PDA

View Full Version : Civvy Circuit Size


Flik Roll
1st Dec 2005, 10:36
Has anyone else noticed the tendency for many flying schools to teach their studes larger/wider circuits?
Apparently this is to give the stude MORE TIME :oh: (if they can't hack it, they obviously need more lessons in the circuit being taught how to fly a normal cct)
And also...for spacing?!

The number of times I end up getting circuit rage flying the square circuit is unreal. If you are number 2 and there is a cross country circuit going on infront...you get screwed over royally (as well as clocking up more minutes = more money to pay!)

Also, I don't think 3 mile finals are necessary in cct.

Come on instructors...sort it out!

I was always taught...spacing downwind... edge of wing on runway (or thereabouts, type dependent)

Any thoughts? Or is it just me?

Lets start teaching everyone oval ccts :}

2Donkeys
1st Dec 2005, 10:39
A subject close to my own heart.

I wrote about it Here (http://www.polestaraviation.com/?p=31)

2D

Say again s l o w l y
1st Dec 2005, 10:44
This is a constant battle in many places. Some schools teach these enormous bomber ccts that just get in everbodies way whilst the rest of us try and teach a far more reasonable sized cct.

I'm still at a loss to understand why such massive circuits are necessary in slow moving light trainers.

High Wing Drifter
1st Dec 2005, 10:52
Has anyone else noticed the tendency for many flying schools to teach their studes larger/wider circuits?
Yes and no. My school's owner went so far as to track me down on the ground after seening one of my more than bijou efforts. Being nice and reasonable is OK, but sometimes a bollocking works wonders :ugh: However, I often watch the other big name school's circuits with disbelief; one sometimes wonders if the pilot has died at the controls as it heads off seemingly to the downwind horizon :uhoh:

Monocock
1st Dec 2005, 11:18
Call me a cynic but......

Surely the larger the circuit the less fuel per hour the a/c uses (less take-offs) and therefore less cost to running that a/c for the club?

Less landings per hour also reduce wear and tear surely?

Perhaps I have taken the wrong direction on this but I'm sure they must consider these factors.

Say again s l o w l y
1st Dec 2005, 11:21
No I don't think people are that cynical. It seems to be a way of giving students (and the instructors) an easier time of it, but this is a load of cobblers if you ask me.

muggins
1st Dec 2005, 11:23
Wide circuits do mean fewer landings, but as a student I am trying to learn to handle the approach and landing. So the more of these I can get the better.

Ken

ps. my instructor wrapped my knuckles as my circuits were going ovoid. :O

Laundryman
1st Dec 2005, 11:37
Yes this happened to me when training (early solo circuits) following an aircraft clearly visible infront downwind, reached the point I normally turned base aircraft in front goes straight on. I've been told I'm number three and can see number one on short finals. When the aircraft infront left the ATZ (clearly defined by a motorway) I convinced myself I was following the wrong aircraft so I turned base at my usual spot and ended up being number two instead of three. ATC told me not to worry about it so they must have thought he was leaving too.

DubTrub
1st Dec 2005, 11:38
my circuits were going ovoid Well slap him/her back then. Circuits are round. If they were rectangular, they'd be called "rectangles".

BTW, it is no co-incidence that ATZ's are circular, Circuits should be round (or at least ovoid) to fit inside.

robin
1st Dec 2005, 11:39
I think all early circuit training should be done in gliders.

We use motorgliders to practice field selection prior to cross-country. I think power schools should make arrangements to fly a series of glider circuits before solo to show power pilots the correct size of a circuit, just in case the engine stops.

Given many pilots failures to recognise carb icing, it would be a salutary lesson if the instructors chopped the throttle on a long low fianl approach once in a while

DubTrub
1st Dec 2005, 11:45
...from the ANO: ‘Cross-country flight’ means any flight during the course of which the aircraft is more than 3 nautical miles from the aerodrome of departure.

Say again s l o w l y
1st Dec 2005, 11:46
Dub Trub, since when have non-military circuits been round or oval?

Not anywhere I've ever been........ Or according to the CAA. The standard circuit pattern should have an upwind, crosswind, downwind, base leg and final sections.

Circuits should not be so far out as not to able to make the field in some form if you get an engine failure. That's not necessarily onto the runway, but within the boundaries of the field. Paper work is easier and it's easier for the emergency services to get to you if you need them.

funfly
1st Dec 2005, 11:51
if the circuit is contained within gliding distance it means that
a. you can get in if the engine stops and
b. if you ever had an engine out emergency then your final aproach to wherever you decide to land will be (nearly) the normal configuration for you.

DubTrub
1st Dec 2005, 12:28
SaS That's my point...why are they not round or oval?

Say again s l o w l y
1st Dec 2005, 12:34
Probably for a similar reason that we have a different method to the military for dealing with forced landings.

Tight turning circuits are all very well in high performance, high energy a/c flown by a skilled pilot who originally needed a curving approach due to not being able to see ahead because they were in something like a Spit or Hurricane, whereas in civvy street we are dealing with a totally different set of circumstances. For instance it is much easier to control traffic patterns with muti leg circuits, rather than ones with constant turns, it is easier to teach and fly, and far easier for people to able to judge wind drift than if they were constantly turning. It also allows people to have a longer approach and not rush them, which would invariably lead to a huge number of problems in training or with inexperienced pilots.
We don't have the problems of a lack of visibility or excess speed that military machines used to have.

