Short field landing pattern size

exncsurfer said:
?? wider downwind gives you more time on base, wider base gives you more time on final

Common errors in the performance of short-field approaches and landings are:
- Failure to allow enough room ON FINAL to set up the approach, necessitating an overly steep approach and high sink rate.
- Unstabilized approach.
Click to expand...

Not sure how your quote of the AFH refutes my argument or backs up your argument, as it seems to do the opposite.
 
dmspilot said:
Not sure how your quote of the AFH refutes my argument or backs up your argument, as it seems to do the opposite.
Click to expand...
Ha, I wasn't trying to refute it, that's what my "????" was for. . I didn't think I had an argument.
 
Stewartb said:
The OP needs to dismiss most of this thread and work with his instructor.
Click to expand...

I've been lurking here for years and can filter out most of the noise. Still some very helpful tips and ideas that I will discuss with my instructor. This all reinforces that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Now I'm off to Hawaii for two weeks...planning to meet that Maui guy for some AOA lessons.
 
tspear said:
Exactly, but Jim's technique is consistent. Same thing in flying, to put the plane where it needs to be over the fence line for the type of landing I am doing, I basically have three choices. I adjust my downwind speed, or I extend/shorten downwind as required, or I deploy flaps a touch earlier. I prefer to adjust downwind speed, and keep the other two in my back pocket for other screw ups.

Tim
Click to expand...

Adjust downwind speed, shorten extend downwind, deploying flaps early, etc etc. All that is a technique to place your plane at/just above stall speed when you touch down on the point where you want to touch down at. The basic fundamental is to say, I want to land on THAT point and placing your plane on THAT point. If you are landing on the thousand foot markers and you intended to land on the numbers, your technique needs adjusting.
 
Clip4 said:
The FAA suggests a wider base because it gives the pilot more time on final to establish a stabilized approach. This includes establishing the descent angle to clear an obstacle, establishing the proper airspeed at 1.2Vso, establishing an aim point, and solving for the effects of the wind.
Click to expand...

And that works ...

... but if you can't properly stabilize on final in the usual distance of a pattern, at whatever your chosen airspeed is, fast or slow, underwater basket weaving may be a better hobby for you.

:)

It ain't that hard to slow up. A standard sized pattern should work for a regular or short field landing.

It isn't about pattern size, it's about airspeed and decent rate control.

(The FAA appears to think pilots are all so bad at it that they need a ten mile final to get an airspeed nailed. Kinda sad, really.)
 
The article clearly states 20G25 (mph). And yes, he can land it seriously short without wind assistance. He's have won Valdez but he touched a few inches short and was DQ'd. I'm about a month away from launching mine. I'm ready!
 
denverpilot said:
And that works ...

... but if you can't properly stabilize on final in the usual distance of a pattern, at whatever your chosen airspeed is, fast or slow, underwater basket weaving may be a better hobby for you.

:)

It ain't that hard to slow up. A standard sized pattern should work for a regular or short field landing.

It isn't about pattern size, it's about airspeed and decent rate control.

(The FAA appears to think pilots are all so bad at it that they need a ten mile final to get an airspeed nailed. Kinda sad, really.)
Click to expand...

I agree, in most aircraft, but the FAA is giving this guidance for all aircraft.
 
denverpilot said:
Hmm in response to the original question:

Why not fly a normal pattern and adjust your glidepath steeper or not steeper as needed to clear obstacles...

... and still land short?

It's about airspeed and altitude control, not about the size of the pattern.
Click to expand...

My wife keeps telling me something that sounds very similar to this......;)
 
Clip4 said:
I agree, in most aircraft, but the FAA is giving this guidance for all aircraft.
Click to expand...

The faster aircraft are already flying a larger standard pattern. They don't need to make theirs bigger than their standard either.

Pattern size for the type doesn't usually need to change for a short field.

The guidance is based in faulty thinking about airspeed and altitude. I think they're saying a lot of pilots have that faulty thinking so they might as well extend out and fiddle around flying back to the airport for five miles. Maybe they'll not wreck if they have a ten minute final. Hahaha.

Reality is, you don't need to adjust pattern size for a short field. You need to adjust speed and altitude. Flaps and power handled differently. The ground track can be identical.

Heck to be honest, the entire pattern and speeds can be the same right to short final, but FAA doesn't like that because it doesn't match their "stabilized approach" thing that trickled down from huge aircraft with lots of momentum.

A typical trainer or single unless it's really slick, can be slowed from a standard approach speed to a slow approach speed in a quarter mile, flown very intentionally with the express purpose of slowing down at that point in the pattern.

