Orbiting

[Capt. Manuvar]

I've looked through PPL books and the syllabus ad there is nothing in there about orbiting. My school discourages orbiting in the circuit, and after a near head on collision with another a/c on downwind I agree fully with them. But light aircraft at busy controlled airports are usually expect to asked to orbit while the big boys land. I have checked CAP 413 and it says nothing about orbiting.
So what in an orbit? what power settings/angle of bank/rate of turn do you use?
Capt. M

[Christo]

Should be a standard 2min turn or is it a level 30deg angle turn?

[2Donkeys]

Forget 2 minute turns. Those are for instrument procedures.

The turn you make (bank angle, radius) is going to vary depending on the met conditions, traffic conditions and terrain surrounding the airfield concerned.

The purpose of an orbit is to create a bit of space between you and the traffic you are following, without leaving the general area you were operating in. It is up to you to select a combination of speed, and bank angle that allows you to accomplish that spacing without losing your ability to spot other traffic and maintain your situational awareness.

2D

[witchdoctor]

If somebody has come close to a head on whilst orbiting in the circuit, then one or both of the parties involved were flying some pretty poor circuits.

As for speed, power settings, bank angle etc... just keep them the same as required for a standard circuit. As 2 Donks says, the whole point is just to create some separation from other circuit traffic, so at standard circuit speeds, the controller has at least some idea of where you will be relative to the other traffic following your orbit before requesting you to do so. Full power, max rate turns probably aren't the way forward.

If in your opinion, an adjustment is required to any of those settings, then make it, just the same as you would if you were failing to maintain adequate separation elsewhere in the circuit.

[Delta Wun-Wun]

Pick yourself a reference point on the ground, as the wind may cause you to actually fly an oval. Roll out in the turn if necessary to maintain your position in reference to you where you started it.

[Davidt]

What I was taught:

Select slow safe cruise ( see poh for particular type)

square orbits, making wind corrections, using cardinal compass points or obvious ground features with 30 second legs.

Two mins to go round in a square.

IMHO theres no need to bat along at cruise setting burning more fuel + continuous turn patterns mean you always blind sided

[Capt. Manuvar]

The problem I have is that there may be a few/many pilots out there (i'm one of them) who do not know what to do if told to orbit since its not in the PPL syllabus. I know that an orbit is a 360 deg turn. It's a bit like telling me to do an insrument approach or hold. I don't know what RT phraseology is used with respect to orbits so i don't know what to expect
G-XX orbit?
G-XX cleared to orbit??
G-XX maintain orbit???
will I be told how many orbits to do and where to do them?
Capt. M

[2Donkeys]

If you are told to "make one right hand orbit for spacing" by an ATCO, the only RT you need to conjure from your vast pool of learning is "Willco".

Should you feel that the request is unreasonable, or dangerous, you can say "Unable (give a reason)".

In flying an orbit, you are not being asked to peform some FAA Ground reference manoeuvre. You are simply being told to make some room, and flying a circle happens to be a neat way of doing that.

There is surely an element of mountains and molehills here?

2D

[BEagle]

'Orbits' are usually symptomatic of non-pilot ATCOs overcontrolling the visual circuit for commercial reasons and should be a last resort, rather than routine practice.

My advice is to turn in the direction of the circuit (in accordance with the Rules of the Air) unless ATC direct otherwise. All such turns should be nothing more than a simple 30 deg medium turn with bank adjusted to maintain position over a ground reference point.

Orbiting in the visual circuit is a very undesirable procedure and should be avoided wherever possible. It also has the insidious danger of taking captaincy decisions away from the lawful Commander and transferring them to an ATCO who is not trained to comprehend them fully.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Orbiting is just flying a 360 degree turn.

The main issue as you already found out that there may be others behind you who may not be on exactly the same track as you. This can lead to you meeting up head on.

When asked to orbit and I am not sure about other traffic I usually just leave the circuit and join later. Rather spend a bit more time flying out of a congested area than trying to hold on to my slot in the circuit.

FD

[Chilli Monster]

'Orbits' are usually symptomatic of non-pilot ATCOs overcontrolling the visual circuit for commercial reasons and should be a last resort, rather than routine practice.
I'm going to semi-agree here - sometimes it's necessary for the integration of VFR v IFR traffic. (Strong winds especially - where you don't want the circuit extending too far downwind).

HOWEVER - it's not the preserve of ATCO's. I often get asked by pilots "Can I do an orbit for spacing" when just tweaking the circuit a little wider to fit in with the traffic (which they can see 9 times out of 10) would do the job quite nicely.

It's the age old problem of people flying from ATC airfields with little or no A/G or FISO airfield experience. They're not equipped to make the decision for themselves and how some are, I suspect, taught, doesn't help either. They expect to be nannied and not have to think!

