Tight patterns?

You're kidding, right? How is cutting someone off in the pattern, because
you don't like the way they're flying, safe?

"Newps" wrote. I wouldn't hesitate to
cut somebody off if they flew a huge pattern.

He's flying to a 2 mile final, I learned that the first time I had to
follow him, won't happen again. I'm on downwind behind him. Abeam the
numbers or there abouts I turn base. When he eventually gets on final
I'm already turning crosswind.

lardsoup wrote:

You're kidding, right? How is cutting someone off in the pattern, because
you don't like the way they're flying, safe?


"Newps" wrote. I wouldn't hesitate to
cut somebody off if they flew a huge pattern.

(Rick Durden) wrote
You've discovered one of the real shortcomings of ab initio flight
training where they teach students how to become commuter airline
pilots rather than how to fly. Thus the giant sized patterns. It's a
true pain in the whatsis.

If they were real ab-initio career training programs where the
graduate of the program goes straight into the right seat of an
airliner, it would not be such a bad thing. They could do as they
wanted at their (usually towered) training bases, and we would not
have to deal with them very much elsewhere.

The problem is that these are not real ab-initio career programs. The
graduates of these programs mostly leave the school at 250-300 hours
with CFI/CFII/MEI ratings, and spend the next several hundred hours
teaching elsewhere. That's where they do the real damage.

These guys move on after a year or three and are mostly not seen in GA
again, but their students are mostly not career track, and we have to
deal with them in GA for as long as they're going to fly.

We (and by that I mean the CFI's here and in the pilot lounges, who
are mostly not headed for the airlines) all sit around and talk about
how none of our students would ever fly airliner-sized patterns, since
we taught them better than that, so it must be some other guy's
students. Well, guess what - for every one of us, there are half a
dozen of them - and by them I mean the ab-initio career program
graduates. What's more, for every student we train, they train half a
dozen - because we're mostly part time and they're mostly full time.

How bad is it? Once I inadvertently cut off a guy in the pattern. He
was so far outside me on downwind (and a couple hundred feet high to
boot) that it just never occurred to me that he was in the pattern.
The sad thing is, he was in a Cherokee and I was in a Twin Comanche.

Michael

"Rick Durden" wrote in message
m...
|
| You've discovered one of the real shortcomings of ab initio flight
| training where they teach students how to become commuter airline
| pilots rather than how to fly. Thus the giant sized patterns. It's a
| true pain in the whatsis.
|

Baloney. The objective of the flight training has nothing to do with it. If
my students want to become commuter airline pilots (and many do), I still
teach them to fly tight patterns. I get nauseous whenever I hear people
talking about instructors and students heading to the airlines instead of
becoming 'real pilots,' whatever that is. As if the airlines want pilots
that don't know "how to fly," as you put it.

I think the problem lies more in two areas: noise abatement, as at our home
field of Tacoma Narrows, and pilot insecurity, where students and/or rusty
pilots are behind the airplane, so they stretch out the pattern to give
themselves more time.

Rick Durden wrote:

You've discovered one of the real shortcomings of ab initio flight
training where they teach students how to become commuter airline
pilots rather than how to fly. Thus the giant sized patterns. It's a
true pain in the whatsis.

Very, very close. These ab initio schools (we have two on field at
KOUN--the University of Oklahoma and (Sc)Airman Flight School) have two
problems. One, they're teaching people to be airline pilots. Two, they
assume the students are too dumb to figure out that a 747 ain't a 172,
and gets flown differently, so they teach students how they will fly
later. I've had instructors at OU--the chief ground instructor among
them--tell me that in almost as many words.

Patterns--you betcha. As I've commented many times, I've seen MD-80's
fly tighter patterns than these Cherokee- and 172-driving students. And
I'm not exaggerating--I was in the MD-80, looking at the parallel runway
below me. Airman is worse about that; I've seen their airplanes on
three-mile upwinds (no kidding!).

