Huge circuits at Moorabbin and Point Cook
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"They are certainly not ready for solo"
Blue Hauler, totally agree.
But there are plenty of newbies doing circuits at MB having not going solo.
At one time there were 7 today.... yes, it does get busy.
Blue Hauler, totally agree.
But there are plenty of newbies doing circuits at MB having not going solo.
At one time there were 7 today.... yes, it does get busy.
Moderator
Had a coffee with Centaurus today and this subject, naturally enough, came up in discussion.
It occurred to me that a review of the regs etc might throw some light in amongst the shadows, particularly in regard to the feasibility of mixing normal circuits with these dreadfully wide, longwinded ones.
I have no legal competence, but, with reference to CAR(1988), the following seems a reasonable position to me (presuming that I have my citations correct) ....
160 suggests that the right angle intercept with the bandit on a wide base is not "overtaking"
161(1) suggests that there must be a reasonable distance between the aircraft during a "cutting-in" or an overtaking procedure
162(1) imposes the main separation responsibility on the pilot of the inside aircraft
162(3) has to be read with a modicum of commonsense application for the faster aircraft overtaking on the left on upwind, crosswind, (or even base, in the case of someone on a world tour base leg)
162(5) infers that the wide aircraft doesn't get any special priority until the aircraft is on final
162(6) infers no special priority applies until the wide aircraft is on final
163(1) requires the pilot "cutting-in" to be reasonably cautious considering separation distance
166(1)(b) requires that one operate generally in conformity with circuit direction and height and fit in with other aircraft
166(1)(c) requires the normal before base turn circuit join OCTA, AIP straight-in concessions aside
166(1)(f) limits how close in an aircraft can turn final
Clearly, sensible risk management (ie "safety") has to be the overriding concern at all times and it is silly to operate with other than comfortable physical separation distances between the aircraft concerned. Equally, as the circuit traffic density increases, being increasingly predictable enhances the game for everyone ... so one tends to move toward follow the leader in these circumstances.
My Pilot Joe interpretation is that, provided one doesn't cause a traffic conflict in terms of collision risk, one can operate in the circuit inside the wide flying bandits (OCTA, and with permission in CTR) and "cut-in" (if it be safe to do so) until the other aircraft is on a normal final. In the case of a slow aircraft on a sensible downwind, I see no reason why, if there is plenty of room, I cannot overtake on the right, say, mid downwind and then reposition as the lead aircraft on late downwind, or turn a slightly wider downwind distance onto a normal base leg. Subject to any local specific ERSA requirements, in the case of GAAP with low traffic density and in the absence of an ATC sequencing instruction, I see no reason why I can't do the same thing - and I can always request a change to a sequencing instruction if the situation reasonably suits.
"Cutting-in" on an aircraft on final is probably a bit stupid unless the bandit is halfway to the next aerodrome and would be a poor risk management strategy in general. However, I can't see a major problem with upping my position by passing sensibly on downwind, or turning base inside the bandit, provided at all times that I don't cause the other pilot(s) a separation problem or unnecessary operational angst .... and, with the distance from the runway at which some of these pilots fly, the other pilot possibly wouldn't even notice that someone had jumped the queue.
Perhaps the legal eagles would have a more prescriptive interpretation .. maybe the question ought to be directed at the CASA OLC in Canberra.
How do others see my views ?
It occurred to me that a review of the regs etc might throw some light in amongst the shadows, particularly in regard to the feasibility of mixing normal circuits with these dreadfully wide, longwinded ones.
I have no legal competence, but, with reference to CAR(1988), the following seems a reasonable position to me (presuming that I have my citations correct) ....
