Let's talk traffic patterns...

O

OrangeCountyAviation

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 19, 2015
Messages
47
Location
Irvine, CA
Display Name
Display name:
OCAviation
Before I start I want to say that I know this link was posted on another thread, but I want to go in a more detailed discussion about it and dissect what happened.

http://youtu.be/CZydrXAq2pY

I do not know the circumstances that led to the engine failure. What I do know is that it was an instructional flight and inbound to SNA. Another detail I know is that this road is adjacent to the airport on the west side.

What I want to talk about is how traffic patterns are treated. I fly them pretty tightly, and my flight school teaches to always be within glide of the runways when you can help it. Being too low on your pattern would result in a flunk of a stage check at my school.

The idea is that if your engine quit you will always be able to glide to the runways (makes sense, right?). I get uneasy when I see pilots flying 1.5 mile patterns and they are only 800 AGL way out there. My style of flying takes the concept even further. I'll be over 4,000 AGL a few miles out and use an aggressive slip to get down as I get closer.

Anyway, I just thought it's too bad that this plane landed on an adjacent road instead of making sure they could make the airport. Again, I don't know what the emergency was, so if it was something beyond their control then so be it. The most important thing as that both people are ok and uninjured.

I want to discuss the way we treat altitude in single engine airplanes, especially in the vicinity of the airport and in the traffic pattern. What's your take?

P.S. As a little footnote I want to add that this airplane happens to be in my logbook. It drops like a brick without power, so emphasizing glide in that Cherokee 140 would be even more important IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Well, I try to fly at TPA while doing pattern work, but if I'm enroute to an airport, I stay as high as I can, as long as I can. I don't put myself in a position to force it down with an aggressive slip as a normal habit, but I'll plan to start a descent at about 500-800 FPM far enough out from the airport so that I'll be at or slightly above TPA when I get there.

I fly a Cherokee 180 and it does drop a LOT more than the 172/162's I've flown but I think that actually helps me keep a tight pattern.

I remember when I did my PPL check-ride and I was doing shorts/softs at a grass field. I was flying a larger than usual pattern and the DPE said, could you make the field if your engine quit here? I said, I don't know. His response was, then why are you out here? Since then I've really tightened up patterns.

Also, I've gotten into the habit of pulling the power abeam on downwind. That forces me to keep a tight pattern, really work the airspeed and is a constant simulation of an engine out situation.
 
I have also gotten in the habit of doing power off landings any time I can. It forces a tighter pattern and keeps those dead stick skills sharp.

Here's a step even further. If I am number 2 or more in the pattern and they are flying a big one, I will extend my legs with flight at MCA rather than distance. If I have to go out farther I will start a climb.
 
People who fly wide jet style traffic patterns didn't used to bother me that much until I started flying the biplane. I'd be turning downwind and then see some flight school clown three times the distance between me and the runway out to my right. I'm like 'I ain't going that far out just to follow you in'!
 
I fly a Cessna 140. I fly a pretty close pattern, often 1/2 the distance from the runway as other planes do at my airport. I routinely make my radio calls as, "Taylor Traffic, Cessna XXX, close-in right downwind for runway 17.
 
My friend asked me about this off-airport landing the other day, specifically wondering how far away it was. I made this quick little diagram showing him where the Piper Cherokee landed and the somewhat tighter pattern that I might have flown assuming that tower didn't extend me into the next county.

The yellow arrow is where the plane landed on Redhill, and then rolled across the intersection with McGaw. The YouTube video was taken from a vehicle traveling southwest on McGaw, at the intersection with Redhill. Google Earth shows this landing spot to be about 7,500 feet from the threshhold.

The red arrows are a narrower pattern, but I certainly see lots of planes fly MUCH wider and longer patterns. The base to final is angled because SNA requires a 15 degree offset due to the parallel runway used by commercial traffic.

There isn't a huge difference, but certainly something to think about.

Redhill_McGaw_Landing.jpg
 
register@teamandras.com said:
My friend asked me about this off-airport landing the other day, specifically wondering how far away it was. I made this quick little diagram showing him where the Piper Cherokee landed and the somewhat tighter pattern that I might have flown assuming that tower didn't extend me into the next county.

