1500ft circuits
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
don't 4get 'jetpipe' there has been jets doing 1500' circuits for ages & therefore a hazard to us all overflying +500' to peek at the windy sock .This was happening well b4 the 120+ knot/1500' 'recomended' rule came in. But it is a valid point as to why have more at 1500'
CW
CW
Jets at 1500ft?? Does that include F/A-18's? 
I know it's in controlled airspace but sometimes I don't think they'd even make the 500ft 'helicopter' circuit height.... So low you loose them behind the trees/buildings. Don't even start on the speed ...
Very, very entertaining. Bring on Pitch Black '08!!
I know it's in controlled airspace but sometimes I don't think they'd even make the 500ft 'helicopter' circuit height.... So low you loose them behind the trees/buildings. Don't even start on the speed ...Very, very entertaining. Bring on Pitch Black '08!!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AUS
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Wally,
Not many jets at your average ALA but there are a great deal of kingairs etc.
Its the gravel runways that get used by the training orgs for navexs that cause most of the concern. Not to many VFR guys seem to keep the transponder on past the edge of radar coverage and when they overfly they are taught that they are clear of their circuit.
On another point trying to keep a cat B turbo prop within the circling area and not decsending on down wind can be a challenge for a new pilot.
Seems some one wrote a rule from a very low knowledge base.
Not many jets at your average ALA but there are a great deal of kingairs etc.
Its the gravel runways that get used by the training orgs for navexs that cause most of the concern. Not to many VFR guys seem to keep the transponder on past the edge of radar coverage and when they overfly they are taught that they are clear of their circuit.
On another point trying to keep a cat B turbo prop within the circling area and not decsending on down wind can be a challenge for a new pilot.
Seems some one wrote a rule from a very low knowledge base.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1500 ft overfly
The 1500 ft overfly procedure for joining the circuit has been around for many decades. It was routine procedure before jets or turboprops were invented, and worked very well to keep you clear of circuit traffic until you had figured out where it was (ie which runway was in use).
It was not just a recent thing, and it pre dates the 1500 ft jet circuits.
Obviously it is not so simple anymore, and 1500ft may be polluted by jets..
It was not just a recent thing, and it pre dates the 1500 ft jet circuits.
Obviously it is not so simple anymore, and 1500ft may be polluted by jets..
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Radios ought to be mandatory for ALL airports over a certain rwy length, say 600 mtrs, less than that there are only toy planes that can land on that & it's unlikely you will find traffic at varying Alt's anyway.
I know - not fair, different country and not what you had in mind when you wrote that... Just couldn't help myself 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ahhh that's ok 'CN' I wasn't going to expand on my comments with specific A/C types for one can never plz evrybody, besides the 'gomad' isn't prolific, thank God ! 300 mtrs for a ldg & t/off hey?, pretty impressive even for them
'jetpipe' luckly yes yr right not too many jets at yr average ALA but it does occur and if all goes according to plan with the introduction of tye numerous VLJ's proposed in the near future where any pvt pilot with little time/experience & deep pockets can operate them they will be like those damn technic thingies, ten deep at the threshold
For now 1500' cts does have it's merits providing the use of radio is made mandatory as I mentioned in my previous post.
CW
300 mtrs for a ldg & t/off hey?, pretty impressive even for them'jetpipe' luckly yes yr right not too many jets at yr average ALA but it does occur and if all goes according to plan with the introduction of tye numerous VLJ's proposed in the near future where any pvt pilot with little time/experience & deep pockets can operate them they will be like those damn technic thingies, ten deep at the threshold
For now 1500' cts does have it's merits providing the use of radio is made mandatory as I mentioned in my previous post.
CW
I am holding my breath for the first "airprox" that occurs when an a/c does a 1500' circuit at Camden whilst another a/c reports inbound at 2RN at 1500'....
We fly 1500' circuits in the PC12.
Slightly wider spacing than one would be at 1000'.
Decelerate during downwind, start descent turning base, there is no need for "excessive" ROD from there.
And, without wishing to go down that old beaten path, one is well within gliding distance all the way around.
As many others have said, the most important thing is that everyone uses the radio properly, and has their transponder on.
The only worry then is those aircraft that have neither radio nor transponder!
Slightly wider spacing than one would be at 1000'.