160 suggests that the right angle intercept with the bandit on a wide base is not "overtaking"
161(1) suggests that there must be a reasonable distance between the aircraft during a "cutting-in" or an overtaking procedure
162(1) imposes the main separation responsibility on the pilot of the inside aircraft
162(3) has to be read with a modicum of commonsense application for the faster aircraft overtaking on the left on upwind, crosswind, (or even base, in the case of someone on a world tour base leg)
162(5) infers that the wide aircraft doesn't get any special priority until the aircraft is on final
162(6) infers no special priority applies until the wide aircraft is on final
163(1) requires the pilot "cutting-in" to be reasonably cautious considering separation distance
166(1)(b) requires that one operate generally in conformity with circuit direction and height and fit in with other aircraft
166(1)(c) requires the normal before base turn circuit join OCTA, AIP straight-in concessions aside
166(1)(f) limits how close in an aircraft can turn final
Clearly, sensible risk management (ie "safety") has to be the overriding concern at all times and it is silly to operate with other than comfortable physical separation distances between the aircraft concerned. Equally, as the circuit traffic density increases, being increasingly predictable enhances the game for everyone ... so one tends to move toward follow the leader in these circumstances.
My Pilot Joe interpretation is that, provided one doesn't cause a traffic conflict in terms of collision risk, one can operate in the circuit inside the wide flying bandits (OCTA, and with permission in CTR) and "cut-in" (if it be safe to do so) until the other aircraft is on a normal final. In the case of a slow aircraft on a sensible downwind, I see no reason why, if there is plenty of room, I cannot overtake on the right, say, mid downwind and then reposition as the lead aircraft on late downwind, or turn a slightly wider downwind distance onto a normal base leg. Subject to any local specific ERSA requirements, in the case of GAAP with low traffic density and in the absence of an ATC sequencing instruction, I see no reason why I can't do the same thing - and I can always request a change to a sequencing instruction if the situation reasonably suits.
"Cutting-in" on an aircraft on final is probably a bit stupid unless the bandit is halfway to the next aerodrome and would be a poor risk management strategy in general. However, I can't see a major problem with upping my position by passing sensibly on downwind, or turning base inside the bandit, provided at all times that I don't cause the other pilot(s) a separation problem or unnecessary operational angst .... and, with the distance from the runway at which some of these pilots fly, the other pilot possibly wouldn't even notice that someone had jumped the queue.
Perhaps the legal eagles would have a more prescriptive interpretation .. maybe the question ought to be directed at the CASA OLC in Canberra.
How do others see my views ?
Last edited by john_tullamarine; 4th May 2002 at 08:22.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JT,
Unfortunately 'cutting-in' is not an option at Morabbin. The Melbourne visual pilot guide - fixed wing at page 34 instructs:
5 Care should also be taken to maintain your position in the sequence and to ensure you do not "cut inside" other traffic. If unsure, ask the tower for the position of the preceding aircraft. This will be given to you either as its position in the circuit, or its position relative to yours. eg. "Aircraft is in your 2 o'clock low". If in doubt, tell the tower.
Unfortunately 'cutting-in' is not an option at Morabbin. The Melbourne visual pilot guide - fixed wing at page 34 instructs:
5 Care should also be taken to maintain your position in the sequence and to ensure you do not "cut inside" other traffic. If unsure, ask the tower for the position of the preceding aircraft. This will be given to you either as its position in the circuit, or its position relative to yours. eg. "Aircraft is in your 2 o'clock low". If in doubt, tell the tower.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day all,
I had the pleasure of flying into Pt Cook about a month or so ago and one of the criticisms I have is that after giving several calls on the MBZ freq, no body responded. Radar advised me before I switched to MBZ that there were multiple paints in the cct area. No one responded and trying to slot in was impossible. Even after some one graciously let me in front of them at base there were another 3 down final and as I could not slow down to match their speeds I had to keep goin round. Finally some kind gentlemen suggested to all in sundry that they maintain 1500ft till I was down.
My main points of the post, are : please talk on MBZ freq to visiting incoming aircraft, and please be aware that a faster traveling aircraft will not be able to slot in if there are 3 or 4 ahead on final.
Ciao for now.
I had the pleasure of flying into Pt Cook about a month or so ago and one of the criticisms I have is that after giving several calls on the MBZ freq, no body responded. Radar advised me before I switched to MBZ that there were multiple paints in the cct area. No one responded and trying to slot in was impossible. Even after some one graciously let me in front of them at base there were another 3 down final and as I could not slow down to match their speeds I had to keep goin round. Finally some kind gentlemen suggested to all in sundry that they maintain 1500ft till I was down.
My main points of the post, are : please talk on MBZ freq to visiting incoming aircraft, and please be aware that a faster traveling aircraft will not be able to slot in if there are 3 or 4 ahead on final.
