1500ft circuits

[NOSIGN]

I'm curious to know what people think of the recently introduced changes(relatively) to circuit heights for "high performance" aircraft.

Generally, I have found that most have not adopted to the 1500' cct ht and continue to fly 1000' ccts. I personally fly a 1500' cct, but prefer the shorter and quicker 1000' cct when I'm flying at about 140kt.

I reckon the new laws were introduced to provide better conflict resolution between faster and slower aircraft in the circuit area, but I have not once overflown and overtaken another aircraft in a circuit.

How do you fly your circuits? Do you extend your downwind to drop the extra 500'? Do you accept a larger rate of descent within the same downwind leg of the 1000' circuit? Do you slow down to 120kt? Have your companies SOP changed to reflect the new legislation? How do the military teach it?

The legislation from the AIP enroute (25may08) is shown below

57.3 Circuit Height
57.3.1 When operating at non−towered aerodromes, the following circuit
heights are recommended:
a. jets/turbo props/high performance aircraft, 1500FT AGL;
b. typically single engine piston, 1000FT AGL;
c. ultralights with a maximum speed of 55KTS and
helicopters, 500FT AGL.
NOTE: High performance aircraft are those that have a normal
downwind speed of greater than 120 knots.

[Fred Gassit]

I hate them but for selfish reasons, I can't stand making circuits any bigger than they need to be and they just feel to me too high/large to be practical.

[T28D]

Newly adopted ??????????? how so, 1500 has been thus as long as I can remember for high performance aircraft.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Forkair SOPs call for tight circuits. For what its worth, I extend the downwind leg to allow for the additional 500'.

Dr :8

[Arm out the window]

Yep, been around a long time.
As to how sensible it is; not very, in my view - having aircraft doing circuits at different heights just increases the chance of someone descending on top of someone else, I reckon.
Probably why nobody does it.
In reality, most of your so-called high performance aircraft would be coming off instrument approaches, or visual approaches under tower instructions, so the 1500 ft rectangular circuit thing isn't going to be relevant anyhow.
OCTA, I can't imagine the 1500 ft circuit gets much of a look-in.

[NOSIGN]

T28D - Perhaps I didn't realise the clause earlier when I was flying slower aircraft, or CASA defined high performance aircraft as aircraft that fly >120kt ccts.

I also fly tight ccts but instead of extending downwind, I drop full flap and accept a larger RoD. Although the flaps in the piston acft that i fly most allows for this since they are hydraulically actuated and if both engines fail (read: hydraulic pumps fail) they will retract with the airflow provided I pull the electrical hyd pump ccb. People on the ground always make comments on "how high were you on downwind?" etc But i dont like extending the cct to more than it needs to be.

The result for me is that I cant get a good short cct that im comfortable with. Are today's instructors teaching larger ccts in these " high performance " acft? Does anybody expect a light twin to be at 1500' on downwind? How many people have changed their flying technique to suit 1500' rule? I have but I dont like it.

[Lasiorhinus]

The 737s in Broome fly 1500' circuits, but its never a problem for traffic.

I'd consider that to be a relatively high performance aircraft, but do light twins really count?

[apache]

I am holding my breath for the first "airprox" that occurs when an a/c does a 1500' circuit at Camden whilst another a/c reports inbound at 2RN at 1500'....


if it ain't broke... don't fix it (or f*ck with it)

[bogan mover]

Can anyone point me to the reference for circuit height at a towered aerodrome please.

[airman1]

As long as I have been involved in aviation it has always been 1500 ft CCTS for high performance A/C?? To my knowledge not many regional airlines adopt the 1500ft ccts at CTAFs . Try following a metro at night into YSBK, The tower asks for speed reduction for both A/C at prospect. I can never seem to keep up:sad: They dump the gear and flap and fly a tight base and final. No need for 1500 Ft ccts maybe just for the jets, even the smaller citations and Learjet’s seem to manage fine with 1000ft ccts.:ok:

Maybe a few Light jet and turbo prop drivers can shed some light???

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Commence descent on downwind so as to be 1000ft at the normal base turn point (i.e. where you used to commence descent)

No way Jose!

I'll stick with extending downwind rather than descend on the downwind leg.

Dr :8

[HireTheBetter]

"The legislation from the AIP enroute (25may08) is shown below

57.3 Circuit Height
57.3.1 When operating at non−towered aerodromes, the following circuit
heights are recommended:
a. jets/turbo props/high performance aircraft, 1500FT AGL;
b. typically single engine piston, 1000FT AGL;
c. ultralights with a maximum speed of 55KTS and
helicopters, 500FT AGL.
NOTE: High performance aircraft are those that have a normal
downwind speed of greater than 120 knots."