Decelerate during downwind, start descent turning base, there is no need for "excessive" ROD from there.
And, without wishing to go down that old beaten path, one is well within gliding distance all the way around.
As many others have said, the most important thing is that everyone uses the radio properly, and has their transponder on.
The only worry then is those aircraft that have neither radio nor transponder!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rcoight,
Is the 1500 ft ccts noted in your particularly company's SOP's?? In my opinion you can really get away with 1000ft ccts and do it with ease in the PC12. Even at different training airports or GAAP's you can slow it down nicely with a warrior or even a 152 at times in front of you on downwind.
Marvelous aircraft in a glide no doubt about that
As always.... just my view on the situation if it's within the Regs and is safe then no worries in my book to keep doing it.
Is the 1500 ft ccts noted in your particularly company's SOP's?? In my opinion you can really get away with 1000ft ccts and do it with ease in the PC12. Even at different training airports or GAAP's you can slow it down nicely with a warrior or even a 152 at times in front of you on downwind.
Marvelous aircraft in a glide no doubt about that
As always.... just my view on the situation if it's within the Regs and is safe then no worries in my book to keep doing it.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet you lot where just waiting with bait in hand for CW to step up to the plate & say.............SE
Genuine Q here rcoight. If yr at 1000ft gear flap out having come down from 1500' say min speed (so no excess energy) due to a slow moving C150 ahead of you, yr 3 miles from the thresshold 'cause you went slightly further out to accomodate that slow jo & there's a 35 kt H/W component down the rwy, would you be able to glide to the strip if the noise stopped remembering yr dirty? Think carefully the B200 glides at best glide speed (135kts) clean 2 nm nil wind per 1000ft loss, I'd make it 'cause I have a spare engine with me, you? I can just see the nutters out there getting ready to fire up but this is a direct genuine Q to 'rcoight' It's mainly based on 1500' would be the min for a SE plane I reckon.
CW
Genuine Q here rcoight. If yr at 1000ft gear flap out having come down from 1500' say min speed (so no excess energy) due to a slow moving C150 ahead of you, yr 3 miles from the thresshold 'cause you went slightly further out to accomodate that slow jo & there's a 35 kt H/W component down the rwy, would you be able to glide to the strip if the noise stopped remembering yr dirty? Think carefully the B200 glides at best glide speed (135kts) clean 2 nm nil wind per 1000ft loss, I'd make it 'cause I have a spare engine with me, you?
I can just see the nutters out there getting ready to fire up but this is a direct genuine Q to 'rcoight' It's mainly based on 1500' would be the min for a SE plane I reckon.CW
airman1, yes, 1500' is in the company SOPS.
And as the regs state 1500' as the recommended height for turboprops, there are no issues there either.
Plus, I feel better about being at 1500' than 1000' anyway, although as you say the aircraft can handle it easily.
CW, didn't take long...
Don't want to go down this road and bore everyone again, but since you ask, is there anywhere that demands you start your descent from 1500' by a certain point in the circuit?
The situation I described in my previous post was a "normal" circuit for me.
This can always be modified to suit conditions, etc.
If I was 3 miles out with a 35kt headwind component down the runway at minimum speed due to C150 or whatever I'd probably still be at 1500'!
PC12 could easily get down from there.
In any case, that's not a situation that just occurs out of the blue.
You should know about the C150 and it's relative position in the circuit a long time before you got to that point, and I would say if you found yourself running up its bum 3 miles out at min speed you have already made a mess of it, and should have another go!
And as the regs state 1500' as the recommended height for turboprops, there are no issues there either.
Plus, I feel better about being at 1500' than 1000' anyway, although as you say the aircraft can handle it easily.
CW, didn't take long...
Don't want to go down this road and bore everyone again, but since you ask, is there anywhere that demands you start your descent from 1500' by a certain point in the circuit?
The situation I described in my previous post was a "normal" circuit for me.
This can always be modified to suit conditions, etc.
If I was 3 miles out with a 35kt headwind component down the runway at minimum speed due to C150 or whatever I'd probably still be at 1500'!
PC12 could easily get down from there.
In any case, that's not a situation that just occurs out of the blue.
