Turning Base

RoscoeT said:
Load an approach to avoid flying a regular VFR pattern at an unfamiliar airport?? Whatever happened to visually gauging your aircraft's glide angle below the horizon and turning base when it looks right? The sight picture is the same at any airport, you don't need landmarks. Do you never fly into small private strips where you can't load an "approach"?
Click to expand...
Apparently that's where all these straight in VFR guys come from.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Well, the sight picture is different sometimes. Terrain, buildings, etc. can make an unfamiliar airport difficult to spot if you've already descended to near TPA. For me, the best course of action is to overfly the airport and get my bearings.
Click to expand...

OK fair enough but c'mon...how many airports have you flown into where the runway is hidden from view from the downwind abeam numbers position? Not many. We're not generally talking bush ops where a strip is carved into the jungle on the side of a mountain.
 
ateamer said:
The best way to prevent a skidding turn, though, is to stay ahead of the plane, and stay coordinated.
Click to expand...
The problem is you can easily lose sight of the ball if you get distracted. The landing pattern is a really good place to get distracted, and we humans are distractible by nature. There's a reason I always drop my gear well before I hit the pattern. If you're close, just enough time to check traffic off your right and then turn final, things happening fast and you see something off, you could loose the ball in a second. Heck, you're supposed to have your eyes out in in the pattern anyway, right?

Now if I lose my engine while landing, I have lots and lots of options, and just a bit of time to figure through them. And I don't really have to make the runway, so long as I make the airport environment I'm going to be OK. But by all means, you do you.
 
I like to keep the runway within 10 miles off my shoulder, then turn base, if I can still see the runway, the turn was too tight .... JUST KIDDING! I fly an RV! It's power off 180 straight to the numbers or over head break just to **** everyone off <kidding on the over head as well>;):)
 
Shepherd said:
They used to teach "pull the power at the numbers, and manage your energy so you can make it to the runway". That fell out of favor at least twenty years ago. Maybe longer.
I do agree that very long finals are a "thing" lately.
Maybe it's a stabilized approach thing? "This is what a stabilized approach looks and feels like. Now let's try to shorten it a little every time we fly it?"
Any instructors want to chime in?
Click to expand...
I'm glad I learned "back in the day". Though my only engine outage was on takeoff.
 
steingar said:
The problem is you can easily lose sight of the ball if you get distracted. The landing pattern is a really good place to get distracted, and we humans are distractible by nature. There's a reason I always drop my gear well before I hit the pattern. If you're close, just enough time to check traffic off your right and then turn final, things happening fast and you see something off, you could loose the ball in a second. Heck, you're supposed to have your eyes out in in the pattern anyway, right?

Now if I lose my engine while landing, I have lots and lots of options, and just a bit of time to figure through them. And I don't really have to make the runway, so long as I make the airport environment I'm going to be OK. But by all means, you do you.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, aerodynamically, it's not possible to stall a plane using only bank angle or by being uncoordinated, and it's impossible to spin a plane without stalling it first. It's not the angle of bank that's the problem. It's pulling back to keep from descending while in that bank, thus exceeding the critical angle of attack. It would be just as easy to do this with too low of a power setting in a shallow bank if you're attempting to stop a descent by increasing angle of attack.

If you're really going to enter an unrecoverable stall and spin by being distracted/uncoordinated for one second, your plane must be very aerodynamically unstable. I don't know of a single plane that stalls and spins that fast unless you're already at the minimum controllable speed and just barely not exceeding the critical angle of attack. Is there really an airplane that can stall and spin that fast in a normal, stabilized traffic pattern?

And I would much rather take the chance of a stall-spin after forgetting everything I was ever taught about how aerodynamics work in exchange for being within gliding distance to a runway should I for any reason need to glide down to it. If I have a runway in vicinity, I'd sure prefer to use it! :)
 
steingar said:
The problem is you can easily lose sight of the ball if you get distracted. The landing pattern is a really good place to get distracted, and we humans are distractible by nature. There's a reason I always drop my gear well before I hit the pattern. If you're close, just enough time to check traffic off your right and then turn final, things happening fast and you see something off, you could loose the ball in a second. Heck, you're supposed to have your eyes out in in the pattern anyway, right?

Now if I lose my engine while landing, I have lots and lots of options, and just a bit of time to figure through them. And I don't really have to make the runway, so long as I make the airport environment I'm going to be OK. But by all means, you do you.
Click to expand...