Theres the critical word in that paragraph. "recommended"!!!!

So if the pilots that are not flying at the 'recommended' circuit altitudes have in fact read this chapter in AIP/Jepp then they are obviously taking the word recommended quite literally. Or they just havent read this and are just flying at 1000' as per the old days.

[Capt Wally]

I brought this exact subject up last year & am happy to see it's back on the agender.
'Pas' yes what you say would be a simple way of dealing with the extra height, start down on say late downwind, abeam the ldg thresshold drop gear & head on down (typical), that's exactly what I/we do to avoid high ROD's.

'airman1' yr right there mate 1500' cts have been in place since Noah took up flying, well for jet types anyway. I believe they brought them in for high perfomance 'anything' because most slippery types fly downwind at say 130-150 kts anyway, LR35 for Eg.

'htb' also correct the whole procedures are 'recomended' as you have highlighted I think mainly because 1500' may not be possible wx wise but still legal visually for ldg.

Like I said once before healthy debate is good:ok:


CW

[airman1]

Young Wally...... Was just about to page you I could smell the debate brewing at post 3. So in the lovely king air you always fly a 1000ft cct and just extent the downwind?? Good thing you have two engines wouldn’t want to go extending the downwind too much in a single (lets say a PC12) you mighten make the keys in an engine failure!!! :ok:

Hirethebetter, your dead right recommended is the key word there!!!

I just wonder how many drivers get lazy and let down on downwind earlier?? (None that would ever admit to it anyway):ugh:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Good thing you have two engines wouldn’t want to go extending the downwind too much in a single (lets say a PC12) you mighten make the keys in an engine failure!!!

Oh Brother! Not that crock of sh*t again!

most slippery types fly downwind at say 130-150 kts anyway, LR35 for Eg

The L35's a bit of a slug in the circuit, huh Wally? I used to fly the FTDK downwind at 140 kts until dropping the gear out opposite the threshold.

Dr :8

PS: Why doesn't someone do a bit of research and post a few crash reports on SE aircraft that have suffered engine failures on the base or final approach leg of the circuit - due to other than fuel starvation!

[Desert Duck]

FTDK - don't get all wound up - airman has probably never flown a PC12 or Bo

[airman1]

Desert Duck/Forkt don’t get your knickers in a knot, just stirring the pot!! And yes have over 50 Hrs in the PC 12 logged in the book. Lovely piece of gear but it definitely has its place in the industry like capt Wally has always said. :ok:

Sorry for the thread drift continue.......

[tiptoeturkey]

It all makes sense when you fly a Category C machine in a cct in VFR/IFR situations.
When in VFR a 1500' cct is perfect. And you are following the local VFR rules..ie left or right hand ccts. In total, cct times are similar for all categories as a result.
In a circling approach (following an IFR instrument approach)(in a cct) max speed is 180kts and then you know that you are the only one doing the cct, so therefore do either left or right hand cct, whatever suits-you-sir. You just need to maintain obstacle clearance (400' for cat C) till on approach path/angle for the runway which could be as early as on an oblique downwind. These ccts are usually done at about 1000' and are limit by visibility.
Sorry to be so tech but it all works nicely.

:)

[tiptoeturkey]

Day or night as the PIC you have to guarantee obstacle clearance.
Its in the regs my friend.

[NOSIGN]

TTT,

I can understand the rules' application to a faster CAT C acft but how about a fast CAT B? Without descending on downwind, which i thinks contradicts the reason for the implamentation of the 1500' >120kt cct, the question becomes do you allow for a greater rate of decent and keep the cct tight, extend the downwind, or don't apply the recommended procedure altogether?

[Thermal Bandit]

Can’t remember when I last flew strait and level in a circuit

S & L or adding throttle during a decent and landing means I have stuffed up the decent profile and wasting fuel :E.

[BombsGone]

Just for comparison a military fast jet will fly 1500' on downwind. Spacing about 9000' from the runway centreline. Descent is commenced at the base turn point. In nil wind the BTP is abeam where the finals glide slope will intercept 500'. Speed on downwind anywhere from 160-250kts. This varies subtly with from type to type but is basically as I've outlined. Circuits take about 4-6 minutes each which is the same as oval circuits in CT4's, and PC-9's which fly a closer circuit spacing. Much more efficient than a square circuit. Extending base is a no no at military training airfields as is stuffs up the spacing of all following traffic.

