Do we need to change

[OneMileHigh]

Along with the dwindling supply of student pilots coming into flying, there is also the growing problem of dwindling airfields from which to fly from. Unfortunately the NIMBYs' appear to be winning the battle, and the larger airfields are less and less willing to provide bases for the displaced flying clubs. What can we do ? http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

Well the one thing that gives effect to the NIMBY cause is of course our noise, and unfortunately we appear unwilling or unable to do something about it. Without noise their argument is halved.

I think we can do something, and not only would it reduce significantly our noise footprint it would also introduce a worthwhile safety net.....At the moment we all invariably do nice wide circuits either rectangular or weaving about between villages and houses. I propose we alter our rigidly flown circuits and introduce a circuit entered at 1500' across the active runway from the dead side and enter a wide descending turn aiming to roll out on final 1/2 a mile out at say 700'.

The benefits as I see them are that:
1. Circuit height increased to 1500' reduces the niose of approaching aircraft.
2. The circuit is flown at much reduced power settings and is much more confined.
3. In the event of a power failure you're always in gliding range of the airfield, not always the case with some circuits.
4. The big change in the circuit pattern can be locally publiscised to show that efforts are being made to be good neighbours and maybe steal some of the NIMBYs' thunder.

Now I know that not everyone will agree with this idea, and that at some airfields it wouldn't be viable, but the discussion has to be worth the effort because at the end of the day something has to be done.

We have to do something, even if it does mean introducing completely new procedures. If we keep burying our heads in the dirt in the middle of the airfield, then one day when we'll pull our heads out and find yet another housing estate around us. :mad:

[Meeb]

Your idea does appear to have merit OneMileHigh. However, I do not fully understand when you say that the "circuit will be entered from the dead side at 1500'". The whole purpose of a dead side is so that joining traffic can descend safely clear of circuit traffic, your plan sounds like you would have aircraft climbing in the dead side area? Your idea of 1500' circuits for noise abatement is good. Maybe just clarify where the climbout would be?

[Sensible]

With you on the tighter traffic patterns, works well in the USA, tight patterns make for easier spotting of other traffic in the pattern as well as less power. Not sure Im with you on the 1500 ft agl though ! Doesnt that leave you high on final and diving for the numbers especially with a tighter pattern ? I thought it was the climb out on t.o that caused all the noise !

[OneMileHigh]

Thanks for your input Meeb, and I note what you say.
What I envisage is a situation where departing aircraft would climb out normally which would take them outside the circuit pattern. Aircraft would descend a few miles away from the airfield to circuit height and from a direction that would naturally lead into the circuit I described above. No-one would descend directly overhead as with the overhead join. I can't at the moment see any confliction between arriving and departing aircraft.
I'm not saying dogmatically that this is the way ahead, but I am trying to generate some thought towards the threat of the whingers. I do strongly think that the GA community have got to do something, and perhaps quite radical. One thing I am sure about though is we must raise the circuit height where possible.....Anyone else ?


Hi sensible, You're right on the climb out noise but there's not so much we can do about that, not yet anyway. Maybe we should try the 1500' overhead circuit join sometime when the airfield is quiet, and see how feasible it is. I don't think it's too much to lose, especially if the join is carried out over the upwind end of the runway.

[This message has been edited by OneMileHigh (edited 30 June 2000).]

[Sensible]

O M H
I think I have lost the plot here somewhere, Isn't the idea of doing the downwind and base bit to see what is going on on the rways as well as checking out other traffic who may not be using radio ?

I cant work out how all this would work, especially at an airport where there was a long rway suitable for say Citations to whom say a 25kt xwind was not a serious problem and say Cessna 152s using another runway say at 90 degs to the one used by the Citation and which the wind was favouring !

Am I just being thick ?



[This message has been edited by Sensible (edited 02 July 2000).]

[OneMileHigh]

sensible,
I don't think you've lost the plot, just the storyline.... :rolleyes:

Ive never suggested that this idea would work at all airfields, and was never really aimed at the bigger airports. At smaller airfields where the NIMBYs' are at their most destructive, it is a way of increasing circuit height, and at the same time shrinking it. I'm personally fairly sure that in a wide descending turn from 1500' to final there is ample time see the runway.