Ciao for now.
Under the GAAP procedures for Bankstown in ERSA it states...
If YSBK has it, why not others? 
Unless otherwise advised by ATC, circuit training OPS are to be confined within a 2NM radius of the ARP.
Last edited by Wing Root; 8th May 2002 at 11:08.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BK GAAP - ERSA
Unfortunately, Wing Root, the bulk of the time at BK, ATC instruct you to "follow" an aircraft that has decided to log a nav as part of their circuit training .. therefore "advised by ATC", circuits get bigger and bigger, until there is no way one could make the field if the engine failed 
. Night time is the worst for this situation, and quite a dreadful thought when putting around the circuit out of glide range, trying to remember what those black patches of ground looked like during the day ... whether one would survive a landing there...
Sometimes ATC will ask aircraft to "tighten" the circuit pattern, but as someone else has mentioned earlier in this thread, one can fit more aircraft (more $$ landing fee) into a circuit that is bigger.
I do however agree that ERSA should state circuits within 2nm at all these GAAPs (unless advised by ATC of course).
. Night time is the worst for this situation, and quite a dreadful thought when putting around the circuit out of glide range, trying to remember what those black patches of ground looked like during the day ... whether one would survive a landing there...Sometimes ATC will ask aircraft to "tighten" the circuit pattern, but as someone else has mentioned earlier in this thread, one can fit more aircraft (more $$ landing fee) into a circuit that is bigger.
I do however agree that ERSA should state circuits within 2nm at all these GAAPs (unless advised by ATC of course).
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Glass Gumtree
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: YSBK ERSA
Wing Root and Kez...
The reason for BK's 2nm radius is to do with separation from the YSSY CTR, specificly the RWY 07 LOC tolerance splay at YSSY.
If you are given an instruction to follow and cannot, then say so (as stated in AIP), with a reason, if nessesary. ie...
...unable to follow (said idiot) preceeding due to them flying a cross navex....
It will help the situation as two points of the same view will be relayed to the offending acft. Personally, if an acft cannot comply with procedures it will be landed, including dangerously wide circuits.
The reason for BK's 2nm radius is to do with separation from the YSSY CTR, specificly the RWY 07 LOC tolerance splay at YSSY.
If you are given an instruction to follow and cannot, then say so (as stated in AIP), with a reason, if nessesary. ie...
...unable to follow (said idiot) preceeding due to them flying a cross navex....
It will help the situation as two points of the same view will be relayed to the offending acft. Personally, if an acft cannot comply with procedures it will be landed, including dangerously wide circuits.
This works fairly well for about 5 or 6 in the circuit if everyone has similar performance aircraft, flying racetrack circuits, ie continuous turns on downwind and base:
Turn crosswind at 500 ft AGL or as soon after as lookout and traffic permit. Extend upwind until the preceding aircraft is abeam (on downwind) if you have to, to get traffic spacing.
Nobody extend downwind.
To fit more than that in, the circuit pattern would have to be bigger, but I'd say that any more than that trying to learn circuits at once is going to be wasting people's time, better off heading out to the training area to do something else.
Turn crosswind at 500 ft AGL or as soon after as lookout and traffic permit. Extend upwind until the preceding aircraft is abeam (on downwind) if you have to, to get traffic spacing.
Nobody extend downwind.
To fit more than that in, the circuit pattern would have to be bigger, but I'd say that any more than that trying to learn circuits at once is going to be wasting people's time, better off heading out to the training area to do something else.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wait Awhile
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About a month ago i went out to PC from EN for some scenic late arvo circuits in a 172. The school there, with the Piper fleet kept shoe-horning a/c into the cct until there were 7 of us. I swear i could see King Island from Base.
At least 4 of the other a/c never made base calls and cutting in on base was routine. A bummer considering i only extented so i wouldn't have to go-around.
The thing that REALLY PISSED ME OFF though, was that on VERY SHORT FINAL a taxying CHEROKEE stopped at the hold took a bit of a gander and started rolling. I went around @ 150'.
I had my lights on, i made base AND final calls, and tere were 2 other a/c on final.
There's no way he didnt know i was there.
It's never much different.
Be careful, nobody cares if you die as much as you do!
