Large Circuit Patterns

[jonathang]

What opinions do people have of Light A/C flying large airliner style circuit patterns ?

:mad: make me angry

[Sensible]

Big Patterns are ok if you are flying aircraft with infallible engines. Those who fly aircraft with engines which may fail prefer tight patterns especially if they don't wish to burn off loads of fuel in the process. Anyway, don't people who fly 747 patterns fly "circuits" ?

ATC - are you remaining in the pattern or are you departing?

[englishal]

Prefer to remain close, just in case, but some places insist you fly the runway length away from the airport...in the case of a 10,000' runway, this is quite a way!

Cheers
EA:)

[kabz]

I try and stay in a position where I can make a glide in if the engine quits ...

To date, the closest I have come, is the engine quitting with the student who flew the plane right after me, but ...

If there is someone in the pattern who is flying wide/long patterns, I deal with it by slowing right down, then turning base as I pass abeam them when they are coming in on final. That usually gives enough spacing, and saves me from having to fly too far out.

[SKYYACHT]

:(

Having done some hours building in the US, primarily at Long Beach, I prefer flying the american style "Close Traffic Pattern"
This makes you very disciplined about speed managment and turning at the correct point. It is very frustrating when you are cleared by ATC to join as number two, and the chap in front seems to be doing a small cross country rather than a circuit at the airfield. This had happened to me on a number of occasions when rejoining at Shoreham. I know that some circuit patterns are larger than normal due to Noise Abatement Procedures, but As far as I am aware, such restrictions are not in place at EGKA. Is this the way that Students are now taught? I was always taught that a good means of positioning yourself on the downwind leg was to "scrape" the wingtip along the landing runway......and turn base when the threshold was 45° behind you. This has always worked for me......Perhaps some of you were taught another method. I would be interested to know, as these huge bomber circuits are my pet hate!

Blue Skies

[knobbygb]

I was taught to climb to circuit height on crosswind, before turning downwind and I can see why this might cause problems, depending on a/c performance. I know for a fact that my solo circuits are always a lot tighter than those done with instructor weighing the a/c down.

I do try to be tolerant when someone is flying a rather large circuit - when you're learning there is so much going on and it can be difficult to strike a balance between doing things correctly and rushing. Even so, some people do seem a little extreme...

When following someone on a 'cross country' circuit, you tend to leave a bit of extra space to try to get more distance and I have noticed each sucsessive circuit get bigger and bigger, until someone finally lands and it all 'collapses' to the correct size again. If this appears to be happening I now deliberatley get right up behind the guy in front and go-around to break the pattern. Helps everyone out and good experience too.

[FlyingForFun]

I definitely prefer tight circuits - the tighter the better.

There are two reasons for flying large circuits as far as I can see: noise abatement, and following someone else flying large circuits.

Following others has already been dealth with pretty well by others - I can't think of much to add.

Noise abatement circuits are something I'm pretty familar with, flying from White Waltham. I have to say that I've never had an issue with the circuits there. Yes, they are much bigger than I'd like in an ideal world. But there are plenty of options for putting the aircraft down if the engine quits - maybe not on the airfield, but certainly safely. (In the places where options are limited, this is not due to the tightness of the circuits.) Certainly if a "published noise abatement circuit" took me somewhere unsafe, I would be very unhappy about it, and I'd speak to the CFI about getting it changed - although I'm not aware of anywhere where this is the case. The fact is that, when it comes to NIMBYs, there are more of them than there are of us, and they have a louder voice. We really must do whatever we can to keep them happy, without compromising safety.

<Begin really controversial bit>

I have always been a little baffled by the zealousness with which some people talk about flying tight circuits. For the vast majority of your flight you won't be within gliding distance of an airfield. So what difference if, during the 5 minutes or so that you're in the circuit, you're not within gliding distance? Well, for a start, you're lower than normal, so you have fewer options... ideally, you'd want to ensure that you weren't over a built up area at all, so that you could always land directly below reasonably safely. But that's the whole aim of noise-abatement, so that shouldn't be an issue. Sure, being within gliding distance of the field is always preferable - but I don't view it as being essential.