This is the standard pattern as laid out, but if you wish to do something different, that's up to you, but you must fit in with all the other traffic that's around you.

Whopity
1st Dec 2005, 12:46
DT
quote:‘Cross-country flight’ means any flight during the course of which the aircraft is more than 3 nautical miles from the aerodrome of departure.

but this is for the purpose of defining the privileges of the AFI/FI(R) nothing more!

All circuits should fit into the ATZ, if they don't, you lose the protection of the ATZ and in accordance with Rule 39 (3)(b) you must report on the radio your position and height on entering the zone and immediately prior to leaving it! With a standard 2nm ATZ the final leg cannot exceed 1 mile (nm).

If the aircraft ahead flies out of the ATZ don't follow it! HE'S WRONG NOT YOU. Fly a propper circuit and if necessary go arround, you can do that from anywhere in the circuit. Maybe then the bomber circuit brigade would get the message.

eharding
1st Dec 2005, 12:54
We don't have the problems of a lack of visibility

There you go Flik, you just think the front view out of a Pitts is awful....must try harder!

david viewing
1st Dec 2005, 12:55
I suggest some of this is down to noise abatement proceedures, which specify seriously wide flying at quite a few places.

Some airfields with NIMBY problems have published downwinds starting/finishing almost 3mi from the runway! Unfortunately these proceedures are often published in flight guides and on the Internet without any form of scale attached, apart from the amorphous globs that are the NIMBY's to be avoided. All pretty meaningless to a visitor unfortunately.

I don't know if the omission of scale stems from a reluctance to admit that some of the proceedures potentially place circuits outside the ATZ.

markflyer6580
1st Dec 2005, 13:06
I fly at a large regional airport and was flying big circuits until my skills test at which time the examiner asked me why,as from 1000ft I wouldn't make it in on the glide approach!
Since passing I fly nice tight ovals,spitfire style curving downwind to final.Looks nice,feels nice and get round quicker.

I'm with Flik roll on this one:ok:

stiknruda
1st Dec 2005, 13:16
There is a school of thought which says that if one throttles back to idle on downwind and treats all circuits as glide approaches, the circuit size will reduce to a sensible size! :E

Works in the Pitts, Tiger and Cub!

Stik

Sans Anoraque
1st Dec 2005, 13:17
I fly nice tight ovals,spitfire style curving downwind to final.Looks nice,feels nice and get round quicker. And totally invisible to the bloke in the low-winged aircraft behind you.

bookworm
1st Dec 2005, 13:32
I'm still waiting for a sensible definition of the right circuit dimensions that works for the variety of aircraft commonly found in a typical GA circuit. 2D got the closest I've seen to that in his blog, but even so it seemed to focus on a light single at a particular airport.

tonyhalsall
1st Dec 2005, 13:34
And totally invisible to the bloke in the low-winged aircraft behind you.

Sans or avec Anoraque??

I think that the vast majority of experienced PPL's landing at a regular field with a published pattern would rather have standard overhead re-joins without ATC involvement and simply sort themselves out in the pattern as joining traffic call out positions bearing in mind that there may always be non radio traffic - of course.

From personal preference I would much rather gide in from the overhead in a big descending curved approach than get stuck in an ATC controlled circuit taking in half of the next County! Unfortunately, I think A/G & ATC tend to unintentionally create large unwieldy circuits.

ShyTorque
1st Dec 2005, 13:47
Say again slowly,

Sorry to diasgree with your theory but in the UK military circuits of aircraft small enough to fit inside an ATZ are oval irrespective of the aircraft type. I spent well over ten years teaching 'em and flying single jet aircraft, SEPs and Helis.

A few weeks ago a colleague of mine was telephoned by an angry FI of a local airfield. He claimed my colleague should have given way to his C152 because he was "in the circuit". Turned out he was flying bomber command sized circuits and therefore outside the ATZ at the end of downwind. As our company aircraft was on his right and outside the ATZ, the FI was in fact responsible for giving way, but his attention was off to the left with his student and the airfield.

Think about that.....

Say again s l o w l y
1st Dec 2005, 14:07
That's how the military do it, but it doesn't mean it suits all operations!

The civvy world already has a convention, that of the standard circuit pattern as descibed earlier. The military have their own.

I come from the perspective of someone who teaches the civvy method, but personally flies a constant angle if conditions and traffic permits. Having done this in all manner of machines from a 73 where it was just for fun to the Extra (and soon to be Pitts) where it was a necessity.

No matter what the shape of the circuit, the discussion here is about the size of them that some idiots teach.
Personally we put the stripe helpfully provided on the wing as spacing (PA28, PA38) over the runway or just eyeball it with high wing a/c. It's not rocket science!
We then tramp along downwind until the runway is 45 deg over the shoulder (allowing for drift) and then turn base.

Is that what people want?

ShyTorque
1st Dec 2005, 14:51
Sorry Sayagainslowly,

However, it was YOUR own comment on circuit shape that I responded to. ;)

The military also strongly discourage extending the downwind leg. As for orbitting in the circuit - as ordered by ATC at some airfields - that is very much frowned upon. The policy is that IF you are too close to the aircraft ahead you must go around on the dead side and try again. At RAF training stations this was (probably still is) enforced by a Duty Instructor in the tower - if you transgressed you could expect to pay him a visit on landing for a telling off.