At least 4 of the other a/c never made base calls and cutting in on base was routine. A bummer considering i only extented so i wouldn't have to go-around.
The thing that REALLY PISSED ME OFF though, was that on VERY SHORT FINAL a taxying CHEROKEE stopped at the hold took a bit of a gander and started rolling. I went around @ 150'.
I had my lights on, i made base AND final calls, and tere were 2 other a/c on final.
There's no way he didnt know i was there.
It's never much different.
Be careful, nobody cares if you die as much as you do!
There is not much point in having a rule which says the circuit aircraft must stay within X nm of the ARP:
1. Low time pilot's and students probably would not know where X nm is.
2. The 2nm limit is a looong way out and allows for a curved downwind.
3. Who would monitor? ATC on radar? Yeah right. They are flat out and understaffed now.
4. Blanket, unenforceable rules are pointlesss. TEACH AIRMANSHIP!
1. Low time pilot's and students probably would not know where X nm is.
2. The 2nm limit is a looong way out and allows for a curved downwind.
3. Who would monitor? ATC on radar? Yeah right. They are flat out and understaffed now.
4. Blanket, unenforceable rules are pointlesss. TEACH AIRMANSHIP!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: "One of those" instructors at YMPC and YMMB
I have to agree myself that at times, even regularly, the circuit pattern is being flown too wide at either aerodrome.
Yes, as you are all aware, we do train Qantas cadets, Asian and obviously local pilots too. Rest assured that we do not teach students and have never taught anyone to fly wide circuits, or what is perceived to be a wide circuit. Some previous posts have referred to the students having been trained to fly wide or 'transport aircraft' type circuits so as to familiarise themselves with that type of operation. This is nonesense!
We do use SOPs and again from previous posts people have reported that our SOPs may be inadequate for a particular type of operation, in this case the circuit area. This is again not true. The SOPs are approved and we have regular CASA test surveillances and they have had no problems or comments regarding our procedures.
Students are at all times made very aware of the fact that, should they suffer an engine failure in the circuit that they should be in a position to affect a landing from pretty much any position in the circuit area bar below 700'AGL where they will consider a return to land or land in a suitable area 30deg either side of the nose.
So, why do the circuits end up wide or ridiculously wide? Well, there are many factors to be considered here. The "domino"
effect, I think is the main effect here. A student will be following an aircraft of the same category up ahead. They end up turning downwind inside of that aircraft. They instinctively think that, although the preceding aircraft is well ahead, that if they turn base that they will cut that aircraft off. So what does he/she do? - they fly wider and outside of that aircraft. The one behind will then fly wider than that one and so on. Likewise, on base. A preceding aircraft will be late base and the one turning onto base will turn and fly wider believing that there will/may be a conflict or that they may end up too close to one another. Our students are taught to level off and trim for 1000'AGL on crosswind prior to turning downwind. This I can, at times, see as being a problem if a student is a little slow in setting the aircraft up for S&L.
Reference points on the ground should not be used, as has been discussed in previous posts, for obvious reasons. Once the students are removed from the current environment those cues will not be available to them elsewhere - other aerodromes.
Obviously, the instructor conducting the solo check and further solo checks should pick this up and counsel the student on correct circuit technique, ettiquette/airmanship. THIS IS BEING DONE and I do discuss traffic seperation with my students and circuit solo students continuously. The instructors are doing the right thing here to the best of their abilities. We are all well aware that some instructors, from any company, are also sometimes responsible for flying wide circuits.
Once a student is solo, it is beyond our control, to ensure that the correct circuit pattern is being flown - to some extent. Many students do come back and comment that the circuit pattern was too wide due other company traffic or indeed that from other companies too. We are not the only ones at fault here.
The last thing any instructor wants to do is to overcritisise the students on their performance and ruin their confidence. A wider than normal circuit here and there should not be seen as a disaster in the students eyes. Confidence is everything to a student.
Also, with all due respect, think of the scenario if you had 6/7 of your own aircraft up there with two or three of ours. Certainly a similar situation would inevitably appear. Prove me wrong!