<End really controversial bit>

Stay safe!

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

[Kirstey]

I think a lot of these huge circuits are flown by students (certainly in my experience at EGKA). Ultimatly they're learning just like we all were (and still are!). Give them some slack and let them learn. The art of a tight circuit was lost on me for lots of my training! Now I can fly a comfortable tight citcuit. The art of flying behind someone who isn't is the next thing to learn!! I was behind a guy last week, I thought he was going to have to contact Lydd his downwind was so wide!

[FNG]

FFF is right to bring up the issue of noise abatement, of which more anon. Meanwhile, I agree with Kirstey. We all moan about people flying huge circuits but never admit to doing them ourselves. My circuits were huge when I was learning to fly, because I could not handle the workload and took too long to do things. One of the many pleasures of the post-solo consolidation phase, and the early PPL phase, was learning how to juggle speed, flaps settings and the like in order to fit in safely with with other traffic at various airfields .

I do suspect, however, that too many people are taught to fly circuits as automata (you fly at THIS speed and no other, you turn HERE and nowhere else, you lower flaps HERE and never elsewhere), and these habits can stick, particularly if you don't fly often. I wonder if there is too much emphasis on putting circuits together, component by component, rather than teaching people what their aims should be in approaching, joining and landing.

As for noise abatement: I agree that we cannot ignore, out-shout or otherwise defeat the opponents of our hobby and must accomodate them as best we can, but there are are places where the imposed circuit patterns give you little or no option for a safe forced landing (Elstree springs to mind, and I don't say this in order to re-start the Elstree-slagging cycle).

At other places, there are safe landing options from the circuit , but you will never make the airfield (with its fire-crew, phones etc). When the engine failed on me, turning downwind on the day my instructor had planned to send me solo, the instructor, taking over, initially pointed us at the airfield to land downwind, but immediately abandoned that plan, realising that it could not succeed, and put us down smoothly in a convenient field closer by. I mention this because, when the donkey died, we were exactly where the noise abatement pattern for that airfield said that we should be. That put us out of range of the airfield (especially in a Mark 1 Gliding-Brick aka Beagle Pup, but a Cessna or Piper wouldn't have made it either).

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

It's horrid at EGCB flying the Chippy, trimmed back to slow speed, at 800 feet over the heavily built up area you end up over if you extend miles downwind for 27, following someone on a 'Bomber' circuit - the norm at our field, I'm afraid.

If the engine quits, you'd go into the houses. Why do these peole do it??

Makes me mad, too :~((((

SSD

[FWA NATCA]

In the US we call large or wide patterns B52 patterns and as a controller I DO NOT like them and will tell you to tighten your pattern up closer to the airport, I do this for your safety and so that I can better control pattern traffic.

Wide patterns make it harder for the controller to see you, and to give you a sequence. In a situation with multiple acft in the pattern, you run the risk of being cut off by someone else who is flying a normal pattern.

If for some odd reason you want to fly wide patterns, ask for approval from ATC, this way you don't surprise the controller.

Mike

[sennadog]

Correct me if I'm wrong but regardless of whether the circuit is designed for noise abatement or not, each aerodrome has a circuit pattern which pilots should adhere to. It's the pilot's responsibility to brief him/herself on what that circuit pattern is.

:confused:

[Julian]

Large circuits do not necessarily mean a student or bad pilot. I flew a Seneca II yesterday and ended up having to do large circuits as otherwise I would have hit the preceeding Cessna 172 up the arse!

The other issue is that you may not have a choice if the tower has extended your downwind or left the base call to their discretion.