It's more than patterns, though. I learned to fly in a Champ, with an
old-school instructor (wonderful guy--anybody in the Indianapolis area,
go visit with Dale Byrom). Takeoff was to the effect of "full power,
raise the tailwheel a little to the takeoff attitude, and hold it there
until she flies off on her own." When I moved to the 150, it was the
same idea: "lighten the nosewheel until she takes off on her own."
"Rotation" was a special procedure only used in short-field takeoffs.
At OU, though, every airplane gets rotated on every takeoff. I did it
my way with the chief ground instructor as my flight instructor one day,
and he commented on how nice and smooth my takeoff was. I explained
why, and he said "oh, well, we rotate here because we're teaching...."
Discussion ensued debating the merits of teaching what you're flying,
instead of what you might be doing in a couple of years, but it
obviously had no effect, as they still rotate. Meanwhile, I still get
comments about how smooth I am. (Not that I'm that good, I just have a
large group of people dedicated to making me look better, I guess.)

Landings are another point of contention here. When I started working
on my instrument rating, I had a new-ish, wet-behind-the-ears
instructor. Good stick (wow, could he handle the airplane), but not a
great instructor, and no sense (barrel rolls around other students,
according to rumor, and I'd be inclined to believe it). It was clear
where he'd trained, though. About my second or third lesson, he
commented on my landings: "geez, Buckles, you land like a taildragger
pilot, with your nose up in the air like that." I replied "I am a
taildragger pilot; it's called full-stall, and you should try it
sometime." I can stop a Cherokee (well, a Warrior) less than 200 feet
from the threshold. I've done it, with one of the assistant chiefs in
the airplane with me. Show me, please, how these flat-approach guys,
doing fifteen or so over the stall, are going to stop in less than a
thousand feet. Admittedly, I don't usually land like that--it's not
nice to the passengers--but I have the skill, the ability to control the
aircraft and command it to do my bidding, to do it. And I recognize
that each aircraft is different. Would I do that in a jet? No way.
But, last I checked, the O-320 under my cowl had pistons, my wingspan
was about forty feet, and, well, it wasn't a big airplane. *So I'm not
going to fly it like one.*

"Always land on the centerline." Bullsqueeze. Always land the airplane
where you want it to land. Teaching habit here is a bad thing--it
removes thought, and that's why we have a pilot in the airplane in the
first place, instead of a computer. Why should I land on the
centerline? At most airports, on most runways, sure, that's the place
to be. But I can point to airports where such is not the case. 40I,
for example, in Waynesville, OH. Grass strip, about 125 feet wide.
After years of constant, heavy use, the centerline of that runway is the
roughest spot on field. Slip about 40 feet north of the centerline,
though (RWY 08/26) and it smoothes right out. Put the airplane where
you want it.

I think the real problem here is the lack of respect for the student on
the part of the instructor and the program as a whole. The whole
concept is based on the idea of teaching it this way now, so you do it
this way later, when the situation is very different. That idea works
on the presumption that the student can't figure out that things are
different, and should be treated differently; rephrased, it assumes the
student is dumb. Now, I'd like to think I'm a bright guy, maybe even a
little ahead of the average, but if the average pilot can't see the
differences I can see, well, folks, we have a *serious* problem here.
(Actually, based on the idiots I see on the news every night, I'd like
to think I'm way ahead of the average, but that's another story :-). )
This presumption that the student can't think for himself is the real
culprit. I prefer to make sure that the student can see the
differences; I am constantly talking to students, making them evaluate
everything they see. I force them to engage their brains and exercise
conscious thought. "Why are you going to do that?" is the question of
the day, every day, and the correct answer is *never* "because you said so."

I dunno, just the ranting and raving of an grumpy old (23-year-old)
codger who had a great instructor, I guess.

--Dave Buckles

http://www.flight-instruction.com

Dave, did you ever fly with Red at Waynesville?

