Huge circuits

[Jedi]

Is it just me, or is the size of circuits being flown by the newer commercial pilots getting bigger.
Flying a high performance aircraft I realise the importance of spacing and not cramping the circuit, and being larger and faster should put me outside of most other circuit traffic. Recently this hasnt been the case. Is it that newer CPLs arnt being trained to the same standards of old, or do they just have no spatial orientation and concept of faster following traffic.
In my younger years bug smashers would either giveway to higher performing aicraft (out of consideration, think bigger uglier harder to slow down and turn) or keep it tight to keep out of the way.
This isnt a wind up, just a personal gripe.
Any thoughts...

[Feather #3]

I sense a touch of deja vu here! :ugh:

G'day ;)

[Atlas Shrugged]

The shape is changing as well; some are square, some rectangular, some oval some triangular and some even kidney shaped :ugh: :ugh:

[J430]

Atlas,

Are you talking about my Straight In Approaches:ooh: :ooh:

If someone would not keep rubbing out the dotted white lines some folk might be able to do a nice neat circuit!

J:ok:

[das Uber Soldat]

I empathise with you. At work i try to teach the smallest circuits I can, its very much my 'pet thing', however I notice a large proportion of training organizations are getting wider, and wider.

The trouble this places on us is we cant easily teach circuit sequences due getting jammed up behind the preceding, either having to go around, fly slow cruise on downwind (in a 152!) or fly an enormous circuit ourselves, very much a last resort.

I do however come up short when I trying to affect a solution for all this, short of attaching a screenshot from google earth and drawing a 'proper' circuit on it in big bold colors with some angry text below on the staff notice board. :ugh:

[Bankstownboy]

Speaking of circuits, driving through Bankstown Airport in recent times, I've seen some absolutely shocking finals being flown for 11R. Triangular ain't the word. One was in line with the bloody tower about 100 feet of centre, on a CALM morning, and only aligned themselves properly at about 150 feet. I feel for the poor instructors trying to correct their students...

EDIT: Changed to 11R, courtesy of Kickatinalong

[drshmoo]

In my days in ol Kununurra I witnessed some shockingly wide circuits that required airways clearances from Darwin if not Dili approach - the way to fix it is to tell them... generally via some cheap shot comment on the radio.:}

Pride on their behalf usually steps in and they'll correct it.

Efficiency should never be at the expense of safety though :ok:

[ARPs]

At my local airfield where I did my training and had my 1st GA job there were two flight schools.

My flight school taught what I consider a nice circuit with good circuit spacing but the other flight school did circuits that were about 1.5 times wider than ours. This was a major hassel and slowed down the whole process greatly.

Once I got into one of the local charter companys the tower would often clear us in on the inside of the traffic in the downwind that were well wide. This was a great help from the tower because we did not have to slow a 206 down to fit in behind a 152 in the early and wide downwind positon.

ARPs

[the wizard of auz]

In my days in ol Kununurra I witnessed some shockingly wide circuits that required airways clearances from Darwin if not Dili approach - the way to fix it is to tell them... generally via some cheap shot comment on the radio.
I would suspect people paid by the flight hour stay in the air as long as possible. :eek: Its a wonder you didn't see the bungles done with 20' flap and 70 knots............ all the way back to the kunna's. :}

[rmcdonal]

ts a wonder you didn't see the bungles done with 20' flap and 70 knots Who told you?
My circuits tend to vary from AC to AC, and also depending on type of operation, as an instructor I try to teach closer rather then wide circuits as the student then gets more landings in their time period. I still remember watching a Fletcher fly a circuit entirely inside the airport boundary at what I must assume to be 500', now that was a circuit. :ok:

[Capt Claret]

Ever has it been thus. :}

[Aerodynamisist]

ahhh thats my trick wiz

usualy though I only slow down for the goverment clients := or when it's a nice day for flying.