The yellow arrow is where the plane landed on Redhill, and then rolled across the intersection with McGaw. The YouTube video was taken from a vehicle traveling southwest on McGaw, at the intersection with Redhill. Google Earth shows this landing spot to be about 7,500 feet from the threshhold.

The red arrows are a narrower pattern, but I certainly see lots of planes fly MUCH wider and longer patterns. The base to final is angled because SNA requires a 15 degree offset due to the parallel runway used by commercial traffic.

There isn't a huge difference, but certainly something to think about.

Redhill_McGaw_Landing.jpg
Click to expand...
You have to remember - at a busy tower controlled airport, the pilot does not necessarily dictate the size of the traffic pattern. Yes, the pilot has some choice in how wide the pattern is, but your downwind-base turn is often dictated by tower and varies depending on other traffic.

So, tight patterns can help mitigate, but there are not a 100% assurance that you can avoid an off airport landing.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You have to remember - at a busy tower controlled airport, the pilot does not necessarily dictate the size of the traffic pattern. Yes, the pilot has some choice in how wide the pattern is, but your downwind-base turn is often dictated by tower and varies depending on other traffic.

So, tight patterns can help mitigate, but there are not a 100% assurance that you can avoid an off airport landing.
Click to expand...

Hey, I remembered! :yes:

After all, I referenced "... the somewhat tighter pattern that I might have flown assuming that tower didn't extend me into the next county."
 
I think focusing on the runway as the only landable surface in the event of an engine failure has killed a fair number of people. This event simply reinforces the idea to me that there are other viable emegency landing sites, and that being aware of their existence and the willingness to use them is good for safety.
 
Fearless Tower said:
You have to remember - at a busy tower controlled airport, the pilot does not necessarily dictate the size of the traffic pattern. Yes, the pilot has some choice in how wide the pattern is, but your downwind-base turn is often dictated by tower and varies depending on other traffic.

So, tight patterns can help mitigate, but there are not a 100% assurance that you can avoid an off airport landing.
Click to expand...

Very, very true. For me, if I want to do pattern practice I almost never do it at my home field anymore. Had no choice when I was a student, but now that I have my own plane and license, I go to pilot-controlled fields south or east of that.

Reason being is it's so busy during the times I fly I almost always get extended downwinds, 360s, etc. I guess I could ask for higher in those situations but I'm usually at TPA. I've been over the water at KSRQ on extended downwinds for runway 14 or 04 and there's hardly anything out there 'cept maybe a golf course or the water to go towards if the engine quit unexpectedly. The highways nearby are pretty congested and with all the poles no way would I want to risk that.
 
For pattern work, I keep it tight and my patterns are more like an oval than a square
 
register@teamandras.com said:
Hey, I remembered! :yes:

After all, I referenced "... the somewhat tighter pattern that I might have flown assuming that tower didn't extend me into the next county."
Click to expand...
Yeah.....many times on downwind for 28R at MYF, I've found myself dang near entering Gillespie's airspace before tower cleared me to turn base!
 
Fearless Tower said:
You have to remember - at a busy tower controlled airport, the pilot does not necessarily dictate the size of the traffic pattern. Yes, the pilot has some choice in how wide the pattern is, but your downwind-base turn is often dictated by tower and varies depending on other traffic.

So, tight patterns can help mitigate, but there are not a 100% assurance that you can avoid an off airport landing.
Click to expand...

While the tower does often call your base turn, the altitude at which I fly in the event of a leg extension is still up to me. There is no rule against doubling your TPA if you have to go twice as far out. The tower controller isn't the one at risk of an off airport landing, the pilot is. Too many people forget that.
 
OrangeCountyAviation said:
While the tower does often call your base turn, the altitude at which I fly in the event of a leg extension is still up to me. There is no rule against doubling your TPA if you have to go twice as far out. The tower controller isn't the one at risk of an off airport landing, the pilot is. Too many people forget that.
Click to expand...