At the moment there is hardly a standard circuit pattern anymore, especially at the more threatened airfields, so ppr is more than ever needed to get the latest circuit info from the operator. That being the case, all aircraft arriving at an airfield should know the procedure and follow it, even non radio aircraft.

As to you're second scenario: I think that would be a potential problem whatever system was employed.

Point three: no you're not being thick, but contributing to a topic related to an important issue, and one to which I and many others think a bit worrying. All ideas need some consideration, and I'm not so brash as to suggest that my idea is the panacea that the GA world needs.....Any other ideas anyone????

[OC Piztoff]

There was an interesting article in Pilot about this recently. Basically (according to the article) everything is governed by the County Planning Orders (or sommat like that).

If you get 20 local residents writing (in deference to the local airfield) to the local planning dept just before the next 5 year proposal is due, then these 20 letters will count for a lot. It's a question of when the next planning orders are due to be published, and how many people oppose/ like an idea.

Not explained very well, best refer to Pilot Mag this month for the full details. Nigel Everett's page.

[OneMileHigh]

I would like to think so OC, but my natural pessimism inclines me to believe this isn't the case. It seems that too many airfields are struggling to remain open.
Whatever the answer is we must at some point compromise and that may well entail a new approach, literally. It would help also if our beloved CAA could be a little more proactive with regard to quieter aircraft, and accept some of the silencer mod's from overseas.....Apologies to them of course if I'm behind the times and they already have.

[climbs like a dog]

Sorry, but I think this isn't a good idea. Your average, hardened NIMBY even complains about the noise of a glider as it makes an unnerving whooshing noise in passing low overhead, downwind to land.

The post about take-off noise I do agree with. We could reduce our noise footprint quite dramatically, but for our very own beloved Campaign and that old devil, money. We could all start using those 4 blade props used on the glider tugs and those nice effective silencers that the Campaign requires to be removed from any so equipped imported aircraft.

The only way GA will defeat these NIMBY's is to take them on at land planning meetings and the such like. After all, they did move next to an airfield..... :rolleyes: WHAT! They keep aircraft there?

------------------
0 to 2000ft in 10 minutes

[foxmoth]

The big problem I have with this idea is - what do you do about circuit training?
In low performance a/c you would NOT end up with a tight circuit unless you continue the climb on the downwind leg - not a good idea if you don't want collisions at this point, in fact some a/c would only reach 1500 ft at the end of downwind!!

[Pocket Rocket]

All you civvy instructors out there why do you continue to fly a square circuit anyway. Why not fly an oval pattern like the military? Would that not keep you tighter into the airfield allowing you to put the aircraft back on the airfield if you have an engine failure at any point after you start the turn onto the downwind leg and also reduce your noise footprint.

[Sensible]

Sorry PR I've no experience of the military. Do you still call crosswind, downwind, base and final ? as a civy, I can't work out in my mind where or what or when you would call on oval circuits ! Or do the military work on a completely different set of rules ?

[OneMileHigh]

If the procedure is new, then why not try new radio calls as well...?
How about calling gate as you go overhead the runway and final when rolling at at 1/2 mile.
Circuit training could consist of a climbout straight ahead to 1 mile, turning toward the dead side to rejoin at the gate.
Before I get well and truly barbequed, I know that this idea has holes in it, but I think we can all agree that too many airfields are under threat and something has to be done. Personally I think the idea is workable but not at all airfields, and there would have to be a bit of rule rewriting.
How about any other ideas ...

[BEagle]

Quite a few civil spamcans have a high wing configuration. This means that the lookout view inside the turn is degraded whenever the aircraft banks. Hence a prolonged continuous turn from climb out to downwind or from downwind to final is undesirable as it would reduce the ability to maintain a safe lookout. However, not a problem in low-wing military trainers. Whereas quick turns in a 'square' circuit get the blind spots over with quicker. You can still fly tight circuits even if they're square. Personlly, though, I'd far prefer to fly 'military' circuits within gliding range of the runway as far as possible!!

