Let's talk traffic patterns...

[Caramon13]

Man that transcript is exactly what I was talking about. That poor guy got every possible delay you could get, extend upwind, extend downwind, right 360, extend base. No wonder he wanted to quit at the end, after one circuit of that I'd be picking another airport.

AND he got the wake turbulence call on landing. Except for the engine failure you can pretty much count on one or all of those occurrences at rvery traffic pattern at KSRQ where I fly. Prime reason I don't practice there anymore, just go somewhere else.

 

[Fearless Tower]

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.

Not exactly. Jet traffic uses the long runway. GA traffic uses both runways.

 

[yetti]

If you are a low wing I don't think you want to be descending in the traffic pattern lest you set on top of someone. I was taught nothing more than standard rate turns (help prevent a dreaded turn to base spin) in the traffic pattern. Based on GPS tracks review the mooney needs about a .85 KM to do a standard rate turn to final without overshooting. It will glide better than a 172. It needs a wider downwind than a 172.

 

[MAKG1]

Standard rate turns are excessively slow in the pattern. That's a 15 deg bank in a 172. You can do a lot more. At 90 knots, you're not going to stall even with a 60 deg bank. At 60 knots, 60 deg bank is the hairy edge. Not that I'd recommend quite that much bank in the pattern, but you're going overboard.

SNA is hardly unique for B-52 patterns. Those are done everywhere. But engine failures in the pattern are not common, and trading that risk for a much more likely midair with substantial climbs above TPA is a poor choice.

It's not acceptable risk management to solve the last problem all the time.

 

[Kritchlow]

If you are a low wing I don't think you want to be descending in the traffic pattern lest you set on top of someone.

Especially if a turbine aircraft is at 1500 agl. They will likely be faster, and be coming from behind you. Not a good combo.

 

[FastEddieB]

I was taught nothing more than standard rate turns (help prevent a dreaded turn to base spin) in the traffic pattern.

That's fine, but...

...most turn to base or turn to final spins tend to come from skidded turns - by definition too little bank for the rate of turn, not too much.

Not advocating "yank and bank" in the pattern, but I think artificial limits on bank are more dangerous than being shy to use enough bank when needed.

 

[OrangeCountyAviation]

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"........

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...

So then why did you inform me that my engine could quit somewhere besides an airport and ask me "then what?" as if I'd spring for a runway 8 miles away while at 3,000 AGL in the practice area?

 

[OrangeCountyAviation]

If you are a low wing I don't think you want to be descending in the traffic pattern lest you set on top of someone. I was taught nothing more than standard rate turns (help prevent a dreaded turn to base spin) in the traffic pattern. Based on GPS tracks review the mooney needs about a .85 KM to do a standard rate turn to final without overshooting. It will glide better than a 172. It needs a wider downwind than a 172.

Plus in a low wing getting that angle of bank steeper (say 30 degrees or so) gives you a better view of what's underneath and ahead. Just keep that ball in the middle and a spin is impossible.

 

[arnoha]

Standard rate turns are excessively slow in the pattern. That's a 15 deg bank in a 172. You can do a lot more. At 90 knots, you're not going to stall even with a 60 deg bank. At 60 knots, 60 deg bank is the hairy edge. Not that I'd recommend quite that much bank in the pattern, but you're going overboard.

SNA is hardly unique for B-52 patterns. Those are done everywhere. But engine failures in the pattern are not common, and trading that risk for a much more likely midair with substantial climbs above TPA is a poor choice.

It's not acceptable risk management to solve the last problem all the time.

This. Let's solve for the more common and deadlier risk. Landing out isn't a great choice, but it's usually survivable. Midairs and NMACs that result in stall/spin during avoidance are nearly always fatal. Not advocating transport sized patterns for us, but instead to be as predictable as possible.

I've landed KSNA. Not a bad airport, but OC lacks in GA facilities, so the big commercial airport gets to serve double-duty. I was shocked the first time I parked there overnight. Since I had to deal with Atlantic as a transient, I expected ridiculous parking fees. But, nope! $5/night. Apparently that was legislated in because there's nowhere else to go with our little planes.

At home, ironically, I often bail from the pattern at the local GA airport, KRHV, and do pattern work over at the international next door, KSJC, because the pattern there is usually much less busy! And if I'm leaving from KRHV, I'm usually taking a 7ECA Citabria. Taildragger lands. Jet. Taildragger. Jet. Taildragger. Jet... It's fun!

 

[OrangeCountyAviation]

SNA is hardly unique for B-52 patterns. Those are done everywhere. But engine failures in the pattern are not common, and trading that risk for a much more likely midair with substantial climbs above TPA is a poor choice.