Not saying that any previous posters are wrong just giving some info on how military circuits are flown.

Cheers

[flyby]

Well for my two cents worth, As a Captain of a regional turboprop i thank God that there is a 500' buffer between me and a smaller craft be it fast or slow, i say this as all too common i have seen aircraft enter the curcuit at regional airports beneath me with no radio calls ,this after i have called at 25 nm and 10nm and when joining the curcuit.I tell you this that one day mark my words there will be a midair at a regional aerodrome between rpt and private aircraft,not only do you have aircraft not calling to avoid charges but unfortunately a great many pilots lack situational awareness when it comes to other traffic , especially when the target is travelling at 4 nm a minute on descent.

[tiptoeturkey]

I am not going to assume what you are saying but in all instances, VFR/IFR day/night, you must be aware of your minimum height above terrain at all stages of flight as PIC.
It can never be a guessing/assuming game. The consequences can be catastrophic.
Whether pre-flight or in-flight situational awareness you must be in no doubt about your height above terrain, it is the basis of flight training.
But I'm sure you know that...

:)

[yowie]

Would be interested how NOT following a "RECOMMENDATION" will stand up in court:{
Most ops manuals for Jets/TP will have a "practise inst approach company min(usually 800ft agl), so you can get down if you want to.
Never had a prob with 1500ft circuits, dont really know what the prob is:rolleyes:,circling approaches,however,are a totally different story:=

[tiptoeturkey]

NOSIG

I can understand the rules' application to a faster CAT C acft but how about a fast CAT B? Without descending on downwind, which i thinks contradicts the reason for the implamentation of the 1500' >120kt cct, the question becomes do you allow for a greater rate of decent and keep the cct tight, extend the downwind, or don't apply the recommended procedure altogether?

quote.....


A bit different in that one is a VFR cct (1000' or 1500') and the other refers to a IFR cct (max circling speeds..Cat A=100, Cat B=135, Cat C=180 Cat D=205) to keep you within the cicling areas of the aerodrome for the Cat.
Generally don't have a rate of descent greater than 1000fpm (plus other limits) for final.
A good RoD is 3 x G/S for a 3 degree slope, or thereabouts, and that can begin on downwind.
Based on having a stabilized approach for a landing.
Remember the old saying 'can't have a good landing from a bad approach'.

:)

[PLovett]

I fly a cat B aircraft and use a 1,500' circuit but the aircraft has been on a descent from TOD and that continues throughout the circuit so no extending downwind or other such games are necessary.

From TOD to 10 miles from TOUCHDOWN the aircraft (non-pressurised) has been at 500 FPM ROD (although lately with the tailwinds up my clacker I have been using 600'). At the 10 mile point I should be 3,000' AGL and I take approach flap and the ROD then goes to whatever equals 3 degrees. Gear is taken at 5 miles to touchdown and second stage of flap usually on base which is taken at 1,000 AGL and within the cat B circling area. Final stage of flap at 1 mile to touchdown with everything stable.

Please note that the ROD after the first stage of flap will vary according to the speed of the aircraft but once the gear is out the ROD is quite benign and back around what it was on the early descent.

I use this approach everywhere (except during instrument approaches and even then it depends on what sort of approach I am doing and what has to happen on getting visual) for visual approaches, controlled 'dromes (unless they want something different), CTAFs, night approaches into remote communities and it works for me. It has become an SOP for me so that when life is difficult (coming into my home base at night with marginal visibility even in the circuit and a black hole away from the field) I don't have to work out something new when all I want to do is fly the aircraft.

Yes I make the required radio calls (even at 0400 in the bleedin' morning) and because there are a number of gyrocoptors around where I am based I am very cautious during the day. They are equipped with VHF but I am not impressed with some of the flying I have observed. I have found the whole concept of a constant descent easier than having to manage a descent then level off then descend again and it is easier on the passengers.

[flyon dawall]

5nm final bro! Downwind descent get my two thumbs up :ok:

Speaking of circuits, heard the funniest thing the other day; QF requesting radar vectors for every leg of the circuit - pathetic.

[Thermal Bandit]

On a more serious note than my previous post, as a glider pilot and tug pilot I do have problems with set altitude circuits, to date to my knowledge circuit altitudes apart from Secondary Control Zones (or what ever they are called these days) have been recommendations only – I will check the docs when I get to the office tomorrow

As a glider pilot – try flying a level circuit, and before some of you go off on tangents, while many gliding operations are from gliding paddocks, there are also many gliding operations conducted from licensed airfields (CTAF) and in rare cases CTAF (R).

