This "Enter the pattern at 1000 feet" concept we teach

[peek 21]

I have seen a lot of reference to teaching (basic) canopy control and learning to land where intended by suggesting to a student where to be in altitude at particular points in the landing pattern. And in particular to "enter the pattern" at about 1000 feet.

I would like to hear from a number of people that have recently learned to steer themselves in recently as to whether this techniques was described to you and whether or not it worked very well.

I have been getting some feedback lately about how altitudes starting at about 1000 feet are quite a bit too high.

I took my big-ass canopy that is loaded about like a student canopy and tried what many of us normally teach. Wasn't that an eye-opener! Even for a conservative pattern, way too high.

I'm not suggesting anything else at the moment, but am just wondering how well what we are teaching works.

[Sheenster303 0]

I still do the "enter the pattern at 1000 feet" concept. I do normally come in a bit high, but I'm used to just doing S turns to eat up some altitude. But I also tend to hug the landing area. I'm guessing it all depends on where you set up your playground and how the winds are that day.

I'm so funny I crack my head open!

P.M.S. #102

[ScubaSteve 0]

First, I am lucky to have very large langing area at the DZ where I am learning.

The 1000 ft start of pattern, in my very limited experience, has only seems high on no-wind days.

[quade 4]

I practice what I preach when it comes to being at the key point in the pattern at 1000 ft AGL. It is, by far, the easiest and most consistant way to begin an approach that is predictable and accurate. The "key" is learning where that key point is and how to then gage where to turn base and final.

My -guess- is that you -might- be getting feedback from some folks that like to swoop in an area nearby -- possibly the -same- area.

If a person flys to the key and then turns downwind, that -may- put swoopers entering at 800 AGL for a 270 hook in conflict.

If you need a diagram -- lemme know.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ladyskydiver 0]

I start my pattern at 1,000 feet and adjust the legs of my pattern as needed.

Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile.

[larsrulz 0]

I learned to fly aircraft before learning to fly a canopy, so I approach landings very much as a pilot would, so I like the concept of being at a certain altitude when abeam ones landing point, which I assume you mean here as "enter[ing] the pattern". Being I learned a good deal of canopy control from Gary during my student time, I was originally following this 1000' idea. On a light or no wind day, following a 1000' enter, 600' turn to base, and 400' turn to final seemed to work fairly well, but 1000' makes it very difficult for a new canopy pilot to adjust for mid to high wind days, especially when its hard to give much more detailed explaination aside from to "tighten ones pattern".

Since about the time I got my B license, I have been leaning towards being abeam at about 700'. This translates to about 450' turn to base, and 300' turn to final. Mostly, I feel much more confortable knowing I can do a 90 degree flat turn in under 50' and make a 45 degree harness turn in 100'. That aside, I think that 1000' is a good altitude for students to enter the pattern at. This allows them plenty of time for their two necessary 90 degree turns without rushing the landing.

After all this, I'm not sure if I fully understand your question. What was "way too high" about this pattern entrance altitude? Did it make it hard to judge when to turn base and final? Did it seem to lean towards base and final turns too soon as to cause overflying the target?

I got a strong urge to fly, but I got no where to fly to. -PF

[quade 4]

I think we -may- have to redefine our terms here.

If people are using 1000 AGL downwind and abeam the target, then that is, in my opinion, too high.

My key point, the place where I begin to fly downwind and where my goal is to be 1000 AGL is located approximately 500 feet upwind and 500 feet on the pattern side of the target.

See this thread and attached graphic.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[pilotdave 0]

1000' is about right to start my pattern (assuming I'm not too far out to begin with) with my Sabre2 135. I find by the time I'm ready to turn base, unless it's a really windy day, I'm usually right around 500 feet.

But usually I don't pay too much attention to my altimeter once I've entered the pattern. I really only noticed how well 1000' works last friday doing night jumps. Judging altitude was very difficult visually, so I was relying on my altimeter. Started the pattern at 1000, turned base at 500, and final, well, whenever I was lined up. Worked pretty good both times. Once overshot the peas by a few feet and then undershot by a few feet.

When I first downsized from a PD 150, I thought 1000 was going to be too low to start a pattern. I'd float all day under the old canopy, and suddenly I found that if I wasn't paying attention to altitude carefully, I'd naturally want to start my pattern too low.

Dave

[CanuckInUSA 0]

My whole approach to when to enter the pattern is very much influenced by the weather (winds) and existing air traffic. One area which I think we can improve on with the instruction is to get people to think about the dynamic flow of air we fly our canopies through and how our setups are influenced by these conditions. Being too high shouldn't be an issue once we as canopy pilots learn our respective canopies and recognize how they fly in the existing winds and how to linger upwind until it is time to entered the pattern and fly whatever approach we plan on doing. I don't want to tell an AFF instructor how to coach someone down under canopy. But maybe they need to help their students recognize (both ground school and with a radio) the upwind holding areas and when to enter the pattern based on the existing conditions.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[peek 21]

As I read some of the responses so far I realize that what I was thinking was more along the lines of "What about this 1000 foot entry for lightweights?".

My big canopy is about the wingloading of a lightweight in many student canopies, and smaller people are the ones I have seen having more problems.

Another interesting possibility I thought of in the mean time is that if the winds are strong, the amount of time needed to figure out when to turn downwind to base and perform this turn is more critical, and smaller people with shorter arms can't get a big canopy turned as fast. This could cause some of the landing short problems.

Anyway, I was just interested in what the recent leaners of these skills had to say. It's the usual "How are we doing in teaching this to you?" question we need to ask once in a while.