It's not acceptable risk management to solve the last problem all the time.

Agree to disagree. If I get an extension I'm either slowing to MCA or climbing. For me it's acceptable risk management especially at a class C airport. All I see below me is urban area and I'd rather not put it down there. Engine failures may not be common but so what? It happened a few days ago and was caught on tape. It happened to me as well. Thankfully I was short final but it could have happened a minute earlier.

 

[dmspilot]

I was taught nothing more than standard rate turns (help prevent a dreaded turn to base spin) in the traffic pattern.

This is stupid for too many reasons to list.

 

[brcase]

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).

You mean like a lot of flight instructors do. I am surprised that more flight instructors don't teach this, after all they are the ones that spend hours upon hours in the traffic pattern. They probably have the best chance of having a power failure within gliding range of the airport.

scanning the NTSB reports I seem to see a few accidents every year where someone was unable to make the runway from the pattern. Even see a one locally every few years it seems. Of course the pilots that fly patterns where they can make the runway, seldom make it into a NTSB reports. I have however helped push a few of these guys to the Maintenance shop.

Brian

 

[MAKG1]

Agree to disagree. If I get an extension I'm either slowing to MCA or climbing. For me it's acceptable risk management especially at a class C airport. All I see below me is urban area and I'd rather not put it down there. Engine failures may not be common but so what? It happened a few days ago and was caught on tape. It happened to me as well. Thankfully I was short final but it could have happened a minute earlier.

If all you see below you in Irvine is solid urban area, you're not looking.

MCA has other risks. A gust of wind (or, more precisely, a lull between gusts) will result in stall.

You're trading somewhat unlikely risks with low to moderate consequence with uncontrolled catastrophic risks. Bad choice.

Even putting the airplane down between telephone poles is survivable (though maybe not for the airplane). Stalling at 500 AGL is probably not.

God help you if you ever fly an instrument approach, especially a circle-to-land. You don't F with the altitudes there if you want to actually land and survive it when you do. Climbing during a circle-to-land risks losing sight of the field and attempting a missed approach from the wrong place. It's not easy to remain in protected airspace when you can't see it. And they can be VERY low (e.g., 400 AGL is the lowest circling minimum if there is no terrain or obstructions), and in poor visibility.

 

[Fearless Tower]

If all you see below you in Irvine is solid urban area, you're not looking.

Yup. It seems that someone is indeed fixated on making it back to the runway. That is sad.

 

[Clark1961]

I was taught nothing more than standard rate turns (help prevent a dreaded turn to base spin) in the traffic pattern.

I had an instructor try to teach me the same thing. My question is why would an instructor think a standard rate turn is somehow safer than using more bank?

Sure they want to avoid an accelerated stall but that is not an issue for a 30 degree bank and normal pattern speeds. Do these folks get confused with why we use standard rate turns when flying IFR?

I think that teaching one to control airspeed and maintain coordinated flight is more beneficial than instilling some shallow bank angle limit.

 

[OrangeCountyAviation]

Sigh.

If I'm in the pattern I want to make the runway. If I'm not in the pattern I'll look elsewhere. Yes there are plenty of good spots around. El Toro, golf courses, blimp hangars, empty-ish toll roads etc. Stop suggesting that I'm looking at the runway with tunnel vision and never consider other options.

As for slow flight, I still give myself some buffer room on speed. I'm not right at MCA to account for a gust of wind. I'm also not afraid of stalling. It's a momentary partial loss of lift. Even with a wing drop its easily fixable. I'm an aerobatic pilot and regularly spin airplanes intentionally. I'm also a stickler in teaching wing drop recoveries from stalls starting at both level attitudes and banked attitudes.

Instrument flying, yeah I do that too, but in multi engine planes. Shouldn't be a surprise that the way I treat engine out glides makes single engine IFR not too attractive of a flight.

Anyway, it comes down to the fact that I'd rather make the airport in the pattern, and I consider the guys in this particular case lucky to have gotten a green light to coast through. Like I said earlier, 20 seconds either side of the event and we'd probably be having a different discussion.

 

[FastEddieB]

This is stupid for too many reasons to list.

I hope this sequence from Stick And Rudder will help cement the fact that it is not too much bank that leads to a stall/spin.

I'll post each frame in its own post.

 

[FastEddieB]

 

[FastEddieB]

 

[FastEddieB]

 

[coloradobluesky]

I cut the power abeam the numbers and glide on in. But it means I fly a tight pattern so I have to be careful not to cut someone off coming in on long final. Serves as an engine out drill.

As for standard rate turns. That IS what you should do on your IFR checkride. Requires discipline.

