-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Flying Traffic Patterns
- Thread starter srgalahad
- Start date
I was flying with a flight instructor, and airliner instructurer, and he LOVED doing those short patterns.
We flew into Glendale once and he pulled the turn right after passing the end of the runway. I didnt know you were allowed to do that. He said the towers actually kind of appreciate it as you get out of traffic ASAP. Less for them to deal with in the stack of planes. Mind you this is at a small airport. I would think an International airport would be diff.
We flew into Glendale once and he pulled the turn right after passing the end of the runway. I didnt know you were allowed to do that. He said the towers actually kind of appreciate it as you get out of traffic ASAP. Less for them to deal with in the stack of planes. Mind you this is at a small airport. I would think an International airport would be diff.
T
tigisfat
Guest
The large patterns are primarily for brand new students, and they teach a stabilized approach. Once a pilot is working on their commercial and CFI rating, they contend with short approaches all the time. We do power off 180s almost religiously. You just tell the tower what you're planning on.
Huh. That was interesting.
All these years, I thought maybe I was doing it wrong.
Seems I've been doing it right.
That really cleared up some issues I had on my mind.
I always come in a little high, and do a short approach.
Since I switched to helicopters in FSX it's gotten a lot shorter...
Great video, thanks for sharing that 'Boss'. :salute:
All these years, I thought maybe I was doing it wrong.
Seems I've been doing it right.
That really cleared up some issues I had on my mind.
I always come in a little high, and do a short approach.
Since I switched to helicopters in FSX it's gotten a lot shorter...
Great video, thanks for sharing that 'Boss'. :salute:
T
tigisfat
Guest
I'll take you up in an airplane anytime, and give you free instruction to boot. Don't make assumptions about why you would or wouldn't make a good pilot until you've tried. You'd be surprised at the clowns out there and the obstacles they have to overcome while getting their licenses. You say you fly poorly in-sim while flying in real life is easier because you have more perception of what's going on around you. You also said you have motion sickness and poor depth perception. Motion sickness is overcome (I had to work through it to be a trained aerobatic pilot) and poor depth perception is....well.....percieved. The requirements for it aren't much to get your private pilot's license. If you do actually have really poor depth perception but are good enough to have a driver's license, then you can still fly under the sport pilot rating.
If you already tried and failed, I apologize. I just wouldn't want a fan of aviation to only assume and not know their boundaries. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to get their license.
I'm not joking. I'll take you flying any time. You can fly 99% of the time, I don't let most land unless they're really getting it.
CrazyPants
Charter Member
I took an intro flight in 2005 when I was 20 after a couple of years of hot-rodding it in the sim, and with it being an Oklahoma summer and mid afternoon, we were tossed all over the place with winds and thermals. Motion sickness was in full effect by the time my 30 minutes were up. I have regretted not getting back on that horse.
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
Overall, he's making a good point, but my concern is the way he is making it.
First, his whole premise is to save time in the pattern for other traffic. That may be a good goal, but not at the expense of getting in over your head. Second, expecially at short runways, the worst delay of time is to turn so tight you end up having to go around!
The one thing he did say that I totally agree with is turning base when on downwind you reach a 45 degree angle to the runway leading edge off your rear shoulder. That's a very good rule of thumb.
However, I really cringed when he talked about glideslope. There is a great deal of risk in coming in too steep, especially for inexperienced pilots (and that includes pilots inexperienced in aircraft type). Steep glideslopes often result in excess airspeed. I realize he isn't trying to imply you do this, but the point he ignored entirely is that one often leads to the other. Arriving at the runway threshold about 5knots hot can often increase landing distance 25%. And that extra time coasting down the runway could end up causing more delay that making a more manageable final approach.
Practically speaking, there is nothing wrong and everything right with a standard three degree glideslope on final. Yes, there is a good point about leaving yourself enough altitude if your engine sputtered on final that you could at least make the runway. Yeah, I know that might not help on crosswind or early on downwind, but at least you saved yourself the option when you really are low and slow and out of options. Also, you may need to adjust your glideslope for wind. If you are flying into a very strong headwind on final, then you need a higher glideslope to avoid getting drug in. This is because you have a very slow groundspeed on final. You need either a much shallower descent rate (by definition drug in) or a higher initial altitude (by definition a higher glideslope).
I also liked his point about lining up the halfway point of the strut or wing with the runway while on downwind. Normally that does put you at the 1,000 foot AGL altitude at a reasonable offset for downwind.
My overall pont is that I would prefer that GA pilots not worry about how long they are taking to land. Just land safely. If you keep yourself to a normal VFR pattern, I'll guarantee you'll take less time in the pattern than it takes a tubeliner to go from the IAF to FAF to touchdown. And last I checked, the airlines aren't terribly concerned if tower has to send you as a GA pilot on an extended downwind to accomodate them!
Cheers,
Ken
First, his whole premise is to save time in the pattern for other traffic. That may be a good goal, but not at the expense of getting in over your head. Second, expecially at short runways, the worst delay of time is to turn so tight you end up having to go around!
The one thing he did say that I totally agree with is turning base when on downwind you reach a 45 degree angle to the runway leading edge off your rear shoulder. That's a very good rule of thumb.
However, I really cringed when he talked about glideslope. There is a great deal of risk in coming in too steep, especially for inexperienced pilots (and that includes pilots inexperienced in aircraft type). Steep glideslopes often result in excess airspeed. I realize he isn't trying to imply you do this, but the point he ignored entirely is that one often leads to the other. Arriving at the runway threshold about 5knots hot can often increase landing distance 25%. And that extra time coasting down the runway could end up causing more delay that making a more manageable final approach.
Practically speaking, there is nothing wrong and everything right with a standard three degree glideslope on final. Yes, there is a good point about leaving yourself enough altitude if your engine sputtered on final that you could at least make the runway. Yeah, I know that might not help on crosswind or early on downwind, but at least you saved yourself the option when you really are low and slow and out of options. Also, you may need to adjust your glideslope for wind. If you are flying into a very strong headwind on final, then you need a higher glideslope to avoid getting drug in. This is because you have a very slow groundspeed on final. You need either a much shallower descent rate (by definition drug in) or a higher initial altitude (by definition a higher glideslope).
I also liked his point about lining up the halfway point of the strut or wing with the runway while on downwind. Normally that does put you at the 1,000 foot AGL altitude at a reasonable offset for downwind.
My overall pont is that I would prefer that GA pilots not worry about how long they are taking to land. Just land safely. If you keep yourself to a normal VFR pattern, I'll guarantee you'll take less time in the pattern than it takes a tubeliner to go from the IAF to FAF to touchdown. And last I checked, the airlines aren't terribly concerned if tower has to send you as a GA pilot on an extended downwind to accomodate them!
Cheers,
Ken
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
I took an intro flight in 2005 when I was 20 after a couple of years of hot-rodding it in the sim, and with it being an Oklahoma summer and mid afternoon, we were tossed all over the place with winds and thermals. Motion sickness was in full effect by the time my 30 minutes were up. I have regretted not getting back on that horse.
No time too late!
However, pick a reasonably calm day. It is always best when starting your training to get a feel for what is right during calm conditions. Then, you know what to deviate from if the conditions warrant it. Plus, you also develop the ability to handle rough conditions as you accumulate time in the seat.
Cheers,
Ken