As a Tug Pilot – having towed to 2000ft agl which what is considered a standard release height for gliders, and still being in the “circuit” most tug pilots I know make a continuous decent using a miliary style circuit, and even with a mix of traffic I have never experienced any conflicts that could not be sorted out with a bit of common sense and consideration for other airport users.

[Hempy]

Well for my two cents worth, As a Captain of a regional turboprop i thank God that there is a 500' buffer between me and a smaller craft be it fast or slow, i say this as all too common i have seen aircraft enter the curcuit at regional airports beneath me with no radio calls ,this after i have called at 25 nm and 10nm and when joining the curcuit.I tell you this that one day mark my words there will be a midair at a regional aerodrome between rpt and private aircraft,not only do you have aircraft not calling to avoid charges but unfortunately a great many pilots lack situational awareness when it comes to other traffic , especially when the target is travelling at 4 nm a minute on descent.

I'm scared.

[Cypher]

Whats your point Hempy, he can fly a plane but he can't spell.. want to make a big deal out of it? :*

I suppose you've never made a spelling mistake in your entire life?

[Cloud Whisperer]

During line training circuits were at 1000'. . (fast Cat B). . . As I was finishing this was modified to 1500' for CFIT purposes. . .

start down on say late downwind, abeam the ldg threshold drop gear & head on down (typical), that's exactly what I/we do to avoid high ROD's.


Circuit join is at 1500' then abeam the threshold, wheels down to go down. . .There was no change to the circuit size or typical RoDs.. Once rolled out on base you were @1000 as per the training!! The bonus now was that you were all set up for a landing without the need to make configuration changes (u/c, pitch or power) - keeping more focussed attention outside for other aircraft and on the runway - especially useful at night when getting into those poorly/dimly lit runways :ooh:

It's much less stressful, giving a more stabilised approach (configured from a safe downwind height to the "committed-to-land" height for full flaps selection), more looking out the window time and so I guess safer!?! . . . .

I've not come into conflict or had any hassles with the piston singles at 1000' - they tend to be closer on the downwind leg - depending on their Instructor :oh:

Looking back, I would have used this 1500' circuit in the piston twins as well.

[Lasiorhinus]

The bit that concerns me, especially in light of flyby's comments, is that when one wishes to overfly the circuit, have a gander at the windsock, and then choose a runway for landing, this is supposed to be at 1500' - to keep a 500 foot buffer between you, and traffic already in the circuit.

So what happens if a 1000' circuit aircraft trundles in, after having broadcast intentions to overfly, and having copied down the inbound regional turboprop joining downwind, yet assuming that their downwind is the same altitude as its downwind, both aware of the presence of the other, but unaware they are at the same height?

[Cloud Whisperer]

Don't you trust the regional turboprop captain to be using the into wind runway :E

With broadcast AWIS and/or the agents on the ground they already know what the wind is so they can plan a downwind join, which should be keep them away from the windsock gander airspace. Or even better, a straight in approach that keeps them out of (most of, anyway) the circuit.

Situational awareness must come into play - no one wants an AirProx - the paperwork :eek: You heard the Regional. They heard you. You're both in the circuit so the "See and Avoid" surely would work since you know where each other roughly are - don't have to look at ALL the sky just a wee bit of it.

..... what to do now with those ultralights when I want to do a practice day visual circling approach at 300' .... :p

[flyby]

Hempy thanks for your correction, i reckon 14 years flying experience allows me a grammatical error occasionally .Any how come fly with me and ill teach you a couple of new words and sentences, like multiple missed approaches at the missed approach point at the minima in imc and icing followed by a diversion to alternate followed by another approach at the alternate getting visual 50' above bingo height then having to co-ordinate with company , passengers , crew ,refuellers, atc,and wife,all the while knowing todays flight is just another day at work.
P.S - My FO was two weeks checked to line ,with less than 1000 hrs total time no atpl and very limited ifr experience.He commented after the second approach that this was the first time he had conducted an approach to the minima in imc.
Such is the life of a regional driver.

[Cap'n Arrr]

In theory if you do a 1500' circuit, then you would be slightly wider on downwind, but the centreline would be in the same position relative to your wing as it would be at 1000'.

So because of that, the 45deg pt for turning base would also be further out than at 1000', so noone should be descending on anyone, as you are further out than the 1000' guys.