That’s what my ass is for (when I can’t stare at the ball).

It’s not the bank angle that will kill you. It’s several things piled up that will.

When I teach emergency descents (which are done at 45-ish degrees of bank, why don’t we die? We lower the nose. No more scary critical angle of attack.

As for how wide a downwind and when to turn base? Like all things... “it depends”. Strong tailwind on downwind? I’m turning base well before 45 degrees from the numbers. In my old Cherokee Six with a glide profile of a ham & cheese sandwich? I’m flying a tight pattern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
steingar said:
The problem is you can easily lose sight of the ball if you get distracted. The landing pattern is a really good place to get distracted, and we humans are distractible by nature. There's a reason I always drop my gear well before I hit the pattern. If you're close, just enough time to check traffic off your right and then turn final, things happening fast and you see something off, you could loose the ball in a second. Heck, you're supposed to have your eyes out in in the pattern anyway, right?

Now if I lose my engine while landing, I have lots and lots of options, and just a bit of time to figure through them. And I don't really have to make the runway, so long as I make the airport environment I'm going to be OK. But by all means, you do you.
Click to expand...
The ball is a great training aid, but a pilot should be able to stay coordinated with eyes outside.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Larry in TN said:
<snip>

Tight patterns are nice and efficient but students grow up to be pilots and pilots take passengers flying. Tight patterns, with power-off base/final, are not comfortable for new flyers. Don't want to scare them all off after their first flight with a relatively new pilot.
Click to expand...

Taught well, tight patterns don't have to be and should not be uncomfortable for passengers. The issue I often see is pilot throw out the brakes (Flaps) and then step on the Gas (throttle) to get the descent angle they want. I recommend less flaps and less power and a nice approach to the runway for normal landings. The less flaps also makes a steeper approach with less nose down attitude (more comfortable). Most airplanes land easier with less flaps anyway, especially power off. Most of our single engine airplanes wont' glide down a 3 degree glide path, so it is usually better to be a bit higher than that. Some airplanes do come down so fast that it power off approaches are uncomfortable and do require some power. Out of the 108 types of aircraft I have flown I can only remember 2 that wouldn't do a nice power off approach. I find a number of pilots that insist on power on, full flap long final landings typically suck at the energy management required for emergency approaches (power failure) or Power off 180's. I have personally seen 3 airplanes at our airport (in the last 30 years) miss the runway after a power failure from the pattern. Checking NTSB reports you can find quite a few more.

Landing with less flaps also require learning the relationships between Power, Drag(flaps), and Airspeed. Change one you often have to change another to make nice approaches. If you are floating you have to much energy (power or airspeed) for the airplane configuration,. If you are dropping it in then you have to little energy. If you are ballooning you probably just need to improve your energy management skills for that last 10 feet of altitude. Power off 180's are great practice for that energy management close to the ground.

Long finals are generally frowned on when flying skydivers and towing gliders where faster turn around is more people flying, lower cost, and more revenue.

The power on/vs power off(low power) approaches debate as been around for well over 22 years. When I started instructing I pretty much had to decide how I was going to teach it. The deciding factor for me was much of my instructing was being done in old Taildraggers (7AC) and rental aircraft. I decided it was very easy to see me spending 6-8 hours a day the traffic pattern. My chances of a power failure in the pattern were higher than the average pilot. I don't usually teach a full power off approachs in most airplanes, usually I teach be configured for landing abeam your touchdown point and reducing the power to less than 1500 RPM. Then fly the approach to make sure I will land within 1000 feet of runway. Preferably the only configuration change will be reducing power to idle somewhere between 50-100 ft AGl. Teaching traffic patterns where we can make the runway pretty much any time from the time we turn downwind to touchdown not only reduces my risk should a power failure occur, but also teaches me and my student the energy management skills needed for the 1 time a power failure might happen, Or 84 times it might happen, Plug for the book Adventures of an Idaho Mountain pilot. Thanks Harold it is a Great Book.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Arnold said:
That will work at home aerodrome, but not at an unfamiliar airport. For that reason, when I taught I always taught to use aircraft based references to arrange your pattern.
Click to expand...
The other option is to pick your references as you're approaching the airport, e.g. "that highway looks about the right distance for turning downwind."
 