For the uninitiated, at Waynesville, it is not uncommon to
simultaneously share the airspace with:
- skydivers
- student pilots
- gliders
- radio controlled aircraft
- transient traffic
- based aircraft

EDR wrote:

Dave, did you ever fly with Red at Waynesville?

For the uninitiated, at Waynesville, it is not uncommon to
simultaneously share the airspace with:
- skydivers
- student pilots
- gliders
- radio controlled aircraft
- transient traffic
- based aircraft

Never had the privilege; by the time I got there, he was in pretty bad
shape. His son, Emerson Jr. (Cub), owns the field, and I worked for
them for a while to pay for my training. I started my training with
Dale Byrom (who now lives in the Indianapolis area), and finished with
Emerson III (Cub's son). And are there many gliders there now? Last
time I was there, there was a 2-33 on the field, but I never saw it fly
much; most of the soaring was over at the Caesar Creek Soaring Club.
Ahh, good days; many of my fondest memories are of flying there. And
you forgot to mention that a significant portion of the students and
based aircraft were NORDO Cubs and Champs. :-)

--Dave Buckles

http://www.flight-instruction.com

EDR wrote:
Dave, did you ever fly with Red at Waynesville?
For the uninitiated, at Waynesville, it is not uncommon to
simultaneously share the airspace with:
- skydivers
- student pilots
- gliders
- radio controlled aircraft
- transient traffic
- based aircraft

Dave Buckles wrote:
Never had the privilege; by the time I got there, he was in pretty bad
shape. His son, Emerson Jr. (Cub), owns the field, and I worked for
them for a while to pay for my training. I started my training with
Dale Byrom (who now lives in the Indianapolis area), and finished with
Emerson III (Cub's son). And are there many gliders there now? Last
time I was there, there was a 2-33 on the field, but I never saw it fly
much; most of the soaring was over at the Caesar Creek Soaring Club.
Ahh, good days; many of my fondest memories are of flying there. And
you forgot to mention that a significant portion of the students and
based aircraft were NORDO Cubs and Champs. :-)

Red's philosophy was to start primary students in the Cub's (3) and
Champ (1) for the first ten hours. If you stayed with it that long, you
moved up to the C150 to learn how to use the radios. (This was back in
the late 70's/early 80's). In the winter, they would put one of the
Cub's on skis for rent. This lasted until one of the skis delaminated,
then it cost too much to replace, so that was the end of that. You can
get checked out in a Stearman and solo it if you provide your own hull
coverage.

There's good evidence (or so I've read!) to suggest that under a high
workload/pressure/emergency situation, a pilot will revert to his
earliest training...acting on "instinct" if you were. The latest thought is
to teach something that can be used in any situation from day 1, so
when (if) such a situation arises, it will be ingrained into the pilot.

Paul

"Dave Buckles" wrote in message
news:zsdOb.4996$dd6.4694@lakeread02...
The whole
concept is based on the idea of teaching it this way now, so you do it
this way later, when the situation is very different.

Well, you shouldn't fly a tight pattern any more than you should fly a
wide pattern. Maintaining correct pattern altitude is a good ideal, too.
This stuff is all spelled out in the AIM.

Best regards,

Steve Robertson
N4732J 1967 Beechcraft A23-24 Musketeer

Bob Martin wrote:

Anyone else here like to fly a tight (or tighter than normal) pattern?

The field we're based at (Falcon Field, FFC) has a pretty good-sized
training operation, and there are a lot of students out practicing
landings, especially on good days. What annoys me, though, is that
some of these students fly huge patterns--like 2-mile finals,
downwinds 1-2 miles out from the runway, etc. Sometimes, I'll end up
behind somebody in the pattern, only to realize that, by the time he
turns final, I could have done another touch and go and ended up
behind him.

IMHO, there's no reason to go flying a jet/heavy twin pattern in a
Cessna. I've always tried to fly mine 4 white on the PAPI, with
basically a continuous turn from downwind to final (leveling out for a
second just to check traffic).