That TLAR doesn't look right

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 7:34:18 AM UTC-6, wrote:
I thought we were discussing traffic patterns, not the capabilities of pilots and machines.
As I've mentioned before, it is possible to land from many combinations of heights and distances to the runway. In this thread we are talking about a normal pattern with enough spacing from downwind to the runway, in order to arrive to a final stabilized approach with the right amount of height, speed, distance to the runway, etc.
We are trying to prevent excessive slips and manouvering in the pattern.

"The Pattern" doesn't need to be capitalized or raised to a level of importance it doesn't deserve - it's just a tool to help a pilot make a safe landing. Good pilots will modify it as necessary it to fit conditions. Those less cued in will fly the same pattern every time regardless of conditions - and sometimes end up in the Mesquite.

If a pilot is concerned about sudden height loss due to strong sink or wind shear, flying a pattern close and high makes sense.

I've always flown in the western US where strong sink and wind shear can be expected so my patterns tend to be high and close. Many times I've landed using very little spoiler due to extreme sink - and been very thankful I'd had so much excess energy in the pattern. I get really nervous when riding with someone making a wide, low pattern.

When I transitioned to gliders, I lost two very important visual cues which I used flying airplanes: the center line or runway edges, and a aiming point marking, whether it's just a (possibly displaced) threshold, or at IFR airports, the piano keys, TDZ, or aiming point markings.

In airplanes, on a stabilized approach at 500ft, with proper wind correction, I can land within commercial standards at whatever point on the runway I like, on the centerline.

But gliderports are different. They have a wide variety of geometry (eg Estrella has a narrow strip and Seminole lake is 200ft wide), a combination of surfaces (eg part dirt, part tarmac), and there may be other aircraft off to the side that just landed or are staged at the departure end, or another glider landing right behind. Or there may be three parallel runways (Air Sailing, Estrella), and the ship landing in front of me doesn't announce which one he's going to land on, so I can't decide which runway I'm going to land on until I can see him on final. I've even had airplanes ask me to "extend downwind" so they can do a low pass in the opposite direction. Then there's the glider tows and departures which add another degree of complexity.

Furthermore, I have gotten yelled at for landing on the centerline when there's another ship off to the side on the runway (there were hundreds of feet between us). I've gotten yelled at for overflying aircraft to land beyond it. I've gotten yelled at for landing on the threshold, and coming to a stop well before another craft, etc, etc. So sometimes in the pattern when there's someone on the single runway, in the back of my head, I'm wondering not "where's the safest place to land," but "how can I land without the other pilot yelling at me", a narrative I then have to reject.

So I have had to adapt my landing technique to this very dynamic pattern and landing environment.

The result is something that I'm sure to get flamed for: when entering the airport area, I will have my pre-landing checklist completed, arrive with enough altitude to figure out what's going on (traffic and winds) before committing to land, remain close enough to the airport that I can choose to land at any time, and fly at L/Dmax. When I'm #1 and I have a trajectory for every aircraft landing, taking off or taxiing, then I commit to a landing spot, and make whatever is the appropriate pattern and approach given the circumstances, but no more shallow than a normal glider approach.

I feel that this gives me the most time to decide what I'm going to do in this dynamic landing environment, and I am continuously in a position to land should I need to at any time.

--b

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gsla...%20Concept.pdf

On 7/22/2015 12:05 PM, Bob Pasker wrote:
When I transitioned to gliders, I lost two very important visual cues which
I used flying airplanes: the center line or runway edges, and a aiming
point marking, whether it's just a (possibly displaced) threshold, or at
IFR airports, the piano keys, TDZ, or aiming point markings.

In airplanes, on a stabilized approach at 500ft, with proper wind
correction, I can land within commercial standards at whatever point on the
runway I like, on the centerline.

But gliderports are different. They have a wide variety of geometry (eg
Estrella has a narrow strip and Seminole lake is 200ft wide), a combination
of surfaces (eg part dirt, part tarmac), and there may be other aircraft
off to the side that just landed or are staged at the departure end, or
another glider landing right behind. Or there may be three parallel runways
(Air Sailing, Estrella), and the ship landing in front of me doesn't
announce which one he's going to land on, so I can't decide which runway
I'm going to land on until I can see him on final. I've even had airplanes
ask me to "extend downwind" so they can do a low pass in the opposite
direction. Then there's the glider tows and departures which add another
degree of complexity.

