What Is The Non-Towered Traffic Pattern "Size"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KennyFlys
  • Start date Start date
Most of my flying is at an uncontrolled field that is usually quiet but sometimes quite busy. I fly a 172 and find the "halfway up the strut" measurement works well for me. If I'm not following someone, I'm about 1/2 mile from the runway on downwind. In quiet air with no other considerations, my base turn will be about a mile out.

When other traffic is in the pattern, you have to be flexible. When the other traffic includes students, you have to be patient as well as flexible.

There's a guy at our airport who flies a Cherokee. He always flies a hugely wide pattern... probably 3 miles out on downwind, at least. The first few times I heard him call downwind, I couldn't find him for the life of me. I've learned that I need to look "outside" the pattern for traffic that's "in the pattern".

Ken, I have to disagree with you on one point. I think you think it's a disadvantage to your students and your training to have all these crazy things going on in the pattern while you're trying to teach your students good habits. But I think your students are lucky because they are learning that traffic at pilot-controlled fields often doesn't follow the rules. Learning how to find, see and avoid other traffic in the pattern is a critical skill and all of these student pilots who are driving you crazy are giving you the opportunity to teach your students both what not to do (and why) and also how to adjust your pattern to accommodate traffic that's not doing what you think they should be doing.

Regarding cutting off traffic, if I was downwind in a 172, say close to turning base and a J-3 Cub behind me turned base, final, landed and cleared the runway before I was on final or perhaps not yet on short final, I'd be royally ****ed. If I could find the pilot, I'd complain to him or her in person and I'd likely file a complaint, especially if it was someone who made a habit of it. That stuff is the kind of stuff that kills people.

At a pilot-controlled field, you might have someone who is holding short of the runway. If they hear someone on downwind and know that no one is ahead of them in the pattern, they might decide they have time to take off and do so. But suppose some joker has decided to cut the pattern short, turn base and drop in out of sequence -- basically on top of them.

The rules exist for safety. If someone needs to spend 5 minutes more in the pattern, well consider it a gift, enjoy the few extra minutes in the air and quit complaining.
 
qbynewbie said:
Ken, I have to disagree with you on one point. I think you think it's a disadvantage to your students and your training to have all these crazy things going on in the pattern while you're trying to teach your students good habits. But I think your students are lucky because they are learning that traffic at pilot-controlled fields often doesn't follow the rules. Learning how to find, see and avoid other traffic in the pattern is a critical skill and all of these student pilots who are driving you crazy are giving you the opportunity to teach your students both what not to do (and why) and also how to adjust your pattern to accommodate traffic that's not doing what you think they should be doing.
Click to expand...

An excellent point. Having trained at a class C, I'm terrible at finding other planes in the pattern at uncontrolled fields. So, I use the radio a lot and try not to hit anything.

And at 6'4" the 1/2 strut thing totally doesn't work for me. :no: If I flew with the runway halfway up the strut I'd have to make a 45-degree 180 from downwind to final to avoid overshooting.

At nearly 600 hours, I still suck at "normal" traffic patterns.
 
qbynewbie said:
Regarding cutting off traffic, if I was downwind in a 172, say close to turning base and a J-3 Cub behind me turned base, final, landed and cleared the runway before I was on final or perhaps not yet on short final, I'd be royally ****ed. If I could find the pilot, I'd complain to him or her in person and I'd likely file a complaint, especially if it was someone who made a habit of it.
Click to expand...

Why? How has this affected you? He did not interfere with your pattern. he did not cause you to make any changes. He did not cause you to go around. Would you be just as ****ed if the same guy sees you making your 10 minute pattern lap, he sees you on downwind and gets on the runway and departs before you make your turn to final? Is the runway yours and only yours once you make your turn to downwind? That's what it sounds like.
 
EdFred said:
Why? How has this affected you? He did not interfere with your pattern. he did not cause you to make any changes. He did not cause you to go around. Would you be just as ****ed if the same guy sees you making your 10 minute pattern lap, he sees you on downwind and gets on the runway and departs before you make your turn to final? Is the runway yours and only yours once you make your turn to downwind? That's what it sounds like.
Click to expand...

