What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled field

[rottydaddy]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I'm still not convinced that trying to funnel all entering aircraft from all different directions into the 45-degree entry is a good idea. I'll stick with my straight-in, upwind, and crosswind entries when arriving from the final approach and non-pattern sides of the airport.

Hear, hear. It took me a while, but I learned that a little variety can be a very good thing. For example: you're approaching from the west; traffic is using left pattern for a runway oriented on the south side of the compass; there's t&gs or whatever in the pattern; somebody's just called a coupla miles out to the east to enter the DW on a 45... why overfly or swing around and struggle to nail that turn to enter the 45, all the while worrying about that other guy and possible departures from the pattern? Entering crosswind, at TPA well before you enter, allows you to still keep an eye on the whole pattern, and makes you a more predictable target for others to spot. If anyone's taking off, closed traffic or departure, they should see you. The guy entering on a 45 can relax- you're entering on the crosswind. Et cetera.

I've never done a straight-in,mostly just because I never felt the need, but that's also safe enough, if you announce accurately or, if NORDO, do it predictably and do not fixate on the runway.

Upwind? Hmmm... again, that requires extra vigilance- lots of pilots make sloppy base legs off of too-high downwinds, or turn way too late for final, then there's the base-leg dive-bomber entries (blast them!! Stupid!!), then there's the occasional "once around the pattern before I depart" types... the approach end of the upwind leg can be sort of an iffy place, from what I've seen.

The 45-degree entry may be the "accepted standard" or whatever, but I've found that refusing to contemplate any other variation can lead to a diminished "big picture" and eventual conflict, even when everybody's doing the 45-degree entry (which is always a little different for each approach!).
then there's the blind-spot thing, but I've already mentioned that elsewhere...

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I had a King Air pilot tell me yesterday he'd rather be flying a pattern looking to the inside for what others may do; that his experience will help him avoid other aircraft much more than they may avoid him.

This came after some criticism of a Citation pilot who was coming in on a right base from 15 miles out. I was entering off a 45 from the west for RWY 1 and another aircraft was crosswind following behind me. The Citation pilot did ask if I minded if he continued right base and I told him that was no problem; do whatever he needed for safety of his flight.

I was more appreciative of his several calls and asking to head on in. That's how it should work... pilots helping pilots keeping it safe up there.

 

[gprellwitz]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

That's how it should work... pilots helping pilots keeping it safe up there.

Amen! As Jean-Luc would say, "Make it so!"

 

[wanttaja]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I demonstrated that exact maneuver on three of four students today. It doesn't help that the flippin' Indian students on the field fly such irregular patterns; including one idiot who did a left 360 on a left downwind.

Heck, I was in a busy pattern at an uncontrolled airport once and the guy in front of me did a 360....and we were both on final! I gave him a nice friendly wave (I was NORDO in an open cockpit plane) as he flew past me at the 180-degree point of his turn....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

NORDO is fine and great but some non-towered fields such as mine, it's just not a good idea. I'd rather know some idiot is nearby even if I can't understand what they are saying.

 

[TknoFlyer]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

NORDO is fine and great but some non-towered fields such as mine, it's just not a good idea. I'd rather know some idiot is nearby even if I can't understand what they are saying.

If you can't understand them, how would you know they're nearby...?

That's the great thing about non-towered fields: freedom - and responsibility - for all.

 

[wanttaja]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

NORDO is fine and great but some non-towered fields such as mine, it's just not a good idea. I'd rather know some idiot is nearby even if I can't understand what they are saying.

Radios can be a useful tool, but for too many folks, they're a crutch. Back in my NORDO days, I had people all but admit they didn't look for traffic unless it announced itself. I think too many folks get preoccupied with handling the radio rather than keeping an eyeball skinned

I was on short final once when one of the local flight school Warriors started across the hold line. I tensed my hand on the throttle, but then saw the Warror's nose pitch down abruptly as someone hit the brakes. It pivoted to the left as I crossed the threshold, and I saw the instructors' finger jab in the air, pointing at me. No doubt giving his student an earful about looking down the approach path before rolling onto the active....

Ron "I was the NORDO your instructor used to warn you about" Wanttaja

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

If you can't understand them, how would you know they're nearby...?

