"CUT-LUNCH" Circuits....Or 'Minor Cross Country's'..

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

For those Flight Instructors who persist in flying a "Cut-Lunch" circuit, and costing the rest of us HEAP$$!!!!

Have a good look at this....

YouTube - ‪A Sarcastic View of Pattern Flying‬‏

:} CHEERS:=:=

[das Uber Soldat]

gotta get your 50 hours cross country somehow :E

[Bankstown Boy]

Beautiful! It's so true. My favourite combination of idiocy belongs to those RHS 5 stripe hour builders, who teach their students not only to fly the pattern around the periphery of the class D zone but also do so at minimum airspeed. ATC willing (and able - not always possible), you can generally fly a nice wide 120 kt circuit INSIDE them - FFS it's an itty bitty little airplane, not a 747!

[remoak]

Nice video, I particularly liked the 10 stripes per side (gotta do that soon at work)... but... our hero does not appear to be wearing a shoulder harness! What's that about... :}

[Captain Sand Dune]

I know a DHC 8 aint a lighty, buts what's with the 747 circuits they fly at Tamworth? You cannot tell me that one needs to fly a circuit that large to land a DHC 8!

[YPJT]

:D Should be mandatory viewing for everyone doing instructor courses.

[Capn Bloggs]

Griffo,

Circuits have to be that big to give "normal" aeroplanes enough time to follow you around without running you over! :}

[in-cog-nito]

Been using this video during I.R. training for a while now. I love the way the number of bars keeps growing everytime they show the dude.

I think half the problem is with the juniors that normally end up teaching this lesson are flat out trying to keep up with what the student is doing and what the traffic is doing while trying to monitor what's going on with the radio.

By time they have pattered to trim for S&L on crosswind before turning downwind they have flown a 4 mile leg.

It's up to the CFIs and mentoring senior instructors who should remedy this problem.

Just my two bobs worth
In-cog

[Gen. Anaesthetic]

Captain,

They're the same circuits we fly anywhere else. 1500 foot circuits 'cos that's what the rules say, 30 seconds past the threshold, turn base aiming for about a 800-1000 foot gate as you turn final depending on where you're at on the profile. The final gate is that you have to be stable by 500 feet.

You're right, the Dash aint a 747, but we have these things called an FDR and EGPWS. If we make our circuits too small there's too much risk we end up getting squawked at by the EGPWS (sink rate, sink rate!), or someone gives us a call a few weeks later to say we busted stable approach parameters and for that we will be punished. It's actually really easy to bust these parameters, particularly in the Q400 because it goes a bit quicker in the circuit than the 200/300. Things like vertical speed no more than -1000 fpm, airspeed Vref to Vref plus 20 and so on. If you think about it, we can be doing sometimes up to 160 knots groundspeed on base (with a bit of tailwind), so for a 3 degree path that's about 800 fpm descent. If you're high you're going to bust the 1000 fpm restriction pretty easily so it makes sense to give yourself some room to re-intercept the vertical path gently. The other thing is that because you are going reasonably quickly around the circuit you don't have a lot of time to make lateral adjustments as required. You need to be on the money every time. Also, power: if you are off the vertical path a power adjustment might be required. With around 5000 hp per engine (on the Q400) it doesn't take much to see your airspeed go racing away or a big balloon going on, particularly with flaps fully extended.

And then, if you do have to go around for whatever reason, the performance of the aircraft means you have arms legs flying around all over the place getting re-configured while trying to stay ahead of the aircraft. The performance of the Q400 in particular is pretty awesome, and we can be back into the circuit in no time flat. But at night time, in average weather the challenge levels increase significantly. To cut a long story short, we don't want to end up in a situation where you have to go around. Don't get me wrong, a missed approach is not really a big deal but there is more risk in having to do a missed approach than there is in just getting the approach nailed the first time.

So as it is, I would suggest it's a reasonable challenge for the average pilot to land one of these things without busting the parameters. Indeed I remember my first attempt when I was training; it was a complete balls up!

Hence the large circuits.

I'm with you though; if we could I would much rather throw it around like a smaller aircraft, particularly now that I am pretty comfortable with the aircraft, but it's just not practical. It just is not a light aircraft anymore. The control responsiveness is not the same and you are dealing with much more inertia. Furthermore we have to do things in a way that is consistent and allows pilots of all experience levels and abilities a reasonable chance of achieving a safe approach. For newbies on the aircraft the circuit can still be quite a challenge.

