Short field landing pattern size

P

Pnwannabe2

Pre-Flight
Joined
Sep 12, 2015
Messages
62
Location
KSLE
Display Name
Display name:
ORBluebird
The airplane flying handbook recommends a wider than normal pattern. My CFI recommends making it tighter than normal. I think tighter seems more logical because it allows the steeper approach over an obstacle. The AFH method seems more geared towards not busting a checkride on a simulated short field landing on a long runway (more time to stabilize), but doesn't seem that practical for real world flying. What do you all do on a real short field landing with obstacles/rising terrain?
 
What you do above obstacle height doesn't matter much.

Below obstacle height, you want to be on speed, power off, full flap, and stabilized. If you need a big pattern to do that, do it. If you don't, don't.

Note, there is a conflicting technique that says to approach slow and drag it in hard, cutting the power as the mains touch. This can make for VERY short landings, but isn't very forgiving of error.
 
If I'm coming in over really tall trees and I have the space to do it I could set up the same steep profile but would be further out and higher up. Sometimes that's not a bad idea. Sometimes there's no space to do it. If I'm bucking the wind I like a little more time to get things set up so a higher bigger pattern works well. On a calm day it isn't as important. In any case don't come in flat and dive over the obstacles. Set up so the final is on the same slope all the way down. That's the key to consistent landings.
 
I'm not sure why you think wider and steeper are mutually exclusive, but they definitely are not. A short field gives you less margin for error, while a larger pattern gives you more. A tight pattern gives less time to get the airplane set up in the correct figuration and airspeed, which might be 5-10 knots slower than a normal landing. These are not concepts that are "geared toward a simulated short field landing on a long runway".
 
Pnwannabe2 said:
The airplane flying handbook recommends a wider than normal pattern. My CFI recommends making it tighter than normal. I think tighter seems more logical because it allows the steeper approach over an obstacle. The AFH method seems more geared towards not busting a checkride on a simulated short field landing on a long runway (more time to stabilize), but doesn't seem that practical for real world flying. What do you all do on a real short field landing with obstacles/rising terrain?
Click to expand...
initially, my CFI had me do a pattern that was a bit wider but we quickly worked down to a pattern that was somewhat tighter than normal for the reason you mentioned.
 
Does the AFH version of "normal" agree with what you've been doing?

Make sure the same words mean the same thing. ;)
 
dmspilot said:
I'm not sure why you think wider and steeper are mutually exclusive, but they definitely are not.
Click to expand...
I've been flying for 2 months, so help me understand. If the pattern altitude is the same, and the glide slope remains consistent throughout, a wider pattern must have a shallower approach, and a tighter pattern must be steeper, no?

I could see making a higher AND wider pattern (as suggested above) to set up a steep stabilized approach. Maybe you're suggesting steepening an otherwise normal wide approach on short final?
 
Keeping the field at about 3/4 of my wing on downwind seems to work well for most all landings.
 
If, for instance, the AFH said a normal pattern was 1/4 mile from the runway on downwind and the short field is 1/2 mile, but your normal pattern is 3/4 mile from the runway and your instructor says to be 1/2 mile for the short field, "wider" and "tighter" actually are useless words.
 
<--- Ignore that guy

All your landings should be for short-soft field. You'll never be criticized for a "too short" normal landing but you may hear about too long or not keeping the control pressures off the nose wheel.
 
We don't have to theorize on what the AFH might say. It says 1/2 to 1 mile on downwind, and recommends a "wider than normal pattern" for short field landings.
 
In my world short field usually means non-standard traffic pattern due to mountains.

I did short field landings when landing on beaches, but I usually could keep a normal pattern over the water.
 
I don't know about everyone else but my airspeeds and patterns are the same for every runway. If I need to stop quickly I'll use the brakes. If you are floating on your normal landings taking up 3000', maybe it's your normal landings that need the practice
 
If I really need to touch down near the threshold, I like having a little more time to get everything dialed in and get the speed just right so I can put it where I want it. A wider pattern or a straight in gives me that. If you're coming out of your base to final turn fairly close to your touchdown point, you don't have as much time to get your airspeed and approach just right and may land farther down the runway. However, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and your style, skill, and or circumstance may work better for a given scenario with a tighter pattern. I think I can see though why the AFH recommends wider patterns!
 
TheGolfPilot said:
I don't know about everyone else but my airspeeds and patterns are the same for every runway. If I need to stop quickly I'll use the brakes. If you are floating on your normal landings taking up 3000', maybe it's your normal landings that need the practice
Click to expand...

How boring. Change it up, practice other techniques. Short field and soft field are not the same, or a normal landing....

Tim
 
Croomrider said:
If I really need to touch down near the threshold, I like having a little more time to get everything dialed in and get the speed just right so I can put it where I want it. A wider pattern or a straight in gives me that. If you're coming out of your base to final turn fairly close to your touchdown point, you don't have as much time to get your airspeed and approach just right and may land farther down the runway. However, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and your style, skill, and or circumstance may work better for a given scenario with a tighter pattern. I think I can see though why the AFH recommends wider patterns!
Click to expand...

