New Traffic Pattern

R

Ravioli

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Dec 1, 2014
Messages
8,021
Location
Somewhere else
Display Name
Display name:
Unwanted Guest - Perma-ban Pending
AOPA ePilot has an interesting story. When I was doing primary training my instructor would virtually kick my ass if I did lazy patterns. "Stop rounding the corners.... Do you know what 90* looks like... can you draw a rectangle? Really, why can't you fly one?"

So all these years later I may have been doing it right? Unlikely. I was doing it wrong, but at least this "new" idea is easy to learn. Just have to resume an old bad-habit. It would be like telling former smokers they must smoke.

Synopsis
On the heels of the NTSB’s Nov. 14 release of its "Most Wanted" list of transportation safety improvements that included general aviation loss of control, the University of North Dakota, in partnership with the AOPA Air Safety Institute, announced that it is studying the use of a continuous turning approach or “circular pattern” as an alternative to the traditional “box” or rectangular traffic pattern.

Full Article
https://www.aopa.org/News-and-Media...ent&utm_content=tts&utm_campaign=161117epilot
 
The old timers, backcountry, tailwheel and glider folks have been doing that for ages. It doesn't take much common sense to look at a squared off pattern and see how it doesn't make as much sense.
 
There's no real "right" or "wrong" here. Strictly IMO, but only real "problem" with the rectangular pattern is blind adherence to it.

The roll-out on base in the rectangular pattern has the advantage of taking a moment on base to assess such things as altitude and glidepath. Based on what I've seen with pilots with whom I've done training, whether primary or recurrent, base leg is the one where just about all can visualize their path to the numbers and make adjustments so final is fully stabilized.

OTOH, fly a nice, "normal" traffic pattern with a significant crosswind that translates to a strong tailwind on base and you're looking at the potential for overshooting final with all the traditional problems that entails.

So I think they both have their place from a stabilized approach/prevention of loss of control standpoint. I've always done both as the situation merits.
 
I can see it now... low time pilot in high wing airplane flies a circular pattern. Rolls out on final to find he has flown thru the extended centerline, tries to force it back with a skid and makes a smoking hole a 1/2 mile from the runway. Unless you have xray vision you're gonna have to lift that wing to see your position after the turn to base, so it's always gonna be kind of a square with rounded corners... High wing perspective... Now let me get my armor on for the following onslaught...
 
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.
 
FlySince9 said:
I can see it now... low time pilot in high wing airplane flies a circular pattern. Rolls out on final to find he has flown thru the extended centerline, tries to force it back with a skid and makes a smoking hole a 1/2 mile from the runway. Unless you have xray vision you're gonna have to lift that wing to see your position after the turn to base, so it's always gonna be kind of a square with rounded corners... High wing perspective... Now let me get my armor on for the following onslaught...
Click to expand...

If you are overshooting it without rolling out, you are DEFINITELY going to overshoot if you level the wings for even a moment. I tend to lift the wing just enough to see the runway and then continue my turn. but if I can tell when rolling into my base turn that I was too close or have a bit of a tailwind, Ill keep turning and fine-tune my alignment once I am on final.
 
FlySince9 said:
I can see it now... low time pilot in high wing airplane flies a circular pattern. Rolls out on final to find he has flown thru the extended centerline, tries to force it back with a skid and makes a smoking hole a 1/2 mile from the runway. Unless you have xray vision you're gonna have to lift that wing to see your position after the turn to base, so it's always gonna be kind of a square with rounded corners... High wing perspective... Now let me get my armor on for the following onslaught...
Click to expand...

Yeah, but with crap airmanship, shooting through the centerline and not knowing how to fly/turn a aircraft, you're going to end up a smoking hole square pattern or rounded, high wing or low wing.
 
James331 said:
Yeah, but with crap airmanship, shooting through the centerline and not knowing how to fly/turn a aircraft, you're going to end up a smoking hole square pattern or rounded, high wing or low wing.
Click to expand...
Very true, and to much my point... Changing the traffic pattern is not going to stop the kinds of accidents they are trying to stop... They'll be the same, only different///:rolleyes:
 
midlifeflyer said:
There's no real "right" or "wrong" here. Strictly IMO, but only real "problem" with the rectangular pattern is blind adherence to it.