Does mean you don't end up behind a 152 or a Sportstar at 150kts though:ok:

BTW Lasior, perhaps if the aircraft on 1500' calls "High Downwind" instead of just downwind? Also, I was taught to overfly at 2000AGL, although my current school teaches 1500AGL overhead. I just make sure to brief my students that at busy regional CTAFs, if they hear Eastern/Sunstate/Rex anything, or something of a similar size, expect it to be at 1500' on downwind.:ok:

[flyon dawall]

I second FLYBY's comments.
My 2 cents worth; Situational awareness + F'n common sense - there's also an apparatus in your aircraft, usually you'll have 2, they're called radio's - don't be afraid to use, if necessary take controll of the situation i.e. I'll be at 1000', confirm your intentions!
Re IF exposure, Flyby, simular experience just the other day - R/H seat first real approach. If pax new, they'd be mortified.

[flyon dawall]

Cap'n Arrrr,
Leave your theory books behind pal, I know plenty of lads who'll safely throw a regional turboprop around well within/inside the circuit spacing of a piston aircraft.

[Capt Wally]

ah don't let the speeling nazi's faze you 'Cypher' they often opo up 'cause they have little else to contribute.

'flyby' sadly I have to agree with you, there will come a day where 2 shall meet & it won't be in a bar afterwards either!:bored:

now now 'airman1' I was wondering when you would mention that CW was thinking of 'adding' words here:) And I fly 1500' curcuits(:E) not 1000', too scarey down there:)

hey 'forky' if I see you trying to pass me on down wind & i'm driving a LR35 I'll soon fix that mate, how fast can that funny tailed beast go?:ok:

This whole debate about curcuit (:E)height is predicated on good airmanship & the use of proper R/T, the latter almost no existant at times & not just from the 'farmer browns' out there . Radios ought to be mandatory for ALL airports over a certain rwy length, say 600 mtrs, less than that there are only toy planes that can land on that & it's unlikely you will find traffic at varying Alt's anyway.:)
Decent at abeam the thresshold works well at 130 kts without having to point the nose down too much. The only trouble with diff curcuit(:E) heights is that we all have to come down some time to meet up!:bored:


CW

[Jetpipe2]

If you operate a turbo prop to the same airport as single engine training aircraft most schools teach their students to overfly at circuit + 500, so thats smack in to the turbo prop circuit pattern.

Its not fun trying to convince the student that they are not clear of you just because they are overflying at 1500 AGL.

So why dont we give up with the 1500 circuit and drop to a 1000, its safer that way.

I would love to know who dreampt up the change and why?:D

[Capt Wally]

don't 4get 'jetpipe' there has been jets doing 1500' circuits for ages & therefore a hazard to us all overflying +500' to peek at the windy sock .This was happening well b4 the 120+ knot/1500' 'recomended' rule came in. But it is a valid point as to why have more at 1500'

CW

[aviation_enthus]

Jets at 1500ft?? Does that include F/A-18's? ;) I know it's in controlled airspace but sometimes I don't think they'd even make the 500ft 'helicopter' circuit height.... So low you loose them behind the trees/buildings. Don't even start on the speed ...:cool:

Very, very entertaining. Bring on Pitch Black '08!!

[Jetpipe2]

Capt Wally,

Not many jets at your average ALA but there are a great deal of kingairs etc.

Its the gravel runways that get used by the training orgs for navexs that cause most of the concern. Not to many VFR guys seem to keep the transponder on past the edge of radar coverage and when they overfly they are taught that they are clear of their circuit.

On another point trying to keep a cat B turbo prop within the circling area and not decsending on down wind can be a challenge for a new pilot.

Seems some one wrote a rule from a very low knowledge base.

[bushy]

The 1500 ft overfly procedure for joining the circuit has been around for many decades. It was routine procedure before jets or turboprops were invented, and worked very well to keep you clear of circuit traffic until you had figured out where it was (ie which runway was in use).
It was not just a recent thing, and it pre dates the 1500 ft jet circuits.
Obviously it is not so simple anymore, and 1500ft may be polluted by jets..

[Captain Nomad]

Radios ought to be mandatory for ALL airports over a certain rwy length, say 600 mtrs, less than that there are only toy planes that can land on that & it's unlikely you will find traffic at varying Alt's anyway.


CW - I take offense! I regularly fly into strips about half that length and at almost 3.5 tonnes burning kero I wouldn't call mine a 'toy' aeroplane! :eek: I know - not fair, different country and not what you had in mind when you wrote that... Just couldn't help myself :E

[Capt Wally]

ahhh that's ok 'CN' I wasn't going to expand on my comments with specific A/C types for one can never plz evrybody, besides the 'gomad' isn't prolific, thank God !:E 300 mtrs for a ldg & t/off hey?, pretty impressive even for them:)

'jetpipe' luckly yes yr right not too many jets at yr average ALA but it does occur and if all goes according to plan with the introduction of tye numerous VLJ's proposed in the near future where any pvt pilot with little time/experience & deep pockets can operate them they will be like those damn technic thingies, ten deep at the threshold:bored:

For now 1500' cts does have it's merits providing the use of radio is made mandatory as I mentioned in my previous post.


