Why have we not switched to an oval pattern?

It doesn't take much bank angle to fill my window with engine nacelle. I'd prefer to keep an eye on the pattern jokers out there.
 
I'm not a big fan of straight and level or "stabilized" approaches. I'm sure they're a requirement for some types of flying, but I prefer to cut power abeam the numbers, make a 180* turn to final from a close-in downwind, and be parked and shut down before the Mooney crosses the threshold.
 
Salty said:
I can't believe there is no regulation against flying above the critical angle of attack in the pattern. That's the simple solution.
Click to expand...
No, but the laws of aerodynamics do not favor flying above the critical AOA in the pattern.
 
Lindberg said:
I'm not a big fan of straight and level or "stabilized" approaches. I'm sure they're a requirement for some types of flying, but I prefer to cut power abeam the numbers, make a 180* turn to final from a close-in downwind, and be parked and shut down before the Mooney crosses the threshold.
Click to expand...
Which definition of “stable” are you using?
 
wanttaja said:
Long-nosed and blue? :)

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Mostly short and yellow these last 12 years, The occasional boring white on the 172 or PA-28.
One of my first instructors was a Corsair pilot in WWII. He taught me to land in a continuous arch.
Start high, power back, continuous slip all the way around the arch, with the nose up to control airspeed and descent.
I never lose sight of the runway,
 
MountainDude said:
Here is some more info added after the initial post:
- the main advantage of the oval pattern is low bank angles and earlier turn towards final, both of which reduce the risk of a stall
- oval patterns still have all legs except the base and crosswind. However, you can still call them while you are making the long 180 turn
- oval patterns still have downwind and same entries as the current one. You simply turn continuously from downwind to final.
- there is still a final. You don't have to start your base turn while abeam the numbers and complete the turn right over the runway. Start making the turn where you would normally make your base turn; by the time you complete it, there will be 1/4 mile final still there

Oval pattern should save many lives. Stall-spins in the pattern are responsible for many fatal accidents, and oval patterns reduce the risk, without any downsides.
Here is a recent article on the pattern stall-spins:
https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to...idents-happen-the-most-often-in-flight-phase/

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I can get behind this. The biggest advantage I can see is that a constanly banked airplane will be easier to spot. A shallower bank also has a better stall margin but I am not sure if that is really significant.
 
Half Fast said:
Show me one with its eyes below its wings.
Click to expand...
Here ya' go:
Photo-2_Black-Skimmer-skimming-for-food-by-Norman-Bateman-Shutterstock-1024x663.jpg
 
Just to piggyback on this I often wondered why people to advocate for a wider pattern. To me, the tighter pattern is there in case your engine cuts out. That seems to be focusing on a small chance that the engine will cut out while in the pattern. To me, tighter patterns would seem to lead to more overshoots of the runway on final and hence lead to more stall spin on that turn. Would it make more sense to reduce that higher probability by wider patterns then the small chance that your engine will cut out while in the pattern...Am I wrong here??
 
Dan Thomas said:
Agree with all of that. Why do we have to change the pattern shape to keep people from stalling and spinning on the base-to-final turn? Isn't that a training issue, a defect in the pilot's skill level? Dumbing things down to accommodate incompetence doesn't seem wise at all.
Click to expand...
According to some studies, it's not even a big issue. Takeoffs are much more dangerous. The oval pattern seems to be a solution working hard to find a problem.
upload_2023-1-9_15-19-14.png
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
In a high wing, you can lose sight of the runway while banked.

(Just one more good reason to fly low wings like the good Lord intended.)
Click to expand...
In a low wing, you can lose sight of conflicting traffic while banked. This has been discussed as a contributing factor to the recent horrific airshow accident.
 
Baked Potato said:
For us WW2 pilots, it's recommended to fly a curved approach as our huge 1900hp engines block forward view at high AOAs. You try flying a straight in to the short field at Tatsinskaya after a harrowing bombing run on Stalingrad in a FW190, you'll understand.
Click to expand...
Also, I've heard that a curving final makes it easier to land a Corsair on an aircraft carrier. ;)
 
I think Apple patented rounded corners.
 
francisco collazos said:
To me, the tighter pattern is there in case your engine cuts out.
Click to expand...
Or to practice for the time when your engine cuts out while flying cross country and you got to plunk it into a postage stamp sized field. Good luck dragging it in with power when you don't have power.
 
