Bank Angle In The Circuit (Pattern)

z987k said:
Skids are fine. At altitude, and with airspeed.

@UAL747400 @Jfk-Pilot and I used to do hundreds of 180 degreeturn skids per day. I only got into the incipient stage once when I wasn't paying attention to anything at all, and it came right out with a little top rudder.
I think Jfk even showed me, when I was brand new, that if you pull the power out on the first 90 and then put all of it back in on the second 90, you can get the tail to slide even more. Like a car!
Click to expand...


I never did such a thing ;)
 
JustinS said:
When a student overshoots their base to final turn, I tell them to accept the overshoot and get that airplane right back on center-line
Click to expand...
Go around instead. If they can't line up on centerline they sure as **** aren't stabilized, unless your one of those "lets fly a B52 6 mile wide with a 92 mile final in a C172 flight instructors, but the way we (flight school) teach is 1/4 to 1/2 mile final, and by the time the student gets back to centerline, your approaching the numbers real quick. Not stabilized, not landing. Pretty simple. That's what the FAA recommends, AOPA recommends, etc... Can't go wrong with it.
 
KHanson said:
Go around instead. If they can't line up on centerline they sure as **** aren't stabilized, unless your one of those "lets fly a B52 6 mile wide with a 92 mile final in a C172 flight instructors, but the way we (flight school) teach is 1/4 to 1/2 mile final, and by the time the student gets back to centerline, your approaching the numbers real quick. Not stabilized, not landing. Pretty simple. That's what the FAA recommends, AOPA recommends, etc... Can't go wrong with it.
Click to expand...
A pox on stabilized approaches in general aviation, piston-engine airplanes.
 
KHanson said:
Go around instead. If they can't line up on centerline they sure as **** aren't stabilized, unless your one of those "lets fly a B52 6 mile wide with a 92 mile final in a C172 flight instructors, but the way we (flight school) teach is 1/4 to 1/2 mile final, and by the time the student gets back to centerline, your approaching the numbers real quick. Not stabilized, not landing. Pretty simple. That's what the FAA recommends, AOPA recommends, etc... Can't go wrong with it.
Click to expand...


If going around is an option. Which isn't the way I teach. It is an excellent option if you have it, except the time when you don't - out of gas, flying into weather you don't want to, dead engine... Oddly enough, the otherwise survivable scenarios that still end badly with poor airmanship when pilots get distracted with other stuff.

I don't put a limit on bank angles for students - it isn't like they make 60' banks coordinated anyways - they almost always have too little bank angle.

In gliders - we typically teach 45 degree bank as a "normal" turn in the pattern, and 60 is totally acceptable. They are committed to the landing every time. Airplanes fly exactly the same way, having the confidence to make a tight turn correctly is important. Might as well teach it that way in the first place.

In a 172 dirty, you are stalling somewhere around 51kts @ 60 degrees bank level. You should have 20kts to spare in a normal pattern - if a stall/spin is a concern, something else is wrong.
 
To also add, a piston single can be hilariously out of shape and still be stabilized by the flare. This isn't a C-5 galaxy we're talking about here.

I know, I know. Accidents don't support my logic and I agree that it wouldn't be wise to teach a brand new pilot to salvage bad approaches...
 
z987k said:
... I'd be willing to bet you can keep a bonanza to 30 degrees without doing a B-52 pattern as well...
Click to expand...

You can. Thinking back...I guess it's when people used to 172s, etc. try to square off their legs that gets it too far out for my preference. Therefore needing >30 to have a nice downwind after such an instance.

At 30 degrees max, trying to roll wings level or close to it on the crosswind will get you on a downwind where you won't make the runway if you lose your engine. I like tying in power off 180s or whatever you like to call them in such instances (above). So, stopping to think about it, perhaps trying to square things off is a greater annoyance in this scenario than the 30 degree issue.
 
KHanson said:
Go around instead. If they can't line up on centerline they sure as **** aren't stabilized, unless your one of those "lets fly a B52 6 mile wide with a 92 mile final in a C172 flight instructors, but the way we (flight school) teach is 1/4 to 1/2 mile final, and by the time the student gets back to centerline, your approaching the numbers real quick. Not stabilized, not landing. Pretty simple. That's what the FAA recommends, AOPA recommends, etc... Can't go wrong with it.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how bad of overshoots we're talking about here, I'm talking about minor overshoots... If it is so bad that you're banking over the numbers to line it up, then yes I agree, go around. I typically do 1/4-1/2 mile finals as well.
 