If I haven't explained it well here I apologise. It's something I do think about often though, as I am sure people do wonder what is going on, particularly when there are other light aircraft who are trying to do circuit training. I sometimes even get the sense that our colleagues in smaller turbo-props don't quite get it. That's ok, I'll always try and fit in with what's going on, even if it does mean I have to do an orbit or whatever. I know when I used to fly smaller aircraft I never could understand what the big deal was.

Occasionally I hear stories of people who give us attitude because of their perception that we as big boys tend to push our way in. Speaking for myself, and indeed I think I can speak on behalf of my other colleagues because I have flown with nearly all of them (in NSW/VIC anyway), we do not carry some sense of being the big boys in town and everyone must get out of our way. Quite the opposite. When we are coming into a circuit and are presented with other traffic our first thought is always how we are going to work with this traffic to find a solution that works for everyone. But we have lots of other stuff to be thinking about too, so if a plan goes awry and things don't work out the way we expect and we put someone's nose out of joint, then please accept our apologies. It was not the intention to p$#ss you off.

By way of a story that demonstrates all this, I'll take the opportunity to apologise to some lighties that were doing circuits on RWY 05 at Wagga last week. We were coming in from Sydney and had the same overhead ETA as a SAAB coming in from the south. Easy. Let the SAAB go first as it would go straight in while we were doing the circuit. At about 4 miles to the northeast we were turning to join downwind at 1500', with one lighty on base, another touching down, and another on upwind about to turn crosswind (BTW the lighties were gracious in indicating that they would give way to both of us t-props while they would maneuver to stay clear). It was looking like things were going to work out fairly well. Lighty on base could land before SAAB, SAAB number 2, then us and the remaining 2 lighties. It didn't work out that way: We ended up having to extend our downwind to the limit of the circling area, while one of the lighties did (I think) 2 orbits while waiting for us to land. In retrospect it could have been done better (the orbiting lighty could have gone before us), but the R/T time and possibility of confusion made it not worth pursuing at that late stage in the game. We had too many other things to focus on.

Enough from me. I hope that explains it..

[Old Akro]

Some of the best airmanship training I have done has been flying illegal circuits. "Aircraft carrier" approaches and barbell circuits (landing both ways on a nil wind morning). No saying where or in what aircraft, but it teaches judgement & flying skill, not ability to follow procedures & rote learning.

[Capn Bloggs]

"Aircraft carrier" approaches and barbell circuits (landing both ways on a nil wind morning). No saying where or in what aircraft
YPJT, 1974. With the tower operating. Huge fun and great learning/experience. :ok:

30 seconds past the threshold
No wonder you're worried about the EGPWS! :ooh:

[in-cog-nito]

I know want you mean Old Akro, and you get away with at a counrty strip.
As long as the student understands the objective you want to achieve is better awareness and enchanced skill building. Something the city drivers and sausage factory clones would see as being a cowboy..or cowgirl.

[Worrals in the wilds]

barbell circuits (landing both ways on a nil wind morning).
I got taught those a while ago at Archerfield by a bloke with many years experience in PNG. They were some of the most valuable flying lessons I ever had, and I was a much more confident pilot after that (although I didn't stick with the flying).

I didn't know they were illegal; he just called the tower and asked for permission because there wasn't any other traffic. Maybe he had them bluffed :ooh:.

[Mike Litoris]

I did some flying out of Parafield and was quite interested to note the different circuit techniques of the different users. The grobs and tobagos seemed to fly appropriately sized circuits and most of the other circuit users seemed to feel the urge to use the entirety of the (at the time) GAAP zone...

When I was flying out of Parafield, the Tobagos were not a problem. The Grobs on the other hand flew massive circuits. At the time I was given the impression that it was the type of a/c, low ROC etc.

Maybe it was the (then) Grob instructors trying to log extra hours? and now its the instructors flying the other assorted a/c increasing their TT?

[Aerodynamisist]

Mike there is a massive disparity between the glide performance of a grob and a Tobago, the grob is one of the best gliding primary trainers (have only flown one once but was impressed) the toboggan on the other hand (which I have instructed many hours in) glides like a crowbar. Perhaps this explains the different pattern, I'm not saying that it's right though all lighties should fly a similar pattern.

