Circuit Procedures

[Pace]

I am suggesting an aircraft established on final has priority over an aircraft on base without doubt!

That would be like stating an aircraft established down wind has priority to land over an aircraft established on final or for that matter one turning crosswind ?? There is no difference

Pace

[Broadlands]

Our FISOs have got it correct. If an a/c calls long final they are politely requested to report short final and reminded that there are aircraft in the circuit and will likely be allocated the runway.
Long final does not have priority (also as stated in various cap docs) and I am happy for students to turn in front as long as there is safe separation.

If a candidate on test did a long final (I offer the rejoin as their choice) while there was established circuit traffic I would almost certainly fail that section! The CAA staff examiner did this to me (pretending to be the candidate) to see if I would fail him, which I did.
Long final meaning over 4nm.

[fireflybob]

FFB Why would you have to go around unless you were on final and hence how could someone barge in on final unless they overtook you? A go around is a final procedure usually on very short final or when unable to land not a base or downwind procedure! I think I know what you mean

Pace, please don't teach me how to suck eggs! I will Go Around whenever I deem it is necessary to maintain safe flight.

The issue of a/c on long final having right of way (or not) has been flogged to death already. You are entitled to your opinion on this issue but I do not agree.

Also it's nonsense to say you can only Go Around from final - you can Go Around from the beginning of the downwind leg or base leg if you need/want to.

I also agree with Shy Torque that any extending should (notwithstanding local noise abatement) be carried out upwind and not downwind for the reasons Shy has stated.

[ShyTorque]

Pace, as I said, if you extend downwind you may well cause problems for everyone else in the pattern and this could, in many cases, have been resolved earlier by extending upwind. At a military training airfield, where things are perhaps more strictly controlled and circuits are required to be flown to a fairly tight pattern, you are likely to be deemed to have left the normal circuit by extending downwind and unless given permission by ATC to extend you may be required to cross to the dead side whilst maintaining circuit altitude and fit back into the pattern, before you enter the final leg of the circuit.

Having been trained by the RAF over forty years ago (and later trained others to fly) and having now had over two decades of civilian flying, I think the military method provides a safer option for everyone concerned.

[Pace]

fireflyBob

I am not trying to teach you how to suck eggs ( Who would want to anyway they are horrible )) Okay I am winding up a bit so apologies for that

Nevertheless everyone is referring to aircraft on long finals ? I would be interested to know what is classified as Final? Short Final and Long final. to me final is 4 miles Max as for going around that is normally a procedure from final either VFR or IFR and means you are aborting a landing. IFR you follow a go around procedure VFR you miss the landing and proceed back into the circuit?Where would you go around from downwind or base ?

Pace

[fireflybob]

Nevertheless everyone is referring to aircraft on long finals ? I would be interested to know what is classified as Final? Short Final and Long final. to me final is 4 miles Max as for going around that is normally a procedure from final either VFR or IFR and means you are aborting a landing. IFR you follow a go around procedure VFR you miss the landing and proceed back into the circuit?Where would you go around from downwind or base ?

It's a matter of semantics but a "Go Around" (or "abandoned approach" if you prefer) from Downwind or Base Leg would be flown by following the circuit in plan (azimuth) but maintaining and/or climbing back to circuit height and then resequencing back into the circuit again. Hope this helps to clarify.

[Helen49]

Along with Firefly Bob, I must also have lived sheltered life!! During thirty years in towers, I rarely experienced any problems with overhead joins.

Indeed for visiting pilots, OHJs enabled the pilot to orientate him/herself with the runway and circuit direction in use, other traffic etc. They also enabled me to eyeball the aircraft and ascertain that correct procedures were being applied.

However, on countless occasions pilots making straight in approaches regularly co**ed up the circuit by giving wildly incorrect distances from touchdown........often I suspected with the intention of jumping the queue.

Straight in approaches are obviously ideal for the airline traffic, twins etc but overhead joins are ideal for learners, single engine aircraft and visitors to the field.

Just an ATC perspective!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

However, on countless occasions pilots making straight in approaches regularly co**ed up the circuit by giving wildly incorrect distances from touchdown........

Whenever I've negotiated a straight in approach I find that either I'm asked for distance to run (in which case I read it off the DME or GPS) or the controller already knows by some other means (eg by looking at a radar screen even though it's not a radar service).

I can't see that it makes any sense for anyone to deliberately lie about their position, thereby increasing the risk of a collision.

[Pace]

It also makes no sense to me that on a straight in approach I should have to go overhead and make 5 to 6 blind turns to get back to the point I was already at maybe adding 5 to 10 minutes to the flight adding these unneeded turns to discomfort the PAX and increase my collision risk
Remember 7 out of 10 mid airs are in or near the aerodrome
Communicate is the answer and that means with other aircraft giving precise distance to touchdown and negotiating with the relevant ones on who is first!
If someone is base creating the separation to allow them to land and clear !