10-minute pattern lap? Um, where did I say that? I *** think *** I said 1/2 mile from the runway on downwind and 1 mile at the base turn.

How did it affect me on my approach? It might not have; it would depend on where he cut into the pattern. But suppose I was the one holding who decided to go, based upon my understanding of who is where in the pattern. I know who's next to land and how long I've got. If people feel free to suddenly start turning base and final whenever, regardless of the planes ahead of them, then who's to say who's coming in next? And from where???

Now suppose our pattern-jumper in the J-3 is NORDO. That's hardly a stretch, since a lot of Cubs are NORDO. Now we've got a guy who's jumping the pattern, turning tight base and final without announcing it and, in my opinion, posing a real danger to other traffic.

Is the runway mine and only mine once I turn downwind? Hardly? I've had plenty of people enter ahead of me, from a 45. Other planes coming in on a straight-in approach may well end up ahead of me. I've seen guys enter on the base leg. I don't consider that a recommended approach and wouldn't do it myself but I've seen it enough that I always keep a specially close watch out for it.

But the situation that was described above was a guy on downwind behind me who decides I'm going too slow or too wide, turns base and short final and lands. If we were the only two planes at the airport, I'd probably just be annoyed. In a busy pattern, I would absolutely consider it cutting me off and a safety issue and I'd complain.

How much time is this guy saving by pulling this maneuver? The only thing he is saving is the excess time on the downwind and final legs. So -- what? -- two minutes, maybe?
 
I've had a tower send me in ("can you make a short base/final to the runway?") in front of a much slower 152 that was flying a B-52 pattern at the field.... I suppose that was better than flying a series of S-turns on downwind.... or busting the adjacent military Class D by flying an even wider pattern....
 
qbynewbie said:
How much time is this guy saving by pulling this maneuver? The only thing he is saving is the excess time on the downwind and final legs. So -- what? -- two minutes, maybe?
Click to expand...

Sometimes, those 2 minutes can be two hours depending on your biological....uh...situations. If you're flying 1/2 mile and mile that's not bad, I am about 1/4 - 3/8 and start making my turn to base 5-10 seconds after I am abeam. Flying anything larger than that, to me, is the equivalent of driving 8 miles an hour under the speed limit in the left lane on the interstate.

What if he's NORDO and flies that tight pattern anyway when no one else is in front of him? Is he still a danger to those on the ground?
 
Depends on the terrain around the runway, winds, traffic, etc.
 
wsuffa said:
I've had a tower send me in ("can you make a short base/final to the runway?") in front of a much slower 152 that was flying a B-52 pattern at the field.... I suppose that was better than flying a series of S-turns on downwind.... or busting the adjacent military Class D by flying an even wider pattern....
Click to expand...

I think it's completely different with a tower. We're talking about a pilot-controlled field where pilots need to have an idea of who's where in the pattern and some reasonable expectation of what those planes are going to do.

EdFred said:
Sometimes, those 2 minutes can be two hours depending on your biological....uh...situations. If you're flying 1/2 mile and mile that's not bad, I am about 1/4 - 3/8 and start making my turn to base 5-10 seconds after I am abeam. Flying anything larger than that, to me, is the equivalent of driving 8 miles an hour under the speed limit in the left lane on the interstate.

What if he's NORDO and flies that tight pattern anyway when no one else is in front of him? Is he still a danger to those on the ground?
Click to expand...

NORDO traffic clearly has a right to fly the pattern. If the NORDO plane is ahead in the pattern, they have every right to fly as tight a pattern as they want. Everyone -- including NORDO -- has a responsibility to see and avoid and that includes traffic on the ground.

But if someone is going to make a really tight pattern and land out of sequence at a busy airport and they're NORDO, it just seems to me that they're starting to stack up some of the odds against them or the other planes around.

I guess if someone is behind me in the pattern and I'm downwind and they're number 2 and they announce that their intentions before they make their move so everyone knew what was going, that would be better. A NORDO plane can't do that.