[BEagle]

No, they have got used to being nannied. And they should NEVER "tweak the circuit a little wider"' they should continue in the normal circuit pattern, giving way to any traffic on final which has landing clearance by going around as necessary .

IFR traffic in VMC - even in Class D CTRs - is only entitled to be given traffic avoidance information about VFR traffic on request. They do not have any inherent 'priority' over such traffic, they just assume that they do - and ATC are often complicit in giving them this perception!

Too often do some ATCOs attempt to provide IFR separation standards in VMC in Class D airspace. IFR separation is only provided from other IFR traffic in Class D; pushing VFR traffic around to make life easy for the IFR inbound is unreasonable. However, 'traffic information' is available for VFR traffic, so if ATC advise that some airliner is inbound, then any VFR traffic should simply be told the postion of the inbound traffic ("CheapAir 737 IFR inbound at 10 miles") and arrange their own separation accordingly. And that doesn't mean some ATCO ordering orbits, extensions downwind or other non-standard aviation practices.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm not quite sure I agree with you there BEagle.

Two VFR traffic should be (made) aware of each others position and sort their own positioning - that's fine.

But in the case you've described, that 737 must maintain IFR, and requires minimum separation from other traffic (be it IFR or VFR) to do so. So, you may need keeping out of his way, for his benefit - not yours. Mind you I do agree that there are better ways of doing it than orbitting very often, "height not above", "Do not turn North of", "Do not descend below", "do not turn base until instructed" are usually more elegant - and safer than an orbit within the circuit.

Having said that, it's the IFR traffic that needs to remain IFR, you don't need him to. So, it's much more appropriate for the controller to either ask him to become VFR, or to move him !

G

[tacpot]

What do we think of reducing speed to (your) slow flight speed as a mechanism to introduce spacing between you and the aircraft ahead?

My only concern with this is the pressure it puts on following aircraft, who may not be able to slow down as much. (60 Kts is a typical slow flight speed for what I fly).

Would you inform ATC that you were reducing speed for seperation purposes? (so that any aircraft following you would have an instant heads-up as to why you were getting closer!)

[Chilli Monster]

Beags
And they should NEVER "tweak the circuit a little wider"' they should continue in the normal circuit pattern, giving way to any traffic on final which has landing clearance by going around as necessary .
This is where we're going to disagree, and where the difference between 'mil' and 'civil' will show itself.

In the mil world you send the guy around, the idea being that the go around takes him ahead and above the instrument traffic, positioning deadside to rejoin the circuit. Fair enough, it works in the mil environment, and that's what is expected.

However, in the civil world that VFR guy might not want to go around, he might want to land. (He's paying for it after all - not me, or H.M Queen Betty). In which case you pass traffic information and it's up to the guy who is number 2 (often, but not always the VFR) to adjust his circuit to fit behind the IFR traffic. This is done by orbiting (not tidy, not favoured) or slightly extending (tweaking) the visual circuit.

The thing is this practice is perfectly within the ANO :) I, as an ATCO, have established an order of landing, and as such it is up to the aircraft involved to conform to that by whatever techniques are required and by fulfilling any conditions I put on it ('tweaking', slowing down, etc etc).

Bear in mind here that we're not talking about unnecessary separation - we're talking about only one aircraft being able to be able to land (by which I mean the actual transition from flight to non-flight) at any one time.

Also another thing to remember which sometimes enters the equation - civil Vortex Wake Criteria are larger than military, and these have to be attempted to be complied with for landing aircraft. (You can't say have to be - nobody can judge 3, 4, 6 or 8 miles in the circuit).

Having said that, it's the IFR traffic that needs to remain IFR, you don't need him to. So, it's much more appropriate for the controller to either ask him to become VFR, or to move him !
Come on Beags, you should know better - I cannot ask that. Choice of IFR or VFR is pilots decision only and if he wants to stay IFR there's nothing I can do about it. Even suggesting it would get me a one way interview with the boss!

Tacpot
What do we think of reducing speed to (your) slow flight speed as a mechanism to introduce spacing between you and the aircraft ahead?

My only concern with this is the pressure it puts on following aircraft, who may not be able to slow down as much. (60 Kts is a typical slow flight speed for what I fly).

If you're flying something that can fly that slow then you're never going to be asked - if anything people are going to, more often than not, ask you to keep your speed up. I would suggest you fly circuits at normal speed and leave the slowing up to more high performance aircraft which have a wider operating envelope. If you brought the speed back that far and I was behind you in an Aztec or similar expect to get over-taken ;)

[Ops and Mops]

BEagle,

Taking your point then, how does non variance of the Standard Circuit in your argument cope with an inbound stream of Medium to Heavy vortex wake category aircraft against Bloggs in his light aircraft bashing the visual cct?

