Pattern procedures

[daedaluscan]

Two notches is 20 degrees for me. I am much more consistent with three.

I try not to obsess with the gauges, and certainly once I have made the runway don't watch the airspeed but I do find it helps me to set up the same way.

[daedaluscan]

Oh yes and red green who cares. BLUE.

[DaveF]

Don't let 'em talk you out of using the ASI! That's what it's there for. The important thing is to arrive at the runway at about the same airspeed every time (in average conditions). Inconsistent landings are the result of inconsistent landing speeds.

[bagarre]

Oh yes and red green who cares. BLUE.

Nice! I'm partial to the blue ones too.

[ralphyoung]

Members. Thank you, thank you, and don't let this thread die! I find it exciting to read and transform myself into the cockpit with my hand on the throttle and dropping my hand to the flap handle. You know, it is to me like learning to ride a unicycle or learning to roll a kayak, twenty people can tell you how or show you and all of a sudden it clicks.

[LBPilot82]

I'm with George on the brake test prior to landing. I was taught to use GUMBLES for a pre-landing checklist: gas, undercarriage, mixture, BRAKES, engine, seatbelts. About a year ago while landing on a nice calm WINDY day in Boulder City (there's humor in there somewhere), I performed my GUMBLES check as always on downwind only to discover my left brake had somehow partially set. I was able to get things under control without bending any metal and could not duplicate the problem on the ground. Upon removal of the brake master cylinders (which have the parking brakes disabled) I found a bent lock-o-seal washer to be the culprit. Since then I quit checking for positive brake pressure before landing. I figure that a slow ground loop caused by no brake pressure is better than trying to land with a locked brake you don't know about.

BTW George, I'm terribly disappointed and will hold you to your claim of NEXT TIME!!

[LBPilot82]

One more thing... for those who fly an A model (I bet it works for the B as well) and have trouble with keeping your eyes off the panel and actually looking outside, I have found that after power reduction abeam the numbers, keeping the bottom of the wing parallel to the horizon will give you VERY good speeds all the way to the runway. This assumes you carry a little power and incrementally add flaps on downwind, base, and final. I used this procedure teaching in Citabrias and Decatholons from the back seat where you can't see the airspeed indicator. Of course, they have a very flat bottom wing which makes it a little easier but you can "interpolate" the wing cord of our 170's just the same. Just a thought...

[Poncho73]

I'm with George on the brake test prior to landing. I was taught to use GUMBLES for a pre-landing checklist: gas, undercarriage, mixture, BRAKES, engine, seatbelts. About a year ago while landing on a nice calm WINDY day in Boulder City (there's humor in there somewhere), I performed my GUMBLES check as always on downwind only to discover my left brake had somehow partially set. I was able to get things under control without bending any metal and could not duplicate the problem on the ground. Upon removal of the brake master cylinders (which have the parking brakes disabled) I found a bent lock-o-seal washer to be the culprit. Since then I quite checking for positive brake pressure before landing. I figure that a slow ground loop caused by no brake pressure is better than trying to land with a locked brake you don't know about.

So you checked the brakes airborne, found a problem, corrected it and landed uneventfully....and now you have stopped checking? Doesn't make sense...from your description of the event, you would have landed completely unaware of a locked brake, that would have ended badly. Like you, I was trained the same way, GUMBLES which has served me well for 30 plus years. Your new way goes against your training. I'm not dissing, just questioning why this one discovery has changed your standards...also, having checked and found an issue you land with a much higher sense of awareness. Dave

[LBPilot82]

So you checked the brakes airborne, found a problem, corrected it and landed uneventfully....and now you have stopped checking? Doesn't make sense...from your description of the event, you would have landed completely unaware of a locked brake, that would have ended badly. Like you, I was trained the same way, GUMBLES which has served me well for 30 plus years. Your new way goes against your training. I'm not dissing, just questioning why this one discovery has changed your standards...also, having checked and found an issue you land with a much higher sense of awareness. Dave