That's the great thing about non-towered fields: freedom - and responsibility - for all.

Sometimes, you don't. Other times, they talk so dang much you can't figure out what the heck they are doing. I'm referring to the Indian students I have to contend with.

Last week, a Duchess behind me was ready to cut off at least two aircraft, if not three (me being the third), to do a simulated emergency in a twin. Idiots!

Yesterday, a plane was going so far out on downwind, I had to ask him if he was landing...

Him: "That's the plan."

Me: "If you lost an engine right now, would you make the runway?"

Him: "Would you?"

Me: "Not the way I'd have to follow you."

Him: "I guess we'd both be in a bind, huh?"

He ended up on a final just shy of two miles from the threshold. He wasn't even an Indian student but rather a local.

 

[TknoFlyer]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

Do you know who's instructing these students? Have you spoken to them to find out why they taught the students to do that?

On the flip side, do you teach your students slow flight in the pattern to keep it tight rather than continuing to allow the pattern to extend for miles downwind?

We all have frustrations with folks doing annoying things in the pattern. At times like what you describe, I tend to simply make my position reports succinctly and fly my pattern treating everybody else around as essentially NORDO (especially if I can't understand what they're saying, anyway) .

 

[TknoFlyer]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

(Had a strange double-post of the same message. Odd.)

 

[ScottM]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I tend to simply make my position reports succinctly and fly my pattern treating everybody else around as essentially NORDO (especially if I can't understand what they're saying, anyway) .

Exactly! Learning to listen is a radio skill that is not taught. Doing what you said is the reason we do not need to hear "any traffic in the area please advise"

 

[poadeleted20]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

Me: "If you lost an engine right now, would you make the runway?"

I've always wondered why people are perfectly happy flying cross-country for three hours or more, all out of gliding range of any airport, but then get all upset about being out of gliding range of the destination airport for three minutes or less after they enter the traffic pattern. Perhaps in my next 40 years of flying I'll figure it out.

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I've always wondered why people are perfectly happy flying cross-country for three hours or more, all out of gliding range of any airport, but then get all upset about being out of gliding range of the destination airport for three minutes or less after they enter the traffic pattern. Perhaps in my next 40 years of flying I'll figure it out.

I wouldn't quite put it that way. I'm constantly pushing situational awareness. I periodically (twice during this morning's flight) ask where they would land if they suddenly lost power. The sad part is, they are so busy looking for the perfect field, they miss the airport within gliding distance. It becomes a lesson in their not being on top of their location as well as they thought.

As a side note, the question isn't so much a risk that you're going to lose an engine while in the pattern. It just seems to be the only analogy some understand when you try to push flying a reasonable pattern for a Skyhawk and not that of a 747.

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

Do you know who's instructing these students? Have you spoken to them to find out why they taught the students to do that?

No, only once have I actually come close to heading down there. That was when the idiot insisted on a simulated emergency in a busy pattern. It won't be a pleasant experience when I do.

I can't wait for the tower to be in operation at the end of the year. All the nonsense will cease in short order.

On the flip side, do you teach your students slow flight in the pattern to keep it tight rather than continuing to allow the pattern to extend for miles downwind?

I teach them proper speeds that would match nearly any other single-engine that may enter the pattern. That would be about 90 MPH on downwind, 80 on base and 70 on final with 60-65 on very short final. I keep them about a half mile from the centerline on downwind and the threshold 45 degrees behind their left shoulder should put them on base at a half mile or slightly more for final.

We all have frustrations with folks doing annoying things in the pattern. At times like what you describe, I tend to simply make my position reports succinctly and fly my pattern treating everybody else around as essentially NORDO (especially if I can't understand what they're saying, anyway)

Sometimes, you have to do that short of blatantly cutting off someone you can clearly see. While I've been tempted to do so, I don't trust they are actually looking. In fact, I assume they aren't looking... like the idiot forgetting the other traffic while he calls the simulated emergency.

But, when I see someone who was crosswind behind me and is suddenly downwind outside of me and ahead, I'll fly a normal pattern and announce it. Hopefully, they will learn to control speeds on downwind instead of screaming at red line with the addition of a strong wind aloft.