Anyway its all loggable :)

[Beethoven]

I have often heard it said that one should always be within gliding distance of the field and many people claim that they adhere to this.Surely the only way to achieve this is to always use a glide approach as any need for power means that you are beyond gliding distance,so unless you intend to always carry out a glide approach the whole argument breaks down late downwind.
SSD...I too have taken a bite out of my seat on the approach to 27 a couple of times and not with my teeth I can tell you!! The only other option is a swim in the ship canal.
P.S. my preference is to use a glide approach as much as practical but so many times I am forced to abandon it due to other traffic..ATC extending downwind etc..so I think the best policy is just to stay as tight as possible under the given circumstances and not worry about it too much afterwards,after all,in a normal powered approach,the only time you could feasibly glide back to the field is from the end of crosswind to the point on downwind where you would turn for a glide approach.
Best Wishes,
Beethoven

[bookworm]

Correct me if I'm wrong but regardless of whether the circuit is designed for noise abatement or not, each aerodrome has a circuit pattern which pilots should adhere to.

News to me. The AIP indicates circuit heights and directions, but often, perhaps usually, nothing more. I've seen nothing that specifies how wide a downwind leg should be flown or how far it should extend, except in some very special cases.

It's simply not possible to have a one-size-fits-all circuit, which is why, for all the whining here and elsewhere, a recommendation of a specific distance is not published in the AIP, or the AIM, or anywhere else with any authority. I share a circuit with aircraft whose normal cruise speed is below my Vmca, as well as those whom I don't want to get within three minutes of for fear of what their wake will do to me. Many aircraft beyond the scope of the primary trainer don't appreciate having the power shoved on full for take-off and then yanked all the way off for a glide approach minutes later.

FFF wrote:
I have always been a little baffled by the zealousness with which some people talk about flying tight circuits.

Seems to be a macho thing: "Mine's tighter than yours."

Yes, teach students to fly sensible circuits consistent with the aircraft they're flying, but let's show a little tolerance for the diversity of needs in aviation and not get carried away with this. It's not a way of scoring points over other pilots.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

At EGCB there is no ATC, and the 'bombers' are the likes of 172s and PA28s. So there's no excuse for it. And by no means are all of them are students with a heavy workload.

On downwind, the runway should be on or about the wingtip, turn base when you've just passed the downwind end.

These guys extend literally a mile or so beyond that!

WHY????

It's tempting to cut in behind them and land in front - you could have re-fuelled, put the aeroplane away, and be enjoying a coffee in the clubhouse befpore they land. But unless you know for sure that they *are* going to fly halfway to Yorkshire before turning base, you could end up just cutting them up. So you sit behind them willing them to TURN BASE NOW YOU DUMB ***###!!!!

What to do about it? I don't know

SSD

[jonathang]

Bugs the hell of me too , Can understand if it's a faster a/c closing on a slower one .

[Beethoven]

"enjoying a coffe in the clubhouse"....I take it you are referring to a different EGCB or else taking your own coffee!!.Sadly this is something that can never change unless we fundamentally change the way we teach ppl's from the outset.The circuits are much tighter in the states and their SPL's seem to cope ok.I too flew from Long Beach and was impressed at the tightness of the circuits..didn't have much of a problem with them.Instructor did all the checks until I was ready to include them and it worked well for me.
Is there anything wrong with turning downwind early and continuing the climb to circuit height on downwind?..well yes I suppose there is if you take into account popping-up in front of traffic joining downwind,but it seemed to be the norm in the US.Any thoughts?

[FlyingForFun]

I can't see any reason to not be at circuit height by the time you turn downwind... or at least by the time you pass abeam the upwind end of the runway. If necessary, extend the upwind leg. I was taught to turn crosswind at 500' agl, which pretty much guarantees you'll be at circuit height in time.

As you say, not being at circuit height by this point introduces a risk of collision with joining traffic. And that applies on both sides of the pond, with a 45-degree join as well as with a standard overhead join.

Traffic considerations apart, turning at very low level doesn't seem safe. Build up speed, get a bit of distance between you and the ground, get the flaps up - then think about turning crosswind.