You should know about the C150 and it's relative position in the circuit a long time before you got to that point, and I would say if you found yourself running up its bum 3 miles out at min speed you have already made a mess of it, and should have another go!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of what you say is true 'rcoight' but we don't live/fly in a 'should'or 'normal' world, there will always be times where circumstances change with little or no notice like a C150 just appearing out of the blue radioless & or you could be at 1000' instead of 1500' due wx & find yourself further outside yr normal circling area for a variety of reasons. So although I accept yr comments refering to 'normal' & 'should' I personally still believe that SEIFR chrt is far too dangerous, as usual PERSONAL opinions only But the Q still remains & feel free to chat 'off air' via pvt messages as most in here will get nasty would you be able to make the rwy at 1000' (not 1500') if you found yourself in the above original situation.
BTW just for the record I've never said the PC12 wasn't a terrific ship, i've said it b4 it shtis all over the B200 for a heap of reasons bar the most important, SAFETY, that's why they make twins in the first place!
I wonder how long the b4 the mod nazi's sin bin me for speaking in a democratic free world?
CW
But the Q still remains & feel free to chat 'off air' via pvt messages as most in here will get nasty would you be able to make the rwy at 1000' (not 1500') if you found yourself in the above original situation.BTW just for the record I've never said the PC12 wasn't a terrific ship, i've said it b4 it shtis all over the B200 for a heap of reasons bar the most important, SAFETY, that's why they make twins in the first place!
I wonder how long the b4 the mod nazi's sin bin me for speaking in a democratic free world?
CW
Sorry it's taken so long, but I don't spend a great deal of time here.
However, the short answer to your question, CW, is that yes, there are certain occasions where I wouldn't be able to make the strip in my PC12.
Perhaps even ones as unlikely as you suggest.
And I would also say that there are other, unlikely, occasions where you would be in deep poo with your B200!
The only argument we appear to have is whether or not it is "safe" to conduct IFR in aircraft such as the PC12.
(Bearing in mind the only truly safe aircraft is one that is on the ground).
I suspect we will never agree on this, and thus we should respectfully agree to disagree, rather than enter into a slanging match.
I also suspect that, in the long term, you may have to come to terms with single-engine turbine IFR, regardless of what you may think now...
However, the short answer to your question, CW, is that yes, there are certain occasions where I wouldn't be able to make the strip in my PC12.
Perhaps even ones as unlikely as you suggest.
And I would also say that there are other, unlikely, occasions where you would be in deep poo with your B200!
The only argument we appear to have is whether or not it is "safe" to conduct IFR in aircraft such as the PC12.
(Bearing in mind the only truly safe aircraft is one that is on the ground).
I suspect we will never agree on this, and thus we should respectfully agree to disagree, rather than enter into a slanging match.
I also suspect that, in the long term, you may have to come to terms with single-engine turbine IFR, regardless of what you may think now...
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rcoight,
Without turning this thread into a total pissing match of the PC12 Vs B200. I was recently sent the below link highlighting the dangerous of SE IFR ops in particular the PC12. Now everyone is entitled to there own opinion, but the bottom line in aviation is safety and nothing can beat two engines.
I don’t think you would find CW converting over to the PC12, maybe just looking for a new job if and when the RFDS decide to change there entire fleet over.
Read the article I am sure you will form your own conclusions.
Maybe you can shed some light on the exact changes that Pilatus may have made to improve some of these faults.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/publications...sue25_sec1.asp
Without turning this thread into a total pissing match of the PC12 Vs B200
. I was recently sent the below link highlighting the dangerous of SE IFR ops in particular the PC12. Now everyone is entitled to there own opinion, but the bottom line in aviation is safety and nothing can beat two engines. I don’t think you would find CW converting over to the PC12, maybe just looking for a new job if and when the RFDS decide to change there entire fleet over.
Read the article I am sure you will form your own conclusions.
Maybe you can shed some light on the exact changes that Pilatus may have made to improve some of these faults.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/publications...sue25_sec1.asp
Thank you, airman1, for that interesting article.
However, I don't reach the same conclusions that you appear to.
What is patently obvious from the article is that that accident (like most) occured because of very poor decision making by the pilot.
Had he immediately turned back on the first indication of low oil pressure (like we are trained to do), he would have been well within gliding range of his departure airport and that article wouldn't exist.
There are also a number of references to Canadian reg's that are not relevant in Aust., or at least in the context that we operate where I fly them.
eg. We have enough oxygen on board to swan around for hours if necessary!
