nutters in the circuit!

[cjm_2010]

under tuition last friday I had an interesting moment with an icarus. I heard the pilot of the icarus declaring his location and intention to join at base, just as I was turning downwind.

both myself and the instructor spent a few seconds looking out for him but we couldn't see a thing. within a few seconds I spotted the aircraft - before my instructor - at circuit height on what looked like a head-on collision course.

we both banked right. I'm not sure how close we got but it felt pretty close to me. I would guesstimate at < 500 metres before I 'chickened' (first!).

apart from that - great lesson :)

[IO540]

This behaviour is quite normal... you need to get your PPL and fly as far away from the local circuit as possible :)

500m is a loooong way - do you mean 50m?

[Ace Rimmer]

A valuble lesson too - expect the unexpected and keep your head on a swivel...give you an example a few years back BRL and I were in an Arrow on very short final at Popham (en-route to a proone fly in as it happens) and this fella in a 152 cuts in across our bows:eek: - bit of a hasty GA let me tell you! :ok:
Later investigation revealed that apparently this bloke was locally based and had a bit of a reputation as a queue jumper...:ugh:

[Bearcat]

The CAA take queue jumpers very seriously and deal accordingly with them.....they are a menace and danger to long established safe procedures.

[Fuji Abound]

I see no indication so far he was a queue jumper .. ..

When the Icarus announced his intention did you say where you were? If he was turning base and you were just turning down wind you should have had plenty of time to sort yourselves out.

If he was positioned to join base and you were positioned downwind you shouldnt have met head on or met after a few seconds, so someone would seem to not have been where they said.

[Whopity]

The CAA take queue jumpers very seriously and deal accordingly with them.....Do you mean that the CAA prosecute pilots who fail to comply with the rules of the air? I am not aware of any successfuul prosecution relating to an aircraft joining a circuit!

[cjm_2010]

This behaviour is quite normal... you need to get your PPL and fly as far away from the local circuit as possible http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

500m is a loooong way - do you mean 50m?

could have been less than 500m - as we passed each other I was close enough to see the ribs under the wing fabric on his aircraft.

I don't think it was a case of queue jumping - he was simply going the wrong way around the circuit!

[JEM60]

Once met an orange OATS Cherokee doing the same thing at Booker!! Wrong way round the circuit!!. Mind you, we have all made mistakes in the air, I suspect, like a now currently Fellow of the Aeronautical Society I was flying with almost overflying Upper Heyford many years ago. He thought it was Bicester, until I pointed out that Bicester does not have F.111s on the ground, and that aircraft on the left is a Phantom on finals!!!!!!!:uhoh:

[frangatang]

Plenty of evidence going to the LAA flyin at sywell the other day of others who clearly hadnt read any of the blurb. I joined as per the leaflet, following a cherokee on L base 03 and thought he was helluva wide and next thing he hangs a right and buggers off!

[Fuji Abound]

I don't think it was a case of queue jumping - he was simply going the wrong way around the circuit!


Sounds much more likely given your first post.

I am assuming there was no AT? If you hear another aircraft joining in my view it is well worth saying explicitly where you are and what you are doing in the circuit because it at least means there should be two pairs of eyes looking for each of you rather than just you looking for him.

Viz: G-XXXX is also in the circuit, currently crosswind, about to turn downwind (tight or wide as you like), not visual with you this time.

Subject to viz etc I am always a bit cautious of steaming on without seeing traffic that I think (based on their position report) I should be able to see. Call me an old women but if I cant see them I might ask them for a position update and even consider adjusting my height in the circuit by a couple of hundred feet. People seem to think circuit heights are sacrosanct but I would rather adjust a little than increase the risk of meeting another aircraft going the wrong way.

[dublinpilot]

Viz: G-XXXX is also in the circuit, currently crosswind, about to turn downwind (tight or wide as you like), not visual with you this time.


I think radio calls in an uncontrolled circuit should always include the runway being used and the circuit direction being used.

While it doesn't stop someone making a mistake and mixing up left / right circuits, it should help to ensure that everyone is doing the same thing.

[Fuji Abound]

Yes, of course, a very good point.

My calls usually go something like this if it is not too busy:

Departing

G-XXXX at the hold Little Snoring intending to line up runway x

- waits enough time to see if anyone is interested,

G-XXXX is lining up runway x Little Snoring,

G-XXXX is rolling runway x, intending right turn out or whatever.

Arriving

G-XXXX is joining crosswind (whatever) at 1,000 feet on the QNH 1016 for runway x at Little Snoring,

G-XXXX is turning downwind at Little Snoring for runway 32,

G-XXXX is turning final at Little Snoring for runway 32,

you can add in helpful comments like joining crosswind, see one ahead mid downwind etc.

It may not be CAPology, but it seems to me if we all thought a little more about enabling anyone else to build a picture of any traffic it would all run that much more smoothly. It is the one time, unless the radio is very busy, to talk more, not less.

It might not prevent someone causing chaos going the wrong way around the circuit but at least it gives them a chance for the penny to drop that they are about to make a prat of themselves ;), (we have all done it I suspect) and to worry when you tell them you cant see them.

[BackPacker]

I think radio calls in an uncontrolled circuit should always include the runway being used and the circuit direction being used.