Remembering that the recomended vortex wake separation between a light and a medium is 6 miles, between a light and a heavy is 8 miles and that training and GA traffic does take the lowest flight priorities, Category Z (unless classed as a NORMAL FLIGHT by filing a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routing procudures, or is an Initial IR test conducted by the CAA FEU under the c/s EXAM), where do you suggest Bloggs goes?

The visual circuit is not a rigid pattern as you would expect an instrument pattern to be. Flexibility in this is sometimes required for an ATCO to service the needs of all aircraft in the sky. We are tasked to provide a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic, which at times means being flexible and adjusting the order in which things happen, and how aircraft are and can be integrated.

In the visual cct, both the pilot and the controller should be looking out of the window anyway.

No ATCO in my experience would try (or even want to) make an executive decision for the pilot, or compromise his command authority. If a pilot is unable to comply with a request or instruction, all he has to do is say so and what he intends to do as an alternative. If the alternative can be accommodated then great (the controller may not have thought of that solution), however if it not feasable to accommodate it then the aircraft will have the option of going with option 1, or leaving the cct/ATZ until a more suitable time. I would suggest however that maintaining a standard pattern to roll out 2 miles behind a Heavy would not be one of the pilot's better decisions, nor would continually going around into the departure sector upwind.

I suggest that lack of flexibility in the vis cct could be counter productive to students.

PS Genghis, do you mean VFR or "visual"? There is a difference!!

[bookworm]

No, they have got used to being nannied. And they should NEVER "tweak the circuit a little wider"' they should continue in the normal circuit pattern, giving way to any traffic on final which has landing clearance by going around as necessary.

Presumably you're not suggesting that an aircraft should simply continue flying the same circuit pattern, completely unmodified until it finds a gap big enough to land in or runs out of fuel?

So what options for modifying circuits to fit in with other traffic do you approve of and why? I can think of the following, but there may be more:

Extending upwind
Extending downwind
Flying wider (and what is the standard width then?)
Flying narrower
Changing speed
Overtaking
Orbiting

[Genghis the Engineer]

I mean VFR - the issue is whether a particular aircraft needs to maintain Instrument Flight Rules or not. If it does, whether it's visual or not, it needs minimum separation - if it does not, then it it can fly VFR - and that again is irrelevant to whether it can see the other traffic or not.

Incidentally:-

Come on Beags, you should know better - I cannot ask that. Choice of IFR or VFR is pilots decision only and if he wants to stay IFR there's nothing I can do about it. Even suggesting it would get me a one way interview with the boss!

That was me not Beagle, but I can't quite see the point. Is it not reasonable to ask an aircraft that is in VMC to operate VFR if that is convenient to everybody else. They can, of-course, say no?

G

[englishal]

Assuming we're not talking about orbits in strongly curved space time, then I was always taught maintain current configuration, altitude and speed and roll into a 30° banked turn, referencing a position on the ground. I have in the past reported "orbit complete" to ATC on completion of the orbit, though dunno if its strictly nescessary.

Not too keen on them, I think they're handed out rather too liberally at some airports. Last time into a certain field I orbited three seperate times in the space of about 5 miles....:ooh:

I agree though that it would be unfair to ask CheapAir 123 to "cancel IFR" just because they're visual, and no doubt their SOPs won't allow it anyway. I would also leave the circuit of an "uncontrolled" field rather than orbit..........

EA

[Ops and Mops]

Is it not reasonable to ask an aircraft that is in VMC to operate VFR if that is convenient to everybody else.

Not at all as flying IFR doesn't neccessarily mean flying IMC (eg inside Class A airspace).

When an aircraft "changes" from IFR to VFR, their IFR flight plan is cancelled in toto and they would then need to refile if they susequently required to fly IFR at a later stage, and it also limits the maximum service available to the aircraft to RIS.

Again most company SOP's require aircraft to fly IFR to afford the the extra protection that somes with those flight rules. In the approach phase, more flexibility can be achieved by flying a visual approach under IFR, where the pilot can manouevre more freely maintaining his own separation from terrain and conflicting traffic he is visual with.

ATC can say to a pilot "report if you wish to continue visually at any time" suggesting that the traffic situation and the wx would allow a visual approach, but a controller is not permitted to either tell a pilot, or suggest to a pilot to change flight rules.

[bookworm]

I mean VFR - the issue is whether a particular aircraft needs to maintain Instrument Flight Rules or not. If it does, whether it's visual or not, it needs minimum separation

Not from VFR traffic, Genghis. In class D, which is the only low level controlled airspace a VFR flight is likely to be doing circuits in in the UK, IFR traffic does not have to be separated from VFR.

However (from MATS Pt 1):

Instructions issued to VFR flights in Class D airspace are mandatory. These may comprise routeing instructions, visual holding instructions and level restrictions in order to establish a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic and to provide for the effective management of overall ATC workload.

