Circular Patterns: Morally Opposed To All Change

0

One man’s dogma is another man’s entertainment. Which is another way of saying as a sometime editorial arsonist, I will happily stand by and watch pilots vigorously argue about truths none of us hold to be self-evident. And what better way to be entertained than discussing pattern entries.

I’m disappointed to admit I didn’t start this fire. The credit goes to our sister publication, Aviation Safety, or more properly to the University of North Dakota, which has proposed the fool idea that we start flying circular patterns, rather than the tried and true square ones we’ve all become accustomed to. Actually, UND didn’t propose circular patterns, but rather wishes to study them as an alternate method that might improve safety. Think of it! Actual research.

Aviation Safety duly reported on the project, offered a sober analysis and more or less let the cards drop. Not surprisingly—or, I dunno, maybe it is a surprise—this ignited quite a controversy in the letters column, one that left the publication’s unsuspecting editor dazed and bleeding and hiding in an under-desk revetment.

Here’s the basic idea: This is a variation on the military overhead approach and although it can be flown like an overhead, it can also be flown from a conventional downwind. Rather than a conventional squared base and final, you’d fly a continuous circling turn to a short wings-level segment, then a landing. The approach is flown closer in than a conventional square approach, at least on the base portion of it, and requires a continuous, descending turn to touchdown.

What possible advantages can this have, other than making it more difficult for the pilot and pissing off people who think you shouldn’t be doing it? For one, it’s efficient. It obviates the need to fly too-large square patterns that foul up the interval if there’s other traffic. Second, once the skill is acquired, altitude and glidepath control are much easier to control accurately in the continuous turn because you’re constantly making adjustments; you can’t just sit there, like so many pilots do. This hones skills you might need in an emergency landing scenario after an engine stoppage. Last, it’s fun. More fun than a boring square approach.

I often fly these in the Cub, but to get it to work, I fly a close in downwind and a tight radius turn because the Cub is so slow. If there’s significant traffic around, I skip it and go for the square pattern because some people are confused about seeing it done because they don’t expect it and imagine it to be unlawful. (It isn’t.)

A few of them wrote Aviation Safety to explain why you shouldn’t do the circular pattern. The low-wing guys say the wing will block your view of the runway and the high wing guys say the wing will block your view of the runway. Which is it? Neither. If the bank is held to a modest 30 degrees, you’ll have no trouble seeing what you need to see to adjust angles, rates and altitudes. Once you get this figured out, you’ll be surprised how much more accurately you can fly an approach.

One reader made the argument that the circular approach is the definition of an unstabilized approach. Well, yeah. That’s the point. The stabilized approach is the Holy Grail of airline flying and it should be, given the research that supports its safety benefits. But the aviation press has oversold the concept for light aircraft flying. I think any pilot should be skilled enough to fly a descending, decelerating approach to hit a target airspeed. If you fly instrument approaches into airports with jets around, you should be able to hit the marker at 120 knots and the runway at 70.

It requires skilled coordination of throttle, pitch and, if you’re turning, bank. But holy crap, what if you have to add flaps? Add flaps. If you practice this stuff, it should hold no particular fears and just makes you a better all around pilot. I concede two points against the circular approach. One is that other aircraft in the pattern might not expect it so either conform to what it is expected, or explain yourself on CTAF. I’ve found that other pilots are generally OK with it if you explain what’s coming. Also, be mindful of traffic on final. You may have to flick a wing to get a good look.

Second, if this requires more skill that a square approach, can we reasonably expect pilots who fly 40 hours a year to master it? Possibly not, to be fair. But what if it really doesn’t require more skill but is, in fact, readily mastered? The goal of UND’s research—AOPA Air Safety Foundation joined the work—was to reduce loss-of-control accidents. UND’s Lewis Archer told me the research is done and initial indications suggest that there are benefits to the circular approach. He also says a second round of research will be necessary to explore the worry about keeping the runway in sight. AOPA is expected to release the full study in a few weeks.

The Eyes of the World

Today is June 6th and I am in France. For anyone with passing knowledge of World War II, the date and place should have a resonance that requires no explanation. I’m actually at Tarbes today, a lovely Pyrenees city where the TBM is built. I’ve come to tour the factory.

Tomorrow, we’ll be in Normandy, where I will fulfill a lifetime ambition to visit the invasion beaches and, especially, the Airborne Museum in St. Mere Eglise. I’ll be filing a video report next week.

LEAVE A REPLY