Agree. And I've been in a situation once or twice where I flew a right hand circuit where a left hand circuit was standard (due to circumstances) and I actually called "right repeat right downwind 27" to stress that I'm not where others might be expecting me.

Not good practice of course to use the opposite circuit but there are situations where it's the most sensible thing to do. (Empty circuit, big shower on the live side and permission from ATC was one.)

G-XXXX is rolling runway x, intending right turn out or whatever.

I always find a call like this amusing. Since "Tenerife" we've all been brainwashed that ATC uses the term "take-off" first, and will only use that term in the context of your take-off clearance. Up until that time the term to use is "departure".

But the result of this is that pilots are actually afraid of calling their take-off a "take-off" at an uncontrolled airfield, where there is no ATC to issue a take-off clearance.

I haven't checked CAP413 but why can't we simply call "G-XXXX is taking off runway x?" at an uncontrolled (A/G or AFIS) field? That's what we're doing after all.

The only time I'm using a call "G-XXXX rolling" is in the following situation:

"G-XXXX you are cleared take-off runway x, mind wake turbulence from the preceding 747"
"Cleared take-off runway x, two minutes for the wake, G-XXXX"
"G-XXXX roger"
(two minutes later)
"G-XXXX rolling"

[Flyingmac]

Fuji, you left out the circuit direction. Naughty.

BP. At my own strip we much prefer 'lining up' and 'rolling'. Take and off or variables of same should only come from the tower. No confusion then.
Aircraft tend to take off when they've finished rolling.

[Talkdownman]

Fuji's circuit is clearly a left-hand circuit.
"Make all turns to the left unless ground signals otherwise indicate" (Rule 12) ;)

[cjm_2010]

I am assuming there was no AT? If you hear another aircraft joining in my view it is well worth saying explicitly where you are and what you are doing in the circuit because it at least means there should be two pairs of eyes looking for each of you rather than just you looking for him.

we have a radio service who is able to advise (callsign 'radio'). I'll definately try out your advice next time I'm in the air. makes a lot of sense. I always call downwind as soon as practical after turning from crosswind, chatter permitting.

[Flyingmac]

Fuji's circuit is clearly a left-hand circuit.
"Make all turns to the left unless ground signals otherwise indicate" (Rule 12) http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

That could result in some bent metal at my home base:=

[tonker]

Use the radio as an "aural radar"

Now i'm flying bigger things and going to Spain regulary, you would be suprised as to how often we talk to each other on the guard frequency to sort out the poor to non existent controlling.

[Fuji Abound]

Yep, another good point, it could be an idea to include the circuit direction as well.

Good to have the debate, as I dont think most people are taught this stuff in their PPL (not least because they dont visit these places) so hopefully it improves the awareness of us all.

[DeeCee]

'Turning downwind' does not establish a position. A 'Downwind' call when abeam the upwind end of the active runway tells everyone else where you are and gives a clue as to the timing of the rest of the circuit (ok, unless you are on a B52 circuit).

[jez d]

we have a radio service who is able to advise (callsign 'radio').

CJM, the radio operator may be in a position to advise you of other traffic, but you absolutely must not rely on them for this. An air/ground radio service is there to provide you with airfield information. Traffic information is outside of their remit, and you should instead rely on the Mark I eyeball.

Also, at most small airfields, it is likely that the person operating the radio will at the same time be taking landing fees, making the sandwiches in the cafe, answering the telephone, and generally handling any number of other daily flying school/airfield tasks, which means they will often only have a sketchy idea, at best, of what is going on in the circuit.

Regards, jez

[Fuji Abound]

'Turning downwind' does not establish a position. A 'Downwind' call when abeam the upwind end of the active runway tells everyone else where you are and gives a clue as to the timing of the rest of the circuit (ok, unless you are on a B52 circuit).


Hmm, I dont know?

I would hope pilots would fly the crosswind leg accurately over the numbers so turning down wind should provide an acurate enough estimate.

I have always liked the terms early downwind and late downwind with everything in between simply being downwind (early downwind being up to the upwind threshold and late downwind being beyond the arrival threshold).

What do others think / do?

[DeeCee]

People are not always turning from crosswind. I think you make a good point if joining long downwind, but consistency is the main thing and it would be better if everyone was reminded of 'normal' procedures whatever they are. I was taught to call downwind at that specific point because it is easily identifiable. If two people call in short succession you'd better have a fast look around. However, I've heard people call downwind when they are a mile away. I've also had someone fly straight across me when I was halfway downwind, but I digress....

[Flyingmac]

I flew into Sywell on saturday in the rush hour. Several hundred aircraft managed to sort themselves out and land with very tight spacing, the only call being 'Type, G-XXXX final 03 grass/hard. (Apart from the inevitable few with verbal diarrhea). It struck me that it could have been done with no calls at all. Departures excepted.

[jez d]

Runway in use and circuit direction calling is also useful to avoid getting befuddled by ghost transmissions. Taking Sywell as an example, it shares its frequency with Compton Abbas.