Aerodrome control is responsible for issuing information and instructions to aircraft under its control to achieve a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic and to assist pilots in preventing collisions between: [virtually everything :)]

This implies, I think, that if ATC thinks that it's safer, more orderly and more expeditious to let the 747 preceed the C152 to avoid the 747 going around, it has the right and the duty to issue instructions accordingly.

[BEagle]

bookworm - quite right. If the IFR inbound insists on flying IFR into Class D airspace in gin-clear VMC, perhaps it should be reminded that "IFR separation will only be available from other IFR traffic; VFR traffic avoidance will be provided on request". In other words, it should expect that it may be vectored around the VFR, not that the VFR should be booted out of its way. However, a 'request' to VFR traffic to extend upwind (never downwind) or to cross to the dead side would not be unreasonable....

Perhaps ATCOs should again receive the basic flying training they were once given.....

'Company rules require IFR thoroughout?' = Expect vectors in Class D in VMC!

[Ops and Mops]

BEagle,

However, a 'request' to VFR traffic to extend upwind (never downwind) or to cross to the dead side would not be unreasonable....

Why never extend downwind? This was quite common at a secret airbase near St Andrews before the "light aircraft hold" was established. It is also common to hear requests from civilian pilots/instructors to "extend downwind for spacing".

What about aerodromes where there is no deadside available for use due noise restrictions?

What about the delay forced on other departing traffic by an aircraft extending upwind?

I refer you again to my point that unless the VFR traffic has filed a flight plan in the normal way and conformswith normal routing procedures, the flight falls into category Z which has a lower priority to those in the "Normal Flight" category (desscribed above). It is not always the case that the commercial boys are "getting their way" at the expense of the rest of the aviation community.

[BEagle]

I guess you're not a pilot?

It is an axiomatic part of flying training that the identification of the point at which the base turn is commenced is readily understood by the student pilot. From that point onwards he/she is occupied with assessing power settings, attitudes and configuration changes to roll out on final at around 400 ft a.g.l 'in the slot' for the approach. They will then be in an aceeptable position from which to begin the landing process.

Whereas if the downwind point has bene extended, the task involved in setting up the final approach path is less easily qualified and unstable approaches are more likely; typically a student pilot will end up dragging it in on a shallow approach with a high power setting; this will lead to inaccuracy in the flare.

Furthermore, with any sort of wind (say 15-20 kts at circuit height), a 90 kt light a/c will only be doing 70-75 kts across the ground into wind, rather than 105-110 downwind, some 57% faster. So, to achieve a 'delay' for spacing, in a given time the a/c will need to travel much further downwind than it would into wind.

The effect of wind is far more marked on low speed ac; please believe that FIs teach circuit procedures from a background knowledge of quite some depth and experience. And get very annoyed at some ATCO who thinks he knows better!

[HelenD]

Having done a fair bit of orbiting, since I fly out of an airfield that has commercial operations, i would make the following comments.
You can have to orbit for a fair amount of time and you feel you may have been forgotton by the tower but you are not sure how to remind them you are still there or if you are allowed to.
Orbiting is very tireing and requires a high level of concentration, hard work in cases where there is only1 pilot.
In cases of the pre solo student orbiting is demoralising as they are not getting enough constant circuit experience to allow any but a brave instructor to get out and it also wastes the students money.

Extending downwind is not to bad unless you have to go miles further than usual, this is because as Beagle says the approach will not be of the usual type and the flare could be misjudged especially with students or inexperienced PPL's but we do have the option of a Go Arround if we dont feel comfortable or dont like the look of things. I will do anything I can to avoid comming in too close to a 737 etc especially as I am not sure what 4, 6 or 8 miles looks like.

Adjusting the circuit is no harder than flying to an airfield that is new to you, if anything it is easier since you are familiar with the landmarks. Some airfilds have very strange normal circuits that are extremly wide and if you do the type of circuit as taught ATC will ask you to move wider.

[Chilli Monster]

please believe that FIs teach circuit procedures from a background knowledge of quite some depth and experience. And get very annoyed at some ATCO who thinks he knows better!
So - some 250 hour newly qualified instructor knows better than someone who may have been controlling since before they were born?

Take the keys to this JCB................................................ ;)

[Gertrude the Wombat]

And get very annoyed at some ATCO who thinks he knows better! Clearly what you say is going to be right in some situations ... but there are other ATCOs who can manage rather better, for example suggesting "extend downwind" to some students and "right hand orbit" to others and "go around from base leg" to others and "can you reposition for the (parallel to the main) grass runway" to yet others depending on the ability of the student, perhaps in consultation with the student's instructor if s/he's hanging around the tower. Seems like horses for courses to me.

[Genghis the Engineer]

A thought or two. Firstly thanks for pointing out my error of understanding on VFR .v. IFR, that piece of wisdom had passed me by. But..

