Fireflybob:

You really have my curiousity raised by this thread.

Could you give us the exact shape of this circuit you are talking about.

How far from the end of the runway are these houses and exactly how many degrees of heading change is needed to comply with the procedure?

I can not remember ever seeing an airport anywhere in the world where a turn after take off was required that put airplanes at risk.

I have seen airports where five hundred foot circuits were required due to the proximity of a bigger airport, never heard anyone crash because of doing turns at these airports.

So please post more on this " Problem " departure of yours.

Cat Driver:

Excrab, thats my point. My school does exactly that, we tell them it will more than likely take longer. I always add an extra 10 hours to the JAR PPl for finance planning. Not sure what to suggest for the NPPL as I haven't done one yet!
The problem is the customer can get a confused idea of what is what when it comes to cost. Some schools I know of locally sell it as a "we'll get you through type in the time required hype".

Ruins it for the rest. Anyway that is off thread really!

Someone mentioned silcencers. Well the school I frequent is still trying to get them installed but until the Government relax a very costly legislation on silencers, they will be far to expensive for clubs to purchase.

We have some odd noise abatement issues. One involves a 20 degree track change at 100/200'. The other is a 30 degree track change, and therefore we only ask "Complex" aircarft to fly this turn as it is assumed that they are normally noisier and flown heavier by more experienced pilots.

Chuck,

The departure runway is 27 and the housing estate is bounded on the east side by a major road which has an orientation of 200 degrees magnetic. It is necessary to remain east of the road to be clear of the estate.

The road/estate starts 750 metres (= 2460 feet = 0.4 nautical mile = 0.46 statute mile) from the western end of runway 27 which is circa 3,000 ft in length (paved surface).

>How far from the end of the runway are these houses and exactly how many degrees of heading change is needed to comply with the procedure?<

There is no "procedure" promulgated by the airport although the flying training organisations on the field have stated in their "Flying Order Books" that an early turn should be made to avoid overflying the built up area.

>I can not remember ever seeing an airport anywhere in the world where a turn after take off was required that put airplanes at risk. <

I agree with your statement here where the procedure conforms to the ICAO Pan/Ops criteria.

>>So please post more on this " Problem " departure of yours. <

I don't think I have labeled this a "Problem" departure, if so, this was not intentional but I do think the way the departure is being flown carries extra risk for ab initio pilots.

Hope this answers your questions.

As an interested outsider reading this thread by chance, I can't quite believe the way fireflybob's initial point has been received.

Chuck, you say::confused:
Low level flight is inherently risky - less time to recover from a mistake, more chance of hitting the ground from a stall. Seems to me this is the very simple and sensible point ffb is making.

Low time students are concentrating hard on controlling speed with attitude on the climb out - add the need for a banked turn at 100' and the task becomes harder, and because of the low altitude the outcome of an error in speed control could be fatal. Now I agree that with good training low time students should be capable of executing the turn safely, but I still think the risk has increased compared to a turn at 500'.

Chuck, another statement you make:
ermm....theoretically maybe, ie, when the performance tables are analysed in the safety of a quiet office, but there are certainly some where one does feel the turn plus say an engine failure could make things rather interesting. Why do you think airfields are Categorised A,B and C? Its a risk assessment in a sense, and some airfields will require recent experience, or be deemed training Captains only. Funchal springs to mind.

So coming back to fireflybob's original point, it seems to me a perfectly valid and simple point he is making - namely, the low hours student's risk exposure is being increased by this turn.

Well Maximum:

We could eliminate all risk to students by not doing any flight training period.

Or another way to look at risk management is to teach them how to safely fly the thing before allowing them to fly solo.

I would doubt that any flying training school would be operating at an airport that posed any real risk due to the procedures followed in the circuit.

I do not wish to get into the difficult landing and take off sites around the world, that is not what this is all about.

Once again I repeat that it is utter nonsense to believe that students cannot be taught to perform safe turns at low altitude.

Then of course we could get into why there are so many students that don't know how to land either.

Just my opinion though.

Cat Driver:

I am supprised that nobody has discused the use of max angle of climb straight ahead initially before transition to best rate and turning to avoid the built up area "as best as possible".

With that runway length and the distance beyond the TODA, from a standing start and climbing at best angle of climb speed, how close is the aircraft to the houses when it reaches 300ft AGL?

The 500ft tradition is as far as I am aware a trow over from the IFR procedures with respect to omnidirectional departures and the interaction with the various obstacle surfaces surveyed in the vicinity of the aerodrome. However, when VFR, obstacles can be avoided visually and if necessary, a min ceiling and vis should be specified.

IMHO, the legal aspect of Rule 5 goes like this:

1. One is exempt from rule 5 while taking off and landing in accordance with normal aviation practice.

2. Nothing in the rule prevents the aircraft from changing track after lift off provided that the climb is continued to a safe height which if leaving the circuit will be above 500ft above people, obstacles etc or if remaining in the circuit will be above the visual manoeuvering height specified. Note that the visual manoeuvering height can often be below 500ft AGL but never less than 400ft AGL.

So put simply, one can do what one wants with regard to heading in the climb provided that the climb is continued to a height above 500ft unless one intends to reland back at the airfield in question.

If one is relanding at the departure aerodrome (doing a circuit), the end of the take-off phase ends at the point where the srart of the approach phase begins. Thus the aircraft in the circuit is at all times in the process of taking off or landing and exempt from Rule 5.

However, being exempt from Rule 5 does not give oneself an exemption from the recless operation llegislation!!!

With regard to Students, I am of the opinion that in this case, the timing of first solo in the sylabus could easily be adjusted to a later time when the student is more familiar with the aircraft and has reached a good proficiency level.

After all, as soon as they get their licence, they are entitled to take an aircraft with some passengers and do the "standard departure" everyone is so worried about.

Perhaps the airfield authority in conjunction with the operators should sit down and using nil wind and 20deg C, draw the various tracking options available and come up with the definitive safe answer for all users.

Regards,

DFC