FastEddieB said:
Low wings block aircraft on final even more so.
Click to expand...
Low wings drop out of the way when you're turning; high wings drop into your way and block your view of where you're turning to.

The main place low wings are an issue is if you're decending right on top of someone else — not much chance of seeing them then (I remember reading that a lot of midairs on final occur with a high wing below and a low wing above).
 
FastEddieB said:
Just checked. This video has me trying out a rounded pattern, followed by a normal one. In this particular normal pattern my base seems to be about 10 seconds, which feels about right and not rushed at all.


Having tried “circular patterns”, I’m not yet a fan - I like that straight and level “pause” on base to look around and judge how things are going.
Click to expand...
After watching that I am ready for a nap.
 
Jeff767 said:
The Navy long ago found that long finals do not make for better landings. The standard Navy carrier pattern has the final intercept just inside one mile with 18 seconds of flight time to touchdown.
Click to expand...

that makes intuitive sense to me... I fly tight in and if I’m not extending a downwind for others I call “base to final” as one call and bring her around wings Level by the time I cross the fence. Sometimes she needs a lil slip to hit the numbers... And I find those landings as good or better than when I do straight ins and have been lined up for 10 minutes...
 
steingar said:
I fly a loose pattern that drives CFIs nuts. My thinking is that there are way more stall/spin accidents in the pattern than engine out mishaps.
Click to expand...
Well yes, perhaps for those of you who don’t know how to turn correctly.
But, large patterns can also cause other issues.
 
RoscoeT said:
Load an approach to avoid flying a regular VFR pattern at an unfamiliar airport?? Whatever happened to visually gauging your aircraft's glide angle below the horizon and turning base when it looks right? The sight picture is the same at any airport, you don't need landmarks. Do you never fly into small private strips where you can't load an "approach"?
Click to expand...

I usually fly in Charlies or Deltas, nice long paved and wide runways. Normally I fly with an instructor but I remember my solo xc I basically missed the airport, thankfully they were nice about it but I also called it in too. For new pilots it’s difficult to find the airport, at least for me. With an approach you can’t really miss it. Experience is key but also good to have a supplement to verify you’re on track.
 
I was also taught the 45 degree method and that works great when the traffic in the pattern is light but often at my airport on the weekend tower will ask to extend downwind or slow down to allow for departures. In this scenario reducing power at the numbers on downwind doesn't work.
 
As the OP I wanted to add one point. I am not discussing towered airports or airports with 10 aircraft in the pattern. My observation of huge patterns is at uncontrolled airports with just me and the other aircraft in the pattern. Now and then there might be a third aircraft. I am pondering just turning a proper base and landing ahead of them as it will have zero effect on their pattern.
 
My Flight Instructor career started at Burnside-Ott at Opa Locka, FL. It made that airport one of the busiest in the country in terms of total operations - enough so that we often had to go to a reliever airport, Opa Locka West, when the pattern at Opa Locka filled up.

I would point out to my students that if traffic was tending to drag them farther from the airport than they’d like, the ideal would be to just stop the plane while the other planes ahead in the pattern completed their patterns and then continue. But since we couldn’t actually stop, what’s the next best thing? Slow down as much as possible, by dropping flaps and going into slow flight as soon as possible. If still being forced wide, hang onto pattern altitude as long as possible to have the best chance of making the airport boundary if the engine quit. I hope that mental exercise helped.
 
NHWannabe said:
I was also taught the 45 degree method and that works great when the traffic in the pattern is light but often at my airport on the weekend tower will ask to extend downwind or slow down to allow for departures. In this scenario reducing power at the numbers on downwind doesn't work.
Click to expand...
MBDiagMan said:
Then, when you have to make adjustments for traffic.... make adjustments for traffic.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We're talking about normal circumstances. If you are asked to extend then obviously the 45 doesn't apply.
 
I guess I’m on the other end. I was with an instructor yesterday being shown the maneuvers for the commercial. On my power off 180 to land, I was maybe 400 yards horizontal from the runway on downwind. Instructor thought I was pretty close in, but he had never flown one of those planes, and told me to do what I felt comfortable with. I like to get slowed down on downwind (if there is no traffic), so I’m doing 80 at pattern altitude when I chop the power. One continuous bank around from downwind to final, some flaps along the way and right on target.
I fly almost exclusively in the mountains and back country, normal patterns are unusual, and many times impossible.
I got carb ice on downwind once, made me a firm believer in a downwind close enough to that with a loss of power that I can make it to the runway.
 