[Delta_7]

I too am not a fan of huge circuits, however in response to drshmoo, the non-existant circuit size encouraged by one KU operator (I'm sure many know who) is not only unsafe but encourages pilots to compete with each other. When I was there it was a gear up/stall during turn onto final/unable to land on remaining runway after EFATO waiting to happen. :=

One day I decided to have a chat to one of these guys to make a suggestion about not doing steep (ie 45 degrees angle of bank) gliding turns from really close downwind straight onto the numbers. :ugh: He set me straight by confidently telling me how in a steep gliding turn the aircraft has to generate much, much less lift than in level flight and that reduced the chance of a stall, particularly in a fully loaded Cessna single. :D

I thanked him for setting me straight and went on my way, tail between my legs.

Jedi, maybe it is because they don't understand your aircraft performance is so good? Maybe a little time to get familiar with the aircraft types and performances operating around them will eventually sort it out?

[JimmyReeves]

Jedi

I feel your pain!:uhoh:

[Centaurus]

as an instructor I try to teach closer rather then wide circuits as the student then gets more landings in their time period

Rather than teach "closer rather than wider" circuit width, perhaps you should teach a normal circuit width depending on aircraft type. Depending on load and wind, this may well involve a climbing turn on to the downwind leg. For example the manufacturer's original flight crew training manual for Boeing 737 series recommends typically one mile to one and a half mile width downwind leg. Recently that was changed to two miles to standardise with all Boeing models including wide-bodies..

Light training aircraft need to be only half a mile wide at the most.

[Howard Hughes]

Once you start working it doesn't change, there are some individuals who just don't get it, once in to the regionals guess what, more of the same!:hmm:

I suspect those who fly with the majors have the same gripes...;)

[devolved]

I can definately see why instructors fly wider CTS, it gives them more time to instruct checks, and patter base finals etc. But jesus its tough work flying a pitts when you have 152s bashing the circuit.

Those wide CTS can be the bain of your existance if you get an engine failure on base, as you wouldnt be gliding distance to the runway :rolleyes:

I remember the days of flying the Bankstown Circuit, and tower saying Sydney CTR is complaining about the wideness of the circuits, "could everyone fly closer to runway as your infringing airspace"

[Pseudonymn]

I still remember watching a Fletcher fly a circuit entirely inside the airport boundary at what I must assume to be 500', now that was a circuit.
Was that last week or the week before? :} :} :}

[rmcdonal]

Now now Pseudonymn, you know I have trouble remembering anything greater then a week ago.:}

[whogivesa????]

I always used to use the rule of 1/4 inside the wing tip as a good DOWNWIND spacing. it seemed to work. whether it was a C10, AP38, PA28.. whatever. now I have moved onto aircraft that have MORE performance, I find that tghe runway ON the wingtip seems to work better. I would presuem that aircraft with MORE performance (E120 etc) that are now having to fly a 1500' cct would probably be wider again!!!

I was always taught form ab-initio, that wdownwind spacing was JUST enufff to let me GLIDE to a place wher could land on the runway!!!(which was NORMALLY 1/3 inside the wing tip!_)

[Capt Claret]

But I can't see the wing tip unless I go back into the cabin, to about row 23. :E

[Howard Hughes]

I would presume that aircraft with MORE performance (E120 etc) that are now having to fly a 1500' cct would probably be wider again!!!

Why not just start descent earlier in the circuit? Why make it bigger?

IMHO a turboprop should never be level in the circuit anyway, it should be in a constant rate of descent all the way from TOD, preferably to a straight in approach (where possible)! Unless of course you are actually doing circuits!:ok:

I see know reason for anybody doing large circuits! In a C-150/2 doing standard circuits it takes around 6 mins for the circuit, if that ain't enough time for an instructor to patter a student, then may I suggest that perhaps the instructor should do some more training themselves!:hmm:

But I can't see the wing tip unless I go back into the cabin, to about row 23.
Good point Capt Claret! Best advice I ever got was to make the circuit 'LOOK' the same from the left seat every time, no matter what size aircraft you are flying, the circuit size will then take care of itself!

[Atlas Shrugged]

Best advice I ever got was to make the circuit 'LOOK' the same from the left seat every time, no matter what size aircraft you are flying, the circuit size will then take care of itself!