I do occasionally fly SEP from my local minor airfield and have often seen pilots who seem totally incapable of planning circuit spacing and how to fit into existing circuit traffic, especially from the overhead join.

The existing culture in this neck of the woods seems to be that if you mess up your spacing - you can extend downwind - instead of crossing to the deadside in the correct place and going around. The next pilot behind that aircraft then usually does the same and this is exactly how aircraft end up outside the ATZ!

Sans Anoraque
1st Dec 2005, 14:51
Tony,

it's not about what you want, or think is the most fun, it's about what's safest. I agree with the point of this thread that over wide circuits are dangerous (as are over-narrow ones).

It's not difficult to fly the published pattern and people who don't should be punched in the nose. As pointed out in another thread, most mid-airs occur in the circuit. If you want to pretend you've just returned from a sortie giving Jerry what for, then marry a farmer and land on his potatoes.

Whopity
1st Dec 2005, 15:13
"It's not difficult to fly the published pattern"

You should not be flying a published pattern but flying a circuit based on the performance of your aircraft.

Half the trouble with the NIMBYS is that they have been shown a "published patern" by the aerodrome operator and then castigate every aircraft that does not follow it precisely. If we fly a wingspan out from the runway, the patern depends on how long the wings are etc.

Say again s l o w l y
1st Dec 2005, 15:18
Most a/c should have no difficulty flying any published pattern if flown correctly. If they can't, then they should inform air traffic of their problem.

We are talking here about the average spam can, it doesn't matter if it's a Cessna, Piper or even a Katana, they can all fly the same size circuit. It's not usually the a/c's fault if someone can't fly it correctly!

Fuji Abound
1st Dec 2005, 15:44
In addition to the comments already made I have two pet hates.

Firstly, why cant pilots give accurate circuit position reports? What is wrong with “early” or “late” downwind without having to search for someone along the length of the downwind leg? “Downwind turning base” or “base turning final” come to mind as other examples. It might not be standard phraseology but you certainly know where to look.

Secondly, why do some pilots insist on parallelling a circuit leg when departing the field? How many times have you been downwind to see another aircraft wide of and parallelling you at circuit height - is he or isn’t he in the circuit?? It cant be that hard to fly at an obtuse angle to the “parallel” circuit leg even if that means a slight correction once well clear of the ATZ - can it?

Finally, I am a passionate believer in tight circuits BUT circuits are like clothes - they need to suite different occasions. Some smart arse flying a tight circuit is not what we are looking for when there is 10 in on a sunny April day and there are a few dusting off the cobwebs not having flown all winter, a couple of students and the odd new PPLer. It might not be ideal but it is safer and more “gentlemanly” to adapt the circuit to suite the circumstances.

dwshimoda
1st Dec 2005, 16:00
Where I fly there is a particular well known school that seems to demand it's students set up for final 3 -4 miles out. This screws up the circuit for everyone else, and leads to unnecessary orbiting or go-arounds.

I'm led to believe this is because they are all ATPL students, and are therefore taught about stabilising the approach, decision heights, and everything else that is more appropriate to a 737 than a DA20.

When I was learning, I thought the reason for doing circuits was to improve the landings - going at a weekend meant I could get 8 - 10 touch and go's per hour, during the week, when above school was operating, this could be reduced to as little as 4!

I understand why they do it, but it's bloody infuriating, and half the time you have to give prioirty to circuit traffic "ahead" of you that is outside the ATZ! I was taught first turn at 500 agl, then 45 degrees over my shoulder for each of the remaining turns, (with the exception of final obviously) seems to work for most people where I am!

Shaggy Sheep Driver
1st Dec 2005, 16:06
It's not just students under instruction. At Barton many experienced PPLs fly bomber circuits. It makes me cringe as I follow them downwind for the 27s, way past the M60, on out over the rooftops of Eccles, almost to Salford before they turn base, then dragging it in with power down a 2-mile (or more!) final. There is nowhere to go if the engine fails - why do they do it? Don't they THINK!!! about what they are doing??

SSD

High Wing Drifter
1st Dec 2005, 16:11
dwshimoda,

Sounds like the same school from where I train, but they only do PPL here. Nothing to do with ATPLs, what I think it is, is the predominance of AA5s they use. Probably the most appealing four seat tourer I've flown, but seemingly totally useless as trainers judging from the number of PIOs, grounded props and a/c retrieved from the trees at the far side of the runway compared to the other school based there who use a mixture of PA28s, PA38s and 152s.

Johnm
1st Dec 2005, 16:17
I'm with the small cct brigade and was taught the 2d model when I learned. Had a classic at Kemble a few weeks back. Downwind for 13 on a windy day and no. 2 in the cct I was desperately searching for no 1 who turned out (when I eventually spotted him/her) to be 3 or 4 miles out on final!!! Being a gent I extended down wind and followed and happily there was no-one behind me!

