mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
Useful only for timed-turns....
Bank angle in pattern
- Thread starter ready2fly
- Start date
EatSleepFly
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Useful only for timed-turns....
[/ QUOTE ]
And instrument/CFII checkrides.
Useful only for timed-turns....
[/ QUOTE ]
And instrument/CFII checkrides.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Useful only for timed-turns....
[/ QUOTE ]
And instrument/CFII checkrides.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if you wanna count those....
[ QUOTE ]
Useful only for timed-turns....
[/ QUOTE ]
And instrument/CFII checkrides.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if you wanna count those....
PhotoPilot
New Member
I'd vote for an approx. 30 degree max bank, but the bank for each turn should depend on the wind direction and velocity. Just like flying those rectangular patterns during ground refs, the traffic pattern should be square (rectangular!) with equal radius turns.
Crabbing to maintain a squared course and varying bank angle to compensate for changing ground speed are two things that most pilots fail to attend to in the pattern . . . That's why the ground reference maneuvers are required before the first solo in that pattern, after all!
Crabbing to maintain a squared course and varying bank angle to compensate for changing ground speed are two things that most pilots fail to attend to in the pattern . . . That's why the ground reference maneuvers are required before the first solo in that pattern, after all!
pilot602
If specified, this will replace the title that
[ QUOTE ]
I'd vote for an approx. 30 degree max bank, but the bank for each turn should depend on the wind direction and velocity. Just like flying those rectangular patterns during ground refs, the traffic pattern should be square (rectangular!) with equal radius turns.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll throw out a slightly different view point here. I, personally fly, and will teach my students to always fly a shallow, early turn to final. It's very hard to over shoot final this way and thus the danger of the stall/spin scenario (resulting from an overshoot of final) is greatly reduced.
I'd vote for an approx. 30 degree max bank, but the bank for each turn should depend on the wind direction and velocity. Just like flying those rectangular patterns during ground refs, the traffic pattern should be square (rectangular!) with equal radius turns.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll throw out a slightly different view point here. I, personally fly, and will teach my students to always fly a shallow, early turn to final. It's very hard to over shoot final this way and thus the danger of the stall/spin scenario (resulting from an overshoot of final) is greatly reduced.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Other than the admonition and expectation of using standard rate turns under IFR, I don't think there's anything official on what a "normal" bank angle it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Funny thing is ATC doesn't know/can't tell what a "standard rate turn" is, nor do they really care, from their scopes. Further more, most transport category aircraft do not even have a turn coordinator of any kind, much less anything with a "standard rate" demarcation.
And further yet, a new ruling is now in place for part 91 ops that states if you have two Attitude Indicators (powered seperately) you do not need a Turn Coordinator installed in the aircraft. Hence there really is no such thing as a "standard rate" turn anymore (if there ever really was to begin with).
Fun facts.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not an air traffic controller, so can't say for sure, but I would probably guess that they do somewhat plan for aircraft making somewhat of a standard rate. For instance, if flying IFR and you made all your turns at 3 degrees of bank (exagerating for effect) you'd probably eventually hear something from a controller.
Also, one of the reasons why transport category aircraft do not do standard rate turns is due to the speeds at which they fly. As you know, the bank angle for a standard rate turn increases with speed. A common rule of thumb is 15% of your airspeed. So for a cessna cruising along at 100 knots, you can expect about a 15 degree bank to achieve a standard rate turn. For an airliner cruising along at 400 knots, it would take about 60 degrees of bank, which is quite significant. So for those reasons, airliners do not tend to use a standard rate turn (but s ometimes you'll hear about 1/2 standard rate).
Just because you don't need a turn coordinator doenst mean a standard rate turn doesnt exist. A standard rate turn means a turn at 3 degrees per second. A turn coordinator is calibrated to "do the math" for us. But you can easily figure it out using the formula above. I don't think the FAA's intent in that regulation was to do away with standard rate turns, indeed, I think the concept will probably be around in GA for a long time, but just to allow greater flexibility in terms of redundancy. For aircraft with limited panel space, a pilot may choose to have two AI instead of one AI and a TC because an AI provides more information than a TC can.
Just some friendly remarks.