The roll-out on base in the rectangular pattern has the advantage of taking a moment on base to assess such things as altitude and glidepath. Based on what I've seen with pilots with whom I've done training, whether primary or recurrent, base leg is the one where just about all can visualize their path to the numbers and make adjustments so final is fully stabilized.

OTOH, fly a nice, "normal" traffic pattern with a significant crosswind that translates to a strong tailwind on base and you're looking at the potential for overshooting final with all the traditional problems that entails.

So I think they both have their place from a stabilized approach/prevention of loss of control standpoint. I've always done both as the situation merits.
Click to expand...

Yeah on "blind adherence" being a problem. Learning by rote without understanding why is not good. Sometimes you have to violate the letter of the law to comply with the spirit and intent of it. Teaching people to "always" make either square or round patterns does not seem a good idea to me
 
FlySince9 said:
Very true, and to much my point... Changing the traffic pattern is not going to stop the kinds of accidents they are trying to stop... They'll be the same, only different///:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

But flying a smoother (no 90 degree bends) and tighter pattern is safer IMO.
 
James331 said:
But flying a smoother (no 90 degree bends) and tighter pattern is safer IMO.
Click to expand...
For reasons other than engine failure considerations? My only thought is that flying a base leg gives less experienced pilots more time to correct and adjust. But squaring corners does seem more likely to lead to a stall/spin scenario.
 
That pattern creates a continuous blind spot for high wingers from the moment they roll in until the final and runway appear in front of them.

I get what they're trying to say, but it creates different problems.

That said, anyone who's had a ripping tailwind on base, has done this already.

I don't see it as anything revolutionary. UND just created the "power on 180". Heh.
 
In my recent training I've been taught to make a pattern with rounded corners. Definitely roll out on base, put in flaps, back in the turn to final. Same on xwind. I've flown really tight "square" patterns too - that's how I was taught in the 90s when I took lessons then. I think the slower rate turn method (with a definite period of roll-out straight and level to look for traffic, etc) is a little easier. It also tends to lead to a tighter pattern overall, which is good for when the instructor "loses my engine".
 
denverpilot said:
That pattern creates a continuous blind spot for high wingers from the moment they roll in until the final and runway appear in front of them.

I get what they're trying to say, but it creates different problems.

That said, anyone who's had a ripping tailwind on base, has done this already.

I don't see it as anything revolutionary. UND just created the "power on 180". Heh.
Click to expand...

Never noticed that much of a blind spot, doesn't really seem like a issue worthy of mention
 
That's how I was trained in 1963 for my PPL, and that's how we did it in the Air Force. I know the Navy and Marines also learned that way.
 
Come to FTG and fly the pattern on the north side of the east-west runway. Make it one of those nice rectangles. They'll have a number for you to call if you insist on flying that way....
 
Like others, I've been dinged on checkouts and checkrides for doing exactly that. As late as last month it was brought to my attention. Personally, I think it's hilarious that NOW it just might be the better way of doing things.

Next, maybe they'll decide that the 45 degree midfield downwind entry isn't necessarily always the best way to enter a pattern.
 
"Rounded" method allows shallower bank angles too, a good thing when airspeed is low. But gotta level the wings on base, so I try to strike a happy medium between tight and round.

Might be a problem if you're too tight to the runway, make that downwind-to-base a little too leisurely, then have to sharpen up the base-to-final.
 
Clark1961 said:
Come to FTG and fly the pattern on the north side of the east-west runway. Make it one of those nice rectangles. They'll have a number for you to call if you insist on flying that way....
Click to expand...

Heck, just extend past Imboden Road to the west and see how much they like you...

It's an interesting exercise in making sure you aren't flying fast in the downwind in the Seminole went landing to the east... and aren't too close in... even in the right hand pattern...
 
James331 said:
Never noticed that much of a blind spot, doesn't really seem like a issue worthy of mention
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you're super-pilot and have X-Ray vision to see through things like wings and struts without needing to lean forward awkwardly.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
"Rounded" method allows shallower bank angles too, a good thing when airspeed is low. But gotta level the wings on base, so I try to strike a happy medium between tight and round.