IO540
1st Dec 2005, 16:17
A lot of the time one has to fly a 5 mile final because at say 100kt one needs the extra time to positively identify the runway, knowing where it is only from the GPS

;)

DubTrub
1st Dec 2005, 16:40
over the rooftops of Eccles There is another thing here; that of PFA aircraft. I would not be willing to be the guinea pig in court, protesting my innocence to the CAA of the "except for taking off and landing" rule.
So in the circuit I fly over open areas, and make no apologies for so doing. Or I disappear off if the circuit is busy.

Fuji Abound
1st Dec 2005, 16:44
"So in the circuit I fly over open areas, and make no apologies for so doing."

Why?

Surely you should fly a tight enough circuit to land on the airfield at any time - what you are over really doesnt matter.

I can understand that if you are unable to do so because of traffic you might wish to hold off.

Fournicator
1st Dec 2005, 17:07
Having read all the above discussion, I'm still at a loss to understand why the CAA advocate a square circuit for light aircraft. While I realise that it is the status quo and would conform to such a pattern in a busy circuit at a civil airfield, I cannot see it's advantages over a military oval pattern. The downwind leg really needs only to be long enough to complete pre-landing checks and ensure that you know the position of other circuit traffic, and an oval circuit can accomodate quite a few aircraft if so desired. After the finals turn is completed there is still plenty enough time to stabilise the approach and prepare for landing. In addition, tight oval circuits would ensure that circuit traffic is afforded the full protection of the ATZ. I would therefore argue that the CAA should advocate an oval circuit. They won't of course!

FlyingForFun
1st Dec 2005, 17:17
I recently checked out one of my students prior to a solo circuit session. Checkout was very brief since he was perfectly competent. I de-briefed him that his circuits were fine, but he could do with making them a little smaller, and sent him on his merry way.

Half an hour later I had a call from ATC, asking me to have a word with my student when he got back. He was apparently flying his circuits too tight, and had cut up a student from another school on the airport who was flying cross-country circuits. :hmm:

FFF
----------------

Genghis the Engineer
1st Dec 2005, 17:32
I too am a fan of military constant aspect circuits, and certainly prefer them tight.


But, to make a new point, somebody asked how large a circuit should be? Well, how about defining it by time - I'd coin six minutes as the target from take-off to landing. If everybody stages their circuit footprints to meet that then (a) nobody should get cut up, (b) we enlarge the noise footprint to avoid p***ing off the neighbours, and (c) we actually have a standard to use!

Whilst not officially, this is virtually what happens at Popham or Old Sarum where microlights normally fly a tighter circuit, but manage to fit in nicely with the faster traffic outside them.

G

ShyTorque
1st Dec 2005, 17:56
Once did that at Dundee on a UAS summer camp, out of Leuchars. We were using the airfield for circuit consolidation as it was a bit tricky fitting in our young students in little Bulldogs with those punchy mates doing 4-ship run and breaks in their F-4s and shiny new F-3s.

Some local pilots were flying crosswind completely across the Tay, into the distance downwind, recrossing the Tay, then onto finals. We were getting three circuits to their two, sometimes four, without cutting them up, by flying the normal oval circuit. ATC were more than happy, in fact they thought it quite amusing. We were potentially safer because if the donk stopped we could make the field all the time except on climb-out.

Monocock
1st Dec 2005, 18:14
Well, how about defining it by time - I'd coin six minutes as the target from take-off to landing

:rolleyes:

DubTrub, care to comment?:}

Fournicator
1st Dec 2005, 18:27
I think Genghis' idea is brilliant! Happy to sign any petitions to the CAA, not that it would work......

Speed Twelve
1st Dec 2005, 18:33
ShyTorque

Did my Flying Scholarship at Dundee a long time ago and remember flying downwind virtually over the Fife coast and practically in the Leuchars MATZ (as taught by my instructor at the time).

Years later went back to Tayside to work for them as an instructor myself. First time back in the Dundee circuit I flew it twice as tight as I originally had been taught purely through self-preservation! Lots of water, no LSJ...

B52-sized circuits do my nut in. I used to instruct at Trumpton International and certain instructors would fly so widely spaced when downwind that I asked ATC on a few occasions whether or not the other aircraft was actually remaining in the cct or not. It's difficult having done a cct detail or two with a student on a quiet day when you've been able to get him to position to your liking to then go up with them at busier times and see the aircraft in front begin the radar-vectored cross-country nav that is their crosswind leg! Totally throws your student out...

I instruct for the mil now and do prefer the much punchier oval circuit. The snag with adapting it for civvy flying is that it is tricky to fly accurately with a high-wing aircraft. The runway disappears for a large chunk of the finals turn.

SAS! Have fun when the boys get hold of the Pitts! Pity it's a bit far to commute for part-time work!

ST

foxmoth
1st Dec 2005, 18:46
And totally invisible to the bloke in the low-winged aircraft behind you.

I the guy is behind then he is going to be hard put to catch someone doing a close in oval circuit - no problem:hmm:

Say again s l o w l y
1st Dec 2005, 18:50
Hi ST, you're going to have to come and have a go! Hopefully she'll be with us before Christmas. A great present!

A bit too far for everyday stuff, but next time you're up here........

bookworm
1st Dec 2005, 18:59
But, to make a new point, somebody asked how large a circuit should be? Well, how about defining it by time - I'd coin six minutes as the target from take-off to landing.