[quade 4]

Quote

Another interesting possibility I thought of in the mean time is that if the winds are strong, the amount of time needed to figure out when to turn downwind to base and perform this turn is more critical, and smaller people with shorter arms can't get a big canopy turned as fast. This could cause some of the landing short problems.

Which is why I advocate having ther key point several hundred feet upwind rather than abeam the target. If the winds are strong enough, having the key point abeam the target almost ensures that the pilot will land short. If the key is upwind several hundred feet, then the strong winds become obvious quickly enough that the pilot still has time to do something about it and land somewhat accurately.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

As I read some of the responses so far I realize that what I was thinking was more along the lines of "What about this 1000 foot entry for lightweights?".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the weight of the jumper and/or wingloading should have no bearing on glide ratio, just on the speed it travels along that path. So the weight or wingloading shouldn't have anything to do with when you need to enter the pattern to have the same key points at the same altitude. It would be dictated more by the trim of your canopy.

[quade 4]

Essentially correct. The ratios remain the same but the speed both forward and down changes -- increasing with higher loadings.

The major differences in glide ratio between light and heavy wing loadings would be in thermals. The lighter canopies taking greater advantage of the updrafts.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[piisfish 140]

don't want to prove you wrong, but AFAIK the glide ratio is determined for/from certain conditions :
altitude
pressure
wingloading
temperature
humidity
etc etc

if anyone with better knowledge could give precision...

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Essentially correct. The ratios remain the same but the speed both forward and down changes -- increasing with higher loadings.

Ignoring the thermals comment, then, you would still arrive at the same key points at the same altitude then, just in a shorter time frame, right?

I know when I switched from a specter to a saber, I changed my entry from 1000' to 800' because of the enhanced glide ratio, but my wingloading and weight was the same.

[PhillyKev 0]

Your speed would, but not the glide ratio. Glide ratio is set by the trim of the canopy. The angle at which you travel toward the ground doesn't change (barring thermals which could "pop you back up"). Just the speed at which you travel along that angle.

[JYorkster 0]

I personally like 1000 ft, but I agree with Quade...Entry into the pattern should be upwind and off to the side of the target. The pattern described in the SIM simply won't work. It describes 1000 ft abreast of the target 600 to base and 300 to final. Even assuming zero wind, the "downwind" leg is longer than final. Add any wind at all, and it exacerbates the problem. 1000 ft abreast of the target will work if the altitudes to turn to base and final are adjusted, but you may have students turning for final later than you'd like.

I've tried to use the 45 degree rule (not the exit order 45 rule) that is commonly used for flying, and it seems to work pretty well. Enter the pattern at 1000 ft abreast of the target, turn to base when the target is 45 degrees over your shoulder, turn to final when you are in line with your target.

[quade 4]

Quote

Ignoring the thermals comment, then, you would still arrive at the same key points at the same altitude then, just in a shorter time frame, right?

In a no-wind, no-thermal situation, yes, you'd end up pretty much at the same base and final turns on both a lightly and highly loaded canopy of the same make and model.

Add some wind and things change a bit because you're exposed to the wind for different amounts of time. The lighter canopy being in the wind for longer time.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[piisfish 140]

Quote

Your speed would, but not the glide ratio. Glide ratio is set by the trim of the canopy. The angle at which you travel toward the ground doesn't change (barring thermals which could "pop you back up"). Just the speed at which you travel along that angle.

OK, will have a few tries this week end, same canopy, different wingloading, side by side... and let's check the distance...

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[quade 4]

Quote

don't want to prove you wrong, but AFAIK the glide ratio is determined for/from certain conditions :
altitude
pressure
wingloading
temperature
humidity
etc etc

if anyone with better knowledge could give precision...

When -most- people in aviation talk about glide ratio, they're usually talking about them under "standard conditions". In this case, we're talking about, all other thing being equal, what will happen if you change the wingloading and not change any other parameters.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[pccoder 0]

me too

PcCoder.net

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

As a student, I was comfortable with the 1000 feet pattern. I think I used it until I had upward of 80 jumps actually. For a conservative approach, as a newer jumper, I don't think that the 1000 foot entry is a bad thing. It is easy to see on your altimeter, easy to remember, gives students and conservative pilots a lot of time for adjustment and without worry of being rushed they can keep a good eye out for other canopies.

Just my thoughts.
Angela.

[benny 0]

Quote

I know when I switched from a specter to a saber, I changed my entry from 1000' to 800' because of the enhanced glide ratio, but my wingloading and weight was the same.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Spectre have a flatter glide ratio than the Sabre2? I dunno, just thought I heard that somewhere.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[SkydiveNFlorida 0]

Quote

I still do the "enter the pattern at 1000 feet" concept. I do normally come in a bit high, but I'm used to just doing S turns to eat up some altitude. But I also tend to hug the landing area. I'm guessing it all depends on where you set up your playground and how the winds are that day.

Try not to do S turns much. If you know you're going to be high, try to make a tear drop rather than a perfect rectangle (on downwind teardrop out to get further from your target as to extend your base leg, or take it downwind further). S-turns distract other jumpers and cut people off, they are no fun for anyone Try to be predictable. It is better to land a small distance from your target than to make unpredictable s-turns (obviously, avoid obstacles, etc), you should be coming in straight on final approach so that jumpers behind you don't need to worry.

Angela.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Spectre have a flatter glide ratio than the Sabre2? I dunno, just thought I heard that somewhere.

Marketing may say that it does, my experience says that it doesn't.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.