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

[foghorn]

A good case in point of the perils of bomber circuits happened to me the other week. The visibility (officially 7000m) was getting low, the sun was low making matters worse, in the circuit I was cleared to final as #3 in a Tiger with a Duchess at #2.

Turning downwind we were visual with Duchess but couldn't see #1. The standard speeds for the Duchess made it 30knots quicker than us downwind and so it pulled away from us and eventually we lost it in the haze. As we went late downwind to we could see a low wing high tail type in the haze on a 2+nm final - I think to myself it's exactly where the Duchess should be if he's extended just a little and that he'll be level with the wing at the 'standard' downwind/base turn point, so the spacing is coming together nicely. Only when we get on final do we realise we're still #3, the type infront is a PA38, still #1 and we have cut up the #2 Duchess who was on long final and is rightly pi**ed off.

What was the root cause? Well, despite the lack of other traffic the PA38 decided that he needed a 3+mile final at min. safe approach speed - causing the faster Duchess to extend what must have been five or six miles downwind before turning base to give himself room.

Now, the slip in Situational Awareness of not identifying the traffic in the circuit and not asking for a position check on the radio were our fault, but the whole damn thing was caused by a totally unnecessary bomber circuit in low vis conditions! This all happened with me flying from the RHS and a mega-hour FIC instructor in the LHS, both of us thought the Traumahawk was the Duchess, so it could happen to anyone.

Another withdrawal from the luck account to credit to the experience account.

cheers!
foggy.

[Tinstaafl]

Is it really standard practice in the UK to teach that the turn onto downwind occurs after reaching circuit height?

If so, no wonder some circuits are large considering the performance of some a/c when heavy &/or on a hot day (Yeah, yeah, I know it's the UK, I just threw in the Temp. thing for accuracy... :p )

Can't see the necessity for it, myself.

Oz & US both tend to the procedure of turning onto d/wind at a point that will give you an appropriate spacing. If circuit is not yet achieved then continue the climb during the turn & on d/wind.

Oz also prohibits the first turn after t/off until 500' and requires final to commence a minimum of 500m from the AD boundary although these rules are rarely significant factor. The 500' turn is probably the more significant of the two since it sets the starting height for X/wind.

[FlyingForFun]

Agree - it's the turn to crosswind which is important, not the turn to downwind.

As long as you don't turn crosswind before 500', you will always be at circuit height (assuming a 1000' circuit or lower, and assuming a reasonably constant or improving rate of climb) before you pass abeam the upwind end of the runway, thus avoiding any danger of collision with joining traffic. And this would be true regardless of how tight you fly the downwind leg.

I should probably take back my statement that "I can't see any reason to not be at circuit height by the time you turn downwind" - that's not quite true. It probably comes about because I fly at an airfield with an 800' circuit, and some very wide published noise abatement circuits. Sorry for any confusion!

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

[foghorn]

I should also add that in the UK bomber circuits can take you outside the protection of ATZ and therefore out of a Tower controller's area of control. So once again tight circuits are (in theory at least) safer.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Large circuits are problimatic for many reasons.

Large circuits are a by product of poor flight instructors.

Flying schools make more money using poor instructors.

So it all comes back to money. :D :D

By the way, the you need time to do all the checks and the work load is high is only an excuse for poor instructors.

Cat Driver:

::::::::::::::::
:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

[englishal]

Well, maybe the UK should standardize a bit. I am happier and used to flying Long Beach type tight ones (oohh errr), but when I did a dual check at a South Coast airport, I got a bollocking from the instructor for not being 10,000' away from the runway.

So what it boils down to is:

1) Fly the circuit pattern that is designed for the airport. That may include a bomber style circuit, or a nice tight one ;)

2) If someone is training and is in front of you and is flying a bomber style circuit becasue they are not happy to fly a tighter one, in experienced, or need more time etc etc...then stop winging and let them fly it.

3) read Trevor Thom book one. You turn base when the end of the runway is at 45° unless you are asked to make a short approach or your engine fails (or see no. 2).