[ QUOTE ]
Other than the admonition and expectation of using standard rate turns under IFR, I don't think there's anything official on what a "normal" bank angle it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Funny thing is ATC doesn't know/can't tell what a "standard rate turn" is, nor do they really care, from their scopes. Further more, most transport category aircraft do not even have a turn coordinator of any kind, much less anything with a "standard rate" demarcation.
And further yet, a new ruling is now in place for part 91 ops that states if you have two Attitude Indicators (powered seperately) you do not need a Turn Coordinator installed in the aircraft. Hence there really is no such thing as a "standard rate" turn anymore (if there ever really was to begin with).
Fun facts.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not an air traffic controller, so can't say for sure, but I would probably guess that they do somewhat plan for aircraft making somewhat of a standard rate. For instance, if flying IFR and you made all your turns at 3 degrees of bank (exagerating for effect) you'd probably eventually hear something from a controller.
Also, one of the reasons why transport category aircraft do not do standard rate turns is due to the speeds at which they fly. As you know, the bank angle for a standard rate turn increases with speed. A common rule of thumb is 15% of your airspeed. So for a cessna cruising along at 100 knots, you can expect about a 15 degree bank to achieve a standard rate turn. For an airliner cruising along at 400 knots, it would take about 60 degrees of bank, which is quite significant. So for those reasons, airliners do not tend to use a standard rate turn (but s ometimes you'll hear about 1/2 standard rate).
Just because you don't need a turn coordinator doenst mean a standard rate turn doesnt exist. A standard rate turn means a turn at 3 degrees per second. A turn coordinator is calibrated to "do the math" for us. But you can easily figure it out using the formula above. I don't think the FAA's intent in that regulation was to do away with standard rate turns, indeed, I think the concept will probably be around in GA for a long time, but just to allow greater flexibility in terms of redundancy. For aircraft with limited panel space, a pilot may choose to have two AI instead of one AI and a TC because an AI provides more information than a TC can.
Just some friendly remarks.
Just skimmed the many responses. Did not read each fully. A couple of comments/contributions: What angles of bank did you use in ground reference maneuvers? The pattern is analogous, at least from an instructional perspective. Also, if you are flying in windy conditions, you may need more bank angle when you have a tailwind (on downwind if the wind is down the runway). On base, if the wind is across the runway, you'll have a tailwind or headwind which, if strong enough, can result in the need for increased or decreased bank angle. Also, the increased load factor is more of an issue when attempting to hold altitude while banking, as opposed to descent. Having said all of that, I probably am usually at 30 degrees or less. When I typed in the Citation last year, the instructors were after me to use 30 degrees all the time. Good thread.
Ophir
Well-Known Member
Good thoughts everyone.
My feelings have always been tied to the idea of getting a stabilized approach. At 30 degrees in a level turn your load factor is only 1.1 and so it is just beginning to depart, but that departure is going to increase exponentailly. Despite a pattern being something that is flown vertically as well as laterally, it would behove any pilot to not exceed 30 degrees. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, the idea of the stall/spin accident is a result of overshooting, typcially. I think you drastically increase your chance of overshooting with steeper bank angles.
But I teach all of this as a judgement thing. I tell my studs never more than 30 degrees but the pattern changes everyday. The governing concept is never to be beyond power-off gliding distance but this changes damatically when you add in wind from any direction. I like Lawfly's comments.
My feelings have always been tied to the idea of getting a stabilized approach. At 30 degrees in a level turn your load factor is only 1.1 and so it is just beginning to depart, but that departure is going to increase exponentailly. Despite a pattern being something that is flown vertically as well as laterally, it would behove any pilot to not exceed 30 degrees. Additionally, as mentioned earlier, the idea of the stall/spin accident is a result of overshooting, typcially. I think you drastically increase your chance of overshooting with steeper bank angles.
But I teach all of this as a judgement thing. I tell my studs never more than 30 degrees but the pattern changes everyday. The governing concept is never to be beyond power-off gliding distance but this changes damatically when you add in wind from any direction. I like Lawfly's comments.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
The governing concept is never to be beyond power-off gliding distance but this changes damatically when you add in wind from any direction. I like Lawfly's comments.
[/ QUOTE ]
What if you fly at a busy towered airport and never get to fly a "textbook" pattern?