[A and C]

The noise problem can be reduced but only with the help of the CAA what is needed is a positive action program from the CAA and the makers of the silencers to aprove a modification for the common trainning types .
This should be done without the usual sky high CAA fees the payback for the CAA would be an industry to administer in the future.......inmates of the gatwick cristal palace should remember that it is the industry that pays for the good pension they will get so please CAA a little positive action on this one and all will benifit.

[OneMileHigh]

A and C, you're so right and I couldn't agree more with your sentiments. Unfortunately in the real world the CAA are totally unwilling to accede to this reasonable request.
Apart from silencers, there is the option of three and four bladed props. Don't know exactly but I'd be surprised if plenty are available for standard light aircraft, licenced in many places, but will our beloved CAA waive some of the costs....I doubt it. I know in all seriousness that the Campaigne do a lot in all areas, but sometimes I do think they apply big aircraft, big airline thinking to GA problems.
We need a more supportive approach from them and incentives to make the GA fleet quieter......Now, back to the real world. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

[2R]

I don't like square circuits,I prefer rectangular ones.
By keeping the crosswind ,downwind and base legs within glide distance at all times it can minimize risk to the off-airport landing scene. http://216.157.69.48/ubb/NonCGI/smile.gif http://216.157.69.48/ubb/NonCGI/biggrin.gif http://216.157.69.48/ubb/NonCGI/smile.gif

[OneMileHigh]

Fair comment 2R......What do you think to increasing circuit height then.

[2R]

Most aircraft noise is made in the climb.Engine noise is loudest at full throttle.By lowering the circuit you could eliminate some of the noise and keep the circuits tighter.
I like to demonstrate bad weather circuits as low and tight as safety permits.
Power tuned exhausts are available from a company in Florida.They make some amazing claims about noise reduction,increased power,reduced fuel consumption(should pay for itself in no time in the UK).If it made my willie bigger i would get three. :)

[2R]

Check out www.powerflowsystems.com (http://www.powerflowsystems.com) I hope this helps :)

[Bear Cub]

Wouldn't a change in the size of a circuit pattern just involve more NIMBY's...who would add to the other ones that hadn't realised that traffic was no longer over their particular BY's - this may increase the number of NIMBY's.

(Just a passing thought).

------------------
Hunting is bad!!
Support the right to arm Bears!!

[OneMileHigh]

OK everyone.....Generally speaking there is no enthusiasm for change.

I'll admit the original idea was half baked, but was meant to stimulate some thought to a problem that won't go away. Our flying practices, at least in GA have been entrenched now for decades and it'll take some serious thought on all sides to arrive at a compromise that will appease all. At the moment there appears to be a deepening gulf between us the flyers, and them, the complainers.

As many have said, the biggest noise is on t/o and climb out, and there's precious little we can do about that, at least on the operations front.

So, do we need to change.....?

I think so, but also I think we ought to open some sort of dialogue with the more reasonable of the complainers (if there are any). At the moment the whingers have the upper hand, and ever more airfields are under threat. If just one threatened airfield can survive by adopting something radical, such as a triangular circuit at 1500 to a final glide, then it'll be worth it.......... http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

[Smooth Torquer]

On the subject of square v oval ccts and lookout suffering etc I know whih one I prefer.

The point of engine failure in the cct is a valid one. Why fly so far from the airfield that an engine failure could put you into a built up area. You could quite easily glide back to the airfield from a tight pattern and therefor stand a much better chance of walking away from it!

Secondly the bigger your ccts then the more NIMBY's you overfly and cause complaint. They are becoming ever more powerful so why give them ammo?

Thirdly with the cost of fuel these days its just going to cost you more. Less fun for your quids!!!!

My main point is that tight ccts are the way ahead. The key to flying them safely is discipline, both in flying accuracy and R/T usage. If we all keep the R/T short but accurate with the calls in the correct place and we all fly disciplined ccts then everyone knows where everyone else is. 5 A/C in the cct is busy no doubt but is in no way unsafe.

I invite any discussion.