Ignoring the "extend downwind (for apparently purely self-gratifying reasons)"
silliness/stupidity, and not intending to be dismissive in any way of
previously-acquired/of-diminished-value-to-glider-patterns, my knee-jerk
response to "those losses" is something along the lines of, "Well, duh! That's
what learning how to "assess/fly glider patterns" is all about!" Safely and
effectively dealing with "those losses" I mean...

Sure it's important to be able to fly a stabilized approach, whether in a
power plane or a glider, in "standard conditions to a known/standardized
destination," but the essence of "a good glider pattern" (so it seems to me)
is the ability to bring to bear all one's talent and experience to each and
every landing pattern, so that you're *still* able to fly a "reasonably
stabilized approach" and *still* "hit your spot," regardless of whatever
non-standardization local geography dictates. So being aware of those
differences between "your average power-based patterns" and "your average
glider (and off-)field/pattern" is entirely normal and arguably good, while
using the absence of standardization as an excuse for sub-par glider patterns
is not so good!
- - - - - -

Snip...

So sometimes in the pattern
when there's someone on the single runway, in the back of my head, I'm
wondering not "where's the safest place to land," but "how can I land
without the other pilot yelling at me", a narrative I then have to reject.

So I have had to adapt my landing technique to this very dynamic pattern
and landing environment.

The result is something that I'm sure to get flamed for: when entering the
airport area, I will have my pre-landing checklist completed, arrive with
enough altitude to figure out what's going on (traffic and winds) before
committing to land, remain close enough to the airport that I can choose to
land at any time, and fly at L/Dmax. When I'm #1 and I have a trajectory
for every aircraft landing, taking off or taxiing, then I commit to a
landing spot, and make whatever is the appropriate pattern and approach
given the circumstances, but no more shallow than a normal glider
approach.

I feel that this gives me the most time to decide what I'm going to do in
this dynamic landing environment, and I am continuously in a position to
land should I need to at any time.

I've (rarely) been growled/whined/yelled at for a pattern or two into a busy
GA/glider field with 3 parallel runways (Boulder, CO) in the course of 3+
decades of being based there, strictly as a glider pilot.

Because I quickly decided that doing what you describe in the final two quoted
paragraphs just above, made eminent sense, and made it a firm habit to do
exactly the same thing (i.e. I never arrived back at the pattern "needing the
pattern *now* "), I like to believe that's why "rarely" proved to be the case!

YMMV,
Bob W.

Hang around RAS long enough and you'll get yelled at here, too! =-O

On 7/22/2015 12:05 PM, Bob Pasker wrote:
When I transitioned to gliders, I lost two very important visual cues which I used flying airplanes: the center line or runway edges, and a aiming point marking, whether it's just a (possibly displaced) threshold, or at IFR airports, the piano keys, TDZ, or aiming point markings.

In airplanes, on a stabilized approach at 500ft, with proper wind correction, I can land within commercial standards at whatever point on the runway I like, on the centerline.

But gliderports are different. They have a wide variety of geometry (eg Estrella has a narrow strip and Seminole lake is 200ft wide), a combination of surfaces (eg part dirt, part tarmac), and there may be other aircraft off to the side that just landed or are staged at the departure end, or another glider landing right behind. Or there may be three parallel runways (Air Sailing, Estrella), and the ship landing in front of me doesn't announce which one he's going to land on, so I can't decide which runway I'm going to land on until I can see him on final. I've even had airplanes ask me to "extend downwind" so they can do a low pass in the opposite direction. Then there's the glider tows and departures which add another degree of complexity.

Furthermore, I have gotten yelled at for landing on the centerline when there's another ship off to the side on the runway (there were hundreds of feet between us). I've gotten yelled at for overflying aircraft to land beyond it. I've gotten yelled at for landing on the threshold, and coming to a stop well before another craft, etc, etc. So sometimes in the pattern when there's someone on the single runway, in the back of my head, I'm wondering not "where's the safest place to land," but "how can I land without the other pilot yelling at me", a narrative I then have to reject.

So I have had to adapt my landing technique to this very dynamic pattern and landing environment.

The result is something that I'm sure to get flamed for: when entering the airport area, I will have my pre-landing checklist completed, arrive with enough altitude to figure out what's going on (traffic and winds) before committing to land, remain close enough to the airport that I can choose to land at any time, and fly at L/Dmax. When I'm #1 and I have a trajectory for every aircraft landing, taking off or taxiing, then I commit to a landing spot, and make whatever is the appropriate pattern and approach given the circumstances, but no more shallow than a normal glider approach.

I feel that this gives me the most time to decide what I'm going to do in this dynamic landing environment, and I am continuously in a position to land should I need to at any time.

--b

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/gsla...%20Concept.pdf

--
Dan Marotta