Might be a problem if you're too tight to the runway, make that downwind-to-base a little too leisurely, then have to sharpen up the base-to-final.
Click to expand...

How do you have a RV in your profile picture, but are saying not to use steep banks ;)


Who cares, it's just energy management, if you got the energy and you won't be pizzing any busy bodies off, bank it


denverpilot said:
Yeah, but you're super-pilot and have X-Ray vision to see through things like wings and struts without needing to lean forward awkwardly.
Click to expand...

No, but it's not like I'm doing a continual steep turn around a point on the other aircraft in the pattern.

For the amount of space the wing blocks, the time the other plane would be in that blind spot, the amount of sky in the pattern, man.. I'm just not that worried, way more concerned about that plane holding short, or a deer, or LLWS, etc
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
"Rounded" method allows shallower bank angles too, a good thing when airspeed is low. But gotta level the wings on base, so I try to strike a happy medium between tight and round.
Click to expand...

My standard pattern has the downwind in close enough that I'm nearly a "rounded" pattern now, with a pretty brief wing leveling "base" to check final and deploy landing flaps.

First pattern video I found shows me flying about a 5 sec base, starting about :55 in...

 
Last edited:
Clark1961 said:
Come to FTG and fly the pattern on the north side of the east-west runway. Make it one of those nice rectangles. They'll have a number for you to call if you insist on flying that way....
Click to expand...
They'll probably have a number for you to call if you insist on flying ANY kind f a downwind on the wrong side of the runway without permission.

The problem isn't rectangular vs constant turn. Any reasonably competent pilot can be safe either way. The problem is that the means is taught as the end, when in fact, the end goal is a safe landing, not 12.856 seconds of wrongs level on base (or any other equally ridiculous criteria). That would be the equivalent of "you must make your arcing turn with exactly 30 degrees of bank for the entire turn...no adjustments allowed." Unless, of course, that's what the arc-to-final people are advocating. ;)

Keep in mind also that this study is being brought to you by the same people who came up with ATITAPA.
 
James331 said:
How do you have a RV in your profile picture, but are saying not to use steep banks ;)
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong...I love steep banks, just not in the pattern! For the record, I have never done an overhead break, and probably never will. :)
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Don't get me wrong...I love steep banks, just not in the pattern! For the record, I have never done an overhead break, and probably never will. :)
Click to expand...

2b4ae6958a01a96429638b60b5606d98bff27c77fef23e41bc2dd32808083275.jpg
 
MauleSkinner said:
They'll probably have a number for you to call if you insist on flying ANY kind f a downwind on the wrong side of the runway without permission.
Click to expand...
Naw, they tell ya to fly on the north side and the ground references for the bravo surface area aren't so great. Keep it over the farmhouse on the downwind and you'll be fine. Don't let the wind blow you north...
 
MauleSkinner said:
They'll probably have a number for you to call if you insist on flying ANY kind f a downwind on the wrong side of the runway without permission.
Click to expand...

They give permission over there regularly. It's pretty tight on the north side when they do.

Usually they stick aircraft/tail numbers/voices they recognize as locals on the north side of 08/26 to deconflict traffic flying practice approaches to 35 and breaking off southeast.

I've noticed that they get more hesitant about it when it's a voice/aircraft they don't recognize and/or the pilot sounds less than confident.

Things weren't working out so well for them the day of my Multi Commercial checkride, it was busy over there -- and even though we'd asked for the full stop on 35 out of the single engine approach, either the request got lost, or they just didn't want to deal with it, and gave me, "Seminole 41X, start your missed approach now, maintain VFR, fly southeast, contact Approach..."

And kept talking to three or four other aircraft they were trying to straighten out in both patterns.

Which led to the funny comment to my DPE... I pointed at the dead engine control and said, "Can I have that back?" :)

He said yes, and continued saying, "That's why it's two separate tasks in the PTS... take us back to Centennial and make a single engine landing there..."

I asked if he wanted me to ask for another approach... and was willing to set up for it, goggles still down...

"Nah, put your foggles up... that approach was fine..."