I do resent the blind stupid way some pilots attempt OH joins when they do not have 2500 feet to cloud base but attempt the OH with maybe 1500 feet just below the cloud base and that happens a lot
The OH join has a place when conditions are right but in the UK that is seldom and the word STANDARD should be removed to be replaced with better joining methods

That is the problem I have with it that it is abused by pilots and FIS or ATC or adjusted to unsafe separations at airfields where airspace restricts a possible OH join! Why ? Because we are fixated with a method of joining which is outdated and will try to accommodate it into less than ideal situations!
In the past that resulted in a near collision with an aircraft attempting an OH join cutting across the downwind leg




Pace

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by Pace

I do resent the blind stupid way some pilots attempt OH joins when they do not have 2500 feet to cloud base but attempt the OH with maybe 1500 feet just below the cloud base and that happens a lot
The OH join has a place when conditions are right but in the UK that is seldom and the word STANDARD should be removed to be replaced with better joining methods

That is the problem I have with it that it is abused by pilots and FIS or ATC or adjusted to unsafe separations at airfields where airspace restricts a possible OH join! Why ? Because we are fixated with a method of joining which is outdated and will try to accommodate it into less than ideal situations!
In the past that resulted in a near collision with an aircraft attempting an OH join cutting across the downwind leg




Pace

The airfield where I work is part surrounded by class D airspace which also gives us a 'lid' of 1,500 ft amsl, so you can't extend too far upwind without 'busting' (and setting off a CAIT so the zone controller has to take reporting action) and likewise you cannot join overhead at 2,000ft for the same reason.
What sometimes happens therefore is the joiner joins downwind either inside or outside established circuit traffic, gets too close to it on final and has to go-around, there being no 'land afters' allowed at a FISO airfield.

[Pace]

gets too close to it on final and has to go-around, there being no 'land afters' allowed at a FISO airfield.

Chevron

I understand that but its not exclusive to aircraft joining down wind its up to pilots to create a reasonable seperation. Once out of the OH and down to circuit height in the pattern the same problem can exist.
Flying mainly twins in the past I often had to create a separation to a slow aircraft in front and there are many techniques to do that even on final with one ahead.

Go arounds are usually created not by getting too close on final but the aircraft which have landed thinking they have all the time in the world to clear with little consideration to other aircraft on final?

Pace

[flybymike]

Pace, please can you list the many ways to create separation from the slower moving traffic ahead in the circuit.

[Pace]

down wind One is obvious to slow up to a safe speed or add flap to reduce that speed. Watch where he turns base and delay your base turn. Widen your downwind track to extend your track distance compared to him. On final fly a curved final left and right to again extend your track distance

Pace

[thing]

I just wish those pilots who insist on a long final could be re-educated to fly an OH join and stop screwing up established circuit traffic.
OH joins rule!

Amen to that. Why pilots on a VMC day insist on doing a squillion mile bomber circuit is beyond me. Being a Yorkshireman who pays for his flying my ccts are as tight as the proverbial gnats buttocks, base leg is long enough to get the flap down and that's it. In fact bring on oval ccts at civvy airfields as taught by the RAF. Up down in no time.

[DeltaV]

Good grief! A new forum is created specifically to discuss Accidents and Close Calls and this thread with twice as many posts as any other has to do with circuit procedures!
I know it can be a difficult area at times but really, should not this thread be moved to Private Flying where it more properly belongs? I'm sure over there a preexisting thread could be found that this could be merged with.

I mean, same old same old, "the OHJ should be banned", "the OHJ should be standard", "the US 45° downwind join is best".

I'm going flying.

[Pace]

DeltaV

With 7 out of 10 midairs OCAS in and around the circuit maybe this is the right place to discuss joining methods? But not just joining methods separation too
Many of us have had near misses in the circuit or situations where we have been cut up.

Pace

[thing]

I mean, same old same old, "the OHJ should be banned", "the OHJ should be standard", "the US 45° downwind join is best".

I'm going flying.

Don't forget some of us like spouting the same old rubbish. It's comforting and warming and requires little excess thought as you just have to repeat the same thoughts you've already had. There's room for everyone.

Bet you didn't go flying either if your weather is as bad as it is here.

[DeltaV]

Many of us have had near misses in the circuit ...

Pace

http://www.pprune.org/accidents-clos...ml#post8989305

Bet you didn't go flying either...

Yes I did.

[Pace]

Come to think of it how many posted subjects haven't been around the block at least a dozen tmes ? Or are variations of a theme
You have to really scrape the subject barrel to come up with anything original
Maybe the PP forum should be renamed Hamster Wheel forum 😃

[Pass your message]

Mid air

https://assets.digital.cabinet-offic...and_G-AVBD.pdf

The above link worth a read . Every time I join OH I think of this awful accident and the only good thing about incidents like this is that we can learn from them. Not all of us do , but I certainly have .