We can come up with all sorts of scenarios where it would be "well, would this be a problem or that" and I would grant you that a lot of them would be pretty iffy one way or the other. But the pattern exists for a reason and it's not a free-for-all. Sometimes it's not as convenient as it might be when it's busy but it just seems to me that that's the time when it's most important for people to be where other people are expecting them to be.
 
EdFred said:
Sometimes, those 2 minutes can be two hours depending on your biological....uh...situations. If you're flying 1/2 mile and mile that's not bad, I am about 1/4 - 3/8 and start making my turn to base 5-10 seconds after I am abeam. Flying anything larger than that, to me, is the equivalent of driving 8 miles an hour under the speed limit in the left lane on the interstate.
Click to expand...


Any downwind more than .375 miles from the runway is too wide??? Gimme a break, at that distance I'd need a 60 degree banked 180 to roll out on final. Given that I'm normally going 140 -145 KIAS until I get the gear down and 100-110 on base and initial final, I usually fly at least a mile from the runway on downwind and end up with a one to one and a half mile final. I'd be rather displeased to find that a slower airplane on a close in downwind decided to make a short approach and land in front of me as they'd very likely be on the runway when I would have crossed the threshold.

When I fly my little taildragger I typically stay well within one half mile of the runway on downwind, base, and final if there's no conflicting traffic, but if the plane ahead goes wider I'm still going to land behind him unless he's really wide and tells me it's OK for me to land first.

I do agree that some pilots fly larger patterns than they need but I see no reason why you should consider such behavior a valid excuse to cut inside, at lease not without working that out with the other pilot on the radio first. IMO with rare exceptions a pilot on the downwind should follow the airplane ahead of him to eliminate a potential conflict on base or final.
 
lancefisher said:
IMO with rare exceptions a pilot on the downwind should follow the airplane ahead of him to eliminate a potential conflict on base or final.
Click to expand...
I agree with the above.
 
lancefisher said:
Any downwind more than .375 miles from the runway is too wide??? Gimme a break, at that distance I'd need a 60 degree banked 180 to roll out on final. Given that I'm normally going 140 -145 KIAS until I get the gear down and 100-110 on base and initial final, I usually fly at least a mile from the runway on downwind and end up with a one to one and a half mile final. I'd be rather displeased to find that a slower airplane on a close in downwind decided to make a short approach and land in front of me as they'd very likely be on the runway when I would have crossed the threshold.

When I fly my little taildragger I typically stay well within one half mile of the runway on downwind, base, and final if there's no conflicting traffic, but if the plane ahead goes wider I'm still going to land behind him unless he's really wide and tells me it's OK for me to land first.

I do agree that some pilots fly larger patterns than they need but I see no reason why you should consider such behavior a valid excuse to cut inside, at lease not without working that out with the other pilot on the radio first. IMO with rare exceptions a pilot on the downwind should follow the airplane ahead of him to eliminate a potential conflict on base or final.
Click to expand...

I was talking about 150/2 trainers and the like, not a BE55/58 rig. I also don't expect a C-5 to be flying a tight pattern either.


I've also never cut inside, but there have been times where I've thought about it because the guy in front of me went 3 miles out in a Warrior before making his base turn.
 
It's really fun to watch them go 500' high and a couple miles out. I just set back and wonder what they're thinking...

I was following my CFI with a new student around the pattern when they did the high and long thing. He said the student made his GUMPs check then turned to him and called mid-field. CFI just told him to go ahead and turn base...
 
EdFred said:
Why? How has this affected you? He did not interfere with your pattern. he did not cause you to make any changes. He did not cause you to go around.
Click to expand...
ATCT_ said:
I fly at a pretty busy non-towered G/A airport and I have no qualms about cutting off students and pilots who are flying B-52 patterns in Cessna 152's. Its not safe flying that far out and maybe the go around im causing...
Click to expand...
It is that statement to which Jesse and I (and others) reacted -- clearly indicating a case in which the pilot turning inside the other plane is forcing the other plane to go around. Obviously, if you can fly inside someone else without affecting their operation in any way, 91.113(g) is not being violated and safety is not being compromised, but that's not the situation under discussion.
 
jesse said:
I'm not a huge fan of airline sized patterns in light airplanes. That said--I think involuntary manslaughter is a bit much. Most of our flying is done over areas where we're unlikely to make a runway. Moving your downwind closer isn't going to make any statistical difference when it comes to making the airport during an engine failure. They just don't fail that often on downwind.