If you are unhappy with a preceding aircraft's circuit pattern, no matter from which company, advise the tower that you would like an early turn or overtake. This is not always possible at YMMB, I understand, but at YMPC I am certain that no aircraft would really mind you turning early inside of them on any leg of the circuit. Just let them know about your intentions of doing so.
So, let's please stop the bickering and moaning of one companies circuit size. We are all trying to achieve the same thing - a normal circuit. Sometimes it is just not possible to conform to the norm - I can't name them all and we will occassionally have to accept a wider than normal circuit. To the extreme, the last thing we want to happen is the circuit becoming so tight that significant incidents or even accidents start to appear.
I have to agree myself that at times, even regularly, the circuit pattern is being flown too wide at either aerodrome.
Yes, as you are all aware, we do train Qantas cadets, Asian and obviously local pilots too. Rest assured that we do not teach students and have never taught anyone to fly wide circuits, or what is perceived to be a wide circuit. Some previous posts have referred to the students having been trained to fly wide or 'transport aircraft' type circuits so as to familiarise themselves with that type of operation. This is nonesense!
We do use SOPs and again from previous posts people have reported that our SOPs may be inadequate for a particular type of operation, in this case the circuit area. This is again not true. The SOPs are approved and we have regular CASA test surveillances and they have had no problems or comments regarding our procedures.
Students are at all times made very aware of the fact that, should they suffer an engine failure in the circuit that they should be in a position to affect a landing from pretty much any position in the circuit area bar below 700'AGL where they will consider a return to land or land in a suitable area 30deg either side of the nose.
So, why do the circuits end up wide or ridiculously wide? Well, there are many factors to be considered here. The "domino"
effect, I think is the main effect here. A student will be following an aircraft of the same category up ahead. They end up turning downwind inside of that aircraft. They instinctively think that, although the preceding aircraft is well ahead, that if they turn base that they will cut that aircraft off. So what does he/she do? - they fly wider and outside of that aircraft. The one behind will then fly wider than that one and so on. Likewise, on base. A preceding aircraft will be late base and the one turning onto base will turn and fly wider believing that there will/may be a conflict or that they may end up too close to one another. Our students are taught to level off and trim for 1000'AGL on crosswind prior to turning downwind. This I can, at times, see as being a problem if a student is a little slow in setting the aircraft up for S&L.
Reference points on the ground should not be used, as has been discussed in previous posts, for obvious reasons. Once the students are removed from the current environment those cues will not be available to them elsewhere - other aerodromes.
Obviously, the instructor conducting the solo check and further solo checks should pick this up and counsel the student on correct circuit technique, ettiquette/airmanship. THIS IS BEING DONE and I do discuss traffic seperation with my students and circuit solo students continuously. The instructors are doing the right thing here to the best of their abilities. We are all well aware that some instructors, from any company, are also sometimes responsible for flying wide circuits.
Once a student is solo, it is beyond our control, to ensure that the correct circuit pattern is being flown - to some extent. Many students do come back and comment that the circuit pattern was too wide due other company traffic or indeed that from other companies too. We are not the only ones at fault here.
The last thing any instructor wants to do is to overcritisise the students on their performance and ruin their confidence. A wider than normal circuit here and there should not be seen as a disaster in the students eyes. Confidence is everything to a student.
Also, with all due respect, think of the scenario if you had 6/7 of your own aircraft up there with two or three of ours. Certainly a similar situation would inevitably appear. Prove me wrong!
If you are unhappy with a preceding aircraft's circuit pattern, no matter from which company, advise the tower that you would like an early turn or overtake. This is not always possible at YMMB, I understand, but at YMPC I am certain that no aircraft would really mind you turning early inside of them on any leg of the circuit. Just let them know about your intentions of doing so.
So, let's please stop the bickering and moaning of one companies circuit size. We are all trying to achieve the same thing - a normal circuit. Sometimes it is just not possible to conform to the norm - I can't name them all and we will occassionally have to accept a wider than normal circuit. To the extreme, the last thing we want to happen is the circuit becoming so tight that significant incidents or even accidents start to appear.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: melb.vic.aust.
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i KNOW THAT MEETINGS RE OPERATING PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN HELD AT PT COOK BEFORE, MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR ANOTHER ONE.
