Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Why do many "Airline" training organisations insist on flying such wide circuits?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Why do many "Airline" training organisations insist on flying such wide circuits?

Old 16th Jan 2010, 21:32
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 557
it takes sweet fu^kall training to convert your average CPL candidate from <5700kg ops to transport category ops.
I hope you get your shot soon Zoomy, but you might just have to rethink that statement. Multi crew ops are not any harder, just a lot different.
Also it is quite rare to fly a 'circuit' in an airliner, but it is a square base, just like the littlies. On the 380 it is a square base leg until .9nm xtrk deviation then turn final.
Trent 972 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 01:52
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 315
Trent, thanks for the backup based on your A380/QF experience.

To clarify what is being taught - turn crosswind 10-15 deg AoB depending on wind, wings level momentarily at 90 deg to check for traffic and runway alignment, then continue the turn. This gives the 'racecourse' crosswind turn. Of course given the speed we are flying we are going to be no where near as far away from the field as a jet on downwind.

On base a more square leg is used allowing more visual contact with the runway on approach. The circuit really isn't much different to what you would all be flying.

Why would you teach an airline procedure to a basic student not flying an airliner?
We're trying to teach skill sets from the beginning they will use throughout their career and introduce the concept of standard operating procedures. Of course this is adapted to the aeroplane and common sense applies. This allows us to, as Zoomy puts it:

...fly the bloody aircraft as per the POH and the DAY VFR syllabus not like the space shuttle.
As mentioned on a previous thread, if you have a real interest in wanting to know what is taught, don't post snide remarks - PM me. If the pilots in the white planes at YBAF are holding you up or doing silly things PM me - I'll speak to the pilots involved (it is part of my job to).

Slight thread drift, I read a post a couple of years ago by an instructor explaining how they teach landings. Every approach was basically a glide approach so the student would be able to land just in case he had an engine failure. Well, that's one way to tighten the circuit, but the student is in big trouble later in their career when it comes to flying a stablised approach with good aim point and speed control.
Ando1Bar is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 02:56
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 210
Ando I know your position and I respect your comments. But Zoomy is 100% correct in saying that a Cessna 172 Is not a space shuttle. Sure there is a small - very small percentage of your students that will go straight into an aircraft above 5700 but the majority wont. Fly a 172 how it is meant to be flown.
MCKES is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 03:18
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: I'm right behind you!!!
Posts: 470
My favourite was always:

"ABC request clearance to leave and re-enter the GAAP zone on downwind"

Tower: "Why do you need that?"

ABC: "Cause I'm going to need it if you want me to stay number 2 to XYZ ahead"

Tower: "Ahhh, XYZ tighten up your circuits mate"
Cap'n Arrr is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 03:51
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 429
Ando1bar, I can understand teaching a stabilised approach but at 318ft/nm (3deg) in a 172 at 1.57nm at 500ft thats a ROD of 344/min. That seems very shallow, surely it would be better to do the norm and aim for 1 at 500 and go down at 542. That is the essence of a stabilised approach, teach 3deg profile when its required during instrument approach.

I dunno, that's just my thoughts, I dont know the training organisations over all goals but from the outside seems a little arse about.

I think answering the above, with an unquoted explanation from the ops manual, will finally put a rest to this argument. This is now essentially all it has come down to, your final position.

edit/might as well be accurate.
eocvictim is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 03:53
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 557
MCKES and eoc, I spoke a little while ago with the fellow who does a lot of the Qf interview sim checks and he said that he was disappointed with the majority of candidates inability to fly a 3 deg approach whilst maintaing an aim point, 'on' speed. He didn't care if they flew 172's or space shuttles.
Those 3 abilities are a must in Qf. Anyone who can't display that in the sim check has lessened their chances in a very competitive interview process. Ando has already pointed out the nm required to achieve a 3 degree path. There are a great many ways to fly a 172, but only one way will impress the interviewer. I think Ando is on the enlightened path, grasshopper.
Trent 972 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 04:09
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 449
As I've said several times, I'm friends with many who have at some point been Qantas cadets. When they underwent their CPL Level flight screening the testing bloke told them they had to do a 3 degree glideslope. Consequently none of them did and said testing person made them do a couple of circuits on which none of them nailed it. I know of a CFI who got into a stoush with this guy because of the inappropriateness of this to light aircraft operations. The answer Qantas wants it doesn't wash with me. If the red rat was so desperate for it, CASA would have made it mandatory...