It's difficult to start a student there, though. It's counterintuitive to pull lots of power and pull the nose up to generate more drag and slow and also go down at the same time, and re-add the power as it slows while holding the nose up. But a typical Cessna or Piper will slow up and come down like a rock if you do that.
 
denverpilot said:
The faster aircraft are already flying a larger standard pattern. They don't need to make theirs bigger than their standard either.

Pattern size for the type doesn't usually need to change for a short field.

The guidance is based in faulty thinking about airspeed and altitude. I think they're saying a lot of pilots have that faulty thinking so they might as well extend out and fiddle around flying back to the airport for five miles. Maybe they'll not wreck if they have a ten minute final. Hahaha.

Reality is, you don't need to adjust pattern size for a short field. You need to adjust speed and altitude. Flaps and power handled differently. The ground track can be identical.

Heck to be honest, the entire pattern and speeds can be the same right to short final, but FAA doesn't like that because it doesn't match their "stabilized approach" thing that trickled down from huge aircraft with lots of momentum.

A typical trainer or single unless it's really slick, can be slowed from a standard approach speed to a slow approach speed in a quarter mile, flown very intentionally with the express purpose of slowing down at that point in the pattern.

It's difficult to start a student there, though. It's counterintuitive to pull lots of power and pull the nose up to generate more drag and slow and also go down at the same time, and re-add the power as it slows while holding the nose up. But a typical Cessna or Piper will slow up and come down like a rock if you do that.
Click to expand...

You are probably the expert with all the accident data you have vs the FAA.
 
Clip4 said:
You are probably the expert with all the accident data you have vs the FAA.
Click to expand...

I have all the same accident data as you do and they do. It's public, remember.

Feel free to cite a number of NTSB reports showing a significant increase in safety during short field landings in lower accident numbers both pre and post the FAA placing that guidance in the book. LOL. Good luck.

Meanwhile, Commercial students and candidates everywhere continue to make thousands of power off 180 precision landings with no particular safety problems... so obviously the "FAA safety experts" aren't too concerned about it. Turning a power off 180 into a short field power off 180 is pretty much a matter of applying the brakes harder.

But you're adorable, really. Can we see your Commercial and CFI certs? I wouldn't normally play that card, but you've obviously not learned that safety isn't always the reason an FAA pub describes a certain technique. And you're not going to be able to correlate any significant number of short field accidents to the size of the pattern, but go for it.

Let's see your data. It's public. FAA doesn't have any secret safety data that only they have access to, and it's all there for you to prove your "safety" point. Try. I'm going to guess I've read a lot more NTSB reports and the excellent summaries by folks like the Nall Report over the years than you have. How many do you read per year? Just asking. You're arguing from a very weak position but if you've got evidence that a bigger pattern led to less short field landing accidents, let's see it. I'm game.
 
denverpilot said:
I have all the same accident data as you do and they do. It's public, remember.

Feel free to cite a number of NTSB reports showing a significant increase in safety during short field landings in lower accident numbers both pre and post the FAA placing that guidance in the book. LOL. Good luck.

Meanwhile, Commercial students and candidates everywhere continue to make thousands of power off 180 precision landings with no particular safety problems... so obviously the "FAA safety experts" aren't too concerned about it. Turning a power off 180 into a short field power off 180 is pretty much a matter of applying the brakes harder.

But you're adorable, really. Can we see your Commercial and CFI certs? I wouldn't normally play that card, but you've obviously not learned that safety isn't always the reason an FAA pub describes a certain technique. And you're not going to be able to correlate any significant number of short field accidents to the size of the pattern, but go for it.

Let's see your data. It's public. FAA doesn't have any secret safety data that only they have access to, and it's all there for you to prove your "safety" point. Try. I'm going to guess I've read a lot more NTSB reports and the excellent summaries by folks like the Nall Report over the years than you have. How many do you read per year? Just asking. You're arguing from a very weak position but if you've got evidence that a bigger pattern led to less short field landing accidents, let's see it. I'm game.
Click to expand...

No no Dude, you know what is best, post you data.
 
MAKG1 said:
Touching down short of the runway could be pretty bad....
Click to expand...
especially if there's a blast fence! Although, landing short of 16 is no picnic either!

Rwy%2034%203-20-15.jpg
 
Did I miss something? I thought the thread was about WIDER pattern.

You can do your downwind farther away and turn base where you normally would and use the longer base leg to establish speed and then turn on to the Left Final (kidding) slower than your normal approach base to final turn.

I don't think anybody was recommending 18 mile Cirrus approaches.
 
denverpilot said:
The guidance is based in faulty thinking about airspeed and altitude. I think they're saying a lot of pilots have that faulty thinking so they might as well extend out and fiddle around flying back to the airport for five miles. Maybe they'll not wreck if they have a ten minute final. Hahaha.
Click to expand...