HH,

:ok: :ok:

Absolutely, you can just tell when it "looks right".........or wrong for that matter

[devolved]

All very well to "look". However if your instructor sais "look, see this is the correct spacing" and infact its not, the student wont know any better, unless he/she starts getting the throttle pulled on 'em :}

[ScottyDoo]

At least you guys get to fly a circuit.

If only....... but no, all we get to do is vectors to straight-in, 10nm final, descend on the glide-path, stabilised by 1500ft.

Seriously thinking of packing it in and going back to GA which sounds a lot more fun than poling a jet around.

Does anyone know of any jobs on pistons that pay AUD$180K, plus?? Prefer not in an oppressively hot climate.

[scrambler]

Scotty, don't sell yourself for too darn cheap :ok:

[ScottyDoo]

I meant nett......! :ok:

[Mr.Buzzy]

Everyone's a hotshot topgun!
Who cares if someone flies a bigger circuit? What does it really amount to? an extra minute or two. If someone is comfortable flying bigger circuits then accomodate them and dont shorten your own life by stressing over them.

I can hear some of you blokes already.
"Taking over! this machine can do 320 knots to 15 miles you know!"

bbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Keg]

When I started flying circuits took six(ish) minutes. About 9 an hour. I timed one recently in the 744. It came out at about six(ish) minutes. The circuit size may be a bit bigger but then so are the speeds so it all works out nicely. :ok:

[Tee Emm]

Who cares if someone flies a bigger circuit? What does it really amount to? an extra minute or two

At typically $300 per hour that means an extra two minutes cost $10. And if you are doing six circuits, that's a total of $60 wasted out of the students pocket. On the other hand the instructor makes money, so it all depends whose side you are on.

[MUNT]

Everyone's a hotshot topgun!

No, just me.

[das Uber Soldat]

Everyone's a hotshot topgun!
Who cares if someone flies a bigger circuit? What does it really amount to? an extra minute or two. If someone is comfortable flying bigger circuits then accomodate them and dont shorten your own life by stressing over them.

I can hear some of you blokes already.
"Taking over! this machine can do 320 knots to 15 miles you know!"

ridiculous, i care. You might be enjoying logging cross country time on downwind, but i'm behind you trying to train a student properly and the last thing I need is to be doing 5 go arounds per hour because you're turning base at TWRN.

[Captain Nomad]

Ahhh, you blokes... Just be glad you can fly a circuit of variable dimensions and even go around if you feel the need... Some of us don't have that luxury :rolleyes:

Sorry - really useful post I know.... :O

[Mr.Buzzy]

ridiculous, i care. You might be enjoying logging cross country time on downwind, but i'm behind you trying to train a student properly and the last thing I need is to be doing 5 go arounds per hour because you're turning base at TWRN

I would have thought that training a student properly included such virtues as patience and humility. A student does how many sessions of circuits before going solo? 3 or 4? Do you really think trying to cram 9 circuits into an hour is doing anyone any favours?

You are far better off doing 5 well spaced, relaxed circuits where your student feels in control rather than having his pumped up instructor cursing others while trying to cram in more angst filled training.

What the hell is TWRN? Are you one of those GAAP dwelling knowalls that blabbers on the radio in local knowledge jargon so that nobody other than the most "local" pilot can understand?

bbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzz

[Bankstownboy]

I have a feeling he's referring to 2RN, buzz.

[scrambler]

Best advice I ever got was to make the circuit 'LOOK' the same from the left seat every time, no matter what size aircraft you are flying, the circuit size will then take care of itself!

This is probably why some modern students are getting taught a circuit that shows them how to recognise a 5 mile final.

[das Uber Soldat]

I apologize if the inbound point for the busiest GAAP in Australia is 'too local' for you. My bad.

Yes, of course there is a balance, a too tight a circuit is just as bad as one that is flown via (insert gaap dwelling knowall blabber point here). There is such a thing however as a wide circuit and as someone else in the thread pointed out, 0.5nm spacing in a training aircraft is more than sufficient.

If your student isn't coping until they're miles outside of glide range then the problem isn't the student. There are people behind you, some consideration would be appreciated.

[disco_air]

In a recent thread there was the mention of a C207's glide range after engine failure. Pretty much below where you are is where you'll be landing. Apply this philosophy in the circuit!