[Fuji Abound]

I flew into Sywell on saturday in the rush hour. Several hundred aircraft managed to sort themselves out and land with very tight spacing, the only call being 'Type, G-XXXX final 03 grass/hard. (Apart from the inevitable few with verbal diarrhea). It struck me that it could have been done with no calls at all. Departures excepted.


I agree. As I said earlier lots of calls in the circuit only really works if the calls are commensurate with the amount of traffic. For major events it would cause chaos. At such events care is needed and everyone must do their best to follow the join procedure for the event.

I dont think this necessarily proves that things work well without calls because 1) most people are on their guard at big events, 2) lots of other traffic makes it more difficult for them to join the wrong way on go round the ciruit in a different direction (but not impossible), 3) these events may attract those with more experience.

The danger is more likely to occur with much less traffic when someone pitches up unexpectedly and perhaps is new to the field. For those pilots the calls help, and cant do any harm.

[soaringhigh650]

The pattern should be kept as small as possible so everyone can see you. I flew to Stapleford once. They had some guys flying Cessna 152s downwind and base legs so far out i swear they left the ATZ!*

I wouldn't be surprised if you flew it so big that you got cut up.

[Jan Olieslagers]

I have always liked the terms early downwind and late downwind with everything in between simply being downwind (early downwind being up to the upwind threshold and late downwind being beyond the arrival threshold).
What do others think / do?

I took the radio exam not very long ago, and both the examiner and the (very nice) person who helped me prepare insisted that one call "downwind" when abeam the opposite threshold i.e. right after turning from crosswind leg into downwind leg. Further down it is called "middle of downwind" or "end of downwind" or "two-thirds downwind" or whatever.

Both persons also insisted there exists no such thing as "left-hand downwind" in ICAO phraseology - one is either on right-hand downwind or simply on downwind - which is left-hand by definition.

[Neptunus Rex]

It should be incumbent on the joining pilot to visually identify all circuit traffic before joining the circuit.

Also, at most small airfields, it is likely that the person operating the radio will at the same time be taking landing fees, making the sandwiches in the cafe, answering the telephone, and generally handling any number of other daily flying school/airfield tasks, which means they will often only have a sketchy idea, at best, of what is going on in the circuit.Just to be pedantic, the R/T Licence gives authority to operate the radio from an aircraft, nowhere else. Don't do it if the CAA are about.

[asyncio]

They had some guys flying Cessna 152s downwind and base legs so far out i swear they left the ATZ!*

If it was for runway 04, then they probably did.
The official circuit for 04 has the downwind extended until it leaves the ATZ, for noise abatement reasons.

[IO540]

The pattern should be kept as small as possible so everyone can see you. I flew to Stapleford once. They had some guys flying Cessna 152s downwind and base legs so far out i swear they left the ATZ!*Stapleford is a total free-for-all. Downright scary last time I went there, and the biggest cowboys were planes with instructors in them.

IMHO, people should fly the published circuit, and if you are sure you are #1 then you can fly a tight base/final continuous descent. I like to do tight approaches but one cannot do them if it cuts somebody up.

And most people who think they can cut somebody up successfully have misjudged it, and merely force the other one to go around. With the exception of some aerobatic types (flown by skilled pilots, I assume) every time I have been cut up, I had to go around.

There is a clear rule that you don't cut up the one in front of you - whether you like his B52 circuit or not.

Cue another long thread on how to fly circuits :)

[FREDAcheck]

"rolling" is definitely not CAP413, and seems to stem from fear of using the phrase "taking off", which is the correct phrase.

See CAP413 §5.4.3 (Edition 19) (typical A/G RT)

Pilot: G-CD ready for departure

A/G: G-CD Roger, no reported traffic. Surface wind...

Pilot: Roger. Taking off, G-CD

[Pace]

Freda

Havent heard "taking off" have heard "rolling 22" maybe " I say chaps taking orf" infact taking off other than at rotation is a nonsense. " Rolling" is more accurate as if you have a problem you are unlikely to get to "taking orf" ;) stage which wont happen till way down the runway!

Pace

[FREDAcheck]

Pace, it's not a matter of accuracy of whether one is taking off or not at the point of making the transmission, it's a matter of conformance to CAP413.

Long time since I did my PPL, but at that time they didn't encourage the application of philosophy or logic to RT. You followed CAP413. End of story. There was a thread recently on here or Flyer where an ATCO was getting very shirty about DIY RT, and quoted this in particular.

As it happens, I've always said "rolling", but I don't think I should!

[AdamFrisch]

There are so many places where non-standard circuits are used, that it feels like it's become more the norm rather than the exception. This is obviously a safety hazard in some cases.

I remember the almost head on collision I had on the runway at a Swedish airport many years ago. I was in the circuit flying a big Lancer and was trying to cope with gears, MP and constant speed props (aircraft was new to me). A Cessna announces it want to join the circuit when I'm on downwind. I say where I am at what my intentions are (landning). No answer. On base I call out again and now specifically ask the Cessna where he is. No answer. Turn final and since the aircraft is all new to me and I'm a bit behind it, I'm going a bit too fast and too low and everything happens a bit late. The airport also has one of those deceptive ridges besides the rwy, so couldn't really see much until you're pretty much on short final. Just as I'm trying to slow this beast down and get her down I see the Cessna coming right at me on the runway! I pull up and veer sharp left (I know, opposite of what I should have done) and he goes to my right in a touch and go. I scream at him on the radio, but no answer. I don't think he ever saw me or if he did, he hid in shame. His radio could have been faulty, but that's no excuse for landing downwind.

