So the rest of the aviation world thinks that a power off 180° turn is a short approach (or perhaps a type of short approach at least?). What does she (and Mr. Google) think it means?

What does "turn your base abeam the numbers" mean?

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
What does "turn your base abeam the numbers" mean?

I think Captain Ahab said it in Moby Dick.

Argh.

The pilot is flying parallel with the runway. When he reaches the line perpendicular to the numbers at the end of the runway, the numbers are abeam the aircraft and that’s where she expected him to make a 90 degree turn and start flying a base leg, which is a path perpendicular to the runway, before turning another 90 degree turn to a final leg, which is a path directly in line with the runway. The problem for the pilot is that’s way to close to the end of the runway for him to slow down, lose altitude, and land on the runway where he needed to. He would way overshoot the spot he was trying for.

The issue from my non-pilot perspective is that he requested a short approach, which is fine because a power off 180 is a type of short approach. Not all short approaches are power off 180s. Her definition of a short approach doesn’t match anyone else’s definition.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:

What does "turn your base abeam the numbers" mean

Here is a diagram of "standard" traffic patterns, for reference:



The "base" leg of the pattern, between numbers 2 and 3 on the diagram, is perpendicular to the runway and is flown until a turn to the final approach is made at number 3 on the diagram.

Distance might vary with conditions, but a typical base leg for a light airplane might be 1/4 mile from the end of the runway.

"The numbers" refers to the runway number, painted at the approach end of the runway. The photo below shows runway 28 (runway orientation is 280°).



Students who are being introduced to the landing pattern are typically told to make the turn from downwind to base (number 2 on the diagram) when the view of the approach end of the runway, or the "numbers," is 45° behind the airplane.

A turn to the base leg when abeam the numbers means that the pattern is much shorter. The turn is started when the airplane is abeam -- opposite -- the numbers, rather than continuing downwind until the numbers are 45° behind the airplane. This results in a smaller (shorter) pattern, and is one form of a "short approach."

quote:

turn your base abeam the numbers"

Ah, so it's abeam the numbers on the runway. Makes sense. (I'm familiar with the basic pattern terminology- downwind, crosswind, base, final).

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

turn your base abeam the numbers

All your base belong to us.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
Ah, so it's abeam the numbers on the runway. Makes sense.

"Yargh, matey! Now you're ridin' the mizzenmast!"

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:
Ah, so it's abeam the numbers on the runway. Makes sense.

I think it’s the other way around and the numbers are abeam the airplane.

Beam refers to the ship’s beam, so if something is abeam the ship, wind for example, it’s perpendicular to the ship. I apologize for my description above; it was easier to reference a fixed perpendicular line from the numbers rather than a moving one from an airplane.

It seems like at the end of the transmission she is telling him to land midpoint on the runway, that seems like not enough runway. This seems to jive with the rest of the comments here.

Would you every make the midpoint of the runway a landing target?? Maybe massive runway, small plane, but outside that it seems like the latest possible spot and in the airplane land of lets try and be on the safe side of the grey line that is nuts.

My point is, is she in fact wrong?

quote:

Originally posted by Timdogg6:

Would you every make the midpoint of the runway a landing target??

Sure. I have done that many times. The V-tail needed maybe 1,500' of runway to land and stop comfortably without excessive braking. Many runways are 7,000' to 10,000' or longer. If my destination on the airport was at the further half of the runway, I would plan to touch down at midpoint, more or less, depending on where I was planning to turn off the runway.

quote:

Originally posted by Timdogg6:
It seems like at the end of the transmission she is telling him to land midpoint on the runway, that seems like not enough runway. This seems to jive with the rest of the comments here.

Would you every make the midpoint of the runway a landing target?? Maybe massive runway, small plane, but outside that it seems like the latest possible spot and in the airplane land of lets try and be on the safe side of the grey line that is nuts.

My point is, is she in fact wrong?

Depends on the aircraft an wind conditions. Many small aircraft only need a few hundred feet to land safely. If you're landing on a runway that's thousands of feet long it can be safe and even sometimes advantageous to land further down the runway as it may put you in position for a significantly shorter taxi to the ramp.

In the final analysis, she's still wrong. She seems to say that a power-off 180° is different from a short approach, like if it's one it's not the other. It's basic physics that any power-off pattern will probably necessitate a short approach, which is why the pilot requested the latter. Does she think a powered aircraft will automatically become a sailplane if you shut the engine off?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: kkina,

The main runway (including the "overrun" I'm guessing) at K.I.Sawyer is just shy of 2.5 miles long. Or 13,300+ feet long. It takes a lot of real estate to launch/recover a B-52!

What was really fun was to "break" at the numbers! This usually resulted in a tight, constantly decelerating and descending 360 degree turn until getting to landing speed on a short final before touchdown.

Great fun at the field, and fun but much more difficult at the boat. Here's a great example of how its done!

Sierra Hotel carrier break

Well, as my wife used to say (back in the early days of our marriage), "Now you have given me a major migraine - I hope you are happy!"

Talked with a buddy that flies in/out of there a bunch. All the locals hate her, called her “the bitch in the tower”. According to him her husband is a civil rights attorney in Denton and thus the city is scared to get rid of her.

hmmmm...pushy, bossy, condescending, "controller" by definition >>>> dangerous

She’ll only be fired most likely after she directs a plane into the ground, you watch.