I would argue that it is much less safe to intentionally cut off students in the pattern forcing go-arounds (versus the actual risk of an engine failure on a distant downwind). I would also go as far as to say knowingly cutting off airplanes because you don't like their pattern is probably not the most responsible thing to be doing. In my view, doing so is by far worse than an instructor teaching a pattern a little bit big.
Click to expand...
*******************************************************
Having seen 2 aircraft crash within 200 feet of the end of the our runway and reading many NTSB reports (ever see the photo of the Cherokee stuck in the top of a tree) where landing on the runway should have been easily accomplished and wasn't, I have decided that normal patterns should be such that you can make the runway anytime after turning downwind. Obviously not all pilots fly this way thus we have the accident reports. It does seem almost criminal that after being established on downwind that pilots are not able to landing on the runway after a power failure. Of course we don't hear about the ones that do fail in the pattern and the landing is a non-event. I have landed with a dead engine twice on the runway.

Of course for short field and soft field landings I do get a bit low on final because if I am doing one of these landing the odds of me landing long is worse than that of an engine failure. But my normal landings are all practice for an engine failure, and as a result an engine failure near the airport is not really an emergency as much as just another normal landing.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
brcase said:
*******************************************************
Having seen 2 aircraft crash within 200 feet of the end of the our runway and reading many NTSB reports (ever see the photo of the Cherokee stuck in the top of a tree) where landing on the runway should have been easily accomplished and wasn't, I have decided that normal patterns should be such that you can make the runway anytime after turning downwind.
Click to expand...
Your research results are contrary to those of the FAA, which probably used a wider range of data to draw its conclusions.

And from a practical standpoint, if you fly the pattern like that in something other than a very light training plane, you'll find the pattern almost impossible to fly because you'll have to fly such a tight pattern.
 
brcase said:
Of course for short field and soft field landings I do get a bit low on final because if I am doing one of these landing the odds of me landing long is worse than that of an engine failure. But my normal landings are all practice for an engine failure, and as a result an engine failure near the airport is not really an emergency as much as just another normal landing.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...

I'm not following your reasoning justifying the soft/short "low on final."

Wouldn't the technique be a steeper descent angle on a short field, to clear the obstacles, and then land very close to the pre-selected spot?

A long, low, slow drag-in-in approach would seem to entail more risk than a steeper, near power-off descent with a bit of power (as needed) to reduce the rate of descent just before roundout.

If you did lose power on short final in the steeper descent, the biggest risk would be a firm landing if you had insufficient energy to arrest the descent -- but at 1.2 or 1.3 Vso that should not be an issue.
 
dmccormack said:
I'm not following your reasoning justifying the soft/short "low on final."

Wouldn't the technique be a steeper descent angle on a short field, to clear the obstacles, and then land very close to the pre-selected spot?
Click to expand...
What if there are no obstacles?
 
I'm going to chime in here. I know that I should just stay out of it, but I'm bored. I believe that the pattern at an uncontrolled airport is whatever it is. The big thing for me is approaching the pattern. I like to stay out there far enough to figure out where everyone is, and what they are doing before I enter it. Then I just try to fit in. I am not a big fan of the straight in approach, but if the sky is all mine, I'll keep it real tight and do a 180 off the down wind, and put her down quick and dirty. I would say my downwind is a quarter mile off the runway. However, if there are others out doing their thing, I'll try to get in line. We have a lot of students and as an employee, they are my customers as much as anyone's. I like to play nice with them. If the students are out there doing downwinds a mile out, I'll do the same. So the size of the pattern is whatever it needs to be to stay safe. I usually look for the most inexperienced one out there, give them plenty of room, and let them set the course. I can pretty much accommodate anyone. :)
 
Last edited:
Maxmosbey said:
I like to play nice with them. If the students are out there doing downwinds a mile out, I'll do the same. So the size of the pattern is whatever it needs to be to stay safe. I usually look for the most inexperienced one out there, give them plenty of room, and let them set the course. I can pretty much accommodate anyone. :)
Click to expand...