Lesson learned for me? Never assume an aircraft not answering or announcing correctly is doing the right thing. Try to avoid straight ins, even if there's no traffic as it gives you time to visually check the airport, windsocks, movements etc.

[ShyTorque]

The pattern should be kept as small as possible so everyone can see you. I flew to Stapleford once. They had some guys flying Cessna 152s downwind and base legs so far out i swear they left the ATZ!*

Big circuits.. Some need a map to fly circuits. Not at Stapleford this time, but an ex-colleague of mine was once phoned up by an irate instructor about him having transitted too close to him at the end of his downwind leg, with a student in control. The instructor got very short shrift because my colleague was actually carrying out a letdown via the NDB, in the overhead of the adjacent airfield and were quite correctly talking to them about their circuit traffic as they overflew their runway intersection. The complaining instructor was so far downwind he was in the ATZ of the adjacent airfield.

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

rumour has it that some people have been speaking to Stapleford whilst landing at North Weald !

sometimes people make errors about their position. sometimes it is less error, and more an attempt at queue jumping....i.e. if I call final (but I am 8 miles out), then that bloke who has called downwind will have to extend but I wont have to wait for him.
sometimes the errors can get people killed. A couple of years back I was lined up ready for departure from EGSX on rw 20. A Cessna 172 that was on the frequency called "final to land 20". I commenced my roll. Shortly after take off, the Cessna pilot realised he had called "final to land 20" when he had actually been finals on 02. Brown pants time.

hopefully good airmanship, planning, and awareness will stop any of us from making dangerous errors.
but we are all human....

[Whopity]

"Rolling" or "Roller" is a military phrase for a Touch and Go. Even the military have now changed to "Touch and Go".

It is deceidely worrying the number of non standard ways put forward in this thread of flying a circuit, to say nothing of the non standard home grown radio calls.

A circuit should be flown in the Standard manner with the published radio calls and GOOD LOOKOUT. If the circuit is non standard the differences will be published.

Many of us have seen aircraft going the wrong way in a circuit; that is a good reason for joining correctly, i.e. a standard overhead join where you can observe what is going on, and avoid the dangerous situation of joining directly and getting it wrong. If everyone flew a correct size circuit others would see them and know what they are doing.

Don't extend downwinnd, if you can't get in Go-Around and reposition downwind.

[Pace]

Long time since I did my PPL, but at that time they didn't encourage the application of philosophy or logic to RT. You followed CAP413. End of story. There was a thread recently on here or Flyer where an ATCO was getting very shirty about DIY RT, and quoted this in particular.

As it happens, I've always said "rolling", but I don't think I should!

Freda

Ok ;) My response was lighthearted but I would point out that nothing is set in stone and even RT evolves.

I can remember the universal " level at FL 100 direct XYZ" still hear pilots saying that. It changed to maintaining FL 100 direct XYZ.

Cannot say I have heard " Taking off ". ATC will give a TAKEOFF clearance which basically clears you for the whole procedure of taking off but usually its "rolling 27" which is accurate while the "takeoff" bit happens at VR.

Maybe its about time that was changed?

Pace

[Talkdownman]

CAP413 Chapter 4 Page 21:

"Taking Off"

Take a look ;)

[A and C]

Oh! how I hate flying into airfields with a lot of trainning going on, just how big can the CCT be? the other day I had to fly about 4 miles to follow someone in a C152 with no traffic ahead of him, full flap at 1000ft and dragging it in at 65kt. No doubt the airline pilot wannbe instructor was congratulating his student on a fine "stablized approach"!

Next day.............. Africa............. 78,000kg jet, the FO flys a speed stable visual CCT all within 2 NM of the airfield rolling the wings level on the runway centre line at 500Ft.

A few days later I send a student solo after about 10 hours total instructional time, he is doing perfect CCT's at 800ft all within about a mile of the airfield.

So why are we taking so much airspace for a simple CCT?

It is clearly not for aircraft performance, The sudents that I see are self selecting so they are not "above average" but seem to have no problem with the concept or workload in a tight CCT.

So we are left with one or two factors, I know that noise abatment is an issue at some airfields but the trainning providors at Elstree must be laughing all the way to the bank with the extra flying they are selling with the CCT that they agreed to fly.
Secondly the Airline wannabe instructors like the extra flying time in the logbook, but were do they get this 4 mile stable approach thing from? it can only be from too much airline wannabe bull................please guys remember you are teaching people to fly a light aircraft and if you have to do things the "airline way" then speed stable at 500ft is fine by most airlines on a visual approach................................ not 4 miles & 1000 ft!

[Flyingmac]

"Many of us have seen aircraft going the wrong way in a circuit; that is a good reason for joining correctly, i.e. a standard overhead join where you can observe what is going on, and avoid the dangerous situation of joining directly and getting it wrong. If everyone flew a correct size circuit others would see them and know what they are doing."

The Overhead Join was 'STANDARD' in the days when non-radio and signals squares were the norm. There's no way these days that it could be described as standard. Many airfields have no deadside. What then?