I’m more oval than squared. I like to adjust the AOB, referencing the wind, to roll out lined up with centerline. It just seems easier that all the squared turns.
 
sarangan said:
I can get behind this. The biggest advantage I can see is that a constanly banked airplane will be easier to spot. A shallower bank also has a better stall margin but I am not sure if that is really significant.
Click to expand...
Stall speed in a 30° bank goes up about 8%, or about 4 MPH on a 50 MPH stall. If you're flying that close to the stall you have much bigger problems. Stall speeds increase a lot more as bank angle increases.

upload_2023-1-9_18-23-23.jpeg
 
Well hell, if the good idea fairy is going to visit, I've always wanted everyone to fly right hand patterns. And why do those darn west bounders get the even altitudes? I want to be even when I go east, because then I could memorize it by saying "East is Even".
 
wanttaja said:
As I've posted before, the base-to-final turn stall-spin scenario isn't the most prevalent in the homebuilt accidents I've looked at...about twice as many stall accidents happen on the initial climb or go-around.
Click to expand...

I learned about this some years ago and still find it quite sobering as we tend to focus so much on stall/spins happening in the base to final turn ...
 
Daleandee said:
I learned about this some years ago and still find it quite sobering as we tend to focus so much on stall/spins happening in the base to final turn ...
Click to expand...
Kinda wonder about that myself. As the data/graph Mark posted shows, the fact that the true danger zone is the initial climb is known in the industry.

Ron Wanttaja
 
On my sport checkride, the examiner asked me why I was doing a parallelogram pattern. I offered to do a rectangular one...or more rectangular one, and he said, nah, you're good, it's just a little weird.

My base and final turns do tend to merge a bit. But if I'm flying a low wing I do like to level out for a little bit on base so I can see if there are any wannabe airliners in singles on unannounced final.
 
There's nothing wrong with steep turns in the traffic pattern. There IS something wrong with excessive back pressure on the controls. A steep descending turn does not require additional back pressure, just a more rapid loss of altitude.

Rectangular patterns are more forgiving in windy conditions, because you have a ground reference perspective based on parallel lines (crosswind/base, upwind/downwind) and those can all be visually referenced by the axis of the intended runway.
 
SkyChaser said:
Oh, are you one of the pilots that like to put all the flaps in at once? I'd read before starting training that some pilots put them in incrementally like I learned, but some like to just dump them all in and I've always wanted to talk to someone who does that and ask about it.
Click to expand...

That is what the USAF trains.

Overhead pattern is roll into the break, add speed brakes for some planes, as you roll out on downwind, gear down, flaps down. Roll into the base turn.

In my Mooney, I do flaps in two stages. 10 degrees (TO setting) then full flaps. When I fly CAP C-182 or rental C-172, I put them down in 3 stages.
 
Daleandee said:
I learned about this some years ago and still find it quite sobering as we tend to focus so much on stall/spins happening in the base to final turn ...
Click to expand...
I guess the FAA moves too fast for us…departure stalls get equal treatment in the ACS.
 
SkyChaser said:
Oh, are you one of the pilots that like to put all the flaps in at once? I'd read before starting training that some pilots put them in incrementally like I learned, but some like to just dump them all in and I've always wanted to talk to someone who does that and ask about it.
Click to expand...

Sure, the 180-degree power off landing is a procedure that should be learned. Abeam the touchdown point, reduce power to idle, put in full flaps, and manage the energy by adjusting pitch. It's challenging and fun, and could be very useful in an emergency landing.
 
Gilbert Buettner said:
Sure, the 180-degree power off landing is a procedure that should be learned. Abeam the touchdown point, reduce power to idle, put in full flaps, and manage the energy by adjusting pitch. It's challenging and fun, and could be very useful in an emergency landing.
Click to expand...

I did power-off 180s with my CFI before I got my PPL, but usually didn't put in all the flaps, much less put them in while still on downwind/abeam the touchdown point, as the focus was on remaining as high as possible until the runway was made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top