Test.

Sorry, issue with blocking. I will try a paragraph at a time.

Load factor is an issue, well documented and mathed out, that need never kill pilots. There are two safe ways to deal with load factor that almost never get addressed in pilot training and one unsafe way that is the school solution. Military pilots, having excess engine thrust available, simply add power in turns meant to be level turns. Safe, no problem. Stick and Rudder oriented pilots simply allow the nose to go down naturally. They do not pull back on the stick. Safe, no problem VFR. The school solution, pull back on the stick in all turns, creates load factor. Unsafe, big problem. Rather than teach the safer energy management turn, a mitigation patch is applied: limit bank. This smaller problem gets really big when vertical and horizontal space is limited.

Enter the most dangerous of all turns, the most fatal situation, the climbing turn to crosswind at near stall airspeed. Is there any need to make this turn a climbing turn? Is it a rule that we must make a climbing turn here? Rather than worry about bank angle, why not simply not pull back on the stick in this turn? Doing so is an evil that we can see (pitch,) hear (reduced relative wind noise,) and we instructors should speak of the sick sloppy feel of it. We shouldn't mind mushing, but rather teach it. Just not here!

The second most dangerous turn, the downwind base to final turn, gets more school solution attention. Again, limit bank. If that doesn't work, go around. With a howling tailwind, neither 20 degrees of bank or go around is going to fix it. The final solution is to go elsewhere or better not to have gone here to begin with. Again, no help. Why not enter downwind leg from downwind of the airport so that base to final is upwind? If traffic dictates the dangerous downwind turn, just don't pull back on the stick in this descending turn anyway. By allowing the nose to go down naturally, we may bank steep enough to make the centerline extended or even push rudder in the direction of the turn. We could push rudder to the stop without causing the inside wing to stall/spin. Pulling back causes load factor. Pulling back causes stall that allows spin when uncoordinated (skid or slip.) Bank angle does not cause stall. Pushing the well down nose around does not cause spin.

Looking at takeoff and departure stall accidents where the pilot survived, most believed getting quickly to 1,000' AGL was required rather than advised and that power was insufficient or lost. Yes, mushing down with power feels similar to power loss.

Finally, is it really good judgement on the schools part to override the authority of the FAA? They left uncontrolled airports without strict airspeed, altitude, and procedural track rules because they had the common sense to know they could not account for variables and therefore rules might cause less safety where just advisories might improve safety. Climbing turn to crosswind is not even an advisory. Left turns is an advisory that most will be turning that way when practicable. If others are in the pattern, we can join traffic or safer, give way and use good wind management to make base to final into a headwind component or best, make upwind angle to runway and angle across runway.

"Ours not the reason why, ours but to do and die." However, a good junior officer might ask, "Could that 'Charge!' possibly mean Flank?"

My current airplane (RANS S-6ES) has a pretty short takeoff ground roll (200-250 ft, a LOT less with any headwind) and climbs nearly 1000 fpm at my home field's 580' field elevation. As a result, I find myself at 700' AGL at just about mid-way down that 7002-ft runway.

When at that airport, I've adopted the practice of allowing the nose to naturally come down during the turn to crosswind. And as Contact points out, maintaining a 1-G load means no increase in stall speed over straight and level flight.

Power to weight is impressive in those newer small airplanes. Speaking of the variables that the FAA cannot control, consider a modern weight instructor and student in the old and tired 140 at Flagstaff or Monte Vista. There is no way to safely make those patterns standard. I safely instructed in Fred's C-140 at Monte Vista and never got to 1,000' AGL in the pattern. Nor was traffic a problem there. Nor was direction of turns. Nor was flack from other pilots. Work arounds are possible and even amenable. And safer than stall in the pattern.

contactflying wrote:Power to weight is impressive in those newer small airplanes. Speaking of the variables that the FAA cannot control, consider a modern weight instructor and student in the old and tired 140 at Flagstaff or Monte Vista. There is no way to safely make those patterns standard. I safely instructed in Fred's C-140 at Monte Vista and never got to 1,000' AGL in the pattern. Nor was traffic a problem there. Nor was direction of turns. Nor was flack from other pilots. Work arounds are possible and even amenable. And safer than stall in the pattern.