So while i dont condone some practices of a particular knx operator employed from time to time (maybe a reflection of flight crew attitude or a particular CP rather than the company, but thats another story) I'll stand by the culture encouraged by the CP when I was there (no, not PW) that a a close circuit was always a good idea where possible, since if the donk fails in the circuit, you'd wanna be making the runway in any case!

You could still do a neatly tight circuit with ROD < 500'/min & AOB < 30 degrees, and it was certainly more efficient and expeditious when there's lots of aircraft sharing the circuit & runway than the downwind leg halfway to Oombi employed by some. :E

...disco

[Mr.Buzzy]

No problemo Das:ok:
Good luck to you and your students. Looks as though the industry is going to need plenty of new pilots for the next couple of years.

bbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Led Zep]

TWRN? I don't know of any reporting point by that designator around Jandakot!!! :}

[das Uber Soldat]

oh dear

and led zep, i stand corrected :}:} :)

[the wizard of auz]

Bugga........ the Zepman beat me to it. :}

[VH-Cheer Up]

Delta 7 said:
One day I decided to have a chat to one of these guys to make a suggestion about not doing steep (ie 45 degrees angle of bank) gliding turns from really close downwind straight onto the numbers. He set me straight by confidently telling me how in a steep gliding turn the aircraft has to generate much, much less lift than in level flight and that reduced the chance of a stall, particularly in a fully loaded Cessna single.

Errm, what??? Is it just me?

"Has to generate" much less lift than in level flight?

I thought lift was dependent on speed squared, but in a bank the component of lift resolved vertically is proportional to the cosine of the bank angle...

Thus, try flying at 90 degrees bank and maintaining straight and level...

I can't help feeling the chap who "set you straight" would have been home, home on the range.

[Andy_RR]

<thread drift>

I thought lift was dependent on speed squared, but in a bank the component of lift resolved vertically is proportional to the cosine of the bank angle...

Thus, try flying at 90 degrees bank and maintaining straight and level...

...only if you assume it's just the wing that's producing lift

</thread drift>

[VH-Cheer Up]

<thread drift>

Quote:
I thought lift was dependent on speed squared, but in a bank the component of lift resolved vertically is proportional to the cosine of the bank angle...

Thus, try flying at 90 degrees bank and maintaining straight and level...

...only if you assume it's just the wing that's producing lift

</thread drift>

In a (fully loaded) Cessna single, that seems like a fair assumption... Or not?

VHCU

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Wonder if there is a direct correlation between size of circuit to average time to send solo. Bet these guys do not send students on their own until way past twenty hours.

[Centaurus]

Wonder if there is a direct correlation between size of circuit to average time to send solo. Bet these guys do not send students on their own until way past twenty hours

An astute observation. The 20 hours average to first solo can be due to several factors that include time between flights, student lack of natural aptitude, but mostly I suspect, the inexperience of some flying instructors who are reluctant to put up a student for a check flight until the student is far more competent than he needs to be for first solo.

There is also no shortage of anecdotal evidence from students that unfortunately some instructors want the hours and the money and if true, huge circuits come into the equation. I recall observing one C172 at Point Cook conducting wide circuits including extraordinary long downwind legs. When later questioned, the grade 3 instructor (now an airline captain) said he just wanted to give the student "more time to settle down." It was not a valid reason because if the student was that bad that he needed "settling down", it suggests he was being introduced to circuits before he was competent to cope.

[Awol57]

I am sure in the Cessna Flight Manual it actually specifies a recommended distance for the downwind leg. I am pretty sure it says 1nm spacing from the runway.

Lack of wind awareness is more often than not the major contributor to the size of the circuit. There have been times at YPJT where you would turn downwind at the correct place, then watch someone slowly drift about another 2nm south whilst on downwind. Hence they then try to set up a descent of 500' over 3nm to turn final at the right spot. Try staying behind that and within the CTR :ugh:

[HardCorePawn]

You could just fly at an airfield that has a military firing range and associated dangerzone next door, along with a paranoid instructor who reminds you almost every circuit not to drift wide :)

But seriously, correct circuit spacing has always been something that my instructors have reiterated throught my (somewhat extended) training

I think the biggest wake-up call I ever had was probably the afternoon I went for a visit up the tower at NZPM and watched the 'shapes' (I dont feel comfortable calling them circuits :} ) that some of the other students were flying on the radar screen...