If there's a left-hand circuit, put the airfield on your left, get onto the reciprocal of the runway in use. (i.e. for a landing on 24 put 24 at the bottom of the DI), and as if by magic you'll find yourself downwind.
Simple.

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

CAP 413 uses the phrase "take off roll"

See chapter 4.
"1.7.13 When an aircraft is about to take-off or has commenced the take-off roll "

When I said I commenced my roll, that was short for "take-off roll".
It had nothing to do with a touch and go....and I wasn't doing a roller.
I think a lot of pilots know what is meant by take-off roll, or what I meant by saying I "commenced my roll".

[IO540]

So why are we taking so much airspace for a simple CCT?

I think partly it is UK PPL training tradition, partly the size of many published circuits (which are drawn that way because they always have been, or to avoid known NIMBYs), and partly inadequate training whereby many pilots don't understand enough about aircraft performance to fly a reasonably tight circuit.

[FREDAcheck]

CAP 413 uses the phrase "take off roll"

See chapter 4.
"1.7.13 When an aircraft is about to take-off or has commenced the take-off roll "Yep, but at no point in CAP413 does it suggest a pilot or Atco should use the word "rolling" or the phrase "take off roll".

When a pilot has commenced his or her take off roll (or is about to) then the CAP413 phrase is "Taking off". The military I'm sure may have their own phraseology.

[mikehallam]

Now I'm really confused !

You own a Roller ?
And do a Roll on, or soon after take off ?

mikehallam.

[Farrell]

Try circuit bashing in the States.......Florida springs to mind.

Can remember two pasty faced individuals staggering out of a 172 having come within a hair's breadth of a twin who blasted across a circuit 1000 below assigned alt.

Mr. Collins......are you around?

[Fuji Abound]

Sounds to me like this thread is on a roll.

[BackPacker]

I know pilots who roll after take-off. What does CAP413 has to say about that?

[AndoniP]

the trainning providors at Elstree must be laughing all the way to the bank with the extra flying they are selling with the CCT that they agreed to fly

not quite sure what you mean there. there are 4 different circuits and they are cycled throughout the day purely for noise abatement reasons. Being in London it's surrounded by villages and towns. Borehamwood, Stanmore, Bushey, Letchmore Heath and Radlett all encircle the aerodrome, i'm unsure as to how we can fly one particular circuit without complaints being made?

we can't all fly within a mile of the airfield...

[airborne_artist]

At a secret Cornish heli-base we normally had simultaneous left and right handed circuits with four/five in each - A and C's 4 miles, full-flap, 65 kt driver wouldn't have lasted long after the SATCO had read his horoscope ... ;)

[ShyTorque]

If the ATZ is 2nm radius, can an aircraft on a 4nm final be considered to be in the circuit? An aircraft joining must comply with the existing traffic pattern.

This is where the military "deadside join" (not an overhead join) has an advantage. It was designed for a busy circuit. The joining aircraft avoids the liveside pattern, by flying parallel to the duty runway, on the deadside at circuit height and fits into the pattern on the crosswind end. If anyone has to extend, it's the joining aircraft and he goes further upwind. This avoids anyone having to fly the dreaded "extended down wind leg", which gets longer and longer as more aircraft have to follow suit.

[Jan Olieslagers]

This is where the military "deadside join" (not an overhead join) has an advantage. It was designed for a busy circuit. The joining aircraft avoids the liveside pattern, by flying parallel to the duty runway, on the deadside at circuit height and fits into the pattern on the crosswind end. If anyone has to extend, it's the joining aircraft and he goes further upwind. This avoids anyone having to fly the dreaded "extended down wind leg", which gets longer and longer as more aircraft have to follow suit.

All of this can be done equally, or even better, from a standard overhead join. I don't understand all this fuss, neither do I see any advantage to a deadside join vs. an overhead - overhead join is published standard, 500 feet above circuit, though it can of course be overridden by local practice but then this should be published. And how are you going to check the signal square from a deadside join?

The only reasons for NOT joining overhead are glider winching and parajumping - both should be covered by adequate published procedures. Or am I being naive?

[Molesworth 1]

rumour has it that some people have been speaking to Stapleford whilst landing at North Weald

other day someone was speaking to Stapleford and landing at Fowlmere (thinking they were talking to Duxford).

Conversely I have approached Stapleford while talking to Cranfield (who couldn't hear me).

Easy to do. Only one decimal different. Fortunately I realised my mistake before joining the circuit.

[Molesworth 1]

speed stable at 500ft is fine

From experience I would agree with that. However during training I would be jumped on if I moved the throttle one iota after turning base leg!

I was also told to put in full flap when turning final. This is not usually necessary unless the circuit is very tight.

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

FREDAcheck

Only place I used the word "roll" was in describing what happened to my "colleagues" on pprune.
Where do I say in my post that used the word "roll" over the radio ?

Airpolice
I was not aware that Typhoons now say "final for touch and go" rather than "final to roll...".

What do they call it in a rotary?

[Jan Olieslagers]

From 15 Dec 09 military ATC will adopt the phraseology written in CAP 413 Edition 19 (...)