Yep -- good policy.

Absolute rules about pattern size only work when you're the only one flying.

Add 2 or 3 or 4 other planes in the pattern and the more critical task is fitting in.
 
brcase said:
I have decided that normal patterns should be such that you can make the runway anytime after turning downwind.
Click to expand...

When the field starts to get crowded with different types of aircraft, the pattern naturally gets bigger.

A Mooney following a C150 needs to fly a wider pattern and an longer downwind so he doesn't get too close to the the slower aircraft. The student behind the Mooney flys a longer than normal downwind so he doesn't cut off the Mooney. The Bo who's next in line then needs to extend downwind even longer. And so on, until there's a break in the traffic allowing to pattern to be tightened up.
 
lancefisher said:
I'm thinking that you ought to post a few signs in Sindhi that say the airport will be closed to student traffic every day during the hours you normally fly.
Click to expand...

Sigh- if you're going to say stuff like this, at least get it right. This language is spoken in Pakistan (for the most part). I doubt most of the students would understand Sindhi. English is the official co-language of the Indian Union.

Back to the topic at hand- I was taught ~1/2 to 3/4 the way up a cessna strut, about a mile out so I could glide back if the engine quit.
 
By Low I simply mean that I am low enough that if I lost power I Probably wouldn't make the runway. Here in Idaho we have a fair number of no-goaround airstrips ( A Mooney overshot one just last week) I don't want to be at the edge of my options on the approach I am already in my maximum drag configuration So if I make a power off approach I have very few options to steepen the approach. (Slip, but some cessna's frown on that) by coming in a bit lower with some power I can control increase the descent rate by simply reducing power.

The actual approach is actually probably not any more shallow than my normal power off partial flap approach.

Brian


dmccormack said:
I'm not following your reasoning justifying the soft/short "low on final."

Wouldn't the technique be a steeper descent angle on a short field, to clear the obstacles, and then land very close to the pre-selected spot?

A long, low, slow drag-in-in approach would seem to entail more risk than a steeper, near power-off descent with a bit of power (as needed) to reduce the rate of descent just before roundout.

If you did lose power on short final in the steeper descent, the biggest risk would be a firm landing if you had insufficient energy to arrest the descent -- but at 1.2 or 1.3 Vso that should not be an issue.
Click to expand...
 
GaryO said:
When the field starts to get crowded with different types of aircraft, the pattern naturally gets bigger.

A Mooney following a C150 needs to fly a wider pattern and an longer downwind so he doesn't get too close to the the slower aircraft. The student behind the Mooney flys a longer than normal downwind so he doesn't cut off the Mooney. The Bo who's next in line then needs to extend downwind even longer. And so on, until there's a break in the traffic allowing to pattern to be tightened up.
Click to expand...

Only when the C150 decideds to do the big pattern. I have spent hours in the pattern with a Champ and a Mooney. The Mooney flys a bigger pattern the Champ flys a smaller pattern. I have flown both Mooney and the Champ in this situation and it works just fine if both pilots pay attention to the traffic and don't fly bigger patterns than are necessary. the Timing is about the Same, The Mooney will fly a bit farther out on the upwind due to its greater speed. the Crosswind will take exactly the same amount of time but the Mooney will be a bit farther out. The Downwinds are about the same amount of time as is the Base and Final. It is seldom that either airplane will end up outside of gliding range of the airport.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
I agree with the proper distance for a 180 power off landing. Also the pattern should be flown so the runway can be reached in case of power failure.
 
brcase said:
Only when the C150 decideds to do the big pattern. I have spent hours in the pattern with a Champ and a Mooney. The Mooney flys a bigger pattern the Champ flys a smaller pattern. I have flown both Mooney and the Champ in this situation and it works just fine if both pilots pay attention to the traffic and don't fly bigger patterns than are necessary. the Timing is about the Same, The Mooney will fly a bit farther out on the upwind due to its greater speed. the Crosswind will take exactly the same amount of time but the Mooney will be a bit farther out. The Downwinds are about the same amount of time as is the Base and Final. It is seldom that either airplane will end up outside of gliding range of the airport.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...