You are exaggerating the guidance to the point of absurdity. No one is taking about 5 to 10 mile finals. That would be 10 to 20 times the normal length. While open to interpretation, an increase of 25% or so might be reasonable, not 2,000%.
 
dmspilot said:
You are exaggerating the guidance to the point of absurdity. No one is taking about 5 to 10 mile finals. That would be 10 to 20 times the normal length. While open to interpretation, an increase of 25% or so might be reasonable, not 2,000%.
Click to expand...

Why? Just fly a normal pattern. There's literally no reason you can't make a short field landing out of a normal pattern.
 
Ravioli said:
Did I miss something? I thought the thread was about WIDER pattern.
Click to expand...

If what folks said the book says is correct, above, you did. They had a babble up there about "widening base" vs "widening downwind" already.

Anyway. The thread went sideways from the poorly written doc.

Anyone with a brain can easily tell that flying a normal sized pattern and making a short field landing out of it, is infinitely possible. If it weren't we all wouldn't be able to do power off 180s and survive.

In fact, our ground reference maneuvers teach us to modify the pattern for wind, not altitude and power. Unless, you have no power. Then you'd better turn closer to the runway in a strong headwind landing, or modify the base to final turn for crosswinds blowing at you or past the runway from the base perspective.

All pretty normal as taught by any book. That FAA "recommends" going further out is nice, but unnecessary. If you can't make a normal sized pattern and still slow a typical trainer single to make a short field landing, you're not trying very hard. You're only trying to slow from 1.3 Vso to 1.2 Vso per their guidance.

These guys above who are arguing over the guidance clearly haven't thought very hard about it. Can't knock off 6 knots flying a normal pattern?

Seriously? Give me a break. Stick the flaps out five seconds sooner. Sheesh.
 
Sounds like the AFH recommendation is more about stabilizing the final so you don't end up too steep.

Hopefully it's obvious that clearing an obstacle shouldn't require a flatter-than-normal approach, so my guess is that they're assuming the need for a little more time to get the new sight picture down and recommending a "training technique" without stating it as such.
 
denverpilot said:
Just fly a normal pattern. There's literally no reason you can't make a short field landing out of a normal pattern.
Click to expand...

I do, but how I fly is irrelevant. I'm not a student pilot that's been flying less than two months.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
I do, but how I fly is irrelevant. I'm not a student pilot that's been flying less than two months.
Click to expand...

Which makes sense, since you weren't the OP and weren't asking. You also weren't arguing that the FAA book was some sort of amazing oracle of perfection, based on a false claim of more safety.

I'm sure you probably have no problem flying whatever sized pattern you like.

Fly the normal pattern, land short. That's a short field landing. Nothing all that rocket science about it. Not a big deal.

The OP's question showed that he was equating the pattern size with short field landings, and there's just no correlation. Thus, my response. Just fly a normal pattern and manage your airspeed. Land short. Done.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Sounds like the AFH recommendation is more about stabilizing the final so you don't end up too steep.

Hopefully it's obvious that clearing an obstacle shouldn't require a flatter-than-normal approach, so my guess is that they're assuming the need for a little more time to get the new sight picture down and recommending a "training technique" without stating it as such.
Click to expand...

The other thing to keep in mind is that the actual requirements for a short field are pretty clearly stated in the ACS nowadays.

The AFH is exactly as you state, training material and techniques. The hard requirements / standards are in the ACS.

And of course with the usual admonition that those are *minimum* standards. One can always fly better than the minimum standard.
 
unsafervguy said:
No way I would advocate flying an even wider pattern than the 747 patterns most people fly.
Click to expand...

Talked to three different instructors this weekend plus my own observations, who are wondering why as ATP has expanded their presence at KAPA that their 172s are making patterns miles bigger than anyone else.

Anyone done anything with ATP and have any idea why they're flying patterns that big?

They go well out past the road the airport has requested everyone turn base by, for noise abatement, by a LOOOOONG way. It's really annoying if you get stuck behind them doing laps on the T&G runway.

Even the tower just tells them "turn your base NOW" on a regular basis when they're wandering off to the north and the airport is landing south. It's weird how consistent it is.

Thus, I'm wondering if it's something about their training syllabus that's causing it.

Me, I'm always happy to hear, "make short approach" behind them as they wander northbound... hahaha. They'll cut us inside of them and I'm down and back up before they've even touched down.

What in the world are they doing? Anyone know?

They're going to stuff a Skyhawk into that neighborhood north of the airport sooner or later when they toss an engine, doing that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top