I know that there are many folks on this forum that would disagree with the assertion that it's OK to climb above TPA when being extended, much less double it. There's a thread about this somewhere.
 
OrangeCountyAviation said:
While the tower does often call your base turn, the altitude at which I fly in the event of a leg extension is still up to me. There is no rule against doubling your TPA if you have to go twice as far out. The tower controller isn't the one at risk of an off airport landing, the pilot is. Too many people forget that.
Click to expand...
That is true, however the big point is that you can mitigate things by flying tighter patterns and adjusting altitude, but there are going to be times/situations that you can't make the field.

Mauleskinner has a good point. Don't be so fixated on getting back to the runway that you make a bad situation worse.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
My friend asked me about this off-airport landing the other day, specifically wondering how far away it was. I made this quick little diagram showing him where the Piper Cherokee landed and the somewhat tighter pattern that I might have flown assuming that tower didn't extend me into the next county.

The yellow arrow is where the plane landed on Redhill, and then rolled across the intersection with McGaw. The YouTube video was taken from a vehicle traveling southwest on McGaw, at the intersection with Redhill. Google Earth shows this landing spot to be about 7,500 feet from the threshhold.

The red arrows are a narrower pattern, but I certainly see lots of planes fly MUCH wider and longer patterns. The base to final is angled because SNA requires a 15 degree offset due to the parallel runway used by commercial traffic.

There isn't a huge difference, but certainly something to think about.

Redhill_McGaw_Landing.jpg
Click to expand...

Nice picture. I didn't know the exact location of the landing so this helps. I'd say about half the airplanes I've shared the pattern with are at risk of landing in the same spot with how far out they go. All for a measly 2,800 foot runway.

As far as the red arrows go, my base turn is done at about half that distance. Also depending on parallel landing traffic I'll chop the power and slip it in so I don't even have to worry about their wake. I've had several too many sudden 45 degree angles of bank on short final here at SNA. Now if able I'll land before they even get close.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is true, however the big point is that you can mitigate things by flying tighter patterns and adjusting altitude, but there are going to be times/situations that you can't make the field.

Mauleskinner has a good point. Don't be so fixated on getting back to the runway that you make a bad situation worse.
Click to expand...

I understand that being fixated on just one spot can be harmful in some situations, but here in SoCal there are just not many options. You're either on airport or landing on a busy road, hopefully not hitting power lines or traffic lights. Not to mention other cars and people. I'm very glad it worked out for the guys in this particular case. They got to coast through a green light and had no other conflicts.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
I know that there are many folks on this forum that would disagree with the assertion that it's OK to climb above TPA when being extended, much less double it. There's a thread about this somewhere.
Click to expand...

I understand it can be a touchy subject. I'm fine extending and not climbing at somewhere like Tooele, UT, where there's nothing but flat fields surrounding the airport. It's just that here in SoCal you're over nothing but human beings so I believe it to be much riskier when flying low and extending a leg.
 
Thanks for the Diagram, if this was towered airport , he may have been doing a straight in or base entry. Do we having any information that says he was flying a downwind?

I do agree once on downwind, I like to be able to make the runway from that point on, but then I am also a glider pilot

Brian
 
MauleSkinner said:
I think focusing on the runway as the only landable surface in the event of an engine failure has killed a fair number of people. This event simply reinforces the idea to me that there are other viable emegency landing sites, and that being aware of their existence and the willingness to use them is good for safety.
Click to expand...

Fair point. I think the key is that you have to be thinking about where you're gonna put it down constantly. Where it kills people I think is when the engine fails and they didn't have a game plan in mind. That's when they go to the runway and miss.
 
OrangeCountyAviation said:
I understand that being fixated on just one spot can be harmful in some situations, but here in SoCal there are just not many options. You're either on airport or landing on a busy road, hopefully not hitting power lines or traffic lights. Not to mention other cars and people. I'm very glad it worked out for the guys in this particular case. They got to coast through a green light and had no other conflicts.
Click to expand...

There are lots of options around there. Just not everywhere.