FTG has pretty much become the "place to go" to get away from the high traffic load and delays during training at KAPA and the (relatively) new restrictions on opposite direction instrument approaches.

(We all just used to fly the 35R ILS head on with departing traffic and broke it off before the "power lines" or Lincoln Avenue if the controller was brave/good at it when KAPA was operating the 17's. Nowadays we all go over to FTG if the wind is out of the south or light and variable and APA is running souhbound for noise abatement.)

Sometimes going over there works out, sometimes it just moves the nuttiness of heavy training over there.

Nobody really goes over to BJC much as a reliever to APA for training because the local joke is the winds will be:

KAPA: Calm. Using runway 17L/R, Runway 10/28 available upon request.
KFTG: Calm. Using runways 26/35.
KBJC: 260@25G32.

:)

Square patterns, rounded patterns, whatever works. Just don't hit @Everskyward departing southbound at KAPA in the shiny jet... she doesn't like that. And Clark will be over on the north side of 08/26 over at KFTG trying to stay out of everyone's way.

I wouldn't put the Denver relievers all the way up at KDVT levels of nuttiness, but it does get a little too busy at times here. The controllers do a great job of working travelers and transients into the mess and giving them "normal" patterns and approaches and the rest of us locals know about the oddities it creates like where they have everyone break off approaches and what-not to make it all work.

Close a runway at KAPA and it immediately hits levels of "stupid" that have most CFIs and regular folks saying, "I think we're done for today... ask for a full-stop..." nothing beats a runway closure at KAPA for everyone deciding it's time to go home now. Ha.
 
260@25G32 is calm for BJC

I have landed there when the winsocks at the ends of the runways are standing straight out and pointing at each other...
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Don't get me wrong...I love steep banks, just not in the pattern! For the record, I have never done an overhead break, and probably never will. :)
Click to expand...

Awww they're not THAT bad, but there's a time and a place for 'em.

"You know what's coming now... there's no traffic in the way... engine failure..." in the Citabria a few weeks ago, was a pretty good excuse for pointing it at the numbers and using a steep slip with full control deflection to hit the spot I wanted to hit. The CFI was seriously head on a swivel before saying that and was announcing where all the traffic was along with me.

But it was kinda a "yee haw" looking approach if one didn't know we didn't have flaps. I'd rather stay close and have the ability to remove the big slip and extend than find myself a mile out and short...

I definitely want to go fly that airplane or the new Decathlon Extreme some more and finish the tailwheel endorsement. I can do the airliner style comfortable-for-the-passengers patterns in the twin, and still have a reason to push full rudder and most of the aileron out in the flapless taildraggers -- and both are fun in their own way.

Wheeeee. Hey, there's actually a reason for this five point harness! Let's just make sure nobody is in the way first...
 
denverpilot said:
Square patterns, rounded patterns, whatever works. Just don't hit @Everskyward departing southbound at KAPA in the shiny jet... she doesn't like that. And Clark will be over on the north side of 08/26 over at KFTG trying to stay out of everyone's way.
Click to expand...
We'll be doing our turn to the north with rounded corners. How does anyone make square corners? They are either somewhat rounded or more rounded. Yeah I get what they are saying. My question is, what are they going to call what used to be called "base"? :biggrin:
 
Everskyward said:
We'll be doing our turn to the north with rounded corners. How does anyone make square corners? They are either somewhat rounded or more rounded. Yeah I get what they are saying. My question is, what are they going to call what used to be called "base"? :biggrin:
Click to expand...

The grad students haven't shown up here yet to do a poll to find out what we all want to call it. :)

Oh wait, that's Riddle students...
 
I did most of my primary training at Boeing Field, which has two parallel runways: a little one for the little guys and a long one for everyone else. I taught almost exclusively in Pipers, so I understand the low wing "problem." I taught my students to scan the approach path for both runways prior to turning base, so they knew if anyone was on final. I taught rectangular patterns because they were the norm back then and expected by examiners. This method transferred seamlessly to other airports. For my own flying, I did the continuous 180. If I was high, all I had to do is feed in some top rudder and slip off the excess. I like this change (if the FAA deems it acceptable).

Bob Gardner
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top