 

[TknoFlyer]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I periodically ask where they would land if they suddenly lost power.

...which dovetail's nicely with Ron's point (and one I've often pondered, myself): Why do folks tend to treat the engine as if it will fail with a much higher probability after reaching the destination? Are there any stats to back up this theory? Or is it just another OWT born from instructors simulating dead engines while in the pattern?

 

[TknoFlyer]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I can't wait for the tower to be in operation at the end of the year. All the nonsense will cease in short order.

hehehe
Willing to wager on that?

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

...which dovetail's nicely with Ron's point (and one I've often pondered, myself): Why do folks tend to treat the engine as if it will fail with a much higher probability after reaching the destination? Are there any stats to back up this theory? Or is it just another OWT born from instructors simulating dead engines while in the pattern?

It's not the latter for me. I simply push situational awareness for whatever reason may require immediate reaction. It could be a lost engine. It could be a medical emergency with a passenger. Can you fly a five-mile wide pattern without additonal risk? Sure. But, why would you want to? What purpose does it serve?

 

[TknoFlyer]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

Can you fly a five-mile wide pattern without additonal risk? Sure. But, why would you want to? What purpose does it serve?

Oh, I'm with you on the multi-state wide patterns. If the plane doesn't require it, I think it's a sign of sloppy pilotage.

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

hehehe
Willing to wager on that?

If this tower reacts half what PDK has with the Indian students there, yep. It didn't take much for CFIs and Chief CFIs to be called on the carpet or just a phone call if there was a screw up by a school aircraft and its student pilot. At my old school, students were kept on a tight leash when it came to airport operations and quickly grounded if they screwed up with regard to safety issues.

Besides, I can take up a collection from quite a number of locals and keep those controllers very content with some nice lunches. I'm far from alone in this feeling of contempt.

 

[TknoFlyer]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I'm far from alone in this feeling of contempt.

I'm glad PDK was able to handle it. If you're far from alone, why not collect a couple of your friends and pay a visit to the school to see what a little peer pressure might accomplish rather than relying on the FAA to do it for you?

Seriously, I've found it works much better when professionals police themselves. Hold them - and yourselves - accountable for the actions of those under their tutelage.

 

[wanttaja]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

...which dovetail's nicely with Ron's point (and one I've often pondered, myself): Why do folks tend to treat the engine as if it will fail with a much higher probability after reaching the destination? Are there any stats to back up this theory? Or is it just another OWT born from instructors simulating dead engines while in the pattern?

I've heard...but don't have an attributation...that engines are most likely to fail when the operating conditions change. The engine achieves some sort of equilibrium, and when the power level changes, things have to adjust and that's when failures are most likely to occur.

Though I have to say, I've looked at a lot of aircraft accident reports, and I haven't noticed any sign of this. There's a lot of engines going to sleep on final and not responding to the need to raise the approach a bit, but that is probably not related to the mechanical conditions. I had this happen during a flight on a ~15-degree day; the engine seemed to cool off too much on final and the prop came to a stop during the landing roll. I had enough momentum left to reach a taxiway, where I had to crawl out and prop the dern thing. Started right up.

I think the issue is a valid one, though: If the engine quits on downwind, wouldn't you rather be close enough to be able to land on the runway? Many of us were taught to always have an emergency landing spot picked out, and a deadstick landing on 3-4 beats merging into the traffic on I-5.

We got a guy at my home field with a Bonanza who flies the tightest patterns I've ever seen. Warms the cockles of my heart. Important, when you're flying an open-cockpit plane on a 15-degree day....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I'm glad PDK was able to handle it. If you're far from alone, why not collect a couple of your friends and pay a visit to the school to see what a little peer pressure might accomplish rather than relying on the FAA to do it for you?

Seriously, I've found it works much better when professionals police themselves. Hold them - and yourselves - accountable for the actions of those under their tutelage.

I wish it were that easy. Unfortunately, it won't work that way. It's going to take the power of the tower chief and their constant reports to the FSDO along with some radar monitoring.

The school is 90%+ Indian students. It's owned by an Indian who now owns one other school in the Houston area. They have an aura of superiority. In their mind, they are the elite and nothing you tell them matters.