The governing concept is never to be beyond power-off gliding distance but this changes damatically when you add in wind from any direction. I like Lawfly's comments.
[/ QUOTE ]
What if you fly at a busy towered airport and never get to fly a "textbook" pattern?
pscraig
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
The governing concept is never to be beyond power-off gliding distance but this changes damatically when you add in wind from any direction. I like Lawfly's comments.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't teach this, for two reasons:
1. As was said above, at a busy towered airport you won't always get to fly a nice tight pattern. Here at North Vegas maybe one out of five. Most of the time downwind gets extended right to the edge of the class D.
2. Why do we teach students to be in gliding range in the pattern when all of our other flying is not necessarily in gliding range of a landing site? You are no more likely to lose an engine in the pattern than when out doing maneuvers in the practice area, or cruising at altitude. We might even be at 800AGL doing ground reference, and that's not unsafe. It's just one of those things that I cannot resolve as necessary.
Regarding bank angles, I teach students to use up to 30 degrees if necessary, but keep things smooth and safe. I see many students here attempting a perfect square pattern, only to roll out on final for the parallel runway, cutting someone off.
The governing concept is never to be beyond power-off gliding distance but this changes damatically when you add in wind from any direction. I like Lawfly's comments.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't teach this, for two reasons:
1. As was said above, at a busy towered airport you won't always get to fly a nice tight pattern. Here at North Vegas maybe one out of five. Most of the time downwind gets extended right to the edge of the class D.
2. Why do we teach students to be in gliding range in the pattern when all of our other flying is not necessarily in gliding range of a landing site? You are no more likely to lose an engine in the pattern than when out doing maneuvers in the practice area, or cruising at altitude. We might even be at 800AGL doing ground reference, and that's not unsafe. It's just one of those things that I cannot resolve as necessary.
Regarding bank angles, I teach students to use up to 30 degrees if necessary, but keep things smooth and safe. I see many students here attempting a perfect square pattern, only to roll out on final for the parallel runway, cutting someone off.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
pscraig, I've cried about this alot....there's no point. Folks are pretty stuck in their ways about this one.
I teach students that if you're at a busy field, then keep the pattern tight so that it's predictable and the pattern flows smoothly. I'm with you on this one....
I teach students that if you're at a busy field, then keep the pattern tight so that it's predictable and the pattern flows smoothly. I'm with you on this one....
Anybody that can't fly a tight pattern.....who's not flying a 777 or B-52.......is a candyass.
In fact, Lloyd, answer me these:
-The battle of Belleau Wood was fought in which war?
-What's your 10th General Order?
-Where does the name "Leatherneck" come from?
[/off topic rant]
In fact, Lloyd, answer me these:
-The battle of Belleau Wood was fought in which war?
-What's your 10th General Order?
-Where does the name "Leatherneck" come from?
[/off topic rant]
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
[ QUOTE ]
As was said above, at a busy towered airport you won't always get to fly a nice tight pattern. Here at North Vegas maybe one out of five. Most of the time downwind gets extended right to the edge of the class D.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wait? There are PATTERNS at controlled fields? I thought it was normal to have your downwind extended 2-5 miles outside of the Class D. Those of you who have ever been in the pattern on a busy day at ORL know what I mean. "Cessna 143RA, over the Citrus Bowl" "Roger 3RA, continue downwind. I'll call your base. You're number 9 behind a Beechjet."
As was said above, at a busy towered airport you won't always get to fly a nice tight pattern. Here at North Vegas maybe one out of five. Most of the time downwind gets extended right to the edge of the class D.
[/ QUOTE ]
Wait? There are PATTERNS at controlled fields? I thought it was normal to have your downwind extended 2-5 miles outside of the Class D. Those of you who have ever been in the pattern on a busy day at ORL know what I mean. "Cessna 143RA, over the Citrus Bowl" "Roger 3RA, continue downwind. I'll call your base. You're number 9 behind a Beechjet."
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Anybody that can't fly a tight pattern.....who's not flying a 777 or B-52.......is a candyass.
In fact, Lloyd, answer me these:
-The battle of Belleau Wood was fought in which war?
-What's your 10th General Order?
-Where does the name "Leatherneck" come from?
[/off topic rant]
[/ QUOTE ]
Ha!! Easy!!