I think timing is very sensible. However, there's an issue: 2D in his blog thinks 5 and a half minutes is "staggering" so presumably 6 minutes is the sort of circuit for which he'd recommend survival equipment be carried. ;)

How about someone actually times some?

And why does the size of the circuit increase proportionally with the size of the runway and the amount of class D airspace around it? I\'ve SERIOUSLY thought some people are off on a cross-country. The number of circuits/hour must be abysmal!

I don\'t think that\'s too surprising. With more commercial traffic to fit in and fairly conservative ATC protecting its IFR, bigger circuits are probably required more often at class D airports, so pilots just get used to flying them.

foxmoth
1st Dec 2005, 19:03
Last time I had to do 3 landings for currency it was 15 mins brakes off to brakes on again (it helped that the aircraft had just flown so did not need a long engine warm up time).:ok:

Genghis the Engineer
1st Dec 2005, 20:15
Well there are two issues there, one is the time, the other is the principle.

I'm more interested in the principle than the actual time, the British record for the time to fly 100 circuits I think worked out at 40 seconds a go! So, let's say 4 minutes, whatever.

G

A and C
1st Dec 2005, 21:49
For fun I am lucky enough to teach at an airfield that has an oval "military" style CCT at 800ft the student quckly learns to fly the aircraft in a co-ordinated way with a stable rate of descent, turn and airspeed, despite the approach not being a long five mile final at one speed the approach is "stable".

For my day job I fly an airliner and an becoming increasingly concerned that the new pilots fresh out of the best traning establishments are no more than button pushers that I cant trust to land the aircraft on all but the least challenging Greek airports and never off a visual approach.

I cant help thnking that the lack of hand flying skill that is now becoming the norm in the airlines is a direct result of the early days in the CCT.

DubTrub
1st Dec 2005, 22:10
DubTrub, care to comment? Not here, old bean...place, time, etc

..because, Fuji, need I spell the law...it\'s because it is illegal for a permit aircraft to fly over a built-up area, unless \"in the process of taking off or landing etc\"

Fuji Abound
1st Dec 2005, 22:44
DubTrub .. .. ..

me thinks whilst in the circuit you ARE in the process of landing the infernal flying machine, unless of course you subscribe to the circuit being the cross country expedition some do :D

DubTrub
1st Dec 2005, 23:03
100 circuits I think worked out at 40 seconds a go! Not standing starts to full-stop, shirley?:rolleyes:

Fuji that's a good point, somewhat in my thinking, and no, I do not advocate the cross-country circuit. But in the permit rules, what is the definition of "in the process of taking off and landing"? It has never been tested in court.

How willing is Fuji to stand up and say that downwind, several gliding-distances away from a safe landing, that you are "in the process" to land? I venture to suggest that if you are above 500 feet, a jury would not agree, but then I am not a juror. I might, however, be willing to be invited to jurisdict over a case of a pilot "endangering" by flying outside their aircraft's limitations by being so distanced. Just my opinion.

One of the reasons I go to the smaller airstrips (eh, Mono?) and to the smaller airfields like Popham is that they suit my kind of flying better than other airfields of grander stature.

I guess even as pilots, we have a certain choice; so if particular pilots like particularly large circuits, they can visit airfields that advocate so. I choose not to visit such airfields. I unreservedly retract any adverse comment previously posted about circuit size, since I have a choice not to visit there, but I retain my opinion on circuit shape (and apologies for the thread drift).

Andy_R
1st Dec 2005, 23:16
Where I fly from, the circuit size is very dependant on how many others are flying and who they are. On a sunny Sunday you can expect to fly to the next county before turning onto base (and have to adher to ATC's wishes or a rollocking).
[RANT ON]
However, on my recent night qualification I asked for a backtrack (for a full stop landing and next take off) when I was issued my take off clearance and was told call final and basically we will see. As I rotated the guy behind me was also given clearance for circuits, but not one to be bullied I flew the normal circuit I prefer when I am number 1 to land.

I landed, backtracked, taxied to the hold (he wouldn't give me backtrack then immediate) and then declared myself ready. Number 2 was just turning (long) final; by the time he landed I was at 500'.

Why oh why oh why do people take away the safety net of being able to glide to a perfectly good runway? Especially at night? Do they really believe it will never happen to them? Why should I be forced to expose myself to additional risk on those days when bomber circuits are being flown?

I realise we were all students once, but I remember well my instructor cursing at those disappearing into the distance when we were trying to get a practise glide approach in, yet because we had been given number 3 to land couldn't cut in. I was also taught to fly with the runway 3/4 of the way down the wing so we could always get in should the engine fail.
[RANT OVER]

ShyTorque
2nd Dec 2005, 00:24
"Why oh why oh why do people take away the safety net of being able to glide to a perfectly good runway? Especially at night? Do they really believe it will never happen to them? Why should I be forced to expose myself to additional risk on those days when bomber circuits are being flown?"

But IF you turn a base leg in the normal position without descending, cross to the deadside then go crosswind and subsequently downwind you DON'T expose yourself to the same risk of his/her bomber circuit. If you need to extend for spacing, do it upwind not downwind and announce it on the R/T. This has the advantage of breaking the chain of subsequent long downwind legs by aircraft following and YOU should still be able to reach the airfield power off. :ok:

Fuji Abound
2nd Dec 2005, 10:04
DubTrub

"How willing is Fuji to stand up and say that downwind, several gliding-distances away from a safe landing, that you are "in the process" to land?"

