"CUT-LUNCH" Circuits....Or 'Minor Cross Country's'..
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoever made the comment about the dash-8 space shuttle ccts at Tamworth, you are forgetting that we have SOP's to comply with and other such things in the plane that prevent us from doing tight/cutting corner ccts.
Coming from GA i used to hate when people would be stupidly slow and taking their sweet time in the cct, but you have to remember we have standard operating procedures, stable approach requirements and EGPWS to content with, meaning if you do cut corners and try do a tight cct, then we could most likely jeopardise safety and end up having to fill in a lot of paperwork. For the extra minute or two that it takes, its not a big deal overall.
Anyway, just thought i would add that in.
Coming from GA i used to hate when people would be stupidly slow and taking their sweet time in the cct, but you have to remember we have standard operating procedures, stable approach requirements and EGPWS to content with, meaning if you do cut corners and try do a tight cct, then we could most likely jeopardise safety and end up having to fill in a lot of paperwork. For the extra minute or two that it takes, its not a big deal overall.
Anyway, just thought i would add that in.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
then we could most likely jeopardise safety and end up having to fill in a lot of paperwork.
It is entirely possible to do a safe, tight, 1500ft circuit, comply with stabilised approach requirements, turn final at 7-800 feet and not exceed EGPWS parameters!
Agree HH. I've never had the EGPWS yelling anything at me when I've done a tight 1,500ft circuit in the B200. Agree that it's a tad slower than the Smash 8, but overall that wouldn't make a great deal of difference. The boys (and girls) in the 737's don't seem to have any problems and they fly circuits about the same size as some Dash 8 drivers!
Maybe it's time for the Sunstate and Eastern Flight Standards Department to take that carrot from their ass and stop being so anal.
morno
Maybe it's time for the Sunstate and Eastern Flight Standards Department to take that carrot from their ass and stop being so anal.
morno
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tjuntjuntjarra
Age: 54
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember flying into Koolan Island one day 4 or 5 years ago when the wind was fair howling straight down rwy 23 amongst a gaggle of 8 or 10 aircraft. I was about the 5th or 6th aircraft and as I came onto downwind I saw the first one continue on for ages before turning base, then each one ahead of me got progressively wider and wider until by the time I followed the one in front of me onto finals I looked at the GPS and saw that I was 6nm out to sea!!
It seems that there is also a lack of understanding of the effect of wind on an approach as the first rooster in there set the bar went so far downwind he had himself set up for a tailwind landing.
I asked him why such a big circuit when we got on the ground, to which he replied "When i advance up the ranks to fly a Jet, thats the circuit I will fly, so thats how I fly now"
I would have thought fly the circuit according to the aircraft u are in, not what u may be flying in 27.4 years time!!
All I can say of that day is, i'm glad it was a company requirement to wear lifejackets and not just stow them under the seat!!
It seems that there is also a lack of understanding of the effect of wind on an approach as the first rooster in there set the bar went so far downwind he had himself set up for a tailwind landing.
I asked him why such a big circuit when we got on the ground, to which he replied "When i advance up the ranks to fly a Jet, thats the circuit I will fly, so thats how I fly now"
I would have thought fly the circuit according to the aircraft u are in, not what u may be flying in 27.4 years time!!All I can say of that day is, i'm glad it was a company requirement to wear lifejackets and not just stow them under the seat!!
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Agree that it's a tad slower than the Smash 8,
Quote:
Agree that it's a tad slower than the Smash 8,
Hi Morno, both Cat B so speed should be fairly close, in my experience you'd think the Dash 8 was slower, with the exception of the Q400 of course!
Agree that it's a tad slower than the Smash 8,
Hi Morno, both Cat B so speed should be fairly close, in my experience you'd think the Dash 8 was slower, with the exception of the Q400 of course!
Dr
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The cloud
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aip 41.1.5 Pilots may vary the size of the circuit depending on: a. the performance of the aircraft, b. safety reasons: or c. in accordance with the Aircraft Flight Manual, Pilot's Operating Handbook, or company Standard Operating Procedures.
Moderator
"thats how they do it in the airlines".
I don't recall the 727/737 needing to stand out very far or go all that far past the threshold. We had FDRs and GPWS and never had any notable problems ?
I don't recall the 727/737 needing to stand out very far or go all that far past the threshold. We had FDRs and GPWS and never had any notable problems ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Asleep on a bench
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH, Captain, et al,
First off, Q400 is Cat C actually.
The other thing I will mention is that the EGPWS in the Q400 is rather sensitive. It has a habit of going off too easily. The company is aware of this and is undertaking a software change with the manufacturer to fix it. I had a "terrain terrain" annunciation the other day, and we were only