CW

[Captain Nomad]

My title is a little misleading (that's more to do with a pun on my name) I'm not driving a Nomad - something better...! :ok:

[Capt Wally]

no worries 'CN' i thought that might be the case, 'twotter' then perhaps?:ok:


CW

[bentleg]

I am holding my breath for the first "airprox" that occurs when an a/c does a 1500' circuit at Camden whilst another a/c reports inbound at 2RN at 1500'....



2RN is 12 nm NE of Camden. It is an approach point for Bankstown. Is a 1500 AGL (1800 ASL) circuit at Camden likely go near 2RN http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/infopop/icons/icon5.gif

[rcoight]

We fly 1500' circuits in the PC12.
Slightly wider spacing than one would be at 1000'.
Decelerate during downwind, start descent turning base, there is no need for "excessive" ROD from there.

And, without wishing to go down that old beaten path, one is well within gliding distance all the way around. :}

As many others have said, the most important thing is that everyone uses the radio properly, and has their transponder on.

The only worry then is those aircraft that have neither radio nor transponder!

[airman1]

rcoight,

Is the 1500 ft ccts noted in your particularly company's SOP's?? In my opinion you can really get away with 1000ft ccts and do it with ease in the PC12. Even at different training airports or GAAP's you can slow it down nicely with a warrior or even a 152 at times in front of you on downwind.

Marvelous aircraft in a glide no doubt about that:ok:

As always.... just my view on the situation if it's within the Regs and is safe then no worries in my book to keep doing it.

[Capt Wally]

I bet you lot where just waiting with bait in hand for CW to step up to the plate & say.............SE:bored::yuk::E
Genuine Q here rcoight. If yr at 1000ft gear flap out having come down from 1500' say min speed (so no excess energy) due to a slow moving C150 ahead of you, yr 3 miles from the thresshold 'cause you went slightly further out to accomodate that slow jo & there's a 35 kt H/W component down the rwy, would you be able to glide to the strip if the noise stopped remembering yr dirty? Think carefully the B200 glides at best glide speed (135kts) clean 2 nm nil wind per 1000ft loss, I'd make it 'cause I have a spare engine with me, you?:) I can just see the nutters out there getting ready to fire up but this is a direct genuine Q to 'rcoight':) It's mainly based on 1500' would be the min for a SE plane I reckon.


CW

[rcoight]

airman1, yes, 1500' is in the company SOPS.
And as the regs state 1500' as the recommended height for turboprops, there are no issues there either.
Plus, I feel better about being at 1500' than 1000' anyway, although as you say the aircraft can handle it easily.

CW, didn't take long...:)

Don't want to go down this road and bore everyone again, but since you ask, is there anywhere that demands you start your descent from 1500' by a certain point in the circuit?
The situation I described in my previous post was a "normal" circuit for me.
This can always be modified to suit conditions, etc.

If I was 3 miles out with a 35kt headwind component down the runway at minimum speed due to C150 or whatever I'd probably still be at 1500'!
PC12 could easily get down from there.

In any case, that's not a situation that just occurs out of the blue.
You should know about the C150 and it's relative position in the circuit a long time before you got to that point, and I would say if you found yourself running up its bum 3 miles out at min speed you have already made a mess of it, and should have another go!

:}

[Capt Wally]

All of what you say is true 'rcoight' but we don't live/fly in a 'should'or 'normal' world, there will always be times where circumstances change with little or no notice like a C150 just appearing out of the blue radioless & or you could be at 1000' instead of 1500' due wx & find yourself further outside yr normal circling area for a variety of reasons. So although I accept yr comments refering to 'normal' & 'should' I personally still believe that SEIFR chrt is far too dangerous, as usual PERSONAL opinions only:ok: But the Q still remains & feel free to chat 'off air' via pvt messages as most in here will get nasty would you be able to make the rwy at 1000' (not 1500') if you found yourself in the above original situation.
BTW just for the record I've never said the PC12 wasn't a terrific ship, i've said it b4 it shtis all over the B200 for a heap of reasons bar the most important, SAFETY, that's why they make twins in the first place!:)
I wonder how long the b4 the mod nazi's sin bin me for speaking in a democratic free world?