When an aircraft "changes" from IFR to VFR, their IFR flight plan is cancelled in toto and they would then need to refile if they susequently required to fly IFR at a later stage, and it also limits the maximum service available to the aircraft to RIS.
Firstly, if joining to land an IFR cancellation shouldn't present a problem, secondly RAS , etc. is available in VFR, that or I've been getting a service under false pretenses all these years.




It is an axiomatic part of flying training that the identification of the point at which the base turn is commenced is readily understood by the student pilot.
For an early hours student, certainly. But, I certainly don't require this as a qualified pilot, and I would have thought (speaking as a non-instructor) that any student allowed solo in the circuit should be able to cope with any conditions he or she might encounter - including separation from higher priority traffic or being forced by circumstances into a non-standard circuit.

So - some 250 hour newly qualified instructor knows better than someone who may have been controlling since before they were born?
I'd have thought that the captain of an aircraft has to be treated as knowing better what they can or should do with the aeroplane - regardless of whether it's a 10,000 hour greybeard or a 15 hour student just gone solo. A controller may advise helpfully or in a controlled situation give permission, and I hope that they will - but they are not responsible for the aircraft, the captain is and they must decide what is appropriate. Even legitimate instructions from a controller can, and must, be refused by a pilot of any experience level if it's appropriate that they do so.

G

[IO540]

I fail to understand why people get so animated about this.

When a plane that can fly safely on downwind (say 10deg flaps, gear down) at 90kt and not much less, and having joined crosswind, finds himself behind a C150 doing 60kt, he can either extend downwind or, if there isn't enough downwind distance left before the C150 turns base, he has to orbit. Or depart from the circuit and come back later.

Orbiting isn't a good choice in a non-ATC airfield because they tend to be more of a free for all, but there is no problem with orbiting if ATC tells you to. They have a pretty good picture of who is out there; much better than most pilots.

[2Donkeys]

Totally agree IO540. This really is a storm in a teeny tiny T-cup.

2D

[englishal]

Cancelling IFR should be used with caution. A contact or visual approach can be requested by the pilot, whilst remaining on an IFR flight plan.

I read an interesting article in the AOPA magazine a while back, admittidely the US one, so some of what was said will not apply in the UK. But the gist was that an approach controller under heavy workload was "encouraging" pilots to cancel IFR as soon as they were visual. None of the commercial operators in the queue did, but this PPL decided he'd help the controller out and cancelled when he was visual. He was met by an FAA inspector on the ground, who wanted to know why he was flying VFR in less than VFR minima (for the class of airspace that this airport was located in). The pilot was "prosecuted" by the FAA..........

EA

[Ops and Mops]

I guess you're not a pilot?
Never assume, always check! I am in fact a qualified pilot of some 10 years experience and in current flying practice of both simple and complex types. I also get quite annoyed at pilots/instructors that seem to think that only their viewpoint is correct, and that they are the only priority in the sky. Inflexibility has cost many a pilot his life or his career.

I think that HelenD has probably hit the nail on the head. Orbiting, extending downwind (within reason) et al is not something that should be used everytime for every aircraft in the circuit, however they can be and are used as a tools to allow the needs of all the aircraft in the sky to be safely addressed. Do instructors no longer teach reference points in the circuit for puting the aircraft into the correct configuration for landing? What do your students do on a straight in approach, crosswind or base leg joins? The skills required to correctly configure an aircraft in these scenarios is no different to configuring the aircraft at an appropriate point in the cct after an orbit or extending downwind.

The visual ciruit is just that, visual. Look out of the window and avoid banging into things. The controller will give you as much information as he has available to help you achieve this, and will also give you instructions to safely integrate you with other traffic that may be of a higher flight category.

Before BEagle jumps up to argue about ATCO's issuing instructions to VFR traffic, note that within an Aerodrome Traffic Zone, At Aerodromes with an air traffic control unit, all movements are subject to the permission of that unit. Aircraft will comply with instructions given by radio telephone and maintain a listening watch. (MATS Pt 1 Sect 1 Chap 2 para 6.2)

If you want to do your own thing, in your own way without due regard for others then fine, but do it somewhere where you are not going to endanger anybody or anything whilst doing it. :mad:

PS Genghis:
secondly RAS , etc. is available in VFR, that or I've been getting a service under false pretenses all these years.
MATS Pt 1, Chapter 5, Page 2, para 1.4.1 (a) regarding Radar Advisory Service states:
The service shall only be provided to flights under IFR irrespective of meteorological conditions.

You may want to have a wee chat with your local ATSU to see if they have any local variations to this just to clear up any doubts you have as to why you have been receiving a RAS under VFR.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Fair point, but the next paragraph says:-

"Pilots not qualified to fly in IMC shoul accept a RAS only where compliance with ARC advice permits the flight to be continued on VMC".

So, you can be IFR whilst simultaneously VFR - which is the get-out. In reality it primarily means flying quarantal rule. The same, I think, applies to Radar Control.