We also have more than enough electrical power for a reasonably long glide, as long as correct procedures are followed.
I note that despite the very ugly scene in the photo's, no-one was killed.
Kind of makes the point re the seats, and "survivability" of the aircraft.
PC12's have been operating (IFR) in this country for almost 13 years now.
How many fatal accidents have there been in that time?
How many accidents have there been that can be attributed to it having only one engine?
How many fatal King Air accidents have there been in that time? (Sadly, I can think of at least 3 without even trying)
There are a lot more factors in determining the "safety" of an aircraft other than just how many engines it has. That is simply old-fashioned thinking that is going the way of the dinosaurs.
Is a B747 twice as safe as a B777, or just twice as likely to have an engine failure?
I say again; The accident in that report happened due to poor decision making. Fortunately it appears that everyone survived.
However, I don't reach the same conclusions that you appear to.
What is patently obvious from the article is that that accident (like most) occured because of very poor decision making by the pilot.
Had he immediately turned back on the first indication of low oil pressure (like we are trained to do), he would have been well within gliding range of his departure airport and that article wouldn't exist.
There are also a number of references to Canadian reg's that are not relevant in Aust., or at least in the context that we operate where I fly them.
eg. We have enough oxygen on board to swan around for hours if necessary!
We also have more than enough electrical power for a reasonably long glide, as long as correct procedures are followed.
I note that despite the very ugly scene in the photo's, no-one was killed.
Kind of makes the point re the seats, and "survivability" of the aircraft.
PC12's have been operating (IFR) in this country for almost 13 years now.
How many fatal accidents have there been in that time?
How many accidents have there been that can be attributed to it having only one engine?
How many fatal King Air accidents have there been in that time? (Sadly, I can think of at least 3 without even trying)
There are a lot more factors in determining the "safety" of an aircraft other than just how many engines it has. That is simply old-fashioned thinking that is going the way of the dinosaurs.
Is a B747 twice as safe as a B777, or just twice as likely to have an engine failure?
I say again; The accident in that report happened due to poor decision making. Fortunately it appears that everyone survived.
Last edited by rcoight; 5th Jun 2008 at 03:21.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah 'rcoight' I respect yr choice but it's not mine, simple as that really.
The link 'airman1' sent I have seen b4 but didn't want to thro it in to the mix here as I'm sure some would be able to explain away the end result & still believe that had the same scenario been in a twin then it's just as unsafe as the sinlge engine.
Yr right there has been several B200 accidents but ALL would have been due to as in the PC12 crashes end result here pilot error, so the ref to the B200 doesn't fit.
The fact that everyone survived the impact wouldn't to me anyway be very comforting 'cause no two crashes would be the same, obviously the Bog as in soft ground helped the outcome in this particular incident.
It's a tough airframe obviously but I don't want to find out first hand thanks!
I have a great Eg. of why we don't use the PC12's in our section.
I won't go into it in too much detail but substitute the B200 in the following with a PC12 gliding (worse case I know but possible).
Fog rolling in at SHT. Just departed in time before visual ref was lost even with the zero ceiling that the B200 has. No chance of returning even within a few minutes if an engine fault happened. Flight over to CB direct, (no other way anyway to avoid high hills)some lovely nice terrain out there & btw this was all at 2am.
ILS rwy 35 over some very nasty hills in solid IMC only to find that as I broke out just above the Minima the rwy lights where not on, damn stupid pal system at the nations capt airport! I did try several times to get them on prior to arrival so an approach was made anyway, options with a twin & i wouldn't have had to land if one failed during the app., lights or no lights
Finally landed after much swearing to get damn lights on.
Med team back in plane now ready to depart for EN at 5am. Only trouble is ML fogged big time ! We launch anyway knowing that several strips are avail to us nth of ML. Enroute over solid IMC across the hills again we diverted to BDG for perhas the only time I would have felt safe in a PC12, a visual curcuit & ldg.
Plane left there, pilot go home via Cab & sleep like a baby due to one reason, SAFETY in numbers ! (as in 2 engines)
So again I respect yr choice 'rcoight' as to you feeling safer or as safe in a single, it's just not mine & that's why we don't have single eng planes, never will whilst common sense prevails !
