Landing patterns

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

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

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

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

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."

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

"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

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. :-)

"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.

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