Great video GRIFFO it reflects a view I have expressed many times usually when I do I hear my least favourite line "thats how they do it in the airlines".

[Howard Hughes]

Gen A nice post, but I am still left wondering how a 1500' circuit makes your circuit bigger? Do you not just start the decent from circuit altitude earlier to pick up the profile?

[The Baron]

Good Video. I fly a jet into places that don't always have ATC and, Yes there is a problem. But it's not just a lightie problem. At least most people will give you a wide berth. Often the problem is sitting to my right. I would estimate a fair percentage of jet pilots either can't or are uncomfortable with flying a visual circuit. They haven't received decent training at a basic stage and it shows. Some of them even try to program the FMC so they can do it with the autopilot in. I try and enter a circuit at about 180 kts with some flap and flight idle and aim to fly about a 1.5 to 2 nm spaced VISUAL circuit. That means I look outside. It's just an aeroplane, make it go where you want it to go. Look outside first and listen before trying to separate by talking on the radio and keep it tight and spend minimum time on the runway.

[rmcdonal]

Do you not just start the decent from circuit altitude earlier to pick up the profile? You could, but that may mean you are intercepting final near the 500ft mark (assuming you tightened the whole lot up), company policy is fairly strict on what happens from 500ft (thanks CASA and the stable approach policy) and if you miss judged it you would be forced to go-around and try again. A lot of the flying is set out in the company manuals and any deviation from those manuals is frowned upon.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Gen. Anaesthetic,
Thanks for going to the effort of coming up with a comprehensive answer. If I read your response correctly, the aircraft itself could handle a tighter circuit quite easily, but the parameters imposed by the FDR and EGPWS produce the excessively large circuits we see you fly. That's progress I guess!

[splitty]

Hell if guys car'nt be taught to land off a CCT with no Power then what chance have they Got when the Fan stops ? I was taught that way many years ago in all sorts of Aircraft never has let me down yet!:hmm:

[mtrench]

Whoever made the comment about the dash-8 space shuttle ccts at Tamworth, you are forgetting that we have SOP's to comply with and other such things in the plane that prevent us from doing tight/cutting corner ccts.

Coming from GA i used to hate when people would be stupidly slow and taking their sweet time in the cct, but you have to remember we have standard operating procedures, stable approach requirements and EGPWS to content with, meaning if you do cut corners and try do a tight cct, then we could most likely jeopardise safety and end up having to fill in a lot of paperwork. For the extra minute or two that it takes, its not a big deal overall.

Anyway, just thought i would add that in.

[Howard Hughes]

then we could most likely jeopardise safety and end up having to fill in a lot of paperwork.
If you can't do a tight circuit without needing to fill out paperwork, then perhaps you are in the wrong game!

It is entirely possible to do a safe, tight, 1500ft circuit, comply with stabilised approach requirements, turn final at 7-800 feet and not exceed EGPWS parameters! :ok:

[morno]

Agree HH. I've never had the EGPWS yelling anything at me when I've done a tight 1,500ft circuit in the B200. Agree that it's a tad slower than the Smash 8, but overall that wouldn't make a great deal of difference. The boys (and girls) in the 737's don't seem to have any problems and they fly circuits about the same size as some Dash 8 drivers!

Maybe it's time for the Sunstate and Eastern Flight Standards Department to take that carrot from their ass and stop being so anal.

morno

[aileron_69]

I remember flying into Koolan Island one day 4 or 5 years ago when the wind was fair howling straight down rwy 23 amongst a gaggle of 8 or 10 aircraft. I was about the 5th or 6th aircraft and as I came onto downwind I saw the first one continue on for ages before turning base, then each one ahead of me got progressively wider and wider until by the time I followed the one in front of me onto finals I looked at the GPS and saw that I was 6nm out to sea!!
It seems that there is also a lack of understanding of the effect of wind on an approach as the first rooster in there set the bar went so far downwind he had himself set up for a tailwind landing.
I asked him why such a big circuit when we got on the ground, to which he replied "When i advance up the ranks to fly a Jet, thats the circuit I will fly, so thats how I fly now" :ugh: I would have thought fly the circuit according to the aircraft u are in, not what u may be flying in 27.4 years time!!:mad:
All I can say of that day is, i'm glad it was a company requirement to wear lifejackets and not just stow them under the seat!!

