Flying in the pattern which is the best option?

FloridaPilot

FloridaPilot

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Mar 10, 2014
Messages
2,456
Location
Florida
Display Name
Display name:
FloridaStudentPilot
I just went up yesterday with a Flight Instructor, I haven't flown all year until yesterday so I wanted to get back in the air. So as I was in the pattern as a habit I fly a fairly tight pattern, (About 1/2 to 1 Mile from the Runway) In the past my Flight instructor wanted that just in case an engine quits which makes sense to me. This other Flight Instructor wanted me to fly out further, about 2 miles out. His reasoning was because people are more likely to lose control of the aircraft if closer to the runway rather than flying a longer pattern.....Do you folks agree with this? I'm not too sure.

What do you think?

As always thanks for your input!

FP
 
Two miles is absurd. The AFH says 1/2 mile to a mile, just like you were taught (can't remember at the moment if this is echoed by the AIM).
 
I am with the first instructor. Yes, flying a tighter pattern requires some sharper turns and always there is the stall/spin deal to consider. Of course, I am a firm believer in going up several thousand feet and practicing stalls and spins long before the first solo. It is too bad that some folks experience only one spin event and it is a fatal one.
 
FloridaPilot said:
I just went up yesterday with a Flight Instructor, I haven't flown all year until yesterday so I wanted to get back in the air. So as I was in the pattern as a habit I fly a fairly tight pattern, (About 1/2 to 1 Mile from the Runway) In the past my Flight instructor wanted that just in case an engine quits which makes sense to me. This other Flight Instructor wanted me to fly out further, about 2 miles out. His reasoning was because people are more likely to lose control of the aircraft if closer to the runway rather than flying a longer pattern.....Do you folks agree with this? I'm not too sure.

What do you think?

As always thanks for your input!

FP
Click to expand...

Did he give any explanation for this? It's far from obvious (to me anyway) why being closer to the runway makes you more likely to 'lose control'.
 
1/2 to 1 mile depending on the AC and conditions, although if I feel I need it I'll extend the downwind to give myself a longer final, could be many reasons for this. Was up in Laconia, NH, Wednesday, with an instructor in a new sr 22. I've flown a 22 once before and this was my first landing in about a month. Laconia has a big old hill about a mile from the runway in line with the downwind. I was a little behind, instructor says turn base before or after the hill, your choice, I chose after the hill which put us on a 2 mile final. Pretty far out, but I caught up with the airplane and did an ok landing. Also, no one in the pattern.
 
Maybe two miles for a Lancair or a fast twin. Heck they use about a ten mile pattern at DEN. Maybe the second instructor is prepping for the bigs?

If ya get much bigger than a mile then it gets harder to see traffic in the pattern from the ground at some airports. EIK comes to mind as one where some guys in LSAs routinely flew large patterns and as a result they weren't visible from the ground.
 
I disagree with that logic! 2 miles is way too far. 1,000’AGL & 2 miles from the runway doesn’t give you much to work with if you lose your engine. Unless you’re flying carelessly, you definitely shouldn’t lose control of the airplane with a tighter pattern. That logic doesn’t make any sense.
 
I think friends shouldn't let friends fly patterns. Life is too short to fly in little rounded rectangles.
 
The "perfect" traffic pattern size, IMO, is one that allows you to set a target power setting on downwind at the appropriate speed, start adding drag (flaps & gear) abeam the touchdown point, and never have to make a power adjustment until you go to idle over the end of the runway.

The majority of the airplanes I've flown, right up through jets, have three flap settings, so the first increment on downwind, second on base, and the third as you roll wings level on final.

If you have to add power or delay drag, you're pattern's too big.
 
I say if you fly a 2 mile pattern, you're for sure going to cheese off a lot of people, both in the pattern and in the tower if there is one.
 
His only justification for the wider pattern is that flying a tight pattern makes you more likely to lose control. He is almost certainly thinking about the base-to-final stall/spin scenario. That only happens if you make the turn too late or your downwind leg drifted you too close to the runway to make the turn safely. It is true that having a base leg 2 miles long gives you more margin for error on both of those causes.

There's a better solution to this problem: Make all your turns in the pattern using normal bank angles and, if you see that you are not going to line up on final, go around immediately without wasting one second to try to save it, every single time.