How does a wider approach help make it more stable? If you do not have the correct speed on downwind, why would you think it would be better close in?

Tim
 
Pnwannabe2 said:
I've been flying for 2 months, so help me understand. If the pattern altitude is the same, and the glide slope remains consistent throughout, a wider pattern must have a shallower approach, and a tighter pattern must be steeper, no?

I could see making a higher AND wider pattern (as suggested above) to set up a steep stabilized approach. Maybe you're suggesting steepening an otherwise normal wide approach on short final?
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be constant, or start in the same place.
 
tspear said:
How does a wider approach help make it more stable? If you do not have the correct speed on downwind, why would you think it would be better close in?

Tim
Click to expand...

You fly at short-field approach speed on downwind? :confused2:
 
tspear said:
How boring. Change it up, practice other techniques. Short field and soft field are not the same, or a normal landing....

Tim
Click to expand...

You are throwing a piece of metal with a horrendous tricycle design, with tiny tires onto a hard surface going freeway speeds. Making that event as ordinary, boring and smooth as possible should be the goal, every time.

For a soft field the only thing you add is a little power if necessary (to keep the front wheel from finding a pothole or mud) and using the "soft field" as brakes. Everything else including the approach is the same.
 
Hmm in response to the original question:

Why not fly a normal pattern and adjust your glidepath steeper or not steeper as needed to clear obstacles...

... and still land short?

It's about airspeed and altitude control, not about the size of the pattern.
 
Ravioli said:
<--- Ignore that guy

All your landings should be for short-soft field. You'll never be criticized for a "too short" normal landing but you may hear about too long or not keeping the control pressures off the nose wheel.
Click to expand...
Touching down short of the runway could be pretty bad....
 
tspear said:
How does a wider approach help make it more stable? If you do not have the correct speed on downwind, why would you think it would be better close in?
Click to expand...

If I'm trying to land on a short runway, or use a small portion of a large runway, I want to reducing my speed on short final so that I arrive at the landing spot as close to stall speed as I can be comfortable with and have it coincide with being inches above the runway. I do not fly at that speed on the whole final leg so I don't think it's really a stable approach. I'm certainly not an expert on it, but this works pretty well for me when I don't have or want to use a lot of runway.
 
MAKG1 said:
Touching down short of the runway could be pretty bad....
Click to expand...

You were supposed to ignore that guy!

Correction noted, it read like I meant point of landing when I meant landing roll. Thanks.
 
Recently saw some interesting YooToob videos made by bush pilots. They advocate a steep approach in near level attitude, with a burst of power in the flare, for real short field landings. (Course they also have the benefit of balloon tires and overpowered light airframes.) One video focused on techniques for trikes and retracts, which would relate better to this thread. I'll check my browser history and post a link.
 
dmspilot said:
You fly at short-field approach speed on downwind? :confused2:
Click to expand...

No, but my speed on downwind is adjusted based on the type of landing. For example, I currently rent a Cirrus SR20. Crossing the fence (~50ft AGL), on a short field landing I like to be between 70-75 KIAS (depends on weight), while a soft field and a normal landing I like to cross the fence at 80-85 KIAS. Depending on when I deploy the flaps, I have at best a five knot difference in speed on a normal approach. Therefore, when I start the descent (abeam the numbers on downwind) I better be 5-10 knots slower for a short field versus normal. So 90 KIAS for short field by abeam the numbers versus ~100 for normal soft field abeam the numbers. (At those speeds, power to idle and glide to the runway). Works great.

TheGolfPilot said:
You are throwing a piece of metal with a horrendous tricycle design, with tiny tires onto a hard surface going freeway speeds. Making that event as ordinary, boring and smooth as possible should be the goal, every time.

For a soft field the only thing you add is a little power if necessary (to keep the front wheel from finding a pothole or mud) and using the "soft field" as brakes. Everything else including the approach is the same.
Click to expand...

Actually, I like it to be repeatable as possible. Part of the reason I am trying to learn golf, I like frustration of trying to always do something the same way each time and never getting identical results. :D
If for a soft field landing versus a short field landing, the only difference you are making is a some power in the flare, you likely do not carry enough speed/margin for a normal landing or you are not really doing a short field technique. In order to get the most of the plane, a soft field descent angle and a short field descent angle do not match. Neither does the flare.


Tim
 
tspear said:
No, but my speed on downwind is adjusted based on the type of landing. For example, I currently rent a Cirrus SR20. Crossing the fence (~50ft AGL), on a short field landing I like to be between 70-75 KIAS (depends on weight), while a soft field and a normal landing I like to cross the fence at 80-85 KIAS. Depending on when I deploy the flaps, I have at best a five knot difference in speed on a normal approach. Therefore, when I start the descent (abeam the numbers on downwind) I better be 5-10 knots slower for a short field versus normal. So 90 KIAS for short field by abeam the numbers versus ~100 for normal soft field abeam the numbers. (At those speeds, power to idle and glide to the runway). Works great.