CW
The link 'airman1' sent I have seen b4 but didn't want to thro it in to the mix here as I'm sure some would be able to explain away the end result & still believe that had the same scenario been in a twin then it's just as unsafe as the sinlge engine.
Yr right there has been several B200 accidents but ALL would have been due to as in the PC12 crashes end result here pilot error, so the ref to the B200 doesn't fit.
The fact that everyone survived the impact wouldn't to me anyway be very comforting 'cause no two crashes would be the same, obviously the Bog as in soft ground helped the outcome in this particular incident.
It's a tough airframe obviously but I don't want to find out first hand thanks!
I have a great Eg. of why we don't use the PC12's in our section.
I won't go into it in too much detail but substitute the B200 in the following with a PC12 gliding (worse case I know but possible).
Fog rolling in at SHT. Just departed in time before visual ref was lost even with the zero ceiling that the B200 has. No chance of returning even within a few minutes if an engine fault happened. Flight over to CB direct, (no other way anyway to avoid high hills)some lovely nice terrain out there & btw this was all at 2am.
ILS rwy 35 over some very nasty hills in solid IMC only to find that as I broke out just above the Minima the rwy lights where not on, damn stupid pal system at the nations capt airport! I did try several times to get them on prior to arrival so an approach was made anyway, options with a twin & i wouldn't have had to land if one failed during the app., lights or no lights
Finally landed after much swearing to get damn lights on.
Med team back in plane now ready to depart for EN at 5am. Only trouble is ML fogged big time ! We launch anyway knowing that several strips are avail to us nth of ML. Enroute over solid IMC across the hills again we diverted to BDG for perhas the only time I would have felt safe in a PC12, a visual curcuit & ldg.
Plane left there, pilot go home via Cab & sleep like a baby due to one reason, SAFETY in numbers ! (as in 2 engines)
So again I respect yr choice 'rcoight' as to you feeling safer or as safe in a single, it's just not mine & that's why we don't have single eng planes, never will whilst common sense prevails !
CW
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rcoight,
Yes I agree there was some form or to some degree of pilot error there, lets face it in life the only way to reduce the risk of flying other than leaving the thing parked on the tarmac. Is to make things idiot proof or just increase the level of safety. Now call me old fashion if more then one donk provides that extra safety net for me and other pilots. So as you have said we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
CW, I see your point old son ..... But every accident is a combination of mistakes. Whether it be in the B200, PC12 or the even 747 if the wrong situation arises in any aircraft an accident may occur.(there are many variables i know!!!) I do however believe that an extra engine does provide that extra safety buffer.
As always each to there own I say. We can debate this subject till we are all blue in the face and ........CW has no hair left and I start going grey
Yes I agree there was some form or to some degree of pilot error there, lets face it in life the only way to reduce the risk of flying other than leaving the thing parked on the tarmac. Is to make things idiot proof or just increase the level of safety. Now call me old fashion if more then one donk provides that extra safety net for me and other pilots. So as you have said we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
CW, I see your point old son ..... But every accident is a combination of mistakes. Whether it be in the B200, PC12 or the even 747 if the wrong situation arises in any aircraft an accident may occur.(there are many variables i know!!!) I do however believe that an extra engine does provide that extra safety buffer.
As always each to there own I say. We can debate this subject till we are all blue in the face and ........CW has no hair left and I start going grey
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey airman1 what makes ya think I ain't going grey also?
Everytime I see one of those flash PC12's depart EN they climb like a home sick angel, & for no other reason than......just in case, with a twin the 'just in case' comes std by way of power divided by TWO !
'rcoight' is right the PC12 has been operating in this country for many years with an excellent safety record, they would want to be!
Back to 1500' cts, I wasn't too keen when first it was brought in for A/C other than jets, I thought all sorts of ugly thoughts but have come to realise that driving around at the same level is fine for cars 'cause they follow the same path, we don't have that luxury.
CW
Everytime I see one of those flash PC12's depart EN they climb like a home sick angel, & for no other reason than......just in case, with a twin the 'just in case' comes std by way of power divided by TWO !
'rcoight' is right the PC12 has been operating in this country for many years with an excellent safety record, they would want to be!
Back to 1500' cts, I wasn't too keen when first it was brought in for A/C other than jets, I thought all sorts of ugly thoughts but have come to realise that driving around at the same level is fine for cars 'cause they follow the same path, we don't have that luxury.
CW