[Howard Hughes]

Agree that it's a tad slower than the Smash 8,
Hi Morno, both Cat B so speed should be fairly close, in my experience you'd think the Dash 8 was slower, with the exception of the Q400 of course!;)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Quote:
Agree that it's a tad slower than the Smash 8,
Hi Morno, both Cat B so speed should be fairly close, in my experience you'd think the Dash 8 was slower, with the exception of the Q400 of course!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gifJust like the Bonanza, huh! :E

Dr :8

[Xcel]

Aip 41.1.5 Pilots may vary the size of the circuit depending on: a. the performance of the aircraft, b. safety reasons: or c. in accordance with the Aircraft Flight Manual, Pilot's Operating Handbook, or company Standard Operating Procedures.

In saying that we operate with 1- 1.5nm cct only does the base turn extend slightly past so as to roll out on finals at 500' - never have gpws problems except if we need to inhibit when the airport isn't in the database :ok:

[SuperStinker]

showed this vid to some of the boys in the tower, they were over the moon, one of them said can you send 3000 copies to C&H!!!

[john_tullamarine]

"thats how they do it in the airlines".

I don't recall the 727/737 needing to stand out very far or go all that far past the threshold. We had FDRs and GPWS and never had any notable problems ?

[aileron_69]

Maybe the large circuits are to give the pilot more time to turn the fuel pump and landing lights on....that can take a long time :E

[Gen. Anaesthetic]

HH, Captain, et al,

First off, Q400 is Cat C actually.

The other thing I will mention is that the EGPWS in the Q400 is rather sensitive. It has a habit of going off too easily. The company is aware of this and is undertaking a software change with the manufacturer to fix it. I had a "terrain terrain" annunciation the other day, and we were only 1 dot low on the PAPI! Also, it makes sense for procedures to be as consistent as possible between the 200/300 and 400, so that transition between the two is not such a big deal. The 200/300 is indeed more nimble than the Q400 but I am always glad to see that people are pretty comfortable procedurally when they come over to the Q400.

For the jet drivers out there, do you use autothrust through the circuit? There may be a difference there too, as obviously the dash doesn't have a/t. Having completed the downwind leg and ready to descend we turn off the autopilot and it's all manual from there.

You're right, we can and indeed sometimes do tighter circuits when doing circling approaches off an instrument approach, usually rolling out at around 500 feet. No EGPWS squawks and no FDR issues, but the idea is that under visual conditions there's no point in taking out the fudge factor and unnecessarily requiring a go-around if things get a bit sloppy, not to mention the issues with VFR traffic. This might seem a little counter-intuitive: if we can do them, why not do them regularly so we are well practised when it's time to do them in anger? The difference is primarily the visual conditions and the potential for conflict with VFR traffic. On occasion we do practise low level circuits in visual conditions, as long as we are confident there is no one around.

I have actually experienced a case of the 1500 circuit being quite useful. Coming into a regional port one day after making all the usual CTAF calls, discovered a 182 on downwind with us but 500 feet below. He later professed that his radio must not have been working but I was also told that this person has a bit of a habit of trying to avoid landing charges. Needless to say I had a few choice words with the fellow...

And yeah, you'll often find guys who are quite comfortable to turn in before the 30 seconds is up, but in doing that you have to be considerate of the person in the other seat: are they comfortable with such a maneuver? I can always sense when someone is getting a little nervy beside me and their quality of support is reducing as a result. I'll admit I do it from time to time, but only once making sure that the other person is comfortable to do so.

I keep on coming up with little ideas to add, but I promise this will be the last: B200 is single crew, Dash is 2 crew. This makes a significant difference. You have to take the time to make sure both pilots are on the same page and working together. This can be a frustrating reality at times for us ex-GA drivers but it simply takes more time. To use someone's apparently facetious example, to turn on fuel pumps requires someone to turn them on and someone to check that it's done correctly. This takes mental energy and time; you are focusing on what you are doing as well as what someone else is doing. It's not so much a conscious thing, it's something you're just tracking out the corner of your eye, and you would be surprised how often a stuff-up gets made. The potential for both pilots to get loaded up is there.

I guess ultimately it's about knowing your and your crew's limits and working within them. And if you are going to do something different to the standard procedure, you want to be bloody sure you are going to get it right or those buggars upstairs will want a word or three with you!