:hmm: :eek:

[lawn_dart]

gotta agree that wide circuits are becoming a bigger problem then they used to, especially at bankstown.

something else to watch out for is preceeding traffic flying excessively long downwind legs. in a way this prob is more difficult for following traffic to deal with as you dont become aware of it till preceeding traffic is way past normal base position. following wide aircraft is relatively easy - you can anticipate the need to slow down before your number one has even turned downwind. (not that wide circuits are a good thing).

and there is no need for instructors to widen/extend circuits for new students for so many reasons. among them, if the student cant handle the work load, they shouldnt be in the circuit yet... theres not much point teaching a method of flying circuits that will need to be re taught.

[Ultralights]

so my instructor was right to teach me that all circuits, in whatever aircraft, should be conducted so you are always within gliding distance of the field?? (except of course on Upwind)

[kellykelpie]

When I was instructing at Jandakot a long time ago, it was suggested by CASA (CAA back then) examiners that if the aircraft ahead of us did a long downwind we should "go around from base".

The circuits had been getting very long so I tried it a couple of times one day. I advised the tower "going around from base" and flew a level base then an upwind. On downwind I called for a touch and go, to which Mardy in the the tower said "make a full stop landing and vacate the runway".

I never saw my student again. The tower put in an incident report and when CASA got hold of it they rang the Aero Club to find out who the instructor was to congratulate me.

I never did that again.

[Bula]

hitting the circuits at 250 KIAS again ay ......... :E

[Capt Claret]

320 kias to eight or nine miles to run is the record. So I'm told. :8

[A37575]

I am sure in the Cessna Flight Manual it actually specifies a recommended distance for the downwind leg. I am pretty sure it says 1nm spacing from the runway

You won't see any recommendation like that in any manufacturer's POH or Flight Manual. It has nothing to do with flying the aircraft.

You may well see advice (in other words the CFI's pet barrow to push) in your local company operations manual as you can put whatever you like in that as long as it doesn't contravene the regulations.

[Kickatinalong]

I see you are 16 years old,:ooh: I thought by now you would have worked out the difference between left and right. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: 11L is for coming and going at YSBK.:ok:
11R is for circuits, what you are saying is that aircraft are crossing TWO active runways at Bankstown, I don't think so Charlie Brown. The last time that happened there was a warrior with 4 POB that didn't make it home.
Kickatinalong.:ok:

[Bankstownboy]

Indeed I did mean to say 11R instead, cheers for picking up on my mistake Kickatinalong.

[Bula]

Claret from what I hear they may be doing a little quicker and closer then that. Amazing what flight Idle can do from 5 miles.. i mean 4.. i mean 3.. i mean 2...... :oh:

[Ejector]

Flying Schools make money out of going slow, the longer in the air, the more they make.:ugh:

[HardCorePawn]

Depends where you go...

My instructor has cut some lessons short coz he thought it was not worth staying up and wasting time... he even suggested using the time going from airfield to training area (and back again) as a chance to throw on the foggles and start cutting into the instrument hours requirement, as otherwise its just wasted time :ok:

[YesTAM]

Certain CFI at YMMB regularly asks for circuits on 35L / 17R and the Tower seems to agree most of the time. You get nice, quick, tight circuits usually by yourself, although you will be requested from time to time to make way for "real" traffic inbound from the West.

It beats some of the wider circuits one has to do on 17L/35R, but Hey! I was like that too a short time ago.

[havick]

Aren't students taught to fly the pictures out the window? ie the runway centreline should be passing through 'x' point on the wing for a certain height, (glide circuits, normal circuits, and low level circuits) circuit and aircraft type. Then the spacing should always be the same?