CW

[rcoight]

Sorry it's taken so long, but I don't spend a great deal of time here.

However, the short answer to your question, CW, is that yes, there are certain occasions where I wouldn't be able to make the strip in my PC12.
Perhaps even ones as unlikely as you suggest.
And I would also say that there are other, unlikely, occasions where you would be in deep poo with your B200! :}

The only argument we appear to have is whether or not it is "safe" to conduct IFR in aircraft such as the PC12.
(Bearing in mind the only truly safe aircraft is one that is on the ground).

I suspect we will never agree on this, and thus we should respectfully agree to disagree, rather than enter into a slanging match.

I also suspect that, in the long term, you may have to come to terms with single-engine turbine IFR, regardless of what you may think now...


:eek:

[airman1]

rcoight,

Without turning this thread into a total pissing match of the PC12 Vs B200:bored:. I was recently sent the below link highlighting the dangerous of SE IFR ops in particular the PC12. Now everyone is entitled to there own opinion, but the bottom line in aviation is safety and nothing can beat two engines. :ok:

I don’t think you would find CW converting over to the PC12, maybe just looking for a new job if and when the RFDS decide to change there entire fleet over. :sad:

Read the article I am sure you will form your own conclusions.
Maybe you can shed some light on the exact changes that Pilatus may have made to improve some of these faults.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/publications/reflexions/air/2002/issue_25/air_issue25_sec1.asp

[rcoight]

Thank you, airman1, for that interesting article.

However, I don't reach the same conclusions that you appear to.

What is patently obvious from the article is that that accident (like most) occured because of very poor decision making by the pilot.
Had he immediately turned back on the first indication of low oil pressure (like we are trained to do), he would have been well within gliding range of his departure airport and that article wouldn't exist.

There are also a number of references to Canadian reg's that are not relevant in Aust., or at least in the context that we operate where I fly them.
eg. We have enough oxygen on board to swan around for hours if necessary!
We also have more than enough electrical power for a reasonably long glide, as long as correct procedures are followed.

I note that despite the very ugly scene in the photo's, no-one was killed.
Kind of makes the point re the seats, and "survivability" of the aircraft.

PC12's have been operating (IFR) in this country for almost 13 years now.
How many fatal accidents have there been in that time?
How many accidents have there been that can be attributed to it having only one engine?
How many fatal King Air accidents have there been in that time? (Sadly, I can think of at least 3 without even trying) :(

There are a lot more factors in determining the "safety" of an aircraft other than just how many engines it has. That is simply old-fashioned thinking that is going the way of the dinosaurs.
Is a B747 twice as safe as a B777, or just twice as likely to have an engine failure?

I say again; The accident in that report happened due to poor decision making. Fortunately it appears that everyone survived.

:)

[Capt Wally]

yeah 'rcoight' I respect yr choice but it's not mine, simple as that really.

The link 'airman1' sent I have seen b4 but didn't want to thro it in to the mix here as I'm sure some would be able to explain away the end result & still believe that had the same scenario been in a twin then it's just as unsafe as the sinlge engine.
Yr right there has been several B200 accidents but ALL would have been due to as in the PC12 crashes end result here pilot error, so the ref to the B200 doesn't fit.
The fact that everyone survived the impact wouldn't to me anyway be very comforting 'cause no two crashes would be the same, obviously the Bog as in soft ground helped the outcome in this particular incident.
It's a tough airframe obviously but I don't want to find out first hand thanks!:)
I have a great Eg. of why we don't use the PC12's in our section.

I won't go into it in too much detail but substitute the B200 in the following with a PC12 gliding (worse case I know but possible).
Fog rolling in at SHT. Just departed in time before visual ref was lost even with the zero ceiling that the B200 has. No chance of returning even within a few minutes if an engine fault happened. Flight over to CB direct, (no other way anyway to avoid high hills)some lovely nice terrain out there & btw this was all at 2am.
ILS rwy 35 over some very nasty hills in solid IMC only to find that as I broke out just above the Minima the rwy lights where not on, damn stupid pal system at the nations capt airport! I did try several times to get them on prior to arrival so an approach was made anyway, options with a twin & i wouldn't have had to land if one failed during the app., lights or no lights
Finally landed after much swearing to get damn lights on.
Med team back in plane now ready to depart for EN at 5am. Only trouble is ML fogged big time ! We launch anyway knowing that several strips are avail to us nth of ML. Enroute over solid IMC across the hills again we diverted to BDG for perhas the only time I would have felt safe in a PC12, a visual curcuit & ldg.
Plane left there, pilot go home via Cab & sleep like a baby due to one reason, SAFETY in numbers ! (as in 2 engines):)