You should practice landing every configuration of flaps and speed there is. If the plane can do it, you should be able to do it too. Even bounce recovery. Crosswinds for sure. Stick all the way into the wind. Slips, flaps, power on , power off, coming in too fast, whatever. Do em all. But do them safely.

 

[pilot_dude]

Keeping a tight pattern is a good idea.... But....

Motors can quit anywhere... Then what ?

That was going to be question...what makes an engine more susceptible to failure at 1000' AGL vs. say, 2000' AGL. The answer is of course, nothing.

 

[pilot_dude]

*snip*

You should practice landing every configuration of flaps and speed there is. If the plane can do it, you should be able to do it too. Even bounce recovery. Crosswinds for sure. Stick all the way into the wind. Slips, flaps, power on , power off, coming in too fast, whatever. Do em all. But do them safely.

 

[Kritchlow]

Orange, help me understand... I assume you start at normal pattern altitude. If tower tells you to extend downwind, do you start climbing? I don't agree with your non standard flying procedures, but maybe I'm misunderstanding a little.

 

[OrangeCountyAviation]

That was going to be question...what makes an engine more susceptible to failure at 1000' AGL vs. say, 2000' AGL. The answer is of course, nothing.

Well, usually at 1,000 AGL we are either at a recent application of full power or significantly less power, depending if we are departing or approaching. If something were wrong with the engine I'd imagine it would most likely show up at either of those times rather than normal cruise.

But, I'm only speculating here. I'll try to find some actual statistics.

 

[OrangeCountyAviation]

Orange, help me understand... I assume you start at normal pattern altitude. If tower tells you to extend downwind, do you start climbing? I don't agree with your non standard flying procedures, but maybe I'm misunderstanding a little.

First I slow down . Chances are by the time the conflict is gone they'll call my base at a reasonable time.

If it's apparent that I'll have to extend with distance as well I'll request a 360. If they reply "unable 360" I start a gradual climb. I think to myself "When I'm that much farther I'm that much higher". It's not like I immediately apply full power and go to TPAx2. It's relative to how much farther out I have to go.

 

[MAKG1]

Well, usually at 1,000 AGL we are either at a recent application of full power or significantly less power, depending if we are departing or approaching. If something were wrong with the engine I'd imagine it would most likely show up at either of those times rather than normal cruise.

But, I'm only speculating here. I'll try to find some actual statistics.

At least for automobile engines, catastrophic failures, especially related to oil starvation, kick in at increases in throttle. You can floor the throttle and yank the drain plug, and the engine will run for a really long time. But reduce and then increase the throttle, and you'll throw a rod very quickly. The reason is the design of the crank and rod bearings. A rotating crank will hold oil better, the faster it rotates. But once that rotation is lost, you need a working oil pump with oil in it to get the oil back. A dry bearing will "spin" and seize almost instantly.

Your climb strategy can dramatically worsen a failure.

Running out of fuel has a risk that increases with time. If you're descending, the engine is more likely to quit at a lower altitude, just because it has been running longer. However, if you suddenly increase the fuel consumption and change the attitude, it's going to quit faster.

Certain kinds of (mechanical) mag failures may also be more likely to happen as throttle is raised. Electrical failures can probably happen at any time.

Lowering speed increases thermal loads on the engine. These are air cooled engines for the most part. It's going to run warmer at lower speeds, especially near MCA where you'll need a lot of throttle to do it.

Just about the only thing that's more likely at low throttle is carb icing. In most cases, you minimize your exposure to engine failure by minimizing configuration changes.

 

[mkosmo]

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'!

Other than the whole overtaking on the right thing, there's no rule against cutting inside and jumping in front of somebody flying a 10 mile pattern. lol

 

[mkosmo]

I was taught nothing more than standard rate turns (help prevent a dreaded turn to base spin) in the traffic pattern.

Even if that somehow mitigated a spin (which it in no way does), I'd be flying an enormous pattern if all my turns were standard rate. No thanks... I try to avoid terribly steep turns in the pattern when possible, but sometimes it happens!

 

[psween]

I learned at a non-towered field and was taught the recommended patterns. As I progressed, I unconsciously flew larger and larger patterns, probably because they gave me more time to get things sorted out at each stage. I didn't even realize I was doing it, and my primary instructor didn't point it out. Then I had a pre-checkride flight with another instructor and he pulled the power off at the base/final turn, right as I made a power reduction. His reasoning (as an A&P/IA) was that the engine was more likely to fail during a power change than during steady state flight. From where I was, I couldn't make the runway, and that one lesson really drove it home. Obviously you can't always fly a tight pattern, and engines do fail in cruise, but since then I do always ask myself in the pattern if I could make the runway from wherever I am. Would feel pretty dumb to make it all the way into the pattern and still have to land off field.

Patrick