New Traffic Pattern

Anymouse said:
There's not much less than zero in such a case.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see if the "stats" from accident reports show that more "turn to final stall/spin accidents" happen when turning away from the wing with the stall warning device than towards it.
 
luvflyin said:
It would be interesting to see if the "stats" from accident reports show that more "turn to final stall/spin accidents" happen when turning away from the wing with the stall warning device than towards it.
Click to expand...
I think that would be a pretty tough one to get usable data on...most traffic patterns are left hand, most stall sensors are either on the left wing or near the fuselage, and for some people, merely flying right traffic throws them off, so that would skew things the other way.
 
luvflyin said:
It would be interesting to see if the "stats" from accident reports show that more "turn to final stall/spin accidents" happen when turning away from the wing with the stall warning device than towards it.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many people who always mention and fear the "base to final stall/spin" have ever done spins, or flown a pattern with the panel covered.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I think that would be a pretty tough one to get usable data on...most traffic patterns are left hand, most stall sensors are either on the left wing or near the fuselage, and for some people, merely flying right traffic throws them off, so that would skew things the other way.
Click to expand...

Yeah. And in that situation, behind the airplane, tensed up and low, the warning probably isn't going to save the day
 
FastEddieB said:
Obvious (to me) downside:

A low-wing plane would be blind to traffic on final for as long as a minute, if you're talking roughly standard rate turns. Rolling out on base, if only momentarily, lets you check for traffic on final.

I fear we'd be trading marginally fewer stall/spins in the pattern for more midairs.
Click to expand...

There is a similar issue for high wing airplanes, with traffic in front. Maybe a Citabria is ahead of you in the pattern, and you're flying a 182 with a passenger who has to pee.
 
To resurrect this thread...

I finally got up in the Sky Arrow yesterday to try out the circular pattern.

I thought it would be quite easy - just another iteration of the ground reference maneuvers we all know and love.

But for me, at least, it proved quite difficult.

1) Downwind needs to be really close in. For me, that feels quite unnatural, and it seems it would not take much of an ignored crosswind to drift you right over the runway. But I suppose one could adjust.

2) As depicted, I could not fly it, at least on a day with very light winds. Abeam the numbers I cut power way back and deployed full flaps. I shortly thereafter began the 180° turn. Probably should have been obvious, but that results in being way high on final. In order to avoid that, one has to continue on downwind well past the numbers. Like I said, obvious in retrospect but determining exactly how far out to fly before the 180° will be a new skill to acquire.

3) Visibility in the turn is not a factor in the Sky Arrow, but let me say I'm still not a fan of one continuous turn. I think having a base leg is a plus for all the reasons stated upthread.

Anyway, I caught the flight on my new GoPro Hero5 (which I love compared to my old Hero3 - more on that later). I'll try to edit it down to one approach and landing and post it later.
 
To spring board off Fast Eddie's post, I offer a different POV:

1) I fly a tight downwind, regardless of which a/c I'm in. I get...annoyed...when i'm in the pattern with someone flying a "747" pattern, just seems like a waste of time to fly a pattern that far from the runway.

2) I like the circular pattern. I've been, kind of, doing it anyway for many years...when I'm in the pattern by myself. Nail the speed required in the downwind, abeam the numbers, reduce power, deploy the flaps (depending on the a/c), start your descending left/right turn, manage your speed and adjust your touch down point with pitch and power. This a skill that's practice during power-off 180*'s...

3) I will stipulate that visibility of the runway and or any a/c that may have "snuck" into the pattern and is on short final, may be an issue...depending on which a/c you fly, high-wing or low-wing.
 
Upthread I posted a video of my normal pattern.

Like you, I like to keep it in tight regardless. In the upthread video, my base leg is about 5 seconds, but I still find that 5 seconds useful, but no need to repeat my prior comments and reasoning.

About how far beyond the numbers do you find you have to fly for it to work out?
 
I think one of the things about the circle, or oval, pattern is its not paint by numbers like the square pattern, pull power at different points based on my speed, it's kinda rare that I am doing pattern work nowadays, not that I don't enjoy some good pattern work, but most times I'm on a downwind I'm ether entering based on tower directions, or in circling for the other runway.
 
Here's that video:


Notes:

Recorded with a new GoPro Hero5. 1080p, 60fps, "Linear" POV. Even on "Linear" it still flattens things out and makes the plane look farther from the runway and lower than in real life. I was really quite high and needed to use a maximum performance slip to get down. Next time I'm going to try the "Narrow" POV.

The user interface is an order of magnitude better than my Hero3 - glad I upgraded!
 
Last edited:
Haven't had a commercial student in decades but the 180 poweroff landing was a required maneuver. Is it required any more? Regardless a great maneuver to practice.
I thought yours looked good FastEddie.
 
mscard88 said:
Haven't had a commercial student in decades but the 180 poweroff landing was a required maneuver. Is it required any more? Regardless a great maneuver to practice.
I thought yours looked good FastEddie.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

It's been along the time for me as well. Still required as far as I know. Don't recall the 180° accuracy landing precluding a base leg or any maneuvering required. Will have to check the Airplane Flying Handbook.
 
Just power off abeam the numbers and anything you have to do to make the runway, except to "clear" the engine! :D
 
Yep, base leg is allowed and recommended in the 180° accuracy landing:

31591038540_fe86c55713_z.jpg
 
Yeah I never squared off turns during a power off 180*. I start turning almost immediately and most of the time don't use flaps until ground effect or not at all.

I primarily do 180s in an Arrow. So the best thing is toss a brick out the window and follow it.
 
ARFlyer said:
Yeah I never squared off turns during a power off 180*. I start turning almost immediately and most of the time don't use flaps until ground effect or not at all.

I primarily do 180s in an Arrow. So the best thing is toss a brick out the window and follow it.
Click to expand...

Whatever works for you.

I always found even a truncated base leg helped me judge the touchdown point.
 
I determined my main problem with my prior attempt was a brain f*rt, picturing the turn to final as beginning abeam the numbers. That leaves out the straight portion as depicted in the AOPA diagram, and would lead to virtually no final and extra altitude to lose unless one was slipping throughout the turn.

That said, I went up today with the intention of flying straight and level beyond the numbers to about the 45 degree point, as I usually do. That made all the difference. I took a video again, and posted it to YouTube. It's two approaches, the first circular, the second my normal pattern. Not a world of difference between them, and I could learn to do the circular approach if push ever came to shove. I still cherish my base leg, however.

Video here:


One observation: I think my fears of a low-wing pilot being blind in the turn may turn out to be unfounded. That is one shallow turn!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top