So again I respect yr choice 'rcoight' as to you feeling safer or as safe in a single, it's just not mine & that's why we don't have single eng planes, never will whilst common sense prevails !:ok:


CW:)

[airman1]

rcoight,

Yes I agree there was some form or to some degree of pilot error there, lets face it in life the only way to reduce the risk of flying other than leaving the thing parked on the tarmac. Is to make things idiot proof or just increase the level of safety. Now call me old fashion if more then one donk provides that extra safety net for me and other pilots. So as you have said we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. :bored:

CW, I see your point old son ..... But every accident is a combination of mistakes. Whether it be in the B200, PC12 or the even 747 if the wrong situation arises in any aircraft an accident may occur.(there are many variables i know!!!) I do however believe that an extra engine does provide that extra safety buffer. :ok:

As always each to there own I say. We can debate this subject till we are all blue in the face and ........CW has no hair left and I start going grey:sad:

[Capt Wally]

Hey airman1 what makes ya think I ain't going grey also?
Everytime I see one of those flash PC12's depart EN they climb like a home sick angel, & for no other reason than......just in case, with a twin the 'just in case' comes std by way of power divided by TWO !:ok:

'rcoight' is right the PC12 has been operating in this country for many years with an excellent safety record, they would want to be!:)

Back to 1500' cts, I wasn't too keen when first it was brought in for A/C other than jets, I thought all sorts of ugly thoughts but have come to realise that driving around at the same level is fine for cars 'cause they follow the same path, we don't have that luxury.


CW

[NOSIGN]

I’ve had a wonderful day flying into a brilliant part of OZ named Chullagun (?), QLD. Ripper of a day, but now it’s late and I’ve had a few drinks. Nevertheless I thought I’d summarise the post – the accuracy may be run-of-the-mill, but it’s an attempt anyway…

Without counting thread drifts…

50% of respondents report negatively towards 1500’ ccts
33% are positive towards 1500’ ccts and,
17% are neutral

A few points:

Circling approaches are a different kettle of fish and are not the intention of the discussion that I have started.

A poster mentioned that there is worry towards more Pilots overflying at 1500’ now, causing a collision risk with previous jet traffic at 1500’. I was taught to overfly at 500 ft above cct ht, which in my opinion is now 1500’ + 500’ = 2000’ AGL in a high performance acft. I’m not an instructor, but I don’t think that anyone should overfly at 1500’ AGL these days. To avoid collision, 2000 is the go, even for low performance acft. I was taught to overfly at 1500’ AGL about 10 years ago but in retrospect, that did not provide clearance to jet traffic. Overfly’s at 2000’ are in my opinion, better than what was previously the norm, although it can be hard to assess the windsock!

I have recently read a few SOP’s that have not amended their cct ht procedure. I have not read an SOP that has amended the cct ht procedure.

I have learned from the posts during this thread; I was naively under the impression that the circuit was where every Pilot standardised flying technique to be seen, i.e. level ccts, speeds, distances from runway, etc. This was logical for me and it was implied from my training – so that each Pilot would know where the other was within a CTAF/MBZ/ ALA etc The benefit from a standard cct was that If a radio was not required at a particular aerodrome, or if I could not understand what the other was saying, I would know where to look for likely positions of aircraft.

During this thread, I have realised that some Pilots may be on a continuous descent, have extended legs of the cct, fly at various hts, etc. The circuit has for me become a mess from the idealistic view of it that I once had. No offense to other Pilots, but I thought that this was good airmanship. I am either right, or I had the wrong impression.

One PPRUNE poster suggested that there is no change to cct areas, and that RoD are the same as always. This statement is not true, since at 1500’ compared with 1000’, you either need to increase cct spacing or accept a greater RoD.

I’m interested to know what the CT4 Pilots at Tamworth are taught. Any contributors? Thank-you for the military guys who have contributed on faster airplanes.

Radio calls are, what many posters have mentioned, a great way to make sense of it all and make Pilots aware of you’re position. I agree that correct radio usage is important to good situational awareness. However, some airports do not require radio carriage. At minimum, I believe to aid safety at these aiports, standard cct positions are a requirement.

I don't like 1500' ccts because I accept a greater rod. this is not as comforatble as before. I dont like larger cct spacing beacuse I dont need it, unless I need a normal RoD. Hence, I do not create a larger cct. I think larger ccts are not economical or are they required, and I prefer a 500 fpm ROD on base and final opposed to 1000fpm.