Actually I can't honestly recall ever using RAS outside of training (and not often then), I've always used FIS, RIS or Radar Control. The nature of my own flying never calls for RAS, and I can recall very few occasions when I've heard anybody else call for it either.

G

[Capt. Manuvar]

Thanks for the replies. I think the CAA needs to lay down a STANDARD procedure for orbiting and probably need to include it in the PPL sylabus. So far I have read 5 or so different methods of orbiting which has further added to my confusion.
It seems typical for posters on this forum to assume that we all have the same standard of knowledge or were trained to the same standards. I'm always very cautious of the phrase "I was always taught to ....". One man's breeze is another man's gale.
In conclusion, if i'm told to orbit i'l just do a 360 turn at 30 deg bank over my current position and if anything happen i'll sue ATC/CAA/etc:8
Capt. M

[Ops and Mops]

Genghis
So, you can be IFR whilst simultaneously VFR..
Unfortunately not. If you reread the paragraph it states VMC not VFR.

VMC = the met condintions you are flying in.
VFR = the rules under which you are flying.

You can quite happily fly IFR in VMC (as offshore helicopters do all the time), but be prevented from flying IMC for various reasons (e.g. pilot qualifications, aircraft limits, inside Class A airpsace).

VMC is not the same as VFR. :ok:

[DFC]

When an ATC service is provided, I have no real problem with making orbits if instructed. I expect ATC to provide traffic information on relevant traffic and to have the sense not to make me orbit late downwind while other aircraft continue downwind towards my position.

An orbit is simply a turn through 360 degrees. No more and no less. The only time allowance is made for the wind is if one is told to "orbit in present position".

Where ATC comes to grief at many UK airfields in clas D or G is that they know the rules but have no real understanding of the practical implementation of those rules.

For example - If I am flying a C150, ATC can often say "number two, follow the B747 4 miles from touchdown, caution wake vortex, recomended spacing is 8nm, report ready for base". As I pass almost abeam the B747s position, I report ready for base that would place be horizontally about 1.5nm behind the aircraft and I am told to orbit until advised. After about 3 minutes, I am released from the orbit. The only thing that I can put this down to is that the controller has no idea of the practical application of VFR wake vortex separation. By doing this ATC are simply creating delays for no rational reason.

Ops an Mops give a second clear example of being able to quote the rules but not understanding them.

Yes, training flights are a low priority. However, GA flights (which are not training) regardless of flight rules are normal flights. It is not a requirement to file a flight plan to operate in class G regardless of what the flight rules are. Furthermore, it is totally within the rules to make short VFR flights in a B747 through class G carrying fare paying passengers without a flight plan (I say short because I can't remember the local UK max distance for such flights). Are you going to orbit a B747 downwind because of a steady stream of B737 arrivals? Doubt it ;)

If UK ATC were to insist on a full flight plan for all VFR zone exit, transit and entry flights then you can expect the ATC admin workload to increase dramatically as a result. NATS would have to more than double the staff at Heathrow AIS and the other parent AFTN units....especially now that many local ATC units refuse to process flight plans even for departure from their own aerodrome and refer the crew to Heathrow AIS.

Genghis,

When in VMC regardless of the class of airspace, the pilot is responsible for operating the see and avoid principle. In class A our chances are reduced (high speeds, traffic density etc) and we rely alot on ATC backed up by TCAS to assist our visual scan. However, in class D,E,F and G, we are aware that eventhough we may be completing an ILS, if we are in VMC then we are responsible for avoiding according to the rules of the air all other aircraft and that includes breaking off the ILS to avoid gliders who have the right of way!!!!

Regards,

DFC

[Ops and Mops]

DFC,

How does your example point to me not understanding the rules? :confused:
Furthermore, it is totally within the rules to make short VFR flights in a B747 through class G carrying fare paying passengers without a flight plan
There is no argument that this is within the "rules".
However, GA flights (which are not training) regardless of flight rules are normal flights.
These flights, if they have not filed a flight plan, would not come under the normal flight category, but the lowest category, category Z. Flight categories are not dictated by aircraft type, but by the type of flight being undertaken.

Normal Flights = Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routins procedures OR Initial Instrument flight tests conducted by the CAA Flight Examining unit (RTF callsign EXAM)

Category Z = Training, non standard and other flights

As regards the example you quote regarding the B747, there are many different ways to deal with different aircraft types in the circuit under different circumstances.