Meaning 1909 or 2009 or even 2109 ???

[D SQDRN 97th IOTC]

so from the great film...The Blues Brothers

[Elwood Blues has just passed on a red light, and a police car rolls up behind them. The words are said in the same rhythm as a blues song ("Soothe Me") on the car stereo]
Elwood: ****.
Jake: What?
Elwood: Rollers...
Jake: No.
Elwood: Yeah.
Jake: ****.

Elwood should say "Touch and Go's"

What a great film that was.

[Jan Olieslagers]

Where did you get the 500 foot above circuit that you mentioned in your earlier post?

Can't be sure, must have been in my ground class syllabus. I was certainly expected to know this when tested for legal knowledge.

As a matter of fact, several Belgian a/d's have explicited this "rule", EBHN for one example with the circuit at 700' and "integration" at 1200'. Several can't, however, like poor EBGB with its ATZ tucked in a forlorn corner of Brussels CTR and topped off at 1000'. Again: final info comes from authorative sources like the AIP, or, lacking that, from the a/d operator.

[ShyTorque]

All of this can be done equally, or even better, from a standard overhead join. I don't understand all this fuss, neither do I see any advantage to a deadside join vs. an overhead - overhead join is published standard, 500 feet above circuit, though it can of course be overridden by local practice but then this should be published. And how are you going to check the signal square from a deadside join?

The only reasons for NOT joining overhead are glider winching and parajumping - both should be covered by adequate published procedures. Or am I being naive?

Jan, That depends; have you much personal experience of deadside joins?

I was taught and have taught both, being military and civilian instructor qualified. The military would teach an overhead join to a low-time student but expect more advanced students to carry out a deadside join, obviously only if there is a radio frequency and the duty runaway is known.

Overhead joins can be dangerous where two aircraft are joining at a similar time. Pilots' attention is diverted from a lookout for other aircraft as they organise themselves in the overhead for the correct runway. As you say, they look at the signals square, where fitted, and the airfield layout, at the very time they might be converging with another airframe doing the same thing, from the same place. During a deadside join there is a blind spot under the aircraft. Because the join pattern tends to be fixed and rigid in some pilot's minds, they do sometimes tend to cut in ahead of other circuit traffic.

[IO540]

Overhead joins can be dangerous where two aircraft are joining at a similar time.

Exactly, but they are used at the very time when the circuit is busy and (if ATC) when ATC is unable to cope. Then they just send everybody into the overhead. It is a dangerous place to be.

[cjm_2010]

Oh! how I hate flying into airfields with a lot of trainning going on, just how big can the CCT be? the other day I had to fly about 4 miles to follow someone in a C152 with no traffic ahead of him, full flap at 1000ft and dragging it in at 65kt. No doubt the airline pilot wannbe instructor was congratulating his student on a fine "stablized approach"!

my third instructor (I alternate between three - it's actually working out pretty well!) totally sorted my circuit spacing out - extend the climbout to 600 / 700 ft before turning crosswind, fly the downwind with the runway running as near as possible to the wingtip as viewed from the seat at circuit height. makes perfect sense.

on another note - I put some more solo time in the book today. second time up on my todd, 35 mins & 4 circuits - and no other traffic to get in the way. bliss!

[BackPacker]

extend the climbout to 600 / 700 ft before turning crosswind

In general it's good practice to climb straight ahead to at least 500 feet before turning. By then you should have the aircraft configured for a best-rate climb (flaps up, trimmed for Vy etc.) so you have time to look around where you're going. And as long as you fly the aircraft you're currently flying (hopefully up to and including your PPL exam) you won't go much wrong with climbing to 600-700 feet and then turning crosswind.

However, later in your career you might encounter aircraft with abysmal climb performance and you might need to initiate your turn well below 500' in order to keep a reasonably tight circuit. Or, if you're lucky, you might be flying aerobatic hotships who are capable of climbing all the way to circuit height well before the end of the runway. In which case you need to fly upwind at circuit height a little before you turn crosswind, otherwise you'll cut everybody off who's doing a normal downwind.

Just something to keep in mind. Turning crosswind should be done at a certain position, maybe a mile or so beyond the runway end, not necessarily at a certain altitude.

Oh, and about not turning below 500': I was lined up in front of a 737. I got my takeoff clearance with "immediate right turn towards XXX". Literally as soon as my wheels left the ground the 737 got its takeoff clearance. My turn to XXX was completed before I got to 50'....

[airpolice]

Turning crosswind should be done at a certain position, maybe a mile or so beyond the runway end,


It would be a funny old world if we were all the same.....but it's a funny old world anyway.

A mile or so beyond? WTF? That's not a circuit, it's a short cross country!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

In general it's good practice to climb straight ahead to at least 500 feet before turning.
There may also be local rules. Cambridge is "500' or airfield boundary whichever is later".

[Jan Olieslagers]

Shy Torque,
You guessed quite right that my experience of of dead-side joins is zero. Actually the procedure was unknown to me, never mentioned in my training, and I only came to have an idea of it - probably inexact - through perusing these pages.
Actually I am one of those who should - according to some - subscribe with "inexperienced beginner pilot".
So I can consider the differences theoretically, even so my doubts remain:
-) the overhead join is done ABOVE circuit altitude, allowing a wider field of sight than the deadside join, which I understand to be done AT circuit altitude
-) overhead joins are done from a 360° "origin", spreading the risk of collision over a wider area. The deadside join can only be done from a 180° field limited by the extended runway axis. Whether this is a pro or con can be discussed.