My first attempt at teaching involved such students. I lasted all of three weeks before saying enough was enough. They don't want to study. Their demands are without regard for safety, procedure or the instructor's own self-preservation. I was the bad buy for refusing to sign off a XC for one student when he could not identify basic instrumentation after over fifty hours of instruction. There is no reasoning on their part.

Over half who come here for flight instruction have no business being in a cockpit. But, they are supposedly to head back to India and train for heavy jets? That scares me.

 

[TknoFlyer]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

The school is 90%+ Indian students. It's owned by an Indian who now owns one other school in the Houston area. They have an aura of superiority. In their mind, they are the elite and nothing you tell them matters.

This might be a side effect of the caste system in place in India (although it's supposedly abolished by law). Maybe there's a way to use that to your advantage...

 

[gismo]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I've heard...but don't have an attributation...that engines are most likely to fail when the operating conditions change. The engine achieves some sort of equilibrium, and when the power level changes, things have to adjust and that's when failures are most likely to occur.

OWT that just won't die. Like you found there's nothing in accident stats that supports the notion that an engine failure is more let alone most likely to occur at the first power reduction. I suspect this started with the (reasonable) concept that you should use full power until reaching a "safe" altitude (so you minimize the exposure to less safe altitudes) and somewhere along the way someone reversed the issue and this OWT was born.

I think the issue is a valid one, though: If the engine quits on downwind, wouldn't you rather be close enough to be able to land on the runway? Many of us were taught to always have an emergency landing spot picked out, and a deadstick landing on 3-4 beats merging into the traffic on I-5.

The way I see it, there are valid reason for keeping a tight pattern but under normal circumstances making the runway if the engine fails isn't one of them. IMO the biggest downsides to an extended pattern are that they waste time/fuel/money, and can lead to the rather unsafe condition of someone getting cut off.

The problem with the concept of "making the runway" when the engine stops is that there are too many reasons why this won't work. One is that there are just too many times when an extended downwind is required such as when the pattern get's full, an instructor wants to provide a long final for a student having trouble getting things "stabilized", fitting in with someone on a practice approach etc. Another is that if you follow the (valid IMO) FAA recommendation for power on "stabilized" approaches, you generally will not be able to reach the runway if the engine quits completely almost anywhere on final. Finally, you are every bit as exposed to coming up short when entering the pattern since you are supposed to be at pattern altitude quite a ways out and then there's the whole "impossible turn" issue which happens to be coupled with the high stress (for the engine) full power climb. BTW, when you get that tower you're pining for, you can expect longer, not shorter downwind legs if my experience is typical.

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

Lance,

I have used longer approaches to help a student learn how to stabilize. But, I try to get them started at the normal point abeam the numbers so long finals don't become a habit.

As far as the tower causing longer downwinds... I'd say about a third of my downwinds at PDK were extended. But, most of those were to fall in line along with a biz jet landing on the parallel since there were no simultaneous landings allowed between piston aircraft and jets.

At Conroe, I see the possibility of often using 14/32 in conjunction with 1/19. At the very least, most departures can take place on 19 while arrivals are on 14. 1 and 32 could both accommodate simultaneous approaches. But, we're further away from the completion of 14/32 since it's about to be extended to 7800 on top of relaying the existing 6000. We may have it for a short time while they reposition the road passing by.

 

[wanttaja]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

The problem with the concept of "making the runway" when the engine stops is that there are too many reasons why this won't work.

Not meaning to play semantic games, but there are times it won't work, not reasons it won't work. "Reason" implies there's a logical argument why a pilot wouldn't want to be within gliding distance of the runway. I certainly agree there are times it is not possible.

I fly from a fairly busy uncontrolled field; one that not only has its own training operation on-field but is within a 15 minute flight of three busy controlled GA fields. So on nice days, we not only get our students, but the students from at least three FBOs (plus one helicopter training operation that turns their radios off when they operate from our field). I've followed many a broad student pattern. I'd just as soon not be #3 on a two-mile final, but it happens. I couldn't make the runway if the engine quits in these case, but I don't fret or worry (any more than normal, that is . Given my druthers, though, I'd druther be within gliding range if the squirrels hiccup.