There is a golf course southwest of the field, a "marsh" and other open space south and east, a BIG open space twice as far north as the broken aircraft landed (old Tustin Air Base), plus I-405, 55, and 73, all of which don't have overhanging traffic signals.

There are some urban airports with no good off airport options at all. KSNA is not one of them.

This guy had MANY fewer options, but still managed to land his airplane in the only open space available anywhere near him (except perhaps for a closer golf course behind him at the time of the failure). And as an early solo student pilot, no less. https://youtu.be/zFqDuFxZEZw
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
There are lots of options around there. Just not everywhere.

There is a golf course southwest of the field, a "marsh" and other open space south and east, a BIG open space twice as far north as the broken aircraft landed (old Tustin Air Base), plus I-405, 55, and 73, all of which don't have overhanging traffic signals.

There are some urban airports with no good off airport options at all. KSNA is not one of them.
Click to expand...

That golf course has a few too many trees for my liking. The marsh is good if you like water landings. The 55 and 405? Forget those. You would kill someone else if you didn't kill yourself (disclaimer, it depends on the time of day). 73 is decent if you're back over it that way. Old Tustin base is a good spot because it's flat and open, but it's one of those cases where it's "damn, they were so close to the airport, that sucks."
 
Last edited:
Uhhh...I don't know about bombing down from high-up, when real close to an airport, unless you have a glass bottomed airplane. Your call, of course, but I tend to be at or near pattern altitude as I get closer, even though I'm sure I wouldn't make the runway if the engine failed.

In a C-172, the prospect of a forced landing bothers me less than traffic at significantly different altitude's in close -at an uncontr4olled airport, of course.

In a 172, if you can find a flat spot the size of an average driveway, you'll probably walk (limp?) away. The mid-air worries me more.

YMMV.
 
Agree with Sundog. A midair is always less survivable than an engine failure. I teach my students to be at TPA at least 2-3 miles from the airport.
 
For me a good sweep of the area ahead, behind, and below solves that problem. For 20L at SNA the 45 degree entry is a few miles long, which gives plenty of time to make a couple of s-turns and clear the area below.

Edit: And yes there is a huge difference between uncontrolled and towered fields when it comes to this procedure. I'm less inclined to bomb slip down at an untowered airport. Luckily those tend to have more off airport landing options available than a towered field would.
 
Last edited:
I just don't understand people making up their own procedures and rules. The TPA is, well, the TPA. All of a sudden we have guys descending in the pattern flying a slow speed, quite possible cutting off the jets below them at the 1500 TPA, all because they want to do something their way vs the standard.

Flying in the pattern to be within gliding distance is nice and all, but to be consistent you would need to do that all the time (en route etc..).
 
Kritchlow said:
I just don't understand people making up their own procedures and rules. The TPA is, well, the TPA. All of a sudden we have guys descending in the pattern flying a slow speed, quite possible cutting off the jets below them at the 1500 TPA, all because they want to do something their way vs the standard.

Flying in the pattern to be within gliding distance is nice and all, but to be consistent you would need to do that all the time (en route etc..).
Click to expand...

Agreed. Early on, after I started flying the ILS on a 3 degree glide slope, I realized that I am hopelessly short of glide range to the airport (flying at Mach speed was not an option). And of course the en route part, esp. IMC or on top, rules out a guaranteed glide to a nice runway. So deal with it, this is (single engine) aviation!
Of course, if you spend all your flying in a VFR pattern, then maybe staying in glide range makes sense, but by that logic just stay on the ground, where you are always safe (relatively speaking).
 
If making up my own "rules" keeps me alive and on airport property then I'm doing it. That's kind of like saying people shouldn't establish their own visibility minimums because you're fine as long as you have 3SM or more.

And I do it all the time. (En route etc.)
 