No, I guess I wasn't too clear. I checked for brake pressure as usual while airborne. Upon landing, I then discovered that I had one wheel locked. During the process of landing, I was somehow able to free the brake and make an uneventful landing. The checking for brake pressure before landing caused the brake master to stick which one would have no way of knowing, therefore I have quit using this procedure. I hardly ever use brakes during landing so my theory is that I would rather have a brake master stick during the end of my landing roll when I am slow instead of in the air before I land. If during landing I discover there is no brake pressure, I'm still less likely to cause as much damage as may occur with a locked brake prior to touchdown. Hope that clears things up.

[Poncho73]

So you checked the brakes airborne, found a problem, corrected it and landed uneventfully....and now you have stopped checking? Doesn't make sense...from your description of the event, you would have landed completely unaware of a locked brake, that would have ended badly. Like you, I was trained the same way, GUMBLES which has served me well for 30 plus years. Your new way goes against your training. I'm not dissing, just questioning why this one discovery has changed your standards...also, having checked and found an issue you land with a much higher sense of awareness. Dave

No, I guess I wasn't too clear. I checked for brake pressure as usual while airborne. Upon landing, I then discovered that I had one wheel locked. During the process of landing, I was somehow able to free the brake and make an uneventful landing. The checking for brake pressure before landing caused the brake master to stick which one would have no way of knowing, therefore I have quite using this procedure. I hardly ever use brakes during landing so my theory is that I would rather have a brake master stick during the end of my landing roll when I am slow instead of in the air before I land. If during landing I discover there is no brake pressure, I'm still less likely to cause as much damage as may occur with a locked brake prior to touchdown. Hope that clears things up.

Somewhat. When checking airborne, it's likely not required while doing circuits. it's required more so after a long flight, it's your call, and others. Regardless it's a very light tap required not a full toe stomp. Glad to hear you landed uneventfully.

[bagarre]

Come to think of it, I press the brakes in the pattern as well....and I've had a parking brake hang up on me at one point. It turned the rotor blue in fact.
I've also had a brake fall to the floor due to low fluid.

Both events made for energetic landings.

Instead of changing my technique of testing the brakes in the pattern, I changed my technique of inspecting the brakes on the ground as both times was a problem with the condition of the brakes...not the technique in the pattern.

Icing could be the only outstanding factor but for it to be SO cold that my brakes could lock up by checking then in the patter???? It's too cold for me to even be in the pattern.

That's my opinion on the matter. Your milage may vary as your flight paramaters my vary.

[GAHorn]

[... When checking airborne, it's likely not required while doing circuits. it's required more so after a long flight, it's your call, and others. Regardless it's a very light tap required not a full toe stomp. Glad to hear you landed uneventfully.

Just for arguments' sake, Poncho... in a previous post indicated your disagreement with someone who might arbitrarily change their procedure from what they'd trained for years....however in this last-post you seem to endorse a change if only "doing circuits".....
Pardon my well-intentioned poke-in-the-ribs, but these comments seem a bit inconsistent for someone who finds inconsistency troublesome.

[KS170A]

Oh yes and red green who cares. BLUE.

Nice RED registration letters, though!

[Poncho73]

[... When checking airborne, it's likely not required while doing circuits. it's required more so after a long flight, it's your call, and others. Regardless it's a very light tap required not a full toe stomp. Glad to hear you landed uneventfully.

Just for arguments' sake, Poncho... in a previous post indicated your disagreement with someone who might arbitrarily change their procedure from what they'd trained for years....however in this last-post you seem to endorse a change if only "doing circuits".....
Pardon my well-intentioned poke-in-the-ribs, but these comments seem a bit inconsistent for someone who finds inconsistency troublesome.

Not so, Like I said its, "your call". I never said i would ever change my procedure, I always check, regardless of situation because its a checklist item, and part of my training from years back....and being prepared is best....Just giving him a feel good option.... However, it's just my option.