Obviously, the best thing to do is to fly your downwind leg parallel to the runway and, as a result of doing that, to accurately anticipate the winds that affect your base leg so that you can make the turn with a normal bank angle and roll out perfectly on the final approach course and on the glideslope. But we are talking about solutions to the times that you mess that up, and the "always go around immediately" solution is, in my opinion, much better than the 2-mile-wide pattern solution.
 
injb said:
Did he give any explanation for this? It's far from obvious (to me anyway) why being closer to the runway makes you more likely to 'lose control'.
Click to expand...

At a safety seminar we were taught that the base to final turn is the most common part of the pattern for 'loss of control' AKA a stall/spin. As we all know that turn can easily be an acute angle because of an extended base. I know the feeling: a little slow, radio chatter, other traffic, a breeze pushing a bit, maybe some stall warning noise, wondering if I should go around and a whole bunch of nervousness.

And tell me about the first time you were playing at a safe altitude and were suddenly taken by surprise be a wing that digs in and suddenly the ground is straight ahead. 400' off the ground is not the place to practice that stuff.
 
I'm with @PaulS on this. Depends on conditions.

Windy days my pattern gets longer and wider. [Not sure about 2 mi though]
 
Clark1961 said:
Maybe two miles for a Lancair or a fast twin.
Click to expand...

I don't even fly a huge 2 mile pattern in a PC12

FloridaPilot said:
I His reasoning was because people are more likely to lose control of the aircraft if closer to the runway
Click to expand...

Sounds like he's tailoring to the very lowest of the lowest common denominator.

Keep it tight and find another CFI


DanWilkins said:
And tell me about the first time you were playing at a safe altitude and were suddenly taken by surprise be a wing that digs in and suddenly the ground is straight ahead. 400' off the ground is not the place to practice that stuff.
Click to expand...

By surprise? I can't recall

Step on the high wing

This is the issue with the new dumbing down of aviation.

All my guys did spins and full stalls and falling leaf stalls (especially if training in a plane where we couldn't do spins), they would hold that stick all the way back and keep stepping on that high wing till I told them to recover, both power on and off, I'd also let them experience that under the hood, albeit more mellow.

When you're trained right you don't even think about it, stall with a wing drop, step on that high wing and get that AOA back.

Also showing students a basic +1g wing over and a few other energy management things, all of that pre solo stuff really makes the base to final bogeyman into a non issue.


iamtheari said:
There's a better solution to this problem: Make all your turns in the pattern using normal bank angles
Click to expand...

If banking over 25ish degrees causes you to spin you shouldn't have soloed yet.
 
Last edited:
mscard88 said:
I prefer sadistic. Fun being a CFI sometimes. :devil:
Click to expand...

Have you ever told a student “you just killed us” after you or they had to add a bunch more power to make the runway after a simulated engine out? I was told that once and it really hit home.
 
SkyDog58 said:
Have you ever told a student “you just killed us” after you or they had to add a bunch more power to make the runway after a simulated engine out? I was told that once and it really hit home.
Click to expand...

Nope. Just redid the maneuver until they got it right.
 
I usually measure my patterns relative to the plane I'm flying. Typically, I'll gauge my distance on the downwind by lining up the runway about 3/4 the length down the wing. I'll turn my base when the landing spot is 45 degrees over my shoulder. In a slow plan it usually comes out to about 3/4 of a mile on downwind and maybe a 1 mile on base to final. Lots of time to correct.
 
DanWilkins said:
I am with the first instructor. Yes, flying a tighter pattern requires some sharper turns and always there is the stall/spin deal to consider. Of course, I am a firm believer in going up several thousand feet and practicing stalls and spins long before the first solo. It is too bad that some folks experience only one spin event and it is a fatal one.
Click to expand...

It's true, I haven't had any spin training when I got my PPL. After IFR which I'm now working on, I will take some spin training.

injb said:
Did he give any explanation for this? It's far from obvious (to me anyway) why being closer to the runway makes you more likely to 'lose control'.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what he said, This is IF the engine decides to quit on you. He said you should be 1 1/2 Miles to 2 in the pattern but suppose you don't make the runway by that long of a pattern?
 
I think the CFI's logic is that a tight pattern requires tighter turns, which he thinks will also lead more readily to loss of control. I'd prefer that he work harder at drilling home coordinated flight at all attitudes.

Many of us have stories of CFIs like this one. I've found that most of the time it's better to either find a new CFI, or just abide their quirks until you're done with their services. If you're training for PPL, then I'd find a new instructor, as the DPE will not like that kind of pattern on your check ride without a damned good reason.
 