For my money the CFI is correct. 3 degree glideslopes are for ILS and BIG aircraft. Forget about it in a 172 or for that matter a Tobago, Grob, PA28 or Citabria. If there is one thing in a training situation that you can benefit from it is visibility and having flown with 3 degree aficionados I'd much rather have the higher viewpoint that I was taught, taught to teach and teach.
Cynical Pilot is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 04:11
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 429
I was basing my figures before on a 172 app speed of 65 kts, I guess you could fly it faster or drag it in on the prop, either way is undesirable but as you said possible. I guess with minimal hours picking what the strip should look like at 3deg is pretty important. Though a couple of hours in a Hi-Po piston or basic turbine would solve this too.

Trent out of curriosity what is the ROD for 3deg in the 380 I'd imagine it'd be close to 716ft/min? I'm assuming its about 135kts? Too slow?

3deg is easy once you work out the key number is 318ft/nm. Did my head in before then... idiot.
eocvictim is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 04:28
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 557
Pretty spot on eoc. @ a normalish landing weight of 380 tonnes, ISA conditions = 141 knots. Which includes a 5 knot addition to Vls (velocity lowest selectable). RoD = 750fpm. I don't wish to tell anyone how to fly a 172 at all, just that if you want to get into Qantas, then you should probably consider this aspect. As Ando is obviously involved in an Airline Training School, he would be a fool to teach other than what the clients require.
As for the other CFI, cynical speaks of. He is obviously very good at what he does as well, but like I said earlier if you want to impress at a Qantas sim check..... Try diving at the runway in a Qf sim check and I'd bet that would be the last time you ever get to see inside a Qantas simulator.
The only other observation I've made is that the people who fly a stabilised approach (3 degree or whatever) make the transition to night circuits a lot better than those who are 'up and down like a brides nighty'.

Good luck to all (if that's what you want)
Trent 972 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 04:35
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: in denial
Posts: 244
QF circuits ...

Guys,

Not sure about the A380 as I haven't flown it, but have flown the 744 and 767 with QF, and A330/340 with another carrier and in all cases downwind is flown with approx 2.5nm spacing and a curved base leg. Doubt whether the A380 is any different.

Cheers,
VS.

Last edited by Veruka Salt; 17th Jan 2010 at 04:48.
Veruka Salt is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 04:50
  #51 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,264
Veruka, 767 oval base? Really? The diagram I'm looking at, whilst not particularly clear, implies a 'square' base. Given the speeds on crosswind and the turn to downwind (as opposed to the speed coming across base and then F30 prior to the turn onto final, I'm not sure how you can fly an oval base unless using a very small angle of bank all the way around. Remember the old trick with the trend vector being a 1/3 of the way the final approach? You can't do that on an oval base.

I'll leave the discussion as to whether a C172 should be flown the same way to other people.
Keg is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 04:52
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 449
Just to clarify Trent...the said CFI wasn't talking about sim checks but raw CPL students sent on effectively another CPL(A) flight test to qualify for the level 2 QF cadet programme.

FWIW I agree on the sim ride, but the people utilising the sim checks are not going to be 200 hour (if lucky) kids and will have experience in other companies that require a 3 degree slope, they're also going to have an MECIR.
Cynical Pilot is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 04:56
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: in denial
Posts: 244
Keg,

I know the 'base training' circuit diagram you refer to, however I never flew square base either on the line or in the sim.

20 deg AoB xwind turn (nil wind), adjust tracking on downwind, 15 deg AoB on base (initially), adjusted as necessary for headwind/tailwind. Airbus similar except more like 15 deg AoB xwind, 10 deg on base.

Definitely not a square base unless I'd stuffed it!

VS.
Veruka Salt is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 04:59
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 557
Greetings Veruka, I haven't flown the 76, so I'll leave that to Keg, but I also have flown 330 and 744 and quoting from the 744 FCTM...
......Turning base leg, adjust thrust as required while descending at approximately 600-700fpm. Extend landing flaps prior to turning final.....
I guess I must be intepreting it differently.
*No probs Veruka. I only quoted that part of the text because it talks of a base turn and a turn to final, inferring a base leg, if you wish.
**Airbus A380 FCTM/Normal Operations/Visual Approach/Intermediate-Final Approach = Square Base Leg (diagram) Also A330 FCTM 02.140 square base...That pretty much covers 380/330/744 (in theory).

