1500ft circuits
Thread Starter
a summary +
I’ve had a wonderful day flying into a brilliant part of OZ named Chullagun (?), QLD. Ripper of a day, but now it’s late and I’ve had a few drinks. Nevertheless I thought I’d summarise the post – the accuracy may be run-of-the-mill, but it’s an attempt anyway…
Without counting thread drifts…
50% of respondents report negatively towards 1500’ ccts
33% are positive towards 1500’ ccts and,
17% are neutral
A few points:
Circling approaches are a different kettle of fish and are not the intention of the discussion that I have started.
A poster mentioned that there is worry towards more Pilots overflying at 1500’ now, causing a collision risk with previous jet traffic at 1500’. I was taught to overfly at 500 ft above cct ht, which in my opinion is now 1500’ + 500’ = 2000’ AGL in a high performance acft. I’m not an instructor, but I don’t think that anyone should overfly at 1500’ AGL these days. To avoid collision, 2000 is the go, even for low performance acft. I was taught to overfly at 1500’ AGL about 10 years ago but in retrospect, that did not provide clearance to jet traffic. Overfly’s at 2000’ are in my opinion, better than what was previously the norm, although it can be hard to assess the windsock!
I have recently read a few SOP’s that have not amended their cct ht procedure. I have not read an SOP that has amended the cct ht procedure.
I have learned from the posts during this thread; I was naively under the impression that the circuit was where every Pilot standardised flying technique to be seen, i.e. level ccts, speeds, distances from runway, etc. This was logical for me and it was implied from my training – so that each Pilot would know where the other was within a CTAF/MBZ/ ALA etc The benefit from a standard cct was that If a radio was not required at a particular aerodrome, or if I could not understand what the other was saying, I would know where to look for likely positions of aircraft.
During this thread, I have realised that some Pilots may be on a continuous descent, have extended legs of the cct, fly at various hts, etc. The circuit has for me become a mess from the idealistic view of it that I once had. No offense to other Pilots, but I thought that this was good airmanship. I am either right, or I had the wrong impression.
One PPRUNE poster suggested that there is no change to cct areas, and that RoD are the same as always. This statement is not true, since at 1500’ compared with 1000’, you either need to increase cct spacing or accept a greater RoD.
I’m interested to know what the CT4 Pilots at Tamworth are taught. Any contributors? Thank-you for the military guys who have contributed on faster airplanes.
Radio calls are, what many posters have mentioned, a great way to make sense of it all and make Pilots aware of you’re position. I agree that correct radio usage is important to good situational awareness. However, some airports do not require radio carriage. At minimum, I believe to aid safety at these aiports, standard cct positions are a requirement.
I don't like 1500' ccts because I accept a greater rod. this is not as comforatble as before. I dont like larger cct spacing beacuse I dont need it, unless I need a normal RoD. Hence, I do not create a larger cct. I think larger ccts are not economical or are they required, and I prefer a 500 fpm ROD on base and final opposed to 1000fpm.
Without counting thread drifts…
50% of respondents report negatively towards 1500’ ccts
33% are positive towards 1500’ ccts and,
17% are neutral
A few points:
Circling approaches are a different kettle of fish and are not the intention of the discussion that I have started.
A poster mentioned that there is worry towards more Pilots overflying at 1500’ now, causing a collision risk with previous jet traffic at 1500’. I was taught to overfly at 500 ft above cct ht, which in my opinion is now 1500’ + 500’ = 2000’ AGL in a high performance acft. I’m not an instructor, but I don’t think that anyone should overfly at 1500’ AGL these days. To avoid collision, 2000 is the go, even for low performance acft. I was taught to overfly at 1500’ AGL about 10 years ago but in retrospect, that did not provide clearance to jet traffic. Overfly’s at 2000’ are in my opinion, better than what was previously the norm, although it can be hard to assess the windsock!
I have recently read a few SOP’s that have not amended their cct ht procedure. I have not read an SOP that has amended the cct ht procedure.
I have learned from the posts during this thread; I was naively under the impression that the circuit was where every Pilot standardised flying technique to be seen, i.e. level ccts, speeds, distances from runway, etc. This was logical for me and it was implied from my training – so that each Pilot would know where the other was within a CTAF/MBZ/ ALA etc The benefit from a standard cct was that If a radio was not required at a particular aerodrome, or if I could not understand what the other was saying, I would know where to look for likely positions of aircraft.
During this thread, I have realised that some Pilots may be on a continuous descent, have extended legs of the cct, fly at various hts, etc. The circuit has for me become a mess from the idealistic view of it that I once had. No offense to other Pilots, but I thought that this was good airmanship. I am either right, or I had the wrong impression.
One PPRUNE poster suggested that there is no change to cct areas, and that RoD are the same as always. This statement is not true, since at 1500’ compared with 1000’, you either need to increase cct spacing or accept a greater RoD.
I’m interested to know what the CT4 Pilots at Tamworth are taught. Any contributors? Thank-you for the military guys who have contributed on faster airplanes.
Radio calls are, what many posters have mentioned, a great way to make sense of it all and make Pilots aware of you’re position. I agree that correct radio usage is important to good situational awareness. However, some airports do not require radio carriage. At minimum, I believe to aid safety at these aiports, standard cct positions are a requirement.
I don't like 1500' ccts because I accept a greater rod. this is not as comforatble as before. I dont like larger cct spacing beacuse I dont need it, unless I need a normal RoD. Hence, I do not create a larger cct. I think larger ccts are not economical or are they required, and I prefer a 500 fpm ROD on base and final opposed to 1000fpm.
