Standard Visual Circuits

[Cows getting bigger]

I wouldn't be encouraging students to set a specific ROD in the cct. On base leg I give them a 'starter for ten' power setting which in a 152/172/PA28 would be in the region of 1600-1700 rpm, set two stages of flap and maintain level flight attitude until approach speed + 5 is met. Only then should they set an attitude to maintain that speed, trimming as necessary. From now on they should be judging their ROD from the runway 'picture', airspeed from the horizon and rarely look inside the cockpit.

Taking a step back, I'm rather wary of being so prescriptive as far as visual ccts are concerned.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Taking a step back, I'm rather wary of being so prescriptive as far as visual ccts are concerned.

Well yes, I think we've all been saying that, 212man perhaps more directly than most.

I do find it a little curious that somebody who implies that they have been a qualified service pilot, and now to be flying for an airline (which implies having passed a CPL skills test) has trouble with this stuff which I'd expect to have been thoroughly dealt with at both stages of training.

IIRC, the UAS and JEFTS syllabi on the Bulldog/Tutor/Firefly all included how to fly circuits at civil airfields. The CPL certainly does. In between doing service flying *may* have been more prescriptive, depending upon the aircraft type, but to quote an old RAF adage: "Flexibility is the key to air power".

G

[212man]

Thanks GTE - I had my 'polite head' on when writing my comments........

[madlandrover]

(which implies having passed a CPL skills test)

Not necessarily - most QSP's are exempt the CPL test if they are in current practice, although they will have to pass an IRT. That can be done in their service type as an observed test for some though. Most do still know how to judge a visual circuit!

[Crankshaft]

In our SOP's it's a MAX 25degree AOB turn onto final

Is it only me finding this sort of imposed restrictions quite dangerous?

I've never heard about someone stalling in the circuit due to overbank. But I know loads of accidents caused by lack of bank.

Solo student: "Oh no, I'm overshooting the rwy centerline and are already having max allowed bank - but hey, that rudder gets me nicely in on the centerl... OOops!"
And so he spins into the ground!

[foxmoth]

Personally always used and taught 30 degrees bank for all turns apart from climbing ones (in the circuit, turning crosswind) when it is 15 degrees.

[bemused1812]

Well sorry to disappoint with my lack of GA experience, but until recently I’d never flown a square circuit. My flying started in the RAF, and all I was ever taught were oval circuits. Madlandrover is right in describing my route to my ATPL; a few hours in a Seneca, and the only circuits we did were oval and seemed quite familiar. Strange as it seems looking back at it, I seem to recall both the instructors I flew with at my IR school taught the same circuit pattern, and were able to tell me what power and attitude to set, to give the required performance at the appropriate stage. And yes of course as a QSP I flew at civilian airports. But the location did not change the way I flew my aircraft, unless the pattern had to change to cope with local restrictions which are as common at military bases as civilian airports.

Sorry, Genghis, if I gave you the impression that I was giving ‘trouble with this stuff’. Actually, the only difficulty I am having is understanding the lack of standardisation between my instructors. Reading back over this thread I’m beginning to understand that lack of standardisation; it sems that everyone does/teaches their own thing.

I don’t believe that this is an RAF/civvy difference of approach; with both of the airlines I have flown with there is only black and white about the SOPs for visual circuits or anything else for that matter. Indeed, the procedures are far more prescriptive that I was used to in the RAF. So I conclude this is just a GA thing; perhaps for good reason Genghis, as you pointed out the other traffic is all over the shop so one just has to cope.

Out of curiosity, if you fly within a student who does things ‘differently’ to the way you like, is she wrong, or merely exercising flexibility and therefore to be encouraged?

[madlandrover]

Out of curiosity, if you fly within a student who does things ‘differently’ to the way you like, is she wrong, or merely exercising flexibility and therefore to be encouraged?

If you are flying within a student, your professionalism is suspect. And her flexibility should be encouraged

[Genghis the Engineer]

No offence meant bemused, just a little bemusement of my own.

