Originally Posted by backpacker
xraf, I agree that orbits should not be necessary, provided that all aircraft fly a visual circuit and are flying at speeds that are more or less compatible.
But consider my home field, Rotterdam, which handles commercial traffic up to 737s as well. If I'm on downwind with a 737 on some-mile final (ILS), ATC is going to tell me to orbit. Because the alternatives are worse.
Why are they? If I've got 1 or 2 commercial inbounds there's nothing wrong with extending the light aircraft downwind, tell him who he's following and remind him of the number of miles recommended spacing. The relative speeds are such that the C152 (forf example) won't go that far downwind.
If I just continue my circuit, base, final, over the runway, upwind and cross, all at circuit height, I'm making the 737 nervous because I might interfere with his go-around path. (And he might have to tangle with my wake turbulence!)
No ATCO in their right mind should tell you to do that, for the reasons you state.
Oh, and because of the interesting mix of comair and GA, first solos almost never happen at our field but go elsewhere.
First solo's often happen where I work - and that's with traffic up to B763 / MD11 (and often AN124 or 225) so where's the problem?
Horses for courses I suppose.
G-EMMA - I hope you're learning at an ATC airfield? If not then your instructor wants his ar$e kicked as orbiting off your own bat at an A/G or FISO airfield is asking for trouble. If they're demonstracting that to students then that's really appalling. You are right to think the go-around is a better option.
Cusco - I've read the read the report. Let's just say it's not how I would have done things, to the extent that the C150 might even have stayed no.1, at least until a point where they could have carried out a safe, standard, go-around if need be.