The only thing that I can put this down to is that the controller has no idea of the practical application of VFR wake vortex separation. By doing this ATC are simply creating delays for no rational reason.
I would say the safety of you and your aircraft was a perfectly rational reason. If you, as aircraft commander choose not to comply then the subsequent MOR or accident investigation will surely identify who was at fault. As ATCO's we have a duty of care to ensure the safety of you and your aircraft, and if we were to comprimise that in anyway we would be the ones with our heads on the block. There may however be other reasons why you were being kept in the orbit that you may not necessarily be party to. Out of interest, what is VFR Vortex Wake separation? Vortex Wake doesn't alter with different flight rules. A B747's vortex wake will quite happily throw a C150 out of the sky under VFR as it would under IFR. 8 miles is given as the minimum safe lateral distance for a light following a heavy, calculated over the years from hundreds of Vortex Wake incidents and accidents. Any reduction of this would be at your own volition and risk.
If UK ATC were to insist on a full flight plan for all VFR zone exit, transit and entry flights then you can expect the ATC admin workload to increase dramatically as a result.
Again, where was this course of action suggested?

Please don't attack me and my understanding of my job unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that I lack both the knowledge and understanding you suggest in your post. Your opinion is just that, an opinion, not an assessment of my understanding, professionalism or competence.

[bookworm]

[GA flights (which are not training)] would not come under the normal flight category, but the lowest category, category Z. Flight categories are not dictated by aircraft type, but by the type of flight being undertaken.

Normal Flights = Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routins procedures OR Initial Instrument flight tests conducted by the CAA Flight Examining unit (RTF callsign EXAM)

Category Z = Training, non standard and other flights

So four questions then O & M,

1) Do you therefore look for a FPL for every flight that you serve?

2) How do you expect to receive a FPL for a flight which has filed one but for which your unit is not an addressee?

3) Do you mark every flight for which you have no FPL with a Z in box M of the flight progress strip as required to by MATS Pt 1?

4) Do you regard an abbreviated flight plan (MATS Pt1 Sec 1 Ch 2 9.1(b)) as a "flight plan filed in the normal way"?

[Ops and Mops]

Oh for goodness sake! :mad:

1) No

2) Of course if my unit is not on the addressee list, the plan wont appear, but that is a matter for the person submitting the plan, not the addressee.

3) I normally only mark Cat A or B Flts in box M. Do you?

4) No as an abbreviated flight plan only pertains to a portion of a particular flight.

The topic of flight categories was originally posted to clarify that priorities do have a bearing on how an ATCO does his job, and that it not just a case of the "big boys" getting priority over GA an training traffic because of the thought and biases of an ATCO.

If anyone else has a problem with flight categories or Air Traffic Standards, may I suggest you submit them directly to the Safety Regulation Group at CAA House.:suspect:

[Genghis the Engineer]

VMC is not the same as VFR.

A difficult issue this, that regularly gives me professional headaches.

To fly IFR outside of controlled airspace means flying in accordance with rules 29 and 30. If a pilot is required to maintain VMC, they can still do so.

To fly VMC, you need to maintain the legal minima required for your particular combination of aeroplane, speed and licence - that doesn't stop you flying VFR OR IFR.

But, here's the thorny bit - and UK-CAA probably hold most of the blame for this. Certain aeroplanes are required by law to maintain VFR (not VMC, VFR). All permit aeroplanes fall into this category.

So, if I go flying in a permit aeroplane, I must remain VFR - the permit conditions say so. But, if I choose to comply with rules 29 and 30 (a very sensible thing to do, particularly on a long run at altitude), then I am by definition flying IFR - notwithstanding that I am outside of controlled airspace, have not filed an IFR flightplan, and may not even be in RT communication with anybody.

At this point, I'm going for a lie down in a darkened room, in night IFR.

G

[S-Works]

wow I can see that this one is not going to be solved purerly by our knoweldge of the force but by our skill with a light sabre......

Does anyone ACTUALLY know what you are arguing about?

:p

[Genghis the Engineer]

Do we need something to argue about?, I thought that we were just arguing:O

G

[Flyin'Dutch']

This one is getting as boring as the subject matter!

But the person suggesting that people not on a flightplan have less priority than those on a FPL and can orbit until the cows come home needs to get out more often.

FD

[Ops and Mops]

So boring that you felt the need to reply Doc?
But the person suggesting that people not on a flightplan have less priority than those on a FPL and can orbit until the cows come home needs to get out more often.
I fear it is you sir that needs to get out more, either that or actually read what is being said.

The UK CAA are the ones that are not suggesting, but specifying the different flight categories and priorities. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to who suggested aircraft are to orbit until the cows come home? :rolleyes:

[DFC]

Ops and Mops,

As an ATCO, you are responsible for ensuring that whatever you do does not endanger an aircraft. What the aircraft commander does is beyond your control provided you have acted correctly. Thus you can not be held responsible for the actions of another individual.

To go back to the orbiting and the example I gave, there obviously was no other traffic otherwise I would not have used the example. What I expect to do is turn base and final as close as possible behind the B747 and of course above it's flight path to avoid the wake and then having observed the touchdown point, I will land well beyond that point that the B747 touched down. All of which is perfectly safe and in acordance with the ICAO and CAA guidance on the matter.