I fly an A36, BE35, and a C205 at 100 KIAS (90-100 MPH for the 35 - 205) downwind, 85 kias/mph base, and 75 to 85 final (IAW conditions).

This would make the pattern not a whole lot bigger than a 150/152....
 
LiebermanD said:
I agree with the proper distance for a 180 power off landing. Also the pattern should be flown so the runway can be reached in case of power failure.
Click to expand...
This ancient guidance was repudiated by the FAA back in the 1970's when they switched their recommendations from power-off approaches to the partial-power stabilized approach. A pattern flown this way in a Cub is not a problem (other than for the folks trying to follow the Cub), but if you try it in a Bonanza, you'll wind up with a very tight and difficult pattern to fly.
 
dmccormack said:
I fly an A36, BE35, and a C205 at 100 KIAS (90-100 MPH for the 35 - 205) downwind, 85 kias/mph base, and 75 to 85 final (IAW conditions).

This would make the pattern not a whole lot bigger than a 150/152....
Click to expand...
Unless the 150/152 tries to stay in gliding distance of the runway.
 
Ron Levy said:
This ancient guidance was repudiated by the FAA back in the 1970's when they switched their recommendations from power-off approaches to the partial-power stabilized approach. A pattern flown this way in a Cub is not a problem (other than for the folks trying to follow the Cub), but if you try it in a Bonanza, you'll wind up with a very tight and difficult pattern to fly.
Click to expand...

I tend to think that there is a happy medium here - As Ron has mentioned several times, leaving yourself in position to always make the runway means you are much more likely to have an overrun accident. However, most airports are large, clear, flat areas that you could easily land on in an emergency. So, why don't we fly patterns that are just close enough to make the airport (not the runway) in the event of an emergency, but far enough out to do the partial-power stabilized approach? Seems like that's the best of both worlds. :yes:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I tend to think that there is a happy medium here - As Ron has mentioned several times, leaving yourself in position to always make the runway means you are much more likely to have an overrun accident. However, most airports are large, clear, flat areas that you could easily land on in an emergency. So, why don't we fly patterns that are just close enough to make the airport (not the runway) in the event of an emergency, but far enough out to do the partial-power stabilized approach? Seems like that's the best of both worlds. :yes:
Click to expand...

Really depends on where you are.

Here in the hilly and -- to the east-- mountainous country of western Pennsylvania and West Virginia, most airports are built in valleys or right on a hilltop or near a ridge.

One of my home airports has a nice 100' drop right before the threshold for 26 and trees, powerlines, road, and the Monongahela River before 8.

True, FWQ has grass on either side, but cutting it that close -- "I'll be able to make the taxiway on this side" is asking for a bit much. Besides, we locals know that there is a nice ditch in the center that is not obvious due to the taller grass. Land there and if you miss the PAPI light set, you'll have a nice nose-over, for sure.

By aiming for the runway, if you are short, you can certainly cut in and make the grass.

But it's like long range shooting -- you're aiming for a precise spot, and to hit it you average the difference between the extremes. You may not hit exactly to the 1/4 inch, but you'll certainly be close enough.

Besides, runways usually are a nice big obvious thing, whereas "Put it on the grass there" is a bit less exact.

So while I agree that those nice wide grassy areas on either side of the runway will suffice, I still think using the runway as the target is a better Standard Operating Procedure.
 
LiebermanD said:
I agree with the proper distance for a 180 power off landing. Also the pattern should be flown so the runway can be reached in case of power failure.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this concept. What are we talking about a 180 power off landing? Are we talking about losing power, and turning back to the runway to land? I would think that making a 180 would happen on the takeoff, and whether you could make it or not really depends on how much altitude you have when the engine decides to quit on you. This is a big point of discussion among pilots, those who think that you can, and those who think that you should just go straight, but it really doesn't have anything to do with how big of a pattern you fly. Am I understanding this, or are we talking about something completely different? The second thing is flying the pattern so that you can reach the runway in case of a power failure. Why would that be a factor? Are you more likely to lose the engine while you are flying around in the pattern? If that were the case, you could take it to the next step and say that you might not want to fly out of the pattern, just in case you lose the engine. If there is something else, please explain it.
 