The Battle of Belleau Wood was fought in WWI. In France, to be specific.
My first General Order is to salute all officers and colors and standards not cased.
The term leatherneck is derived from the standing collars on the Marine Corps dress blue uniform (which, unlike the Air Farce and the Puddle-pirate Navy, has a history older than TV....
), which in turn has a history of being a combat uniform. It's said that the original intent of that collar was to help protect the Marines from sword slashes. Of course, any device to help keep a Marine's head up while in uniform is an added plus....
I thought that you're sure be able to do better than that, MikeD!!
Anybody that can't fly a tight pattern.....who's not flying a 777 or B-52.......is a candyass.
In fact, Lloyd, answer me these:
-The battle of Belleau Wood was fought in which war?
-What's your 10th General Order?
-Where does the name "Leatherneck" come from?
[/off topic rant]
[/ QUOTE ]
Ha!! Easy!!
The Battle of Belleau Wood was fought in WWI. In France, to be specific.
My first General Order is to salute all officers and colors and standards not cased.
The term leatherneck is derived from the standing collars on the Marine Corps dress blue uniform (which, unlike the Air Farce and the Puddle-pirate Navy, has a history older than TV....
I thought that you're sure be able to do better than that, MikeD!!
Ophir
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The governing concept is never to be beyond power-off gliding distance but this changes damatically when you add in wind from any direction. I like Lawfly's comments.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't teach this, for two reasons:
1. As was said above, at a busy towered airport you won't always get to fly a nice tight pattern. Here at North Vegas maybe one out of five. Most of the time downwind gets extended right to the edge of the class D.
2. Why do we teach students to be in gliding range in the pattern when all of our other flying is not necessarily in gliding range of a landing site? You are no more likely to lose an engine in the pattern than when out doing maneuvers in the practice area, or cruising at altitude. We might even be at 800AGL doing ground reference, and that's not unsafe. It's just one of those things that I cannot resolve as necessary.
Regarding bank angles, I teach students to use up to 30 degrees if necessary, but keep things smooth and safe. I see many students here attempting a perfect square pattern, only to roll out on final for the parallel runway, cutting someone off.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course you will always have to do what the tower says at a towered airport. However, teaching the power-off gliding distance concept is really important and shouldn't be understated. True, you are low while performing ground ref manuevers but I would hope you are doing them in an area that has some out in the event you lost your engine; at least provided some decent place to land. But the point of teaching power-off gliding distance is to teach judgement. First, it is applied at a rural airport. But reality will force you to follow traffic, make 360's for spacing, etc. But if you teach power-off gliding distance you teaching the situational awareness too. If they know when they are within power-off gliding distance then they know what their plane is capable of doing. Additionally, when the tower tells them to fly downwind over some specific road, or extend downwind, then you have taught them to understand how to judge when they are within power-off gliding distance. If you are told to extend the downwind and then your engine dies, I would hope you taught your studs to know what to do at that point. I would hope that if they were beyond power-off gliding distance they wouldn't just blindly react and turn towards the airport that they can't make; they should the best place to land within their gliding distance.
So I still believe this is a really important idea to teach. Studs need to be taught judgement. The only way to achieve this is to continuously challenge their minds to find out what the result of their decisions would be.
[ QUOTE ]
The governing concept is never to be beyond power-off gliding distance but this changes damatically when you add in wind from any direction. I like Lawfly's comments.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't teach this, for two reasons:
1. As was said above, at a busy towered airport you won't always get to fly a nice tight pattern. Here at North Vegas maybe one out of five. Most of the time downwind gets extended right to the edge of the class D.
2. Why do we teach students to be in gliding range in the pattern when all of our other flying is not necessarily in gliding range of a landing site? You are no more likely to lose an engine in the pattern than when out doing maneuvers in the practice area, or cruising at altitude. We might even be at 800AGL doing ground reference, and that's not unsafe. It's just one of those things that I cannot resolve as necessary.
Regarding bank angles, I teach students to use up to 30 degrees if necessary, but keep things smooth and safe. I see many students here attempting a perfect square pattern, only to roll out on final for the parallel runway, cutting someone off.