Under most circumstances, I don't see a huge need to bank more than 30°. No real need to go beyond that in a powered airplane. That said...other than scaring the willies out of the people you're flying, and reducing your margin of error - in principle there isn't anything wrong with exceeding 30° bank in the pattern.
 
LatitudeDancer said:
You can. Thinking back...I guess it's when people used to 172s, etc. try to square off their legs that gets it too far out for my preference. Therefore needing >30 to have a nice downwind after such an instance.

At 30 degrees max, trying to roll wings level or close to it on the crosswind will get you on a downwind where you won't make the runway if you lose your engine. I like tying in power off 180s or whatever you like to call them in such instances (above). So, stopping to think about it, perhaps trying to square things off is a greater annoyance in this scenario than the 30 degree issue.
Click to expand...
I can't think of any reason to square the legs in the pattern except to provide more ground to cover should you need it. It's useless, takes more time, and I don't get paid by the hour.
 
I don't see a reason for bank angle to be discussed in the pattern unless it is excessive. And if it got to that point when I was teaching, that becomes a lesson on why too much can be a bad thing. If the student is making healthy, positive, medium bank angles, be it 25 degrees or 40 degrees, then I find no fault. In fact, on days with a stronger constant wind, I will make steeper bank angles to accommodate for wind drift and ground speed.
 
A150K said:
Did you do some training with Larry at SAF?
Click to expand...

No, I haven't been out there... I hear he does good work... was considering doing a MiG-15/17 type, but haven't gotten around to it. My recent re-currency was in FL.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
If going around is an option. Which isn't the way I teach. It is an excellent option if you have it, except the time when you don't - out of gas, flying into weather you don't want to, dead engine... Oddly enough, the otherwise survivable scenarios that still end badly with poor airmanship when pilots get distracted with other stuff.

I don't put a limit on bank angles for students - it isn't like they make 60' banks coordinated anyways - they almost always have too little bank angle.

In gliders - we typically teach 45 degree bank as a "normal" turn in the pattern, and 60 is totally acceptable. They are committed to the landing every time. Airplanes fly exactly the same way, having the confidence to make a tight turn correctly is important. Might as well teach it that way in the first place.

In a 172 dirty, you are stalling somewhere around 51kts @ 60 degrees bank level. You should have 20kts to spare in a normal pattern - if a stall/spin is a concern, something else is wrong.
Click to expand...

You make an excellent point!

There's a lot to be said for understanding the outer limits of your aircraft's performance. It really seems to be a lost art.

When in primary training, I feel like a lot of instructors do a disservice to their students by not pushing the performance envelope more. Within structural and aerodynamic limitations this is perfectly safe at altitude. You're ultimately training a private pilot student not to kill him/herself. Turning performance is very important to even basic airmanship.
 
I taught a pretty standard traffic pattern width with distances commensurate to turning downwind upon reaching pattern altitude in calm winds. I never saw maintaining that take more than 25 degrees.

....that being said....

I was a huge proponent of energy management and load factor understanding. Partly it was just me being a flight instructor keeping from being bored, but I also saw a huge value in doing various creative exercises in demonstrating managing the aircraft appropriately in a wider envelope than many private pilot students (including myself) experienced. From overhead maneuvers, to transition takeoffs, to low radius patterns, to 1G demos in every legal and many not so legal bank and deck angles, variable G demos showing load factor and stall AOA relationship, and finally almost all my students saw a spin... All those little additions that took just a minute or 2 out of the students time (except spins- that takes almost a full lesson to get a C172 to spin right repeatedly...dangit) were frequently the highest impact items of the lesson because it took the one-off demos that only looked at one aspect of a topic and combined them where you could more dramatically seeing the mix interact.

A major key is to understanding load factor. I like this one: An unloaded wing is a happy wing. Happy wings don't stall. It doesn't matter which way the plane is oriented.. the load on the wing is what matters.
 
I never found over banking in the pattern to be an issue, especially in a C172. I always taught to line up at 3/4 strut distance on downwind - this ensured you could still make the runway in a power off scenario, and still have plenty of room to line up. I found that a steady 20deg AOB would be plenty to hit a proper low key position and touch down around the aim point markings - on an average day. In an aircraft with a heavier sink rate, even a 1/2 wingtip distance would require a tight pattern, but still no more than 25-30deg AOB and allow for a touchdown at the aim point.
 
Eric Boyd's pattern is fun to watch. Before you jump to the "careless & wreckless conclusion, the two of them are very accomplished Canadian pilots and have the correct waivers and such to do low altitude aerobatics.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top