(Quick disclaimer, whilst I've a lot of GA hours in the UK and elsewhere, I'm a quite inexperienced instructor, so won't be offended by more experienced instructors who care to disagree.)

With civil flying students there are many right ways, and many wrong ways of flying. The trick is to make sure that they are doing it "a right way", and not to get anally retentive about "not my way".

At most civil airports, the 3D shape of the circuit (apart from the climb and descent angles) is generally not negotiable - apart from some small variations (depending upon local preferences, extending downwind or orbiting). The downwind call position is fixed - apart from variations to suit other radio traffic.

But yes - it's nominally rectangular (with local shape variations), some debate about angle of bank in the turns: I'd personally use about 10-15 degrees in the climb or level, 15-25 degrees descending - speeds and flap settings to fit into other traffic and suit the aeroplane, angle and power on the descent to do the same (and also many of us prefer a low power steep approach if landing over somewhere you can't land - for example over High Wycombe into 24 at Booker). Microlights and homebuilts may often fly idle approaches as a matter of course (a mentality brought on by uncertified engines), creating particularly steep approach angles.

G

[Big_Buddha36]

Hi,

just want to put my 2p's worth

reading a few posts here stating facts & figures of when to do things - 1 particular thing I have seen in experience, is a student grabbing hold with extreme vigor, the idea that you turn base2final at a PARTICULAR height.

whilst in practice this works out ok - it all goes horribly wrong when they are then asked to position for a 2 or 3 mile final - they still aim to turn final at 600ft - completely ignoring that the approach has LOOKED low for some time.

i cant argue on the When to turn, when to call, how wide/close, since this is done with reference to the strip & not the instruments - nor do i advocate learning the local circuit with reference to ground markers - houses/villages etc

I have found that if students learn the "overall circuit 'picture'" they find it easier to transpose that when off visiting different airfields

Less is more, perhaps, in this case & rather than fixate of precise numbers (with the exception of AirSpeed), learn what it should look like and fly it!
..2p spent!

BB

[Genghis the Engineer]

nor do i advocate learning the local circuit with reference to ground markers - houses/villages etc

This is an interesting point - I've seen this approach in quite a few places, but it always seems to me that all instructors are doing is teaching people how to fly one aeroplane at one airfield: rather than to fly properly judged circuits.

G

[Madder]

In my opinion you loose the big picture if you get caught up in all the small details.

Is it really that hard?

Its 4 90degree turns while climbing from 0-1000' and descending from 1000-0'.

Circuit flying is best learned in the circuit.

Procedures and speeds are in the AFM / SOP.

[Pull what]

I don’t believe that this is an RAF/civvy difference of approach; with both of the airlines I have flown with there is only black and white about the SOPs for visual circuits or anything else for that matter. Indeed, the procedures are far more prescriptive that I was used to in the RAF. So I conclude this is just a GA thing; perhaps for good reason Genghis, as you pointed out the other traffic is all over the shop so one just has to cope.

You may have failed to consider that the average standard at the average flying school/ club is quite low, standardisation is rarely in place or enforced. General civillian circuit discipline is very poor too, put 3 different schools in the circuit and you will get three different patterns. Recently on here a PPL examiner stated that a student downwind should be able to reach the runway in the event of an engine failure. Other folk lore widely preached is that 3 degree glide paths are only for airliners. Another examiner I know says every standard approach must be a glide approach! Over the years Ive worked in 10 different flying schools and in only one of them was there an acceptable standard and that school was run by an RAF wing commander!
Ron Campbell by the way was more influenced by US methods than 50s RAF methods as anyone who knew him would tell you.

[BristolScout]

Lots of good stuff here for you, bemused, and I agree with it all! Another very germane factor is that most GA airfields do not have air traffic control, only an A/G service which removes one of the layers of discipline you are used to in military and airline flying. Where I instruct, for example, there's a busy parachuting school which effectively removes the 'dead side' so there's a combination of microlights, SEPs, helos, canopies in the air and the drop aircraft trying to cut in to land for the next uplift. Compared with Heathrow or Leeming, it's anarchy - so next to impossible to standardise. Welcome to general aviation.