Yeah, that was pretty much the case for me and my instructor in the O-200 powered 7ECA... Best I ever saw (in winter, when it was cold) was around 350 fpm with the two of us and 2 hours of fuel. I just told our tower crew (well, actually I told ground before I even talked to tower) that I would be using the "ultralight" pattern (700 AGL) due to performance limitations. They were fine with it.

And by contrast with the RANS S-6ES, the Citabria would barely clear tower-height by mid-field... So the Coyote II's performance is pretty "refreshing" to me!

Most students I took on my 3500 mile weekly pipeline loop were amazed at how easy tower is to work with. They are fine with low traffic, where it is useful, because it relieves pressure on their more congested 1,000' traffic. We old pilots who called on the phone to give an ETE and watched for the green light are familiar with their ease with work around.

In the Safe Maneuvering Flight Techniques ebook, I neglected to cover a proposed safe pattern with students that might even satisfy Airmen Certification Standards. Starting with wind management, we make our takeoff into the wind unless obstruction free down drainage egress is a better option. At an uncontrolled field with no traffic and a crosswind, we turn onto the crosswind leg with a downwind component while we have full power. This makes the base and base to final turn have a headwind component.

On this turn to crosswind leg at Vy, we have no safe zoom reserve and are too low to recover form inadvertent stall. Simply allow the nose to go down naturally to prevent load factor in a medium banked turn that will quickly get us on the crosswind leg. Now we can safely resume climb. Could we be faster than Vy here? Certainly: just stay in low ground effect well down the long runway. Cruise airspeed in low ground effect would provide all kinds of safe zoom reserve airspeed.

The turn to downwind leg seems high enough to recover from inadvertent stall. Why go there? Simply allow the nose to go down naturally to prevent load factor in a medium banked turn that will quickly get us on the downwind leg.

The turn to base leg is simply a safe medium banked descending turn. The nose can be allowed to go down naturally and then we can pitch up wings level to recover glide angle. The headwind component aids in reducing the radius of this turn.

The turn from base to final used to be a safe medium banked descending turn with the nose going down naturally and then we recovered wing level first and pitched up to recover glide angle, but at five miles out from the runway today is no longer practicable. Simply make a safe medium banked descending turn to final allowing the nose to go down naturally, level wings first then fuselage, and fly level until intercepting the desired glideslope. Again, the headwind component reduces the radius of this turn making less bank necessary.


The modern wide downwind leg and long final leg pattern allows wide shallow banked turns but is still maneuvering flight, Because the old pattern was 600' and quarter mile, pilots got better maneuvering flight training and more iterations of good technique. Yes, they called the turn to crosswind a climbing turn. Depending on the FAA person conducting the flight test, it didn't have to be so dangerous. Some never even mentioned V speeds. They just didn't like hanging out on the razor's edge.

If ground reference maneuvers were more target oriented rather than target distance oriented , wind zoom and gravity management could well be taught there. Patterns used to be target oriented rather than target distance oriented and that made better energy management sense. Target orientation should be a factor in all turns other than IFR or integrated instruments at safe altitude.

Total energy management and actually using/teaching the design safety feature of the nose going down naturally in all turns is key to reducing the fatality numbers around the airport that have not been fully mitigated by limiting bank angle. In too many videos we see the stall with plenty of vertical space below, not for recovery, but for allowing the nose to go down in the turn to begin with.

MTV will have to add the smiley face banging its head against the wall. .https://backcountrypilot.org/community/ ... ilies?f=6#

The pattern above using shallow to medium banked turns allowing the nose to go down naturally could save lots of lives. A bit heavier use of the simple technique allowed my pre-solo students to get ten takeoffs and landings in each hour of instruction. Still heavier use of the simple technique, to demonstrate its unlimited potential, would be a crop duster safely making 20 swath runs in an hour. We certainly don't need that extreme potential, but it is safely done spraying in the crop field by crop dusters all day long, day after day with far fewer stalls than occur around the airport using near stall pitch attitude level and climbing turns.

Instructors, who is with me? Why not teach students to fly the pattern safely first, and then teach them to maintain the proper V speeds in the pattern to pass the flight test? Why not allow the law of primacy to save lives followed by the certification standards? Why do they have to pass the test and then learn to fly?

Only twice, in 17,000 hours did I have to lead rudder, immediately lay aileron over to 90 degrees of bank with lots of rudder, and allow the nose to go down naturally to miss another airplane. At 20 degrees bank, the twin on straight in would have hit me, at sixty degrees bank I would have put my prop into his tail. When it was another crop duster, he maneuvered as aggressively as I. Perhaps statistically insignificant. I would have died only twice.