4) At un towered airports, unicom or radio airfields, talk to each other...."XYZ 3 mile final"..."ABC turning base behind XYZ"....

Rgds
EA

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Englishal:

Is there it mandatory to fly the wide circuit the instructor wanted or is it only his idea of a circuit?

If it is not manditory then ignore the instructor and fly a circuit that suits you and the airplane.

Cat Driver:

[englishal]

Chuck,

Yes its mandatory, but I didn't know it at the time, so I was wrong...

Cheers
EA;)

[SimJock]

Skyyacht

Anyone who has been taught in the last few years at Shoreham knows that the recomended circuit pattern for runway 21 is:

After take off, Turn left at the coast not below 500 feet
Turn downwind when you see the warehouse with the blue door on the quayside at Shoreham Harbour
Head downwind towards the A27 tunnels
Turn left base overhead Tescos Superstore
Head towards the chimney
Turn final before you hit the chimney

I kid you not, instructors teach this. All very well until you visit a new airfield which suprise suprise doesn't have the above useful landmarks ;) a similar pattern is used for runway 03...

[flyboy6876]

They way that I ws taught to fly a pattern was turn crosswind at 500ft AGL, then make the downwind turn (regardless of height - two fairly large fella's in a 152 means that there is no way to be at circuit height at the turn onto downwind leg) with the end of the runway at about 45deg, and do the same turning onto base leg. I find that if I can stick with this it makes for a neat circuit.

If someone else extends the circuit, and it is feasible to slow down, then I do so and try and get the circuit back to a "normal" one. If this is not possible, then I live with it until the tower starts to make everyone tighten up.

[Final 3 Greens]

Aw, come on guys, how are you going to nail the PAPIs in a Cherokee without flying a 3.5 mile final????? ;)

[FlyingForFun]

SimJock makes a very good point re. training, and the effect of noise-abatement circuits on training.

Instructors have a very difficult job to do, juggling the need to teach students a technique which will work on any runway with the need to keep the locals happy. But it's not impossible.

When I was taught circuits, my instructor taught me like this:

Turn crosswind when you get to 500'. On this circuit, though, you also need to make sure you've gone past the church.

The downwind leg is normally flown so that the wingtip appears on the edge of the runway. Now, make sure you're outside that village over there, and note that the wingtip is a bit below the runway - we're further out than we would be in an ideal world, and that's because of those villages down there.

The base turn is normally made when the runway is 45 degrees behind you. But because we flew the downwind leg a little wide, the angle will be a little less on this circuit.
I was always taught to judge the circuit with regard to the runway. Then, I adjust the ideal circuit to take noise abatement procedures into account. The end result is that the circuits which I fly at my home airfield will be from landmark to landmark, as SimJock describes (traffic and other considerations permitting). But I've never had any problems flying circuits at other airfields - right from my first land-away as a student, I've been able to fly circuits where my usual landmarks have been absent. (Putting the 'plane down in one piece, though - well, that's a completely different issue!)

So yes, it is possible - so long as instructors don't teach their students to use the landmarks as the primary means of flying the circuit.

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

[simonh11]

Hi all,

During a normal session of circuit flying I do about 1 circuit every 7 minutes. So in a flight of 50mins airborne time I do 7 circuits. Does this sound normal to most or am I flying bomber circuits? This is at an airfield pretty much at sea level with a 1000' circuit. The technique I use is turn onto crosswind once above 500' and turn downwind when ready, which is normally about 45° and just reaching circuit height 2POB in a C-152. When I first started flying I flew from Rand Airport, near Johannesburg. With a runway altitude of something like 5500', if I tried turning onto downwind at circuit height then I would certainly be off into the wilderness due to the reduced performance of the aircraft. If I can remember correctly most of the downwind leg was still in a climb ;). Based on these experiences I try not to judge my turn onto downwind leg on whether I have reached circuit height or not, but more on position relative to runway. I find being about 1.5 miles from the runway on downwind doesn't rush me or leave too much time for sight seeing (except when ATC asks for a few orbits!).

