Teaching pattern alt and descents ...

[avbug]

If a published altitude is given for the traffic pattern for a given airport, use it. Don't vary it because it takes longer to get there in a J-3. If that were the overriding criteria, then a learjet in the pattern would be at 8,000 AGL on downwind.

The purpose of having a published uniform TPA is to put all airplanes in a uniform position to see and avoid. Sometimes it's modified for overlying airspace considerations, or underlying noise abatement requirements.

Adhere to the traffic pattern altitudes, and don't vary them. Flying near an airport is a dangerous place; it's where traffic congregates, where people may be erroneously heads-down doing checklists and configuring the airplane, where they're doing all manner of looking at windsocks and other things...except for other airplanes. Hence a high percentage of mid-air collisions near or over airports.

Fly standard patterns. People will be looking for you at the same altitude. Improve your odds of being seen by being in the place you're expected to be.

Certainly at private short rural airstrips I've used a 200' TPA a lot, especially when doing ag work and other such flying when we seldom climbed much above a few hundred feet. However, the rest of the time, be at the place you're supposed to be, even if it takes a little longer to get there. Doing this is far more important than making radio calls and announcing position. Be visible and in the right place, and then talk.

 

[Caveman]

I don't teach power settings and there is no magic formula. I teach them to fly the airplane and quit spending so much time looking at the tach, VSI, and airspeed indicator. If they can recognize what slow flight feels like, know how to recognize the early signs of approaching a stall, and can point the airplane where they want it to go they'll never have to look at a VSI, tach or airspeed indicator to fly the plane. An occasional glance at those instruments will confirm what they should already know, feel and see. Setting some magic combination of numbers on a series of flight instruments is a poor basis for airmanship. Enter the pattern at whatever the published altitude is and then fly the danged airplane.

 

[Snakum]

With all due respect to Caveman's experience, when I started out I could only learn by the numbers. It seems I almost had to have a formula for everything. So my last primary CFI let me develop settings and configurations for each phase of flight and then I learned from there. By the time I went for the checkride I was more 'seat-of-the-pants' but initially I had to have numbers. The IR was the same ... settings and configuration for each phase of flight for each different kind of aircraft. I had numbers for precision descent, nonprecision, inbound, holds, etc. for the L-model, the SP, etc. I still adhear somewhat to the numbers - or at least use them for a starting point - when in actual IMC. But that's just how I learned best.

My feeling is that if I start a student out 'by-the-numbers' ... the 'feel' will come as he gains experience.

Thanks for all the feedback. All points of view are valid ... and helpful!

Minh

 

[avbug]

Also worth noting is that for larger airplanes and turbine airplanes, operation is very much by the numbers. Target airspeeds, power settings, the works. For pilots intending to go this course, having the ability to remember and use target settings isn't a bad thing. In fact, in any aircraft, it's not a bad thing.

A student should be taught to be deliberate and precise. A student should never be taught to have the habit of only considering maximum manifold pressure and RPM limits as the only setting to pay attention to when managing the powerplant. A student should always make airspeeds and power settings precise.

How someone teaches that is a very individual matter, but there is nothing wrong with teaching target settings.

My own preference is to teach seat of the pants initially, and gradually work into integrated use of the instruments. A student should be able to fly using the instruments, and without them. In a light airplane, a student should be able to set power approximately by sound, airspeed, by feel and sound, and determine how he or she wants the airplane to react and respond by what he or she sees out the window.

It's all a personal matter in deciding what is the best way to approach it. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is the student. If we teach one way, but the student learns best another, then it's time to alter our technique for that student. The only issue that really matters is the welfare of the student.

 

[Caveman]

avbug wrote:

"In a light airplane, a student should be able to set power approximately by sound, airspeed, by feel and sound, and determine how he or she wants the airplane to react and respond by what he or she sees out the window."

Amen.

Snakum wrote:

"With all due respect to Caveman's experience, when I started out I could only learn by the numbers."

Most students do need some starting point, but I try to emphasize that they are just ballpark numbers to get them started without being initially too high or too fast. If they aren't starting the descent to land from some reasonable point they probably don't have the skills to make a stabilized approach and landing. BTW, I've never been called 'experienced' before. Old, maybe, but not experienced.

I also agree that every student is different and they all learn differently even though most of them fit in the middle somewhere.

 

[Clearsky]

Help me out here. What do you guys consider to be a typical interval of time that a pilot scans his airspeed in the pattern, especially on final. I tend to scan the airspeed within a 5 or 6 second internval at the most. Included in that would be looking for traffic and aligning with the runway etc. Also, how do you fly just by feel in gusty conditions. Don't you want to aim for a gust factor?

Wouldn't you want to emphasis airspeed to a student since they don't have a "feel" for the plane yet? Just curious because I would like to instruct someday and find this a very interesting thread.

Additionally, could you tell me if this is bad technique. I don't concern myself with the VSI or altitude after I'm at the TPA. I just have a feel for being too high or too far out. I set the power in a 172 for downwind then pull to another setting at the numbers to start a descent. After that I don't have a specific power setting. I gradually reduce the power as needed and try to avoid re-applying it. I do 10 flaps on downwing, 20 base, and 30 final when the runway is made.

Thanks much.

 

[snoopy]

I basically have the same approach as a lot of others on this thread. I originally talk about "the numbers" approach on the ground, then I caveat this by saying this isn't a perfect world -- no wind, no other traffic, etc. Then in the air we work with the numbers as a basis.

HOWEVER, I present the rest as "points of decision". Of course there are many decision points, but the main ones I try to enforce are at downwind to base, base to final, and right before landing. At these points we will evaluate how the approach is looking. If we are high, we might go ahead and add all flaps to slow down. If we are flying a wide pattern or look a little low we wait for flaps or slow the descent. On the turn to final we decide if need a little extra speed for gusts or turbulence. Then right before we begin roundout and flare, we decide whether to continue (do we have enough runway, is the plane under control, etc).

We do reference the instruments to double check that the airplane is were we think it is -- speed, altitude.

I find that presenting the points of decision make it clear to the new student that things can be different and that they have to start thinking as PIC. I get better approaches this way and thus better landings.

--- Snoopy

 

[Timebuilder]

I think you have it!

A good landing starts with a stabilized approach.

 

[bobbysamd]

One other thing I just thought of . . .

A lot of instructors will cover all the instruments after pattern work has been practiced extensively as a student is "getting it" and is close to solo. The instruments are uncovered at various points in the pattern to show the student how close he/she is to hitting the parameters, especially at pattern altitude. It is surprising how close to the numbers the student will be and is great reinforcement and a confidence-builder. Also, it is good training just in case a bug or something blocks the pitot.

 

[Snakum]

I'm amazed at how basic questions can turn into such a tremendous learning experience on here. The wealth of knowledge available to the neophyte is unbelievable, and rest assured ... I have made much use of the discussions here over the last two years. I have alot of stuff from here - like the recent discussion of air density - printed and placed into my PPL/IR notebook (along with everything Jedi Nein and Steve Whitt have ever put on the net).

Thanks for graciously sharing your time and experience, guys. It is MOST HIGHLY appreciated. I hope to be able to return the favor one day for those less experienced than myself.

Thanks again ...

Rev. Thich Minh Thong
(Pronounced "tong" ... not like the underwear.)