Also, I fail to see the relevance of the blind spot under one's plane. It does exist, for sure, but why should it be any more dangerous at some phases of flight than at others?

Thank you for discussing patiently - I am learning again!

[L'aviateur]

Jan,
Overhead joins are ideal for unfamiliar fields, particularly those without a/g radio. It gives you chance to work out whats going on, who is where and just get a good situational awareness. At a familiar field, where you know what it is going on and can see the traffic easily I don't see the problem with joining directly into the circuit.

[Anonystude]

Actually, 'deadside' joins let you see the signals square just fine. But if you're doing one, you already know the runway in use. So why do you need a signals square? In fact, apart from non-radio ac, does anyone, honestly, still use those useless things? The only ones I've seen have been rusted solid and beyond repair, let alone fit for use for an aviation purpose.

They have one massive advantage -- generally you join lower than cct height on the deadside (500' vice 800'/1000'), meaning other traffic in the cct is skylined and much more visible, as opposed to trying to pick out traffic on downwind somewhere near the Le Touquet circuit when you're wallowing around in the overhead of Stapleford wondering where the other chap joining at 1000' above the cct (pretty sure that's the CAA 'standard') from the opposite direction is...

And as for the collision risk at 'Initials' (about 2nm on the extended deadside for a light single-type cct) -- that's avoided by having SA on other people joining and sorting your spacing out there, before you get back and cause carnage in the cct itself.

Admittedly this is only any good if you trust people to fly ccts at anything approaching a reasonable size, which might be why they've not caught on amongst a lot of the retired Navigators in the Belgrano...

[Jan Olieslagers]

what is "having SA" ?

[IO540]

So why do you need a signals square? In fact, apart from non-radio ac, does anyone, honestly, still use those useless things? The only ones I've seen have been rusted solid and beyond repair, let alone fit for use for an aviation purpose.I couldn't agree more.

There is a lot of non-radio traffic however, but I think they tend to fly to places where the signals square is not an issue.

SA is Situational Awareness. It can be quite important; last week I flew to Sardinia (LIEE) and we were told we were #2. I asked, more than once, "where is #1" and we had 3 pairs of eyes looking out. The ATCO could not speak English (beyond "cleared for the ILS" etc) so ignored the question. Then we were cleared to land, so we did. It turned out we were #1; #2 was an Easyjet which landed right behind us ;) I guess the 737 had us on his TCAS... essential for places like that.

[Jan Olieslagers]

So why do you need a signals square? In fact, apart from non-radio ac, does anyone, honestly, still use those useless things?They are still legally required at Belgian ultralight fields, though their operation is shaky at certain places. But in France, the SIA (their CAA) is actually encouraging a/d operators to remove them, as I was told at Saint Yan last summer by a important-looking man claiming to work at SIA.

But I do not consider them useless. How can a pilot with no radio available, either not installed or not operational or not replied to, know what runway to use? Or do you prefer the French habit of picking one's own preferred runway? Even in my very limited experience I have seen that provoke some frightening situations, even with all planes doing full radio.

[BasicService]

The SIA is the French AIS. The French CAA is called the DGAC.

[Lone_Ranger]

"How can a pilot with no radio available, either not installed or not operational or not replied to, know what runway to use?" Windsock

[Flyingmac]

DEADSIDE???? What is this obsession with overhead joins and deadside descents? A lot of the complaints we get from the local NIMBYs arise from aircraft in perfect VFR conditions with all the navaids known to man, arriving in the overhead and descending on a deadside we don't have. Straight down the village High St.

If, when an OHJ is not a requirement, getting to circuit height and joining X-wind, downwind or base is too much to handle, some further training perhaps?

[Mark1234]

Interesting! I've rather got the impression that was, shall we say strongly discouraged in this country - had never (well, almost never) done an OHJ until I moved back here. Special consideration for non-radio aside (really, how many of us are flying non radio?) I'd expect to have a good idea of wind direction (and thus runway), at any point, and a pretty good idea of runways in use etc., long before I get to the airfield.

As for the NIMBY's, I'm slightly puzzled as to why an aircraft making an approach should bother them - departing I understand, but noise footprint should be minimal on descent/approach, surely?

[peter272]

Quote:
Overhead joins can be dangerous where two aircraft are joining at a similar time.
Exactly, but they are used at the very time when the circuit is busy and (if ATC) when ATC is unable to cope. Then they just send everybody into the overhead. It is a dangerous place to be.

Remind me again how many mid-airs have happened through OHJs in the last 5 years or so?

It can be stressful, but so can joining at any point in the circuit.

[Flyingmac]

As for the NIMBY's, I'm slightly puzzled as to why an aircraft making an approach should bother them - departing I understand, but noise footprint should be minimal on descent/approach, surely?

It's not the descent. It's the re-application of power over the village on reaching circuit height that's the problem.

[Anonystude]

What kind of ground track are these people flying that makes them need to apply power whilst still deadside?