Jeff767 said:
As the OP I wanted to add one point. I am not discussing towered airports or airports with 10 aircraft in the pattern. My observation of huge patterns is at uncontrolled airports with just me and the other aircraft in the pattern. Now and then there might be a third aircraft. I am pondering just turning a proper base and landing ahead of them as it will have zero effect on their pattern.
Click to expand...

Sure, it can be done safely. The bigger challenge is convincing the pilot ahead that you're not "cutting them off". I faced this at my last airport which did lots of flight training with B-52 patterns. My Pitts could slip like a rock around the corner from downwind to the numbers, so if I was behind a Cessna on a x-country downwind with no other traffic between them and the runway, I'd often make a call on the radio that I was turning a short base to final, that I had them in sight, and that I'd be out of their way and no factor. I was generally well into my taxi back to the hangar before they turned final. Most of them learned to be fine with this. But if pilots in the pattern are not accustomed to people doing this, they are probably going to get a little upset, thinking you "cut them off" even though you may not have come within a half mile of them and they never even saw you. Just communicate and use good judgment.
 
whifferdill said:
Sure, it can be done safely. The bigger challenge is convincing the pilot ahead that you're not "cutting them off". I faced this at my last airport which did lots of flight training with B-52 patterns.
Click to expand...

One of my biggest pet peeves. I'm on downwind and another plane is on downwind at least another half a mile to a mile outside of me. Like you said, them thinking you are cutting them off is the problem.
 
ateamer said:
The ball is a great training aid, but a pilot should be able to stay coordinated with eyes outside.
Click to expand...

But why? When the G1000 EFIS screens with ADS-B traffic & weather in puppy mill trainers look so pretty and more like the video game they just finished? :confused:
 
We have a Waco biplane flying sightseeing tours all day out of our airport. When the other circuit traffic permits, the pilot just calls "BaseFinal 27" abeam the threshold, cuts power, and does a 180° to a wheel landing and a quick turnaround for the next revenue flight.
 
Before the FAA had the rule changed allowing non-complex aircraft to be used for the commercial check-ride, many pilots soon realized how close in the pattern needed to be to successfully execute the power off 180 spot landing. The arrow I was flying dropped like a rock with the motor in idle. It would be worse with the motor off.
 
apr911 said:
2.5NM is probably a bit of an exaggeration for how far out I'd teach my students. I kind of borrowed 2.5NM from one of comments about a someone calling "short final" 3NM out but agreed that seemed a bit far even for the the point I was trying to make so I split the difference between what the calculator says a wings level at 500-600AGL, 3 degree glideslope "normal" final should be and that, ending up with 2.5NM. In reality 2NM is probably about the widest I'd be willing to tolerate from even a beginning student without a darn good reason (e.g. traffic ahead).

Ignoring the actual distance involved for a moment, understand that I was trying to illustrate the point that in high traffic scenarios with many planes in the pattern, a wider pattern with normal final distance isn't lazy but rather good judgement compared with flying a normal tight pattern and having to extend way long of the runway.

Again I was trying to sufficiently illustrate the point while not getting stuck in the weeds about what constituted a wide/long pattern vs a tight pattern. Clearly I failed to do that since we're still discussing exactly that... I blame any ambiguity on the OP for not defining what he considers an "engine-out B52 pattern" which is somewhat contradictory while complaining about long patterns... I kid I kid. Seriously though, read through the comments and its clear there is no "accepted" distance to fly your pattern and what constitutes wide or long or both for one person might be normal for someone else. About as close as I think we can get for guidance is the circling radius of 1.3-1.4NM for a CAT A approach.




Regarding the specifics of a "normal downwind" being 1/2 mile from the runway? I'd say it could be depending on your plane but I'd say that's probably really tight for most GA. At 30 degree bank and 70kts, a 180-degree downwind to final turn will take you 1500ft or 0.25NM... Which leaves about 10 seconds for base with no wind.