SAME COULD HAPPEN AT MB AND BK - I THINK THE CFI'S GOT TOGETHER AND SORTED A FEW THINGS OUT - I'M SURE THE ATC BLOKES WOULDN'T MIND BEING INCLUDED IN THE DISCUSSIONS.
BUT THEN MAYBE THIS IS THE ONLY FORUM CENTAURUS HAS LEFT TO HIM TO STIR UP A HORNETS NEST!
SAME COULD HAPPEN AT MB AND BK - I THINK THE CFI'S GOT TOGETHER AND SORTED A FEW THINGS OUT - I'M SURE THE ATC BLOKES WOULDN'T MIND BEING INCLUDED IN THE DISCUSSIONS.
BUT THEN MAYBE THIS IS THE ONLY FORUM CENTAURUS HAS LEFT TO HIM TO STIR UP A HORNETS NEST!
Thread Starter
Tea Lady. I think you are being just a tad unfair in that last comment of yours. From the replies to my first post on the subject it seems that there is growing concern (and irritation) about the wide circuit problem - in fact it seems to be happening at a few GA aerodromes where there is flying training. What you have perceived as pot-stirring was nothing more than a genuine desire to see people enjoying normal circuit practice without the insidious hidden costs involved with following the leader to greater distances from the aerodrome
The RAAF for years operated a mixture of Tiger Moths and Wirraways with often 7 aircraft in the circuit at Point Cook. The Moths had no radios and all aircraft watched for light signals from the tower on short final if things got too close. But never did pilots fly so wide as what we see nowadays and which is no joking matter anymore.
Certainly in the Tigers which have similar speeds to Cessnas and Warriors, the downwind turn was started at 800 ft which had to be done to keep the circuit the correct width. Climbing to 1000 ft on cross-wind with two aboard then fiddle-faddle about trimming before starting a gentle angle of bank on to the downwind leg will guarantee an unnecessarily wide circuit. And that is what appears to be the root cause of wide circuits - plus an unnecessarily long downwind leg as well.
The RAAF for years operated a mixture of Tiger Moths and Wirraways with often 7 aircraft in the circuit at Point Cook. The Moths had no radios and all aircraft watched for light signals from the tower on short final if things got too close. But never did pilots fly so wide as what we see nowadays and which is no joking matter anymore.
Certainly in the Tigers which have similar speeds to Cessnas and Warriors, the downwind turn was started at 800 ft which had to be done to keep the circuit the correct width. Climbing to 1000 ft on cross-wind with two aboard then fiddle-faddle about trimming before starting a gentle angle of bank on to the downwind leg will guarantee an unnecessarily wide circuit. And that is what appears to be the root cause of wide circuits - plus an unnecessarily long downwind leg as well.
Last edited by Centaurus; 12th May 2002 at 10:37.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
correct me if im wrong
Been a while since ive flown a tiger but a climb speed of sixty knots and a cruise of 75 rings a bell. These are quite different to the cessna 172/warrior speeds.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: oz
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great Topic ....
I agree with 3/4 of it ... I too have had some times at YSBK where the TWR has asked people to "close up" CCTS.
It was only yesterday that I had a C152 infront turning Base at Warrick Farm! Come on ! I am doing CCTS not inbound from the T/A.
In the PA28 we teach 1/3 down the wing. If your at 1000' and you have the 1/3 spacing right , you will be able to glide into the field , provided you move swiftly if the donk ends... 1/3 on the wing they say = 1nm ... 73kts , your sweet.
Lets Keep 'em tight!
Also , a good way I found , was just follow for 1 CCT , then request early crosswind , works well!.
I agree with 3/4 of it ... I too have had some times at YSBK where the TWR has asked people to "close up" CCTS.
It was only yesterday that I had a C152 infront turning Base at Warrick Farm! Come on ! I am doing CCTS not inbound from the T/A.
In the PA28 we teach 1/3 down the wing. If your at 1000' and you have the 1/3 spacing right , you will be able to glide into the field , provided you move swiftly if the donk ends... 1/3 on the wing they say = 1nm ... 73kts , your sweet.
Lets Keep 'em tight!
Also , a good way I found , was just follow for 1 CCT , then request early crosswind , works well!.
Last edited by B767MAD; 14th May 2002 at 11:00.