What I don't want ATC to do is make me orbit unnecessarily and prevent me from observing the touchdown or to push me so far downwind that I have reached the point where the glideslope intersects my altitude thus not permitting me to stay above the wake after I turn in.

As for the difference between VFR and IFR vortex separation.......when VFR, I as the aircraft commander apply the separation and have the authority to say what that separation will be in the particular circumstances (and thank you for the reminder of the CAA recomendations), when IFR I expect that you will apply the separation appropriate for the circumstances but I will tell you to give me more if I need it.

Getting to the flight priority list, most of the problem lies in the fact that every cessna and cherokee that turn up are expected to be on a training flight when it comes to ATC pushing them to the back of the que but have absolutely no chance of obtaining a training discount on the landing fee.

In the past I have suffered such a delay and when asked for the training discount, I was refused because I was an ATPL holder and alone in the aircraft. After a short discussion, we agreed that giving me the discount would be fair since the inappropriate delay had cost me money. - - - - You never get anything until you ask :)

Filing a flight plan constitutes passing the information required by ATC. Every country has different requirements depending on the circumstances. The international standard is the full flight plan form. When the flight plan starts and ends does not checng the fact that for the period that it is active, a flight plan has been filed.

Can I simply quote a part of your statement - "Normal Flights = Flights which have filed a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routins procedures..."

An inbound VFR flight routes via the appropriate VRP in the normal way and 10 minutes before the airspace boundary passes the required details and requests an ATC clearance. What is not normal about the filing of the flight plan or the routing in that case?

Perhaps you need to have a stack of flight plan forms beside you! ;)

To be honnest, if every GA flight faxed a flight plan and once airborne, called the FIR to report the departure time, all the FIR controller would be doing is activating flight plans and the line to Heathrow would be permanently open......except on rainy days in winter!

If only we knew where you worked we would be sure to make your day next time we visit by dropping our usual short friendly message and replacing it with "request file airborne flight plan" :E

Finally having discovered thata student completed a PPL course and passed the GFT without knowing what an orbit was makes me worry that it is only a matter of time before some IMC rating holder arrives behind me in the sequence and despite being well down the list, reports that they do not know what a holding pattern is or how to fly one thus getting a priority approach.

What category are IFR flights on a flight plan by holders of IMC ratings who can't do an accurate holding pattern and who can't follow the star because they can't fly in the class A airspace above the CTA/CTR? Bet they are normal as well :(

Can't win really.

The answer I suggest is that all UK class D airspace is made class C. This would make the airspace match the actions of most ATC providers and at the same time prevent me getting sent into the hold so that some IMC holder who can't fly the hold gets ahead in the que. :D

Regards,

DFC

PS

Genghis,

You hit the nail on the head - you can be VMC but can't be VFR at night!!

As for permit aircraft being required to be VFR, that is very true but if the pilot holds an IR and is in class G airspace below 3000ft celar of cloud 120Kt, they can be VFR with only 1500m visibility (yuck). But they can't for example when above 3000ft simply call themselves IFR so that they can skim round the edge of a few fluffy bits (under a RIS) because the VFR flight rules require VMC and thus 1500m horizontally from all cloud above 3000ft in class G.

Great for safety that !!

[Ops and Mops]

DFC,

What a great, balanced post that puts everything into perspective!

Cheers! :ok:

[mad_jock]

I am glad someone else has worked out its cheaper to request an IFR recovery than fanny about with a visual join. LBA used to be great for that. You would jump in front of 6-7 aircraft just by paying 8 quid for the approach.

Good post DFC.

[GroundBound]

From the original post it seems that s/he operates in a non-ATC environment. In that case it is fully understandabale that oribits within the circuit are not advised/ recommended/ condoned/ taught, since no-one is in control of what's going on and other pilots in the circuit will fully expect aircraft ahead to conform to the circuit procedure.

If operating in an ATC environment (not FISO, A/G) then orbiting is only done at the request of ATC, who will know what is ahead and behind and what spacing will result. If there's someone following you, whilst you are orbiting, they will either be far enough away (or slow enough), or ATC will orbit them as well.

When instructed to orbit by ATC, I have always turned away from the runway - this has never been crticised, either by F.I.s or by ATC.

Normally, as stated before, a simple 30 degree level banked turn is all that's needed. If ATC says "one orbit", then roll out of the orbit and continue on the next part of the circuit. If ATC says "orbit" and you don't know how many, then as you finish each orbit ask ATC "orbit finished, do you want me to continue orbitting". Usually, though ATC are watching and will tell you whether to roll out or "make another one".

Capt. M. my advice would be "don't worry, it isn't rocket science", and never be afraid to confirm with ATC what they want. On the other hand I would not expect orbiting in a non-ATC controlled circuit. Extend downwind/ upwind (depending where you are in the circuit relevant to others) or go around if you have got too close on final.

GB