Actually, I like it to be repeatable as possible. Part of the reason I am trying to learn golf, I like frustration of trying to always do something the same way each time and never getting identical results. :D
If for a soft field landing versus a short field landing, the only difference you are making is a some power in the flare, you likely do not carry enough speed/margin for a normal landing or you are not really doing a short field technique. In order to get the most of the plane, a soft field descent angle and a short field descent angle do not match. Neither does the flare.


Tim
Click to expand...

One thing about golf. Your swing can look like anything you want it to look like, as ugly as you can get it. The key is for the club head to be where you want it about 2 inches before the ball and 2 inches after the ball is struck. Everything you do before and after those points is secondary, just stuff that helps you control that moment of impact.
Landing, I suppose, is similar. If you are putting yourself in the perfect position to touchdown right where you want to at the speed you want to, the rest of it really doesn't matter.
In both golf and landing, you have to have the key fundamentals, but technique can very. Go on YouTube and compare mcilroy to Jim furyk. Two of the best in the business, two totally different swings. When they hit the ball they both get the same satisfying result. Mcilroys technique is probably more by the book, but Jim is more successful?
 
I like to keep my patterns a consistent size, just over 1/2 mile wide and 1000' agl. When visiting a nearby 2000' grass strip, all I do is cross over the threshold a little lower and a little slower; sometimes just for fun I'll drag it in in the prop, but final is over the YMCA parking lot, so not when it's crowded.

I don't fly wide, I don't fly short, my approach is no steeper, but missing the extra 1000' of runway, I need to be just a little slower and lower than at home. Grass slows you down a lot faster than pavement, too, but short fields have no room to land long or float.
 
TheGolfPilot said:
One thing about golf. Your swing can look like anything you want it to look like, as ugly as you can get it. The key is for the club head to be where you want it about 2 inches before the ball and 2 inches after the ball is struck. Everything you do before and after those points is secondary, just stuff that helps you control that moment of impact.
Landing, I suppose, is similar. If you are putting yourself in the perfect position to touchdown right where you want to at the speed you want to, the rest of it really doesn't matter.
In both golf and landing, you have to have the key fundamentals, but technique can very. Go on YouTube and compare mcilroy to Jim furyk. Two of the best in the business, two totally different swings. When they hit the ball they both get the same satisfying result. Mcilroys technique is probably more by the book, but Jim is more successful?
Click to expand...

Exactly, but Jim's technique is consistent. Same thing in flying, to put the plane where it needs to be over the fence line for the type of landing I am doing, I basically have three choices. I adjust my downwind speed, or I extend/shorten downwind as required, or I deploy flaps a touch earlier. I prefer to adjust downwind speed, and keep the other two in my back pocket for other screw ups.

Tim
 
2000' isn't short. :(

The OP needs to dismiss most of this thread and work with his instructor.
 
I agree with Hank, keeping it consistent but being a touch lower and slower than "normal" on final. That assumes your normal is on the book numbers for your plane.
 
Stewartb said:
2000' isn't short. :(

The OP needs to dismiss most of this thread and work with his instructor.
Click to expand...

I flew with a friend in his T210 the other day, he brought the thing over the fence at 80, took about 2000' of the runway. I thought that was way to fast and it felt fast, looked fast, floated what seemed like forever. In the 172 and 182's I fly, 1600' is Mac daddied out on distance needed at sea level, on a normalish day, aiming at the numbers.
 
Last edited:
AFH says "wider than normal" but everyone keeps talking about the downwind distance. I have never interpreted it as talking about downwind. The base leg should be far enough from the runway to give you extra time on final. So the base and final are wider. I don't see how a wide downwind would do anything.
 
Pnwannabe2 said:
The airplane flying handbook recommends a wider than normal pattern. My CFI recommends making it tighter than normal. I think tighter seems more logical because it allows the steeper approach over an obstacle. The AFH method seems more geared towards not busting a checkride on a simulated short field landing on a long runway (more time to stabilize), but doesn't seem that practical for real world flying. What do you all do on a real short field landing with obstacles/rising terrain?
Click to expand...

The FAA suggests a wider base because it gives the pilot more time on final to establish a stabilized approach. This includes establishing the descent angle to clear an obstacle, establishing the proper airspeed at 1.2Vso, establishing an aim point, and solving for the effects of the wind.
 
dmspilot said:
AFH says "wider than normal" but everyone keeps talking about the downwind distance. I have never interpreted it as talking about downwind. The base leg should be far enough from the runway to give you extra time on final. So the base and final are wider. I don't see how a wide downwind would do anything.
Click to expand...
?? wider downwind gives you more time on base, wider base gives you more time on final

AFH common mistakes #1 and 2:
upload_2017-6-23_11-34-30.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top