[Flyingmac]

What kind of ground track are these people flying that makes them need to apply power whilst still deadside?


I give up.

[FREDAcheck]

What kind of ground track are these people flying that makes them need to apply power whilst still deadside?I assume that's a rhetorical question? But if you want a reply: when one descends deadside, it may not always be possible to plan the descent so as to arrive back at the crosswind point overhead the runway at circuit height at the end of the descent. In fact, it's probably a good idea to be at circuit height a bit earlier, so one can have a good look around from circuit height. Hence one would apply power while still on the dead side in order to level off at circuit height.

[ShyTorque]

Remind me again how many mid-airs have happened through OHJs in the last 5 years or so?
It can be stressful, but so can joining at any point in the circuit.

Why the last 5 years? Why not remind ME? I risk assess everything I do.
I don't like overhead joins because of my perception of risk and from personal experiences. :)

Answer this: You call "Overhead, joining for runway **" as you begin your descent. You realise your transmission was almost simulataneous with that of another pilot who calls exactly the same.

You have seen no other aircraft, apart from those already in the circuit. Where do you look and what do you do to prevent an accident?

it may not always be possible to plan the descent so as to arrive back at the crosswind point overhead the runway at circuit height at the end of the descent.

Exactly. One must fit in with other aircraft in the circuit. A rigid point to actually fit in cannot possibly work on all occasions, especially if the "pattern is almost full". This is where the (level) deadside join has a big advantage, as I tried to put forward. The pilot extends upwind to pass behind traffic already downwind, where necessary.

[FREDAcheck]

I risk assess everything I do.I'd like to think we all do that.
Answer this: You call "Overhead, joining for runway **" as you begin your descent. You realise your transmission was almost simulataneous with that of another pilot who calls exactly the same.Interesting point; all you know is where they're going, which is to turn towards the dead side. Here's another question: You call "Joining downwind" and hear another call: "Downwind". Now where is the other guy:

Ahead of you or behind you? (People call downwind at very different places.)
Is he inside or outside you? (We all know people have very different views of where the downwind leg should be.)
Above you or below you? (Should be the same height, but not always true.)
Is he just turning downwind from crosswind?
Is he joining crosswind from outside the circuit, US style (not legal in the UK, but people do it.)
All you know is where they're going, which is to turn (if necessary) to some ill-defined idea of "downwind".

I'm not disagreeing with the risks of OHJ, but almost any join is likely to end up with potential ambiguity of where someone is and where they're going.

[ShyTorque]

FREDA, thanks but my question wasn't for you...

However, an aircraft calling "Downwind" is normally already in the circuit and should have made previous calls, giving other pilots a clue of their presence. I'm not advocating joining downwind as an alternative; but putting forward the disadvantage(s) of an overhead join as opposed to a deadside join.

Two aircraft can have and will continue to appear in the overhead at the same time, while the pilots are not concentrating fully on lookout, due to workload. Both pilots will be looking for the airfield and sorting out their orientation, particularly if they are not familiar with it.

When joining overhead there is no legal requirement to make a previous call. It's obviously good airmanship to call up for airfield details in advance, but many don't bother, or don't have a radio (the latter being the whole point of the procedure).

As you say, aircraft should be at the same circuit height on the downwind leg. Also, they should be in level flight, not one descending over another, in each other's blind spots, as required by an overhead join.

After seeing a few near misses at this (and other) aerial choke points, I prefer to think of alternatives.

The scenario I posted previously was one where we came extremely close to another aircraft joining in the overhead; the other nearly took our tail off from behind. We (I was not flying the aircraft) had called up with a position report for airfield details and announced our intention to make an overhead join. As my pilot flying called "Joining overhead", another aircraft also called the same, whilst almost hitting us from behind and above, and at a 90 degree angle to our track. He then cut across in front of us as he was descending more rapidly. There was no time for us to take avoiding action as he crossed behind us; we were a very few metres from a mid air collision. He hadn't seen us; he was manoeuvring in 3D whilst perhaps over-concentrating on his join procedure at the expense of looking out and not building situational awareness.

A 2D manoeuvre is, from my risk assessment and experience, less risky, in a high workload situation. The military obviously agree.

[Flyingmac]

All circuits to the south of the airfield at 700 ft. Please avoid the villages of Bubwith, Breighton and Wressle to the north-west and south-west respectively. Join on the south side of the airfield for base leg. Please be aware of the power cables on the western approach

[Jan Olieslagers]

aircraft should be at the same circuit height on the downwind leg. Also, they should be in level flight, not one descending over another, in each other's blind spots, as required by an overhead join.

Yes, the circuit height (or altitude) should be respected when entering (the beginning of) downwind. That's why I was taught to cut power after making the overhead call, to ensure a quick descent. After some marked experiences, mainly with helo's on training, I learned not to go direct from overhead (the signal square) to (beginning of) downwind, but rather to descend along the circuit, i.e. upwind and crosswind legs, and zigzag slightly so as to keep an eye on departing traffic below.

But again: this is beginner's talk.

[Flyingmac]

Yes, the circuit height (or altitude) should be respected when entering (the beginning of) downwind


Here we tend to work to a QFE, so it's height.