[HappyJack260]

Flying a Pitts S-2C in a circuit full of students is ahh, interesting! The aircraft does a circuit of around 2:15 mins - 30 secs to climb to downwind (climbing turn so you can see ahead); 1 min S&L on downwind; 30 secs base and final descending turn (2000 fpm descent) so you can see the runway; then 15 secs for touch and go.

The Pitts has the gliding characteristics of a manhole cover, and having had one total engine failure and another partial (severe) loss of power, I will not fly further away from the runway than I know I can glide - which makes for very tight circuits at 1000' circuit height. At Camden (1000' AGL circuit heght) I could safely get down even if I come over the fence at 1000'.

Bearing in mind that we climb and descend faster (2000 to 2500 fpm) than just anything else in the circuit, we can usually safely cut off a couple of students on climbout; but it's very difficult to do less than 100kts on downwind without having the nose so high that we lose forward vis - which is not a good idea...So I gets lots of practice at go-arounds and overtaking on the inside of climbs or descents

Fly the circuit for your own aeroplane. If the turkey ahead of you is a student (with or without an instructor) who wants to turn circuits into a navigation exercise, don't let yourself get suckered into flying their circuit. Their engine failure would be their problem, but you'll be on your own with yours...

[Bula]

your kidding arn't you? No seriously.......

[HappyJack260]

Kidding - about the glide/climb performance or the circuit times?

No - absolutely not!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

".... I will not fly further away from the runway than I know I can glide ...."

That would make it difficult to actually go somewhere in the aeroplane, wouldn't it?

Is the aerobatic area within gliding distance of the runway?

Dr:cool:

[HappyJack260]

Well, since you ask, the aerobatic area starts at 2500' over the field and goes to 4500', and is really quite handy since IT IS within gliding distance of the field.

To avoid confusing Bula, I should say that I adopt the approach of staying within gliding distance whilst flying circuits,
By comparison, I was flying circuits the other day in a Tiger Moth and could actually afford to open up the circuit by, oh, another 100m or so since its glide ratio is so much better...

At other times, ie, when not flying circuits, I do go beyong gliding distance. The Pitts does cruise quite nicely at 150kts +, though with a 90L fuel tank, it doesn't do so for very long.Add the wing tank and we get around 111L and can get to, say, Parkes, non-stop.

[ravan]

I always wonder why the posters on this forum want to stick it up somebody when they post. I couldn't agree more with HappyJack260. If you care to read the post you will find that there is no talk of going anywhere else but in the circuit and therefore, with a safety outcome in mind, the circuit should be flown with a spacing which will allow a safe return to the field in the event of an engine failure, particularly if the airfield is in the middle of suburbia.

Leaving the circuit area for another destination should trigger another frame of mind where you spend time considering fields suitable for a forced landing.

No conflict really is there?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Ravan

It was NOT my intention "to stick it up" anyone.

I do however challenge the dogma that when flying circuits in a modern, certified, well maintained aircraft, one should always try to remain within gliding distance of the runway.

If the chance of having an engine failure is so great, how the hell can you justify leaving the "safety" of the aerodrome.

As for aerodromes surrounded by suburbia, if you have so little faith in your powerplant, surely the takeoff and climbout over the houses (when the chances of being able to make the runway in the event of an engine failure are generally zero) poses an unacceptable risk to the community, if not yourself.

The vast majority of engine failures in the circuit area are from fuel starvation. Keep "fat" in the tank and flowing to the engine and the "fire" will continue to burn.

Fly your circuits to suit the particular aircraft you are flying.

Cheers

Dr:cool:

[HappyJack260]