Not quite what I said. My point was that I agreed with you that if the activity within the circuit forced you to fly wide so that you would be unable to land on the runway in the event of an engine failure I could understand your holding off until the circuit became less busy.

My point was as long as you remian within glide distance of the runway I dont see it matters one jot what you are actually flying over at the time.

I would be quite willing to argue that whilst you are in the circuit you are in the process of landing. Why else would you be in a circuit. The sole purpose of a circuit is to enable aircraft to visually space themselves for landing and control their approach onto final.

Say again s l o w l y
2nd Dec 2005, 10:11
A and C, there are many reasons why hand flying skills aren't what they were in cadets. A lack of aero's training for a start.

A different debate to the one here, but putting some 200 hr spod into the righthand seat of a jet, they are going to learn to be reliant on the automatics from day one, they haven't had the chance to practice their hand flying skills and they certainly won't get that chance whilst in the average Airbus or Boeing.

Do like the rest of us and bounce around in a manky old turbo prop to start with, you'll learn hand flying skills then as you don't have an auto pilot! Worked alright for me! (I think!!)

18greens
2nd Dec 2005, 12:23
Aren't large circuits simply born out of the instructor giving the student a bit more space and therfore time to sort it all out, especially when reconfiguring on base before slicing through the extended centreline.Some people then just don't get shown how to make the circuits smaller once they get it.

People do seem to fit into the pattern of the field. Fields like Rochester usually fly nice tidy tight circuits and Biggin always seem to have monster circuits. Gliding sites like to do thier circuits within the field boundary.

I learned at Civvy club on an RAF field. It was not uncommon to go from being number 1 in a square circuit to number 4 as the three bulldogs behind you all cut in on their constant aspect approach and I never once had to go around. Their approaches certainly took less time.

DB6
2nd Dec 2005, 18:11
One reason for big circuits: fill a C152 or Katana with fuel, two decent sized blokes (checking that you are within weight and balance limits. Of course. Cough), take off, labour up to 500 ft, turn left and struggle up another 500 ft. Then see where you are :{ .

FlyingForFun
2nd Dec 2005, 18:23
DB6, what's wrong with turning downwind before you reach 1000'?

I teach my students the "picture" of when to turn downwind - i.e. when the tailplane just starts to cross the runway extended centre-line. I then show them how this picture only works in level flight, and that if it is necessary to turn downwind before reaching 1000' (whether for the reason you give, or an early turn onto cross-wind, or a strong wind from the dead side, or any other reason) there is a different picture to be learnt, with the tail-plane a little past the extended centre-line. Doesn't seem to cause too much confusion for my students.....

FFF
----------------

Genghis the Engineer
2nd Dec 2005, 18:46
And that gives no excuse at-all for extending a long way downwind, which is the biggest problem anyhow.

G

S-Works
3rd Dec 2005, 10:50
at Leicster if you tunr downwind before 1000ft on 28 you will be politly not asked to visit again. A lot of places have restrictions for noise abatement.

I agree circuits are to big, one of my pet hates is the bomber circuit. I never leave the airfield perimiter in my 152 but still seem to end up on the outside of dubtrub! But a couple more hours practice and a might be able to cut inside him as a I am sure it is possible to fly a circuit without leaving the airspace above the runway...........

:p

Flik Roll
3rd Dec 2005, 15:09
When people extend downwind or crosswind it has a horrible knock on effect...especially if its a busy day.
People just need to learn some circuit ettiquette and GO AROUND rather than extend here there and everywhere (and be taught properly).
Nice to see I'm not the only one who has the gripe which can often spoil a fab sortie!

sycamore
3rd Dec 2005, 17:45
A few thoughts about circuits; if everyone played the` game`correctly,you should be able to have 4 a/c of similar characteristics( speed d/w, and on app/t/o) operating comfortably;ie 1 on t/o, 1 upwind, 1 d/w, 1 base/finals( 5 at a push with 1 just d/w and another `about` base turn); any more, and it gets too complex.IF, everyone pays attention with ears and eyes they should be able to circulate in a responsible manner. The rule is; if you are catching the a/c ahead you must only extend `Upwind`to make spacing, never d/wind. You should use timing from abeam your threshold( inset or normal) of 15 secs +- 1sec/5kts head/tail wind component and then turn base / or, never further than 4/8 o`clock position(right/left circuits).
Where is this `golden ` rule that says you must turn x-wind at 500` ? Why not climb ahead to 700` before turning ? It will allow one to turn, level off and then turn d/w in a proper position,without having to climb when d/w..
Most light a/c that I have airtested for CAA CofA renewals are woefully lacking in climb performance against the Flight Manual,and if you start turning at `500`ft, then you lose a lot of ground before reaching 1000`, thus extending/widening the circuit. TRY IT AND SEE........Syc.

DubTrub
3rd Dec 2005, 19:19
labour up to 500 ft, turn left and struggle up another 500 ft Everything has to be in 500 foot steps, eh?