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course you will always have to do what the tower says at a towered airport. However, teaching the power-off gliding distance concept is really important and shouldn't be understated. True, you are low while performing ground ref manuevers but I would hope you are doing them in an area that has some out in the event you lost your engine; at least provided some decent place to land. But the point of teaching power-off gliding distance is to teach judgement. First, it is applied at a rural airport. But reality will force you to follow traffic, make 360's for spacing, etc. But if you teach power-off gliding distance you teaching the situational awareness too. If they know when they are within power-off gliding distance then they know what their plane is capable of doing. Additionally, when the tower tells them to fly downwind over some specific road, or extend downwind, then you have taught them to understand how to judge when they are within power-off gliding distance. If you are told to extend the downwind and then your engine dies, I would hope you taught your studs to know what to do at that point. I would hope that if they were beyond power-off gliding distance they wouldn't just blindly react and turn towards the airport that they can't make; they should the best place to land within their gliding distance.
So I still believe this is a really important idea to teach. Studs need to be taught judgement. The only way to achieve this is to continuously challenge their minds to find out what the result of their decisions would be.
pscraig
Well-Known Member
I agree that judgement and situational awareness are perhaps the most valuable lessons. In fact, we can't teach them- we can only provide situations in which the student can develop these capabilities on their own. However, the gliding distance in the pattern concept is something that I just don't think is valid. I've had several students that were taught this and have had difficulty upgrading to bigger, multiengine equipment and instrument training-outbound on a procedure turn we're hardly in gliding range of a runway, heck, we can't even see the ground. We just don't need to give students a mindset that has to be undone later on.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I've had several students that were taught this and have had difficulty upgrading to bigger, multiengine equipment and instrument training-outbound on a procedure turn we're hardly in gliding range of a runway, heck, we can't even see the ground. We just don't need to give students a mindset that has to be undone later on.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well said!
I've had several students that were taught this and have had difficulty upgrading to bigger, multiengine equipment and instrument training-outbound on a procedure turn we're hardly in gliding range of a runway, heck, we can't even see the ground. We just don't need to give students a mindset that has to be undone later on.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well said!
NJA_Capt
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
...most transport category aircraft do not even have a turn coordinator of any kind, much less anything with a "standard rate" demarcation.
[/ QUOTE ]
Most "older" jet aircraft carried a "4 MIN" turn coordinator. The modern Flight Director incorporates bank limits approx 28 degrees in HDG/NAV mode. Meaning, selecting a heading and following the Cmd bars, you will receive a standard rate turn. Our bank angle command adjusts for altitude. Ie....less bank at higher altitudes. We also have a "bank" button that can give us a 17 degree bank limit.
...most transport category aircraft do not even have a turn coordinator of any kind, much less anything with a "standard rate" demarcation.
[/ QUOTE ]
Most "older" jet aircraft carried a "4 MIN" turn coordinator. The modern Flight Director incorporates bank limits approx 28 degrees in HDG/NAV mode. Meaning, selecting a heading and following the Cmd bars, you will receive a standard rate turn. Our bank angle command adjusts for altitude. Ie....less bank at higher altitudes. We also have a "bank" button that can give us a 17 degree bank limit.
Bumblebee
Commodore
I teach the standard rate turn in the pattern with a max of 30degrees when necessary. My students tend to be planning for the airlines so I try to get them thinking SMOOTH early on.
I wouldn't encourage a new pilot to do a steep turn in the pattern.
I do rather enjoy short approaches with an advanced student, or by myself.
on a side note . . .
Lloyd, I would love to see you Jyreenes try to take a beach without the Navy! ( it's a long swim)
I wouldn't encourage a new pilot to do a steep turn in the pattern.
I do rather enjoy short approaches with an advanced student, or by myself.
on a side note . . .
Lloyd, I would love to see you Jyreenes try to take a beach without the Navy! ( it's a long swim)
sorrygottarunway
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty satisfied with 15-30 degrees of bank with my students, but early on I've noticed a tendency to yank the controls around and then pull back- something I want to break early. I found out that just having them bank at max 20 degrees solves things. Basically, you need to do whatever it takes to keep yourself in the right position on downwind, without overcontrolling. I always answer the question "how far away on downwind should I be" with a cut of the throttle. If they couldn't make the "short approach" I had requested, then they were too far.