[aileron_69]

To use someone's apparently facetious example


Yeah I think the general thrust of this whole thread is about single engined light aircraft doing circuits that would be easily big enough for a Q400 or even a jet when they should be flying a circuit commesurate with the aircraft of which they are sitting in.
I think its pretty much understood that bigger planes do bigger circuits, but little planes doing big circuits is retarded. This was what my fuel pump comment was aimed at.

[Tee Emm]

Having completed the downwind leg and ready to descend we turn off the autopilot and it's all manual from there.

OMG! You fly manual on base and final? Isn't that a bit dangerous what with the F/O getting over-loaded trying to monitor you:E

[Hot High Heavy]

MFS / Oxford used to be the classics for for flying jet circuits in Moorabbin (not sure if its still the case as havent flown there since finishing training). I guess glass cockpit C172's require downwind legs, 3-5nm off the runway to facilitate all the button pressing and fancy 'multicrew procedures' that they do. :ugh:

Really wanted to hear some aspiring jet jockey call "XXX, C172 Heavy.." one day for a good laugh!

[Di_Vosh]

Plenty of schools at MB still fly huge circuits.

Not uncommon to see aircraft turning base over Southland (over 2Nm from the airport).

On a southerly day it's common to see aircraft with a downwind spacing that will have them on the bay side of Nepean highway by early-downwind. For those that aren't locals, that's around a 2.5Nm downwind spacing

(When I used to fly there I could keep my downwind along Warrigal road)

DIVOSH!

[FokkerInYour12]

What methods do all you guys use to inform such aircraft of the error of their ways?

[Di_Vosh]

I didn't.

Not much point really. All I'd do is request from the traffic in front (or the tower at MB) that I'd like to do a tighter circuit inside their circuit. Never had an issue with either MB tower or the other traffic.

IMHO, 'having a word' can escalate to similar to road-rage.

I've had a 'few words' in the circuit (or on the ground) to other pilots about their procedures. More to do with joining on base at night at MB, entering and slow backtracking when I'm turning base (forcing me to go around), no calls at all on a CTAF, etc. All I've ever got in return was abuse. I've spoken to flying schools about some of their aircraft. About the best response I've had was "What do you expect us to do?"

DIVOSH!

[ResumeOwnNav]

The EGPWS calling ''too low flaps, too low gear, terrain terrain pull up'' is nearly an everyday occurrence in PNG Dash 8 ops.

The hosties complain about how loud the voice is.

[Xcel]

If your doing ccts with these guys - a few approaches I used to use were-

Turn early crosswind, or request low level cct... To remain inside them
Second was a request for any of the following from tower -
Taf for nearby airport in the direction of ridiculous cct
Ask if sartime is required on this nav
Request vectors back to the field as you turn base
When you get to a normal spacing ask tower if the preceding traffic has turned as you've lost visual ( even when you can clearly see them)

Lastly confirm you are following xxxx aircraft as they appear to be departing for xxxx

Or a simple request to the aircraft wouldn't go a stray...

P.s Resume - I'm surprised you still don't use the tried and tested "inhibit" approach...

[ReverseFlight]

Of course FTOs who are training airline cadets (Parafield etc) or keen wannabes (Moorabbin etc) must fly enormous circuits for two main reasons:

1. They have to get used to flying Boeing/Airbus circuits sooner rather than later anyway.

2. By extending each circuit by 0.1 hour and therefore less circuits per lesson, the student will need more circuit lessons which helps the instructor expedite his 1500 hour target for applying to the airlines.

:ugh:

[Dreamflyer1000]

for MASSIVE circuits, pay a visit to the boys at CTC in NZHN...5 mile finals in a 172...c'mon guys...seriously??

[Tankengine]

Funny thing is, in the Airlines we do a "heavy" circuit with a 2 mile offset from centerline at 1500' and roll out on a 2 mile final.
For airline cadets to learn properly they need to do 1000' circuits at the same angle so closer than 1.5 miles. :E
It's all about the instructors and their instructors etc teaching crap over many years!:ugh:
This was going on 30 years ago and will no doubt continue.:ugh:

[ThePaperBoy]

It's all about the instructors and their instructors etc teaching crap over many years!:ugh:
This was going on 30 years ago and will no doubt continue.


Yes, poor mentoring over the years has a lot to do with it. However, the CFIs and ATOs have a lot to answer for when it comes to improving the standard of instructing and living in the real world.