Say again s l o w l y
3rd Dec 2005, 19:23
Certainly if you have a decent headwind, it is sometimes very important not to turn at 500', turning at 700' is often a very sensible thing to do, buit ther is no problem with not quite being at 1000' before reaching downwind in most places.

Noise abatement issues usually kybosh most discussions about "standard" circuit patterns, you just have to do your best to follow the individual airfield patterns.

Laundryman
3rd Dec 2005, 19:59
I'm not saying my base is quite often busy but here is the RT between me and ATC.
"G- _ _ _ _ downwind to land"
"G- _ _ _ _ your are number 7 following DA40"

At this point I was saying like "S _ _ T where are they all"

So I just said "Have traffic in sight, G - _ _ _ _ " which I did cos I could see the one in front, but we then had a cross country flight before I got to do my "Finals to land".

ShyTorque
3rd Dec 2005, 22:35
"G- _ _ _ _ your are number 7 following DA40"

I would have commented that only the Red Arrows put seven on the same downwind leg... :rolleyes:

jb5000
4th Dec 2005, 07:56
If anyone knows Biggin particularly well, I was doing circuits on 21, only to be asked to follow someone who was downwind. It turned out he had 'extended' crosswind and was actually flying downwind almost over Croydon......

Biggin is usually a bit of 'you are number 5 / 6' though...

Genghis the Engineer
4th Dec 2005, 08:30
So, here's a question for the house.

You're in the circuit, established crosswind or downwind, and the aircraft in front has extended sooooooo far in front of you that you need to get the chart out since you've either lost, or will lose, sight of the runway (and let's face it, that's only a slight exaggeration, if at-all).

What is the most effective way of pointing this out to the world at large, without cluttering up RT unnecessarily or affecting safety.

Mine would be a call to the tower along the lines of "negative, I am No.1, aircraft in front has left the circuit", but is there a better way? (Did a variation on this at a certain airfield in Northants airfield not long ago, turned out the aircraft in front was the local school CFI :} ).

G

Flik Roll
4th Dec 2005, 08:32
Tell them you are downwind on a tight circuit turning base now No. 1

(makes t'other person think they are doing a normal size circuit...!!)

Gertrude the Wombat
4th Dec 2005, 08:59
What is the most effective way of pointing this out to the world at large At Cambridge I might ask if I can turn base at the normal point and use the grass runway, thereby not pushing in front of the cross country boys if they do actually make it back to the tarmac before I'm down. This does rather require an airfield with two parallel runways though, which is not aways available.

dwshimoda
4th Dec 2005, 09:12
Laundryman - think we fly from the same place - and I've had a number 7 as well AFTER being held in the local for rejoin!

I actually listened to the RT of someone ending up being reported for landing at 7:01pm - 1 minute after the airfield closes - due to having to fly a large circuit following a DA. Now, if you're going to push boundaries, then sometimes things will go wrong and you have to live with the consequences, but it's an example of how a large circuit could have cost someone dearly - ATC were asking him if he was going to divert to Luton!

Laundryman
4th Dec 2005, 15:47
Dwshimoda, I think you're right, luckily the people in ATC are very good there and I don't think I would ever consider some of the actions muted earlier in this forum like cutting in tight, that would increase everybody's stress level and make me very unpopular with those lovely people in the tower. I do have a problem with
C _ _ _ _ r who seem to be the main perpetrators in the circuits via Bedford and the head down flying, forcing me to fly somewhere I had no intention going.

bookworm
4th Dec 2005, 17:02
Well there are two issues there, one is the time, the other is the principle.

I'm more interested in the principle than the actual time, the British record for the time to fly 100 circuits I think worked out at 40 seconds a go! So, let's say 4 minutes, whatever.

I timed a typical circuit today at five and a half minutes from touchdown to touchdown, so probably 5 minutes from t/o to touchdown. That's a 1500 ft twin circuit at Cambridge. I think I'd have trouble shaving a full minute off that, but could live with 4.5 mins.

Of course I didn't time the "No 2 to the Gulfstream V, caution wake vortex recommended spacing is 6 miles" one. :)

Keef
4th Dec 2005, 18:15
I like my local field. Arriving downwind, and told I'm number 3: sometimes, when I get to abeam the runway end with two bombers in front, tower says "can you turn final from there?" "Affirm" "Clear to final number 1".

Usually, I'm on the apron and shutting down before the next one lands.

I'm not in DubTrub's or Monocock's league, but I'm in the same club.

Fuji Abound
4th Dec 2005, 19:23
Genghis

"XYZ downwind, one ahead visual leaving the circuit, now no 1"

:D

Should provoke a reaction!

Genghis the Engineer
4th Dec 2005, 20:33
Nice wording Fuji, I shall try that at a convenient juncture.