RotorDude said:
Agreed. Early on, after I started flying the ILS on a 3 degree glide slope, I realized that I am hopelessly short of glide range to the airport (flying at Mach speed was not an option). And of course the en route part, esp. IMC or on top, rules out a guaranteed glide to a nice runway. So deal with it, this is (single engine) aviation!
Of course, if you spend all your flying in a VFR pattern, then maybe staying in glide range makes sense, but by that logic just stay on the ground, where you are always safe (relatively speaking).
Click to expand...

Hear that, everyone? Deal with the safety measures you've got instead of trying to improve on them!

You forgot to mention the part where I said "be within glide of a runway if you can help it. No I'm not going to make a runway 100% of the time, but you bet I will if I'm in an airport environment.
 
But don't jeopardize the system, and other airplanes, by making up your own rules.
 
OrangeCountyAviation said:
I'm keeping an eye out for them. I won't cut anyone off.
Click to expand...

I truly believe you wouldn't intentionally cut anyone off, but none of us are perfect. Following the standardized rules does bring us closer to that goal however.
 
Kritchlow said:
I truly believe you wouldn't intentionally cut anyone off, but none of us are perfect. Following the standardized rules does bring us closer to that goal however.
Click to expand...

It does. I'm not disagreeing with that.

It's just this plane was lucky to have a green light at a busy intersection to coast through. Imagine 20 seconds either side. It's about deciding to go with the written word or what would actually be a safer choice. In this case, altitude would have been nice.
 
OrangeCountyAviation said:
I understand it can be a touchy subject. I'm fine extending and not climbing at somewhere like Tooele, UT, where there's nothing but flat fields surrounding the airport. It's just that here in SoCal you're over nothing but human beings so I believe it to be much riskier when flying low and extending a leg.
Click to expand...

What worries me about what you're suggesting is that at most socal airports there is a separate pattern altitude for jets, and it's higher and wider than the pattern slower pistons fly. Climbing because you've been extended is putting yourself into the jet pattern, and causing a potential conflict. We just had a jet-piston mid air at brown and it wasn't pretty. If youre worried about your glide range stay at TPA and ask for 360s.
 
Keeping a tight pattern is a good idea.... But....

Motors can quit anywhere... Then what ?:dunno:
 
StinkBug said:
What worries me about what you're suggesting is that at most socal airports there is a separate pattern altitude for jets, and it's higher and wider than the pattern slower pistons fly. Climbing because you've been extended is putting yourself into the jet pattern, and causing a potential conflict. We just had a jet-piston mid air at brown and it wasn't pretty. If youre worried about your glide range stay at TPA and ask for 360s.
Click to expand...

Gotta have a game plan for each airport. At SNA jet traffic uses a separate runway and there is excellent effort to keep things apart.
 
brcase said:
Thanks for the Diagram, if this was towered airport , he may have been doing a straight in or base entry. Do we having any information that says he was flying a downwind?

I do agree once on downwind, I like to be able to make the runway from that point on, but then I am also a glider pilot

Brian
Click to expand...

I just listened to the LiveATC feed and he was flying a downwind. He was in left closed traffic, doing some pattern work on 20L.

He was following a helicopter, so tower extended his upwind, extended his downwind, and then had him do a right 360. Next, in a little exasperation while the helicopter was on a 2 mile final, the pilot asked to be shifted over to 20R. He evidently lost his engine while sliding over to the right.

Here's a partial transcript I typed up while listening to LiveATC (times are in Zulu, local time was 6:07 PM):

1:07:52
Cherokee 241, stay on your 15 degree upwind, you’re going to be following a helicopter on your left wing
Looking for that helicopter, 241

1:09:01
Cherokee 241, you can turn to the downwind now
We’re doing it, 241

1:09:12
Cherokee 241, extend downwind, I’ll call the base turn, traffic will be holding in position
241

1:10:34
Cherokee 241, make one right 360, you’re gaining on the helicopter
Right 360, 241

1:12:18
Cherokee 241 do you still have the helicopter off your left side in sight.
Yeah, we have, for a long time. Can we land 20R?
Cherokee 241, affirmative, just extend your base over to 20R, Runway 20R, clear to land, full stop only, I’ll get you back to the runway
Uh, no, we want to quit, so full stop, 20R, clear to land, 241
Cherokee 241, thanks, just pass behind the helicopter, caution wake turbulence, Phenom
241

1:14:29
Cherokee 241, say again
unintelligible
Cherokee 241, copy that, we’re sending somebody out to you right now, Redhill and MacArthur, standby, are you OK?
unintelligible
Cherokee 241, I meant physically, and we’ll send somebody over there as quickly as possible.
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
Keeping a tight pattern is a good idea.... But....