Many instructors have taught Qantas cadets who are required to pass a flight test with a certain QLD-based ATO. This guy pushes the 3 deg profile methodology and believes the approach should involve a fair bit of power. His words to a group of instructors one day was (roughly) "in jets they have to approach with a large amount of power on. They can't do low-powered approaches, otherwise the engines wouldn't be able to spool up in time in the case of a go around. I want students to use this powered approach technique". What do you think happened if a student flew a circuit like most of us know is possible in a typical light GA aircraft? They failed the approach/landing part of the flight test.

I think this belief is a little extreme - I like to sit in the middle of this whole debate. Yes, you need to fly a circuit and approach that is applicable to the aeroplane you are flying - it is a PA28, not a 737. However, getting a student into good aimpoint/airspeed habits early on is also important.

Poor form is instructors teaching:
- Wide, slow circuits, which holds everyone else up in an attempt to achieve a 3 deg profile on final (sure, it takes a few lessons to get the pattern down-pat, but don't let the habit continue!).
- Close circuits with a steep approach angle and little/no power because "you never know when the engine is going to fail!".

We teach people circuits so they can learn what power/attitude/aimpoint/configuration leads to a safe and stable approach/landing, not only now, but for their future flying as well. How many accidents have occurred over the years because of a poor approach? How many deaths? Now compare that to how many deaths have occurred because the engine failed in the circuit? We're not flying Tigermoths anymore! Yes, be safe, but think about the big picture when teaching people circuits.

There seems to be a fair bit of penis measuring in the previous posts. To those heros boasting because they can fly a tight circuit - get your hand off it.

[RadioSaigon]

To those heros boasting because they can fly a tight circuit - get your hand off it...

hmmm... just who's hand is "on it" I wonder...

Whilst you make some good and valid points in the bulk of your post, your final phrases have me wondering at the latent jealousy/anger apparent there. Do you have trouble flying a tight circuit TPB? Why the hostility???

It may surprise you that there are places on this fair planet that, what are known as "Canterbury Circuits" where I come from are not only not recommended best practice, they can be dangerous and in some places are quite impossible. You have no choice but to fly an appropriate, comfortable easily controlled circuit without ever venturing much more than 0.5 - 1.0NM from the landing area. In some places you may find yourself doing so in a stream of aircraft, often including 172, 206, 207, 208, BN2, PA31, 402 -not to mention the rotary wing, and sometime Nomad & Twotter. That stream may comprise up to 40-50 individual airframes at a time, and everybody contributes equally to a smooth and expeditious flow. There are even aircraft joining the E-W circuit pattern from the S -at mid-downwind, circuit altitude. The whole turn-around from aircraft inbound to aircraft outbound within the flow can take place for all those aircraft within 60 minutes. The "tight" (I think of it as "comfortable") circuit is utterly dictated by terrain. All it takes to disrupt that smooth flow is one poorly-briefed or totally unprepared individual who tries to "stretch" things to compensate their lack of preparedness -or lack of ability to expect and get appropriate performance from themselves and their aircraft.

Whilst I have never met you QLD ATO -nor ever attempted to fly a 3deg glide-slope VFR, I am firmly of the belief that the students' training should progress in degrees of difficulty until they can appropriately and competently fly a circuit to meet the demands of whatever aircraft or situation they are likely to find themselves in. That will include 3deg glide-slopes (probably IFR is most appropriate for that?), sight-picture circuits that encompass the changes in sight-picture with varying runway lengths and widths, as well as your position and altitude on the approach, "tight" circuits which I personally think of as a basic tenet of airmanship and courtesy to other airspace users, and -dare I say it- space-shuttle approaches that may be appropriate to certain airframes, locations and circumstances.

It's all "horses for courses" -what's strapped to your arse right now, where you intend taking it, what it's (and you are!!!) capable of and what do you need to do with it.

Teaching a student just one approach variant is doing them a major disservice. 3deg glideslopes, stabilised approaches, 5-mile final circuits et al in a bug-smasher are a nonsense and indefensible. These candidates may spend the next 10 years in GA before ever getting to "use" their 747-size circuits in anger. Isn't it everyone's responsibility to fly appropriately to what you're in and where?

I certainly think it is.

[ThePaperBoy]

No, there's no jealousy. As you say there's a time and a place for tight circuits. I'm not going to bite by discussing my experience or ability.

[Xcel]

3 degree slope rolling out at 500' = 1.5nm

so what's the reason for 3nm ccts? Even this arguement doesn't stack up