BTW, when you get that tower you're pining for, you can expect longer, not shorter downwind legs if my experience is typical.

T'warn't me, gov'nah, I ain't pining for a tower. I haven't flown into a controlled field (other than the temporary tower at the Arlington Fly-In) for about ten years. I'd just as soon rip the radio out and go back to being NORDO.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[t0r0nad0]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

The school is 90%+ Indian students. It's owned by an Indian who now owns one other school in the Houston area. They have an aura of superiority. In their mind, they are the elite and nothing you tell them matters.

I can attest to this "aura of superiority" as well. This school has two locations - CXO (Conroe) and EYQ (Weiser) - both in the Houston area. I have two stories from just this weekend where I heard negative reports about this school:

The first came on Saturday, when I excused myself from my girlfriend's family for a few hours to drive from the resort where we were staying down to La Grange airport (3T5) for the monthly BBQ put on by EAA Ch. 1347. I ran into a pilot who bases his lovely 2000 Piper Archer III at West Houston (IWS). He mentioned that he just got his license last year, and I asked where he did his training. He said that he started with this school at their EYQ location, but left them because of the poor way they maintained their aircraft. He said that he grounded a particular aircraft 3 times in the same week with the same squawk. Each time he was scheduled again in that aircraft and that problem hadn't been fixed (I forget what he said the problem was). But, the Indian students were still flying that aircraft during that time. Another time an airplane had a bad starter. They sent the mechanic out to look at it, so my new acquaintance went back to the plane to wait for him. The mechanic that came out was a Jamaican guy with all of his hair in dreadlocks, and he proceeded to open the cowling and bang on the starter a couple of times with a hammer. Then he said, "You should be good to go now, mon!" My acquaintance turned to his instructor (who was a girl who was just as fed up with the way the school was being run) and said that within two weeks, he'd have his own airplane. So, he found an Archer in Seattle and bought it, then he and his CFI flew to Seattle to go pick it up and bring it back (I guess that's one way to satisfy your x-c requirements). The school found out that he bought his own airplane and immediately fired his CFI, thinking that she had talked him into it. So, she finished up his training privately and she now flies corporate jets out of Hobby... it worked out better for both of them.

Story # 2 is I have a friend who just bought a Piper Cub, and he keeps it hangared at CXO. I was at a pilot gathering last night and he was there too, so I was telling him about Kenny's situation and about this thread in particular. He also corroborated the "B-52 patterns" (his words) that the students from this particular school did and how it really made it tough for him to really see and avoid - especially since his plane has no electrical system, so he's NORDO. He said that he and his hangar neighbors are looking forward to the tower going in and something being done about this situation.

 

[gismo]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

Not meaning to play semantic games, but there are times it won't work, not reasons it won't work. "Reason" implies there's a logical argument why a pilot wouldn't want to be within gliding distance of the runway. I certainly agree there are times it is not possible.

Can't argue that, but I was referring to applied to the impracticality of expecting tight patterns during the times when they exist for valid or invalid reasons. IOW I agree that a pilot would normally want to remain withing gliding distance even when there's a good reason not to.

T'warn't me, gov'nah, I ain't pining for a tower.

Yep, I mixed you up with Ken, sorry.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

(Sorry, guys. I just noticed this was discussed already on this thread.)

Me: "If you lost an engine right now, would you make the runway?"

I'm at a loss to understand this question. I spend at least 95% of my flight too far from an airport to make a runway. And, when landing at my home field, Tower often sends me on a 2-5 mile downwind anyway.

Why this fixation on being able to "make the runway" from downwind? Is there something about the downwind that kills engines?

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I'm at a loss to understand this question. I spend at least 95% of my flight too far from an airport to make a runway. And, when landing at my home field, Tower often sends me on a 2-5 mile downwind anyway.

Why this fixation on being able to "make the runway" from downwind? Is there something about the downwind that kills engines?

As I said previously, the lost engine is more a good example why one should be bit closer. The second would be to let folks get into the airport without logging XC in the pattern.

We have two corporate customers who come in tighter than these Inidans fly. One is a CJ2 and the other is a Hawker 800. Another customer with a G-III goes out only as far as the Inidans normally fly for final. Go figure!