Maxmosbey said:
Why would that be a factor? Are you more likely to lose the engine while you are flying around in the pattern? If that were the case, you could take it to the next step and say that you might not want to fly out of the pattern, just in case you lose the engine. If there is something else, please explain it.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but there are folks who like to be within gliding distance of the runway while in the pattern. Hey, if you are alone in the pattern make it any size you want. However if you are sharing the pattern with other people your pattern size is going to be dictated by the airplane in front of you. Trying to be the pattern police is not the way to go IMHO.
 
Maxmosbey said:
I don't understand this concept. What are we talking about a 180 power off landing? Are we talking about losing power, and turning back to the runway to land? I would think that making a 180 would happen on the takeoff, and whether you could make it or not really depends on how much altitude you have when the engine decides to quit on you. This is a big point of discussion among pilots, those who think that you can, and those who think that you should just go straight, but it really doesn't have anything to do with how big of a pattern you fly. Am I understanding this, or are we talking about something completely different? The second thing is flying the pattern so that you can reach the runway in case of a power failure. Why would that be a factor? Are you more likely to lose the engine while you are flying around in the pattern? If that were the case, you could take it to the next step and say that you might not want to fly out of the pattern, just in case you lose the engine. If there is something else, please explain it.
Click to expand...

Max -- as far as "180 after engine failure on takeoff..."

The only time a 180 turn might work after the engine failure on takeoff scenario is with a huge crosswind from the direction of the turn (You turn left 180 and the wind blows you back to the runway).

HIGHLY unlikely (I'm sure someone can do the math of what x-wind component would be required).

The Bank angle would also have to vary (perfectly, I might add) given the changing x-wind component in the turn.

Anyway.... that's purely hypothetical.

The more likely scenario is more a 225+ degree turn to head back to the runway, and then a turn to straighten out and land.

So my suggestion to anyone who flies is to go up with a CFI to some safe altitude and get into takeoff climb configuration, then (without warning) have him/her cut the power.

See how long it takes to get best glide setup (after pitching the nose down -- which will be surprising to some how big the transition is) and then get the steepest bank angle possible cranked in that will not result in an accelerated stall or a huge increase in descent rate (remember -- you're trading vertical lift for horizontal in a turn), then turn the 180 plus 45 or so to actually head back to the runway.

A few such exercises should help determine how much altitude is lost in that scenario.

For most people, the results feed another item for the pre-takeoff self-brief -- "No turning back before I'm [whatever] AGL".
 
dmccormack said:
Max -- as far as "180 after engine failure on takeoff..."

The only time a 180 turn might work after the engine failure on takeoff scenario is with a huge crosswind from the direction of the turn (You turn left 180 and the wind blows you back to the runway).

HIGHLY unlikely (I'm sure someone can do the math of what x-wind component would be required).

The Bank angle would also have to vary (perfectly, I might add) given the changing x-wind component in the turn.

Anyway.... that's purely hypothetical.

The more likely scenario is more a 225+ degree turn to head back to the runway, and then a turn to straighten out and land.

So my suggestion to anyone who flies is to go up with a CFI to some safe altitude and get into takeoff climb configuration, then (without warning) have him/her cut the power.

See how long it takes to get best glide setup (after pitching the nose down -- which will be surprising to some how big the transition is) and then get the steepest bank angle possible cranked in that will not result in an accelerated stall or a huge increase in descent rate (remember -- you're trading vertical lift for horizontal in a turn), then turn the 180 plus 45 or so to actually head back to the runway.

A few such exercises should help determine how much altitude is lost in that scenario.

For most people, the results feed another item for the pre-takeoff self-brief -- "No turning back before I'm [whatever] AGL".
Click to expand...

I'm of the group that will find somewhere out front to put her down. I have a dozen places located all around the airport where I plan on putting my plane if the engine ever goes out on me while I'm taking off or landing, and only one of them is the runway. I'm still wondering why you want to stay within gliding distance of the runway at all times.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top