G

chevvron
5th Dec 2005, 09:59
At Redhill, you seem to be an AWFUL long way from the airfield on the 'standard' circuit, both downwind and on base leg, but as others have said, this is dictated by noise abatement requirements rather than a delibaerate wide circuit.
When training in Air Cadet gliders, I was taught to fly '45 deg' circuits ie you maintain a 45 deg angle between the aircraft and the airfield boundary at all times. This gives you an odd shaped circuit of course, because as you descend down wind, you fly closer and closer to the airfield, but it ensures you can always land back on the airfield. You also got a b......ing if you went too far beyond the downwind boundary!

robin
5th Dec 2005, 11:04
Yep - in training gliders like the T31 45 degrees was good. But it would cramp the circuit for more high-performance machines

silverelise
5th Dec 2005, 12:35
If anyone knows Biggin particularly well, I was doing circuits on 21, only to be asked to follow someone who was downwind. It turned out he had 'extended' crosswind and was actually flying downwind almost over Croydon......
I'm learning at Biggin. I've been taught 2D's "over the shoulder" technique for flying the circuit which seems to work fairly well, and there are a few useful ground features such as the gypsy camp and the round building near the hospital to provide a reference. Can't say I have seen anyone disappearing off to Croydon when I've been circuiting, but there have been a few occasions where I have been asked to orbit downwind in order to slot in behind someone doing an ILS approach.

Genghis the Engineer
5th Dec 2005, 12:37
but there have been a few occasions where I have been asked to orbit downwind in order to slot in behind someone doing an ILS approach.
I wonder, just wonder, if practice ILS approaches at some training airfields might *just* be the original cause of the dreadful practice of bomber circuits?

G

chevvron
5th Dec 2005, 12:59
Genghis:
That's possible, but most controllers I know tend to use 'orbit left/right at the end of the downwind leg and report (ILS traffic) in sight' rather than 'extend downwind' etc. RAF pilots as said before, will tend to maintain circuit height and go round on the dead side to reposition downwind. Could it be due to FISO's who of course, cannot actually instruct the pilots to orbit? Second thoughts no, because you don't get FISO's and ILS at the same airfield (unless of course, you know different!)

Genghis the Engineer
5th Dec 2005, 14:21
I hope not, but bomber circuits are not the exclusive province of AFISO airfields (in fact I'd suggest generally worse at "towered" fields).

G

EastMids
7th Dec 2005, 10:41
Taught to fly tightish circuits (in the US), came home and had to learn long-wide-lazy round robins.

Tower sometimes effectively forces wide circuits here, especially with jet traffic inbound - "extend downwind/orbit left, report final number two, caution jet traffic, recommended spacing six miles" I prefer to be in glide distance of the runway thankyou. Many extend way out behind jet traffic and they'll even start decending on a base whilst two or three miles out. What's the problem with positioning to final at less than the recommended spacing, but flying the base and final high (well above the jet traffic glideslope), landing well beyond the jet touchdown zone (we do have nearly 3000m so there's no need to bang it down on the numbers) and thus preserving the tight-ish circuit, having the safety of being close in, whilst still not risking wake turbulence?

Local procedures also dictate no final turns over the village/small town about a half mile off the end of the runway - it doesn't say no final turns between the village and the runway, but far too many people interpret the "rule" as a requirement to fly a large circuit, turning final further out than the far end of the village, at maybe two miles. Turning final inside the village is very do-able and from normal downwind allows a power off base and final (often you see the extended circuiters flaps down, highish power, dragging in for two or three miles - doesn't leave many options if it goes quiet, does it?). I accept that a less than half-mile final may be challenging for new students, but for the experienced why fly an extra three miles outside of gliding range of the field?

Also, why do folks not slow down in preference to extending? If I end up joining downwind a bit close behind someone (and I'm at say 90-100kts), I'd far rather bring the speed back a bit than I would go half way across the county to make some space, but some seem to think that in a two seat trainer or low-performance four seat tourer you are only allowed to start to slow down after you turn base.

The other day I was following a 152 downwind, tower tells the 152 to call ready for base, tells me I'm following a 152 and then asks me to call ready for base too. I call ready for base before the 152 ahead which even before his call is a couple of miles out whereas I'm not that much further downwind than abeam the touchdown zone, so tower says "OK I guess you're number one now, clear to land". I flew a tightish right base and am parking back at the club before the 152 touches. Instructor in the 152 later bawls me out because he didn't think it was fair I "cut in".

dwshimoda
7th Dec 2005, 17:27
I wonder, just wonder, if practice ILS approaches at some training airfields might *just* be the original cause of the dreadful practice of bomber circuits?

Ghengis, I think what you might have really been getting at was extending downwind so that when turning final you may be intercepting the localiser 2 miles out, thereby getting a "free" ILS apporach for the last part of the approach?

I know it has been done before, and will continue to be dones so when airfileds charge over £10 a time for these approaches - I understand in the US they are usually free?

chevvron
10th Dec 2005, 14:41
Is that what it costs at Cranfield then? If they want a free ILS, surely they could just wait until ATC is closed? A far as I know, ILS's aren't switched off except for maintenance.
Anyway I still think 'wide' circuits are mostly caused by noise requirements.

dwshimoda
10th Dec 2005, 14:49
Chevron

ILS at Cranfield is over £13, and quite often they do switch it off at night! You'd think they'd at least leave it on as a safety aid wouldn't you?

DW

Final 3 Greens
10th Dec 2005, 15:49
There's another thread where an instructor opines that SEPs following a glideslope of more than 3-4 degrees may become unstabilise.

The thrust of the post encourages pilots to use a 3-4 degree final - am I alone in thinking that this kind of arbitrary advice (nonsensical IMHO) could also contribute to bomber circuits? since you only descend about 300 fpm on a 3 degree G/S and even a 600 foot final turn (lower than many would choose) would equal 2NM final.