[CPilotUK]

Hi,

I am currently a 31 hr student at White Waltham and totally agree with every thing Simjock and FlyingForFun said in their previous posts.

I clearly remember an incident that happened to me on my 2nd solo flight as a result of flying a wide circuit.

Just as I turned on to base leg, I saw an aircraft in front of me that caused me great concern because I was too close behind him. I had maintained a good lookout and to my knowledge only two aircraft accompanied me in the circuit: one in the overhead and the other who was descending on the deadside while I was crosswind. I was prepared to do a go-around if the aircraft hadn’t vacated the runway in time. Luckily he did and I managed to land with my heart intact.

When I got back to Operations, I was discussing the situation with my FI when all of a sudden another FI – who was doing his paperwork at the time – admitted that he was the pilot and told me that my circuit was very wide.

The reason for flying wide was down to: flying an unfamiliar circuit – White Waltham has six; Being taught to stick to noise abatement procedures; A high workload and also coming to terms with flying without someone in the right seat.

Part of the procedure for runway 03 at White Waltham which was the runway in use that day is: upon achieving a safe height, turn left to track about 010° to avoid both Foundation Park and Ridgeway School before turning crosswind.

In my case, I was put out by the fact that my crosswind would be naturally shorter than normal due to the 10° turn to the left after departure. Instead, I flew a longer crosswind than I should have for that particular circuit.

In addition to following noise abatement procedures, I think pilots and students in particular should follow the advise from authors like Jeremy Pratt and Trevor Thom which is to use the wingtips and tail of the aircraft to establish correct positioning in the circuit.

[foghorn]

I can't say whether it's 'official' or not, but the technicque taught to me on my PPL at a certain large UK school, and the technique that I have been taught to teach on an FIC course at the same school is as follows:

Turn crosswind as soon above 500ft AAL as is safe, subject to traffic.

Turn downwind when your tailplane crosses the extended centreline (centreline for deadside joins).

On the downwind leg you should be no further away from the runway than the wingtip, when seen from the cockpit.

Turn base when the runway is 45 degrees behind the wing (this angle is different if you are allowing for drift).

This will give you a base to final turn at 600ft AAL, which means you are established on final at 500ft AAL/~1.5nm.

Obviously this is all notwithstanding local procedures, and other traffic.

As CPilotUK infers, I expect Messrs. Pratt and Thom have had a lot to do with this style of circuit.

cheers!
foggy.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Well, I did a lovely tight circuit at EGCB today. Partial EFATO in the Chippy at 300 feet. Lots of misfiring and vibration. Transmitted "SL immediate return" and did a very close-in low level circuit to a gliding final turn right onto the runway.

I think a couple of 'bombers' went-around.

SSD

[Viggen]

SSD and Beethoven - I'm a very newly qualified pilot at EGCB and often wonder whether I'm annoying anyone behind me when flying the "taught" circuit pattern. I must admit, my natural instinct is to turn base earlier. But without anything to compare with, I don't know whether my circuit pattern would be considered too wide or not! If I've turned base for 27 and have the Trafford Centre in my 11 o'clock... what would you say?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Viggen

Trafford centre in 11 o'clock sounds like good postioning.

The bombers I've followed,, on base, would have the TC in their 2 o'clock.

Madness!!

SSD

[Flyin'Dutch']

Hi

I think that part of the reason why folks over here (UK) are reluctant to turn downwind below 1000ft (or whatever the circuit height at your particular field) is the fact that they could pop up in front of traffic joining onto downwind (from downwind/xwind/dead side)

Dont know about Oz but obviously the US join at 45 degrees to the circuit circumnavigates this problem nicely.

This thread in some form or another is also very popular on other forums.

Does this indicate that anyone who flies a wide circuit per definition does not sub to any of these forums or are we all 'guilty' of flying a wider circuit than we think!