As I said, just because you can doesn't mean you should. Besides, I have to wonder how many of them clear the engine and have had it cough a bit on final. One of these days, it's not gonna just cough.

 

[poadeleted20]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I've heard...but don't have an attributation...that engines are most likely to fail when the operating conditions change. The engine achieves some sort of equilibrium, and when the power level changes, things have to adjust and that's when failures are most likely to occur. Though I have to say, I've looked at a lot of aircraft accident reports, and I haven't noticed any sign of this.

I've never seen any evidence to support this hypothesis, either.

There's a lot of engines going to sleep on final and not responding to the need to raise the approach a bit, but that is probably not related to the mechanical conditions. I had this happen during a flight on a ~15-degree day; the engine seemed to cool off too much on final and the prop came to a stop during the landing roll. I had enough momentum left to reach a taxiway, where I had to crawl out and prop the dern thing. Started right up.

Another reason to make the FAA-recommnended partial-power stabilized VFR approach.

I think the issue is a valid one, though: If the engine quits on downwind, wouldn't you rather be close enough to be able to land on the runway? Many of us were taught to always have an emergency landing spot picked out, and a deadstick landing on 3-4 beats merging into the traffic on I-5.

Perhaps, but my accident data analysis (5 years' worth) tells me that folks trying to make the necessarily super-tight pattern required to stay within gliding range of the runway screw up their necessarily power-off approaches and roll their planes into a ball on the runway at an unacceptable rate, while the number of engine failures in the pattern is miniscule.

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

Perhaps, but my accident data analysis (5 years' worth) tells me that folks trying to make the necessarily super-tight pattern required to stay within gliding range of the runway screw up their necessarily power-off approaches and roll their planes into a ball on the runway at an unacceptable rate, while the number of engine failures in the pattern is miniscule.

Ron, I'm not quite following on part of this.

You say "super tight" patterns will interfere with power-off glides. If you're too close in, I definitely agree. I've seen a local Pitts do such but then he's no larger than some over-sized RC planes. But, a Skyhawk needs a given amount of space to establish an approach and landing for a Power-0ff 180.

I teach about a half-mile off centerline and have backed up the distance with some mapping. It comes out to be about a 45 degree view down to the runway from the left seat. Is that considered too close or too far? It seems to work while the right distance for starting a power-off glide from downwind.

I've only had issues with those who fly so far out and on downwind to force the next plane into a 2+ mile final. As stated, losing an engine there is pretty unlikely. But, what else do you say to encourage an efficient use of the pattern? I probably just hit on a key word there, "efficient."

 

[tonycondon]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

i suspect the students probably need that big pattern in order to get the airplane set up for landing. they are just learning this stuff so the serial task of transitioning for cruiseish to a nice landing takes time, and that takes distance. My students typically start out with wideish patterns and long finals. because they need to learn what the approach angles look like, and how to make proper adjustments. As they progress past solo and to a checkride I generally have them gradually tighten things up by using less power, but only after they are up to the task.

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

i suspect the students probably need that big pattern in order to get the airplane set up for landing. they are just learning this stuff so the serial task of transitioning for cruiseish to a nice landing takes time, and that takes distance. My students typically start out with wideish patterns and long finals. because they need to learn what the approach angles look like, and how to make proper adjustments. As they progress past solo and to a checkride I generally have them gradually tighten things up by using less power, but only after they are up to the task.

I can understand slightly longer finals at first but super wide patterns? I think that sets a precedent you don't really want. That primacy thing and all...

 

[dmccormack]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

I can understand slightly longer finals at first but super wide patterns? I think that sets a precedent you don't really want. That primacy thing and all...

If you focus only on primacy (one of the laws of learning), the first time out, every single mistake must be corrected to perfection, lest the student learn bad habits.

Obviously, no one does this. Thus the building block approach to learning. You learn this thing, then add the next thing.

An extra-long (to us) final makes sense for a beginning student who needs time (which, as Tony said, is distance) to get the picture -- the descent angle, the runway appearance, the feel of the airplane at the slower, reduced power flight regime close to the ground, and adjusting the airplane's attitude to compensate for the effect of crosswinds.