Motors can quit anywhere... Then what ?:dunno:
Click to expand...

I've said a couple times already that no I'm not going to make a runway at all times, but if I'm within an airport environment I'll make sure of it.

As far as the "then what?" goes, my answer is to always have a game plan as to where you're gonna put it when the engine quits. Didn't we all learn to think that way in private pilot training? Geez I hope so.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
I just listened to the LiveATC feed and he was flying a downwind. He was in left closed traffic, doing some pattern work on 20L.

He was following a helicopter, so tower extended his upwind, extended his downwind, and then had him do a right 360. Next, in a little exasperation while the helicopter was on a 2 mile final, the pilot asked to be shifted over to 20R. He evidently lost his engine while sliding over to the right.

Here's a partial transcript I typed up while listening to LiveATC (times are in Zulu, local time was 6:07 PM):

1:07:52
Cherokee 241, stay on your 15 degree upwind, you’re going to be following a helicopter on your left wing
Looking for that helicopter, 241

1:09:01
Cherokee 241, you can turn to the downwind now
We’re doing it, 241

1:09:12
Cherokee 241, extend downwind, I’ll call the base turn, traffic will be holding in position
241

1:10:34
Cherokee 241, make one right 360, you’re gaining on the helicopter
Right 360, 241

1:12:18
Cherokee 241 do you still have the helicopter off your left side in sight.
Yeah, we have, for a long time. Can we land 20R?
Cherokee 241, affirmative, just extend your base over to 20R, Runway 20R, clear to land, full stop only, I’ll get you back to the runway
Uh, no, we want to quit, so full stop, 20R, clear to land, 241
Cherokee 241, thanks, just pass behind the helicopter, caution wake turbulence, Phenom
241

1:14:29
Cherokee 241, say again
unintelligible
Cherokee 241, copy that, we’re sending somebody out to you right now, Redhill and MacArthur, standby, are you OK?
unintelligible
Cherokee 241, I meant physically, and we’ll send somebody over there as quickly as possible.
Click to expand...

Wow. I've had to follow helicopters flying huge-ass patterns in similar ways before. I'm always tempted to request short approach and become number one. No reason for a chopper to get so far as to need a 2 mile final.

There really is a problem with peoples' pattern sizes at SNA. And before everyone gets on me for "making up my own rules" hear me out. Check out the yellow and red arrows on that picture on the previous page. As far as I know the standard is to turn base when your aiming point appears to be at a 45 degree angle relative to you. Imagine a 45 degree angle from where the solid and dotted yellow lines meet. This makes even the red drawn example too large a pattern. I see people flying patterns double the size of the red arrow example every day!

I don't really see that issue at other airports so I'm wondering what at SNA makes it so instinctive to fly a 747 pattern shape.

And this just goes to show that you have to know how your airplane glides. A 172 may have made it in this case but that Cherokee 140 might as well be an anvil. I've flown that exact plane. It's no picnic.
 
OrangeCountyAviation said:
I've said a couple times already that no I'm not going to make a runway at all times, but if I'm within an airport environment I'll make sure of it.

As far as the "then what?" goes, my answer is to always have a game plan as to where you're gonna put it when the engine quits. Didn't we all learn to think that way in private pilot training? Geez I hope so.
Click to expand...

Sir.......
With my plane, I am looking for a safe place to land/crash/ put down every second as I don't know when the Ford, or any other component will fail....

In fact, I am the poster child of " where the hell am I going to land this thing"..:rolleyes:......;)

I have been flying for 35 years and have NEVER even put a scratch on a plane, and I am hoping to finish out my career with that track record...:yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top