-5 knots."

The commercial requirement is,
"Maintains recommended approach airspeed, +-5 knots."

Gosh, that sounds pretty lax, unless it's a rather rough and gusty day
(and would you do an exam on such a day?). I'd have to check video or
something, but I'd be unhappy if I wasn't within maybe +- 2 knots (or,
more realistically, +5/-0).

But surely a more appropriate standard is "maintains the intended
approach airspeed, +-fudge knots"? It's entrely reasonable to have a
plan such as "I'm going to fly at XX speed until after I turn final,
then YY speed until the flare.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

At 16:12 13 July 2005, T O D D P A T T I S T wrote:

Do you conclude that a pilot having commercial skills
should
always fly a constant speed pattern +/- 5 knots right
up to
the flare, just because the ability to do so is a skill
that's tested in the Commercial PTS?

It doesn't say anything about flaring - so I'm thinking
maybe you're not supposed to if you want to pass.

On the other hand, couldn't I 'recommend' to myself
an approach speed of 75 knots and hold that?

There's a movie from the 60's called 'Those Magnificent
Men in Their Flying Machines'. One character trys to
fly by reading and acting out what's written in the
Pilot's Manual -- line-by-line ('#1, sit down'). Why
does this conversation remind me of that?

9B