While I understand your point about precedence, the fact is people who are learning to fly are usually intelligent enough to understand exceptions.

While we would all prefer to make each moment shine as a stellar example of "how to do it the right way," we have to be ready and willing to adjust to accommodate the student.

Of course if you're buzzing around with 5 other airplanes in the same pattern, maybe a short XC to a quieter field makes sense.

One thing is true about all learning -- and instruction -- is that very few dogmatic pronouncements survive the realties of teaching.

 

[tonycondon]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

thank you Dan.

 

[t0r0nad0]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

Of course if you're buzzing around with 5 other airplanes in the same pattern, maybe a short XC to a quieter field makes sense.

This is kind of an aside, but how far are you from Williams (9X1)? That should be a nice little quiet airport to practice touch & goes at, right?

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

If you focus only on primacy (one of the laws of learning), the first time out, every single mistake must be corrected to perfection, lest the student learn bad habits.

Obviously, no one does this. Thus the building block approach to learning. You learn this thing, then add the next thing.

An extra-long (to us) final makes sense for a beginning student who needs time (which, as Tony said, is distance) to get the picture -- the descent angle, the runway appearance, the feel of the airplane at the slower, reduced power flight regime close to the ground, and adjusting the airplane's attitude to compensate for the effect of crosswinds.

While I understand your point about precedence, the fact is people who are learning to fly are usually intelligent enough to understand exceptions.

While we would all prefer to make each moment shine as a stellar example of "how to do it the right way," we have to be ready and willing to adjust to accommodate the student.

Of course if you're buzzing around with 5 other airplanes in the same pattern, maybe a short XC to a quieter field makes sense.

One thing is true about all learning -- and instruction -- is that very few dogmatic pronouncements survive the realties of teaching.

I'm only getting at the super wide patterns I don't want to be a habit. I suppose if a CFI wants to let students start out doing them so huge, more power to them. But, I see no need for anything more than an extended downwind. I never argued that point.

I recently saw where another person argued to start them on a normal final so they don't get used to the wide patterns. I'm all for adjusting for the student but you don't let them keep deviating just because it's allowed. If you give in to the +/-200 feet allowed by the PTS, where do they learn to improve their standard of performance?

While anyone wishes to criticize my methods there, I invite you to come down here and spend a week training around the Indians. You won't last a day without cussing your head off. My witness of MVP students is there is NO improvement of a standard.

Coming back in this evening, a student from that school was doing steep turns OVER the city, barely outside where the Class B shelf drops to 2,000. I was at 2,500 and they were level with me to the south then crossed paths to the north in front of me. All of this was within 10NM of my airport, about the point I switched from approach back to CTAF.

I would have thought things would be much easier and much more relaxed than it was back under Atlanta Class B. I was wrong.

 

[KennyFlys]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

This is kind of an aside, but how far are you from Williams (9X1)? That should be a nice little quiet airport to practice touch & goes at, right?

It's not that far south at all, about ten miles. It would be a nice little airport though I understand the runway needs some work. I recently heard it was privately purchased and the new owner plans to repave it.

Currently, I take students up to Huntsville. It's a quick 28 miles north and the runway is in great shape. Likewise, there are Cleveland and Livingston but have not used those as much.

I make use of the trips to the other airports for hood time or a VOR intercept when appropriate for the student which usually applies if they are working on a landing.

 

[gismo]

Re: What several thousand hours tells me about non standard entries at uncontrolled f

An extra-long (to us) final makes sense for a beginning student who needs time (which, as Tony said, is distance) to get the picture -- the descent angle, the runway appearance, the feel of the airplane at the slower, reduced power flight regime close to the ground, and adjusting the airplane's attitude to compensate for the effect of crosswinds.

While I understand your point about precedence, the fact is people who are learning to fly are usually intelligent enough to understand exceptions.

I'd expect a savvy CFI to explain to the student that B52 patterns aren't the norm and that the extra room is just a part of the early learning process to be replaced with a tighter circuit after the student becomes comfortable with basic landing techniques. I suspect that a significant portion of the pilots who continue to make excessively large patterns were never informed about this in addition to failing to figure it out for themselves.