When something big suddenly shows up in the front windscreen: leading rudder and banking enough to miss, standing on rudder enough to move the nose appropriate to the steep bank angle, and allowing the safety feature of the nose going down in all turns to function is life saving. Pulling gs leads us to believe we are turning faster. It is not the gs, it is the bank angle and rudder appropriate for that bank angle. We do not have to pill gs to increase rate of turn. Granted, we get rapid rotation when she spins.

We play the game almost exactly the way we practice. We do not rise to the occasion. Repetitions or even iterations lead to muscle memory. If we never allow the safety feature of the nose going down naturally in turns, muscle memory will be to pull back in turns. Spins are caused by pulling back in turns with insufficient rudder for the angle of bank. Very few spins result during side slip to landing because the wing is just preventing drift and the pilot is allowing the nose to go down naturally. Spins do not result from skidding if the nose is allowed to go down naturally.

contactflying wrote:We play the game almost exactly the way we practice. We do not rise to the occasion.

Exactly! It's not just "practice what you preach" but "practice exactly as you will do it when the SHTF."

Yes, Jim, upsets can be deadly. What amazes me, in the videos I have seen, is how calmly the airplane can be stalled in the pattern at 20 degrees of bank.

For ACS we only have to remember not to bank beyond 20 degrees, for DMMS we only have to remember not to bank beyond 30d degrees, but for the energy management turn we have no bank restrictions. Learn the safety turn. As my default turn, it has saved my life many times.

I like Dan Gryder because of his common sense logical approach to accident investigations. But, he has high altitude orientation. His little plastic strips to mark DMMS on the airspeed indicator is very helpful to a pilot who uses the airspeed indicator, one who flies by integrating instrument scan with contact flying. That is common sense logic.

The energy management turn: with cruise airspeed pitch up wings level to gain a bit of altitude and slow for less radius of turn, lead rudder and bank (release back pressure on the stick) at whatever bank angle that will quickly get the nose onto target, push the nose around with lots of rudder for the increasing angle of bank, level the wing first and then pull up over the target; has nothing to do with the airspeed indicator or integrated instrument flight. One must first learn to use sight, sound, and kinetic feel to know when one has zoom reserve before any pitch up. Given zoom reserve in airspeed, pitch up is fine to whatever pitch attitude is needed (no more no less.) As the airplane slows, the pilot must anticipate the turn so as to immediately release back pressure as rudder is led to start the turn. The pilot must be able to analyse relative wind noise and higher engine noise in a dive to know how to safely take some of the natural too much nose pitch down out in steep turns. The pilot has to be willing to bail out of the energy management turn (level the wing early) when in a dive that is going to cause the low wing to hit obstructions. Next time he will know to bank more early so as to be able to ease out of less bank when diving toward the target.

High altitude orientation should involve easy to observe DMMS for low altitude work. Low altitude orientation should involve training without any airspeed indicator.

Please keep on teachin & preachin Jim and thanks so much for taking the time .

The dynamic copulation of the energy management turn is like sex. Cruise airspeed enters altitude and altitude pounds us back into cruise airspeed again. It is a dynamic art form. Shallow turns with just a hint of pitch up to slow a bit and allow the release of back pressure to put the nose into the object of our desire again are just as beautiful as steep turns where we have to keep the nose from going way down with the release of pressure. We want to return to cruise airspeed, not Vne. The airplane is a bit eager on the steep, aggressive turn, roller coaster ride. Still 1 g but we want to get the nose on target before Vne. Banking a lot initially (stand on that rudder and release back pressure initially) while slow will allow reducing the bank coming onto target and cruise airspeed.

I am not a race car driver, but there are lots of them in the Ozarks. They tell me they turn similar to my airplane energy management turn. They ease up on the gas pedal to slow in anticipation of the need to turn. That would be like our pitching up wings level to decelerate to make a smaller radius turn and gain a bit of altitude. Next they set the steering wheel for the turn. That would be like our banking and releasing back pressure at the same time. Next, they add power to stabilize the turn. Gravity adds airspeed to our turn. Finally they neutralize the steering wheel. That would be like us leveling the wing prior to pull up.