The question, presumably, is how you define "a modern, certified, well maintained aircraft". The Pitts is certified and well maintained, as are the Tiger Moth and the Chipmunk I also fly. However, the design of the Lycoming/Continental powerplant on most modern aircraft dates back to the 1940's, apart from modern conveniences such as fuel injection. The Pitts is only 6 years and 300 hours old, but the average GA aircraft, especially a trainer, has probably 30 years, 5000 hours and 2-3 engine overhauls behind it. Perhaps we should therefore specify one circuit for aircraft under and another for aircraft over, say, 10 years old?
The other factor is the difference between straight and level flight and the sort of strains imposed on aircraft, engine and systems by circuit work (or aerobatics). There seems to be an increased risk of failure when there are major power changes - such as in circuits - and at the same time the consequences of that failure are dramatically increased.
In aviation, it seems to me, it's always worth keeping a few options up your sleeve. At height in the cruise you have a few options as to where you'll put down; at 1000' in the circuit your options are limited. Both my experiences of engine failure were in the circuit - one was an engine failure after take-off at 100', in a supposedly well-maintained Marchetti SF-260. It turned out later that the operator had been significantly under-recording the hours on his entire fleet, but I didn't know that at the time. And once in the Chipmunk, on reducing power for the downwind leg when I re-entered the circuit, the whole magento housing sheared, turning the engine into a close approximation (in sound and power) to a cement mixer.
Incidentally, following the same logic, I generally prefer to conduct aeros within gliding range of a suitable landing place.
Also for the sake of clarification, my 2500 fpm (2900 fpm on a good day) climb rate is at take-off power, which I reduce to around 60% around 30 seconds after take off. What do you do in a single-engine prop? And how does the rate of climb, which a function of power (260hp) to weight (570kgs) within the circuit affect engine longevity? The same engine at the same power settings in, say, a C182 will give you around 1400fpm, but I don't suppose the lesser climb rate reduces the strains much.

[HappyJack260]

FTDK - I see you've edited your post to remove the reference to the impact that rate of climb has on engine longevity - which is fine by me, though it does leave my comments in response hanging in the air slightly.
Perhaps you might now like to edit and remove the rest of your post so that you don't look so much like a wannabe "bold pilot". I know I wannabe an "old pilot". I may have been a bold pilot once too, but surviving a crash (albeit with serious mainspar damage to me and the plane) does have a lasting effect, somehow.
Risk is a combination of probability and outcome...

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

HappyJack

I only pulled the PS because on further reflection I thought it added a degree of negativity to the post that I did not particularly intend.

My inference was not that a high rate of climb might reduce engine life, but rather the High Power/Low Power cycle every 2.5 min with its concurrent high heat production-low cooling/low heat production-high cooling effect will have a deleterious effect on the metal up front.

The inference being that a little less power on climb out (and therefore a lesser rate of climb) and a little more power on descent (and therefore a lower rate of descent) may prolong engine life and therefore obviate, to some extent, the need to hug the runway margins in the circuit.

I was taught to fly "tight" circuits, and I do so in the V-tail, but how I fly my circuits is not predicated by thoughts that the noise might stop. None-the-less, apart from the first 750' on climb and the last 750' on descent, I could make the runway in the remote possibility of suffering an engine failure in the circuit.

I just cannot see how you can use a SE aircraft for cross-country flying, and certainly not IFR as I do, if your hung up on having an engine failure in the circuit.

I suspect nobody in their right mind would take off in a single or light twin in either direction from 11/29 at YTWB, for example, if the likelihood of having an engine failure in the circuit area is as high as your original post might suggest - cause there ain't nowhere to go.

Dr:cool:

[HappyJack260]

So does that mean you genuinely believe that the rate of climb/descent in the circuit of an aircraft type determines the rate of wear of the engine?

[A37575]

I would have thought that training a student properly included such virtues as patience and humility

Students are being trained to be pilots - not bloody priests.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Students are being trained to be pilots - not bloody priests.
Fair enough. We should all be rum swilling, skirt chasin', fightin' John Wayne types right?:D

You lot sure can turn something as simple as a circuit into a moonshot!

Small planes, small circuits; big planes, big circuits. Adapt to each other, play nice, go to the pub, go home, pat the dog, kiss the missus, watch some telly, go to sleep.
It's really not that difficult: Unless you want it to be!

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Bula]

I like to equate the circuit to being as quick as your slowest aircraft. We know by talking to each other we can adjust our circuit as we see fit and overtake if safe. I wasn't laughing at flying the aircraft close to the runway "if possible" .. thats your parogative , but the no hold bars approach that people take with complete disregard to lower performance training aircraft operating in the circuit. Its quite ammusing... and disconcerting.

I think A37575 has hit the nail quite promptly on the head.