James331 said:
If banking over 25ish degrees causes you to spin you shouldn't have soloed yet.
Click to expand...
“Normal” is the word I used, and a normal bank depends on context. In IMC it’s less than in the pattern. And no bank angle causes a spin. It’s a combination of things. But using an excessive bank angle to correct for overshooting final instead of going around is one popular way to start the process.
 
Eric Gleason said:
I think the CFI's logic is that a tight pattern requires tighter turns, which he thinks will also lead more readily to loss of control. I'd prefer that he work harder at drilling home coordinated flight at all attitudes.
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like that's his root argument for his way of teaching.
 
Ravioli said:
I'm with @PaulS on this. Depends on conditions.

Windy days my pattern gets longer and wider. [Not sure about 2 mi though]
Click to expand...

In my case 2 miles was for the hill, which has a tree on it that is at 1,112 MSL the field is at 545 MSL and pattern altitude is 1545. The peak of the hill is about 0.5 miles to the left of the 26 extended centerline and about 1.2 miles beyond the end of the runway. So I normally would have done up to a 1 mile final, but that would have put me over that tree descending, remember I was behind at that point. So I elected to fly to the right of the hill and turn after I was clear, I stayed at pattern altitude until after the hill. Could I have glided from there to the runway? Possibly, but moot point, the engine ran fine.

So I guess for the discussion here, my view on this is: Yes, it is nice to be able to glide to the runway from the pattern, but does that mean accept additional risk ( I don't mean pattern turns when I say this) for the comfort of being within gliding distance? If the engine is running fine, my answer is no.
 
PaulS said:
So I guess for the discussion here, my view on this is: Yes, it is nice to be able to glide to the runway from the pattern, but does that mean accept additional risk ( I don't mean pattern turns when I say this) for the comfort of being within gliding distance? If the engine is running fine, my answer is no.
Click to expand...

I think most practical & sane pilots would agree that the 1/2 mile-ish distance is for a normal situation, and you modify the pattern as necessary for extenuating circumstances. Wind, obstacles, Paul Bertorelli impersonating a bomber with his Cub, etc. Sometimes the safety factor created by being close to the airport results in creating a greater hazard overall.
 
A good pilot should be able to do it anyway the CFI, CFII or DE asks him to. You know how to fly the airplane, FLY IT!
 
iamtheari said:
“Normal” is the word I used, and a normal bank depends on context. In IMC it’s less than in the pattern. And no bank angle causes a spin. It’s a combination of things. But using an excessive bank angle to correct for overshooting final instead of going around is one popular way to start the process.
Click to expand...

You're flying the pattern in IMC??
 
mscard88 said:
Crazy. When I have a student and they fly a wide pattern, guess what? Simulated forced landing time. Now see if ya can make the pavement. :D
Click to expand...

Especially when there’s a good crosswind from the other side? ;)
 
Eric Gleason said:
I think the CFI's logic is that a tight pattern requires tighter turns, which he thinks will also lead more readily to loss of control. I'd prefer that he work harder at drilling home coordinated flight at all attitudes.
Click to expand...

And fundamentals. What happens to your vertical component of lift when you bank steeper? Hmmm. Maybe we need more power or to push the nose down or both... :)
 
What would you rather the NTSB say?

Pilot lost control of aircraft and crashed turning final.

Aircraft blew engine pilot landed 1000' short of runway.

Lol, jk. Obviously you want to stay gliding distance to the runway. I've seen some noise abatement procs that seemed haphazard because they take you outside of gliding distance to a runway.
 
I am surprised that so many replies here are for a 3/4 ish mile downwind. I fly out of Lebanon, TN (M54) and about 90% of the 172 training flights I observe in the pattern are waay beyond that.

Today my student had just started his base turn when we heard a call of another aircraft turning base for the same runway. He stopped his turn and we looked for the traffic. At first we couldn't find him, then we saw him about 2 miles further out and about 200' above pattern altitude. We followed him and turned base where he had and we were on a 2.5 mile final. He was a local CFI with student.

This is not unusual here, I really do not like to schedule training flights on the weekend if they are to be in the pattern because I feel I'm wasting my students money by making fewer landings.

My theory as to the reason for the big pattern is that the CFI makes more money in the long run by dragging out the training. A normal pattern takes about 6 minutes, that is 10 landings/hour. If you reduce that number by flying bigger patterns you make more money.
 
Last edited:
Try a short approach for practice. Chop to idle abeam the numbers and glide down in one fluid descending turn. It will be obvious if you're too far away from the runway!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top