I'm usually a decent bit faster on downwind (90) and base (80) which increases the turn radius/diameter and that's still assuming your 30 degree turns are "tight" and on point going right to 30 degrees and holding it there to the 90 degree point in your turn. If you roll into it more slowly and/or roll out of it slowly with maybe a lift of the wing to check your position in the turn, you'll eat up more of that time... Which does not leave a lot of time to level, take in the site picture, reconfigure (2nd notch of flaps, trim, airspeed), descend another 200-300ft (somewhere around 40-45 seconds at 70kts and 3-degree glideslope) and make a radio call out, even as a competent pilot, let alone a student pilot.

Sure you can do some of this in the turn or more aggressively (a 6-degree glideslope at 70kts is a 700fpm descent which puts you right around that 10-15 second base mark) but its still tight.

Its been awhile so I'm having a hard time picturing the TLAR sight picture I look for and its not like I have some hard and fast rule of "I fly a pattern x miles from the runway" but looking at my track logs for my last couple of flights in which I did pattern work in PA28's and measuring the distance, my typical base leg was somewhere around 0.7 and 1 NM between downwind/final tracks depending on the wind. I did not have any significantly shorter than than 4000ft (0.66NM) with my widest pattern being around 1.1-1.2NM. Most of those were practice power-off 180-descents for my CPL too; not that having power should change my pattern but if there were ever a time you were going to cheat inward towards a tighter pattern, it'd be when you know a power failure is coming...

That being said, I'd say planes and airport particulars matter too. The pattern and landmarks I used to fly in the Citabria at my local drome when I lived out in California is permanently etched in my memory and was a good bit tighter than what I usually fly. I was coming wings level on final at 0.25NM from the runway threshold, my base leg would be 0.5-0.6NM from the runway threshold and my downwind was between 0.25 and 0.5NM from the runway centerline... There were geographical, obstacle and noise abatement reasons for the higher, tighter pattern and of course efficiency was the name of that game as a tailwheel, somewhat remarkably (sarcasm), flies almost exactly as a trike in the air so it was takeoff and landings we needed. In that plane there were no flaps, no transition to manage, a super simple though coarse trim control and we were pretty much chopping power close to mid-field and then adding power back in to manage descent rate once we got the airspeed dialed in.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the Citabria I did my ab. Initially in. KRHV? Amelia Reid Aviation?
 
ateamer said:
The ball is a great training aid, but a pilot should be able to stay coordinated with eyes outside./QUOTE]

In general yes but when at low altitude and flying on reference to ground based objects it's very easy to get uncoordinated. Not just a noobie thing either, happens to seasoned pilots all the time. Think of "moose stall" for one example.
Click to expand...
 
To pilots who don’t understand it, the ball is fool’s gold. Limiting students to 20 degrees bank suggests instructors who either don’t know how to turn or, don’t know how to teach someone to turn. Don’t believe me, take one of them flying in an airplane like a Cub, T-craft or Luscombe and watch what happens when they attempt a turn. Hard to blame them when none of the spate of current trainer aircraft require stick and rudder skills. I often turn from base to final inside the blast fence (an eighth mile or so). Even in a jet a mile final is sufficient so long as you’re on altitude.
 
PaulS said:
Yes, the ball just needs quick glances generally, it's not a focus on it instrument.
Click to expand...
True, but for that matter, no instrument is a focus-on instrument. In VMC, your eyes need to be outside the window most of the time; in IMC, they need to be scanning continuously, without stopping on anything (even the AI, or the CDI in an instrument approach) for more than a second.
 
Crashnburn said:
Sounds like the Citabria I did my ab. Initially in. KRHV? Amelia Reid Aviation?
Click to expand...

The pattern at RHV is pretty tight out of necessity, due to all the surrounding noise sensitive areas and SJC's final approach path.

By measuring the distance on Google Earth, it looks like no more than 1/2 mile on downwind.
 
David Megginson said:
We have a Waco biplane flying sightseeing tours all day out of our airport. When the other circuit traffic permits, the pilot just calls "BaseFinal 27" abeam the threshold, cuts power, and does a 180° to a wheel landing and a quick turnaround for the next revenue flight.
Click to expand...

We had several skydiving planes working from our airport not so many years ago. It was understood that those pilots were there to get up and get down as quick as possible. It was wise to just keep them in sight and stay outta the way as there was no way they were gonna fly a pattern behind anything plugging along at 70 IAS.

Mostly the pilots were respectful but as always there were a few cowboys in the group. Saw one put a beautiful Pilatus Porter PC-6 on its nose from hard braking after landing. Sad thing to witness ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top