I have certainly flown with folk who are self proclaimed 'tighters' and thought that they were flying wider than I would have done.

Have fun

FD:eek:

[EastMids]

I think that it is one thing to criticise experienced pilots who without a care in the world fly huge circuits. But it is another thing all together to criticise a low hour PPL who may well be flying solo (pre- or post- qualification) and does wide circuits and simply wouldn't be able to cope with the workload of flying a tighter circuit. Problem is, when I'm flying behind another airplane, I have no idea which category the wide-circuiter ahead is in.

No doubt some will claim that the instruction is lacking if a pilot is flying solo and isn't able to cope with a tight circuit, but its not always that easy (see below) and I think we should all be tollerant of other pilots and their capabilities. I would certainly not want to be indirectly linked to an accident because some low houred pilot felt it necessary to fly a tight circuit, or felt pressured into rushing what they were doing.

Andy
====

As an aside, as you may guess, I fly from a 2900m runway. I can get the club's Warrior to 1000 feet before I reach the far end of the runway if I have a mind to. I can therefore be at circuit height for probably half a mile before I am allowed to turn crosswind, due to the need to stay clear of Castle Donington village. Likewise, downwind is outside Castle Donington (probably a mile abeam) and the base turn is usually the far side of Kegworth leaving maybe a two mile final - I'm quite happy to run down the M1 inside Kegworth if I can leaving me a 1/4 mile final, but that's not the way its taught. I'm not criticising the teaching at East Midlands, but local conditions simply mitigate against SPLs learning tight circuits - with the best will in the world, there's only so much circuit training that could be done at other airfields. The net result though, I suspect, is that pilots who rarely get an opportunity to practice tight circuits will be unlikely to perform them, or indeed may not be able to cope with them, when they go to smaller airfields. Again, I think we need to be tollerant of the abilities of others, and not just assume pilots fly blindly off into the middle of no-where just because they can't be bothered to keep it tight.

[bookworm]

I wrote:

Yes, teach students to fly sensible circuits consistent with the aircraft they're flying, but let's show a little tolerance for the diversity of needs in aviation and not get carried away with this. It's not a way of scoring points over other pilots.

Just got back from 30 minutes in the circuit at Cambridge.

I take it all back. All those flying a circuit bigger than the one I deem to be necessary should be lined up against a hangar and summarily shot. :) Newmarket's pretty though...

[Another_CFI]

Simonh11, Your circuits do appear to be a touch large. I reckon that a typical circuit takes around 5 minutes, giving my students 10 circuits for 50 minutes airborne (almost 50% more value than flying your 7 minute circuit).

[Chuck Ellsworth]

We have the same problem at our local airport, flying school training using a twelve mile circuit, almost everyone else flys a normal circuit that is eight miles.

The mileage is easy to figure by measuring it on the airport chart.

Now can anyone tell me why there are to many checks going on in training airplanes to teach normal circuits?

I just can't figure out why these flying schools cannot teach students to fly proper circuits that will not screw up everyone else who are unfortunate enough to arrive at the airport while these people are flying.

Cat Driver:

[flyboy6876]

I've noticed that a lot of the commentary here appears to centre around peoples home airfields. It seems to me that if a person is taught to fly a circuit which is based on certain landmarks and to meet noise abatement procedures, what will occur if the pilot now joins a circuit at an away field? Will this not throw them out a bit?

IMHO, I would have thought that a "standard" circuit should be taught, regardless of the airfield. This would perhaps minimise the "large" circuit syndrome.

Just a thought and I'd like to read more instructors thoughts on this.

[jonathang]

The CAA are putting emphasis on the ability to reach the field from any point within the circuit pattern during an Engine failure. Not always in the runway direction, but at least the field.

Does that not suggest that Tight circuits are critcally important?

[Aussie Andy]

It's very simple: if the NIMBYs kick up enough fuss then, for noise abatement reasons, you'll have a larger-than-ideal circuit. That doesn't mean its a good thing, but needs must...

Having said that, I had the wonderful experience of practicing some very tight curvy circuits at a military airfield over the weekend... and its clearly preferable where possible to be as tight as this in the circuit!

[FlyingForFun]

Flyin'Dutch', could you please explain how the 45-degree join eliminates the problem of circuit traffic popping up under joining traffic? The traffic joins in the same place, at the same height, as for an overhead join - just from a different direction. Each joining method has its own advantages and disadvantages, but I can't see how this particular point is affected by the type of join in use.

You also asked "Does this indicate that anyone who flies a wide circuit per definition does not sub to any of these forums or are we all 'guilty' of flying a wider circuit than we think." Yes, I'm sure you're right. Well, everyone except me, of course, because I'm perfect ;) Actually, although I know what I nice tight circuit looks like, and I used to fly them regularly in the two months I was flying in the US, it's so rare that I get to practice them in the UK that when the opportunity does present itself now I probably tend to fly a bigger circuit than ideal, just because I'm not used to being so tight.

EastMids, does the airfield you fly from use an overhead join? Here's the reason I ask: you say that you are at 1000' well before the upwind end of the runway. And traffic joining overhead would be aiming to cross the upwind end of the runway at 1000'.... I'll let you figure it out from there!

Personally, if I'm at an airfield where overhead joins are used, and the runway is long enough, or my aircraft is powerful enough, to be close to circuit height before the end of the runway, I'll level off at 500', and then carry on climbing once I'm past the end of the runway, to avoid conflicting with joining traffic. Of course, it's not a problem if overhead joins aren't used at that airfield.

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

[Julian]

Flyboy makes an excellent point and one which is unfortunately seems all too common. People get into the habit of turning crosswind, base, final, etc at landmarks rather than from visual clues either from the aircrafts instruments or from the runway perspective from the cockpit - the upshot being that when they venture away from their homebase or to a different type of airfield they make a complete hash of it!

I have to say I have never had to level off on the runway at 500' for traffic whilst flying circuits and recommence the climbout later on. I have always used 300' T&Ps, 500' throttle/manifold pressure reduction, 700' turn crosswind, 1000' S&L. On IFR climbouts I have always been given the altitude to turn at in the clearance, i.e. 'Fly runway heading until 800' then left turn to heading 200', vectors for.....'

[FlyingForFun]

But Julian, I'd guess there aren't too many people doing overhead joins if you're departing IFR from a controlled field? See the last sentence of my previous post!

And as for turning at landmarks, I agree - but last week I posted describing how this can be avoided. As I said, I fly from an airfield with published circuit procedures which call for turns at particular points for noise abatement reasons. I've never had problems at other airfields, though, and I believe that's because of the quality of my PPL instruction. A bit of thought from instructors in the way they teach circuits is all that's required to combine the requirements of noise abatement with those of learning.

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

[Julian]

FFF,

Yes there are overhead joins on airfields with departing IFR traffic. The airfield I was using last week has you do an overhead join if coming in VFR and report over the airfield 'at or above 1500'

[englishal]

I think the 45° join used in the States is safer. The reason being you join on the 45° for MIDFIELD downwind, so theoretically you should descend on the 45 to be at circuit height by the time you are downwind midfield. Anyone already in the circuit should be at pattern altitude by the time they turn downwind, and as the other aircraft will be joining at 45° it gives both pilots of both aircrafts better oportunity to see each other. As FFF says, if you're flying a powerful A/C and have a long runway, it is possibly to be near circuit height not far from the end of the runway. In the UK SOH Join factor into that the joining pilots inaccurate flying, maybe slightly low, maybe slightly further upwind than anticipated and you have a recepie for disaster. The 45 join can be combined with an overhead, fly over the airport 1000'+ above TPA, look at your windsocks or whatever, then depending which circuit is in use continue [or turn] outbound, and when at a safe distance turn onto the 45 and start descent to circuit height.

Cheers
EA:)