Last edited by Trent 972; 17th Jan 2010 at 07:08. Reason: Just reading from the manufacturers manuals
Trent 972 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 05:05
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: in denial
Posts: 244
Trent,

Not disagreeing with rates of descent or selecting landing flap etc .... rather, the only times I've ever flown a square base are when I'd used too large an AoB turning base, or had a strong headwind, or been too wide on downwind and not corrected it prior to turning base ....

Current teaching where I work now is to use constant bank all around base, particularly in poor vis (common in our part of the world).

VS.
Veruka Salt is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 05:35
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 210
If they want to see what the runway looks like when on slope just teach them to use the PAPI's or T-VASIS when they go into YBCG, YBMC, and all the other places. There they can see it, not when practicing circuits in busy airspace with varying performance aircraft in the same circuit including twins and high performance pistons.
MCKES is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 06:37
  #57 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,264
Veruka, fair enough. I've always used 20 degrees AoB and flown a square base leg. No one has ever chipped me for it.
Keg is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 07:13
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 315
Ando1bar, I can understand teaching a stabilised approach but at 318ft/nm (3deg) in a 172 at 1.57nm at 500ft thats a ROD of 344/min. That seems very shallow, surely it would be better to do the norm and aim for 1 at 500 and go down at 542.
Agreed

Ando I know your position and I respect your comments. But Zoomy is 100% correct in saying that a Cessna 172 Is not a space shuttle. Sure there is a small - very small percentage of your students that will go straight into an aircraft above 5700 but the majority wont. Fly a 172 how it is meant to be flown.
Agreed also.

Which I why I have said in previous posts in this thread:

We're trying to teach skill sets from the beginning they will use throughout their career and introduce the concept of standard operating procedures. Of course this is adapted to the aeroplane and common sense applies.
We're not doing anything ground breaking in a C172. In fact someone flying our planes a page or two back posted an image of what is flown. I also mentioned:

Given the busy training environment we don't end up as far as 1.57 from the aim point turning final, more likely a bit over a mile. This still allows a good approach angle while maintaining a bit of power to control the speed. The aim of the game is to prevent a low power, fast, steep descent to land - if the student does this on their flight test they will fail.
Ecovictim, you asked:
I think answering the above, with an unquoted explanation from the ops manual, will finally put a rest to this argument. This is now essentially all it has come down to, your final position.
Here you go:


An approach is stabilized when the aircraft is:
a lined up with the landing runway
b established on 3 glidepath
c in the landing configuration at Vref +5 / - 0kts
d descending at less than 500fpm
Ando1Bar is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 08:09
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 429
Thanks Ando1bar, clears it all up and should put a stop to it all. The ops manual wants it, then thats how you fly it.
eocvictim is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2010, 09:40
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 4,874
Also it is quite rare to fly a 'circuit' in an airliner, but it is a square base, just like the littlies. On the 380 it is a square base leg until .9nm xtrk deviation then turn final.
I would imagine it is quite rare to fly a circuit in a 380!

In Ansett, based in Perth, we flew to 60 odd destinations throughout the north and west of Australia, and only three or four of them were ILS's. All of the rest were circuits. Three jet types, a lot of circuits, and not one of them had a square base (at least, not a planned one!). In Europe, on the odd occasion I fly a circuit, it is an oval base.

I read a post a couple of years ago by an instructor explaining how they teach landings. Every approach was basically a glide approach so the student would be able to land just in case he had an engine failure.
Silly idea, I agree. the aircraft eventually has to leave the circuit - that's why we teach PFL and Prec Search - the tiny amount of time in the circuit makes no difference. The only glide approaches I taught were to complete the PFL exercise (the bit below 500', where you introduce the skills for a glide touch-down)

Remember the old trick with the trend vector being a 1/3 of the way the final approach? You can't do that on an oval base.
Trend vector? Oh yeah - got one of those now.

......Turning base leg, adjust thrust as required while descending at approximately 600-700fpm. Extend landing flaps prior to turning final.....
Doesn't say or even imply that the base leg is square. A curved base occurs before final, just as a square base does.

An approach is stabilized when the aircraft is:
a lined up with the landing runway
b established on 3 glidepath
c in the landing configuration at Vref +5 / - 0kts
d descending at less than 500fpm
I don't know where that's from, but it isn't a very good definition. There are many approaches around the world which require greater than a 3 approach to the runway.
Checkboard is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.