I'll call your base

[MetalCloud]

What's your method abeam the numbers? You indicated you never use tach (ASI only). Seems like you'd be chasing speed as you reduce throttle to try and hit a "target" speed ...

Let's say TPA is 1000ft, I'm in a 182, and I have the pattern to myself. I'll typically be at 80kts with 10 degrees of flappage on downwind. I'll pull the power just after abeam the numbers. At which point it's about airspeed management. If I need power, I add it.

I've just gone more by feel and judgement than by the book prescriptions.

EDIT: even if extending downwind, I'll just manage airspeed and altitude appropriately. So while I prefer power-off landings, I realize they can't always be done. So even on base / final I'm not looking at RPM. Just managing airspeed and judging altitude.

Anyway. Not sure why I'm so chatty today

 

[FastEddieB]

True confessions time...

I totally get how consistent power settings can help standardize patterns and approaches. Cirrus training makes a big deal about it. I'm sure professional crews adhere to them pretty tightly, and that's a good thing.

But in both my (prior) Cirrus and Sky Arrow, I'm pretty "loosey-goosey" about power settings in the pattern. Once I'm familiar with a plane, abeam the numbers I just pull the power back until it feels right - I know from the sound and throttle movement when the reduction seems appropriate. Bear in mind my power reduction is usually quite substantial, often to at or near idle.

Not recommending this, just saying what works well for me. If I had a student, I would definitely give him power settings to shoot for in the pattern.

 

[denverpilot]

Hmm. I've had two ASI failures, and zero tach failures.

Anyone should be able to fly a reasonably speed-consistent pattern in an airplane they're familiar with, without looking inside at anything.

Must get in touch with your ears, butt, and control feel, grasshopper. (And if you aren't trimmed to fly hands off, you'll never notice if the controls are sloppy and you're slow, or tight and you're fast...)

Get a few hours in a glider and your ears will be in the game. Big time.

Get a few hours in a taildragger and your feet will be in the game too, of course.

I set power by numbers for gross changes because I know what speed it will end up at -- after the airplane decelerates -- if all is nominal.

In an airplane I know well in the pattern? Looking outside mostly.

You can hear and feel it getting slow or fast.

I cross check occasionally against the ASI for target speeds in each leg of the pattern. In the 182 it's 85 downwind at descent, 75 base, 65 final, 55 once over the fence. Four glances at ASI. Don't really need anything more.

One power adjustment to start down, one more on short final. That's usually all that's needed if I fly the pattern correctly.

No need to make it difficult though. Look outside, "fly the airplane normally while descending and slowing a bit" is really all you're doing for downwind descent, base, and turning final. Don't make it into rocket science in your head.

Final to landing, you're operating nearer to limits as you continue to slow so a peek or three at the ASI isn't going to hurt. But again, it really shouldn't be all that necessary.

Now in the twin it has to be fly-by-numbers, because there are some flight speeds you can get yourself into that really you shouldn't be at. I have a feel for the sound and butt and control feel thing in it now, but you really need to watch and use some known power setting numbers anyway to alleviate setting up a bad trend.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Hmm. I've had two ASI failures, and zero tach failures.

Anyone should be able to fly a reasonably speed-consistent pattern in an airplane they're familiar with, without looking inside at anything.

Must get in touch with your ears, butt, and control feel, grasshopper. (And if you aren't trimmed to fly hands off, you'll never notice if the controls are sloppy and you're slow, or tight and you're fast...)

Get a few hours in a glider and your ears will be in the game. Big time.

Get a few hours in a taildragger and your feet will be in the game too, of course.

I set power by numbers for gross changes because I know what speed it will end up at -- after the airplane decelerates -- if all is nominal.

In an airplane I know well in the pattern? Looking outside mostly.

You can hear and feel it getting slow or fast.

I cross check occasionally against the ASI for target speeds in each leg of the pattern. In the 182 it's 85 downwind at descent, 75 base, 65 final, 55 once over the fence. Four glances at ASI. Don't really need anything more.

One power adjustment to start down, one more on short final. That's usually all that's needed if I fly the pattern correctly.

No need to make it difficult though. Look outside, "fly the airplane normally while descending and slowing a bit" is really all you're doing for downwind descent, base, and turning final. Don't make it into rocket science in your head.

Final to landing, you're operating nearer to limits as you continue to slow so a peek or three at the ASI isn't going to hurt. But again, it really shouldn't be all that necessary.

Now in the twin it has to be fly-by-numbers, because there are some flight speeds you can get yourself into that really you shouldn't be at. I have a feel for the sound and butt and control feel thing in it now, but you really need to watch and use some known power setting numbers anyway to alleviate setting up a bad trend.

Excellent post. Especially about being able to fly a stable descent profile visually. I don't even solo a student until he has landed with the ASI covered and often include a no ASI landing when I give flight reviews. I came across this for the first time when it was done to me during a checkout in a new-to-me type and thought it was a great exercise.

 

[denverpilot]

Excellent post. Especially about being able to fly a stable descent profile visually. I don't even solo a student until he has landed with the ASI covered and often include a no ASI landing when I give flight reviews. I came across this for the first time when it was done to me during a checkout in a new-to-me type and thought it was a great exercise.

My initial CFI just threw his jacket over the whole instrument panel and said, "Too much flight sim for you... Look outside. Are you getting slower or faster? Are you descending or level? This is *V*FR... emphasis on the V..." Heh. Etc...

It was post-solo, but he hadn't recognized how much I was looking inside yet. But he wasn't going to let me get away with it once he noticed. Heh.

 

[midlifeflyer]

My initial CFI just threw his jacket over the whole instrument panel and said, "Too much flight sim for you... Look outside. Are you getting slower or faster? Are you descending or level? This is *V*FR... emphasis on the V..." Heh. Etc...

It was post-solo, but he hadn't recognized how much I was looking inside yet. But he wasn't going to let me get away with it once he noticed. Heh.

My intro was getting checked out in a Tiger for the first time at an FBO that had a renter overshoot the runway on landing with it. The Tiger has many of the flight characteristics of a Mooney, especially the need for proper airspeed on approach.

On downwind for one of the landings, he covered the panel with a newspaper. On short final, he lifted it so I could see how close I came (which a later student of mine referred to as, "and the mystery airspeed is....."

 

[denverpilot]

On downwind for one of the landings, he covered the panel with a newspaper. On short final, he lifted it so I could see how close I came (which a later student of mine referred to as, "and the mystery airspeed is....."

It's like the Price is Right only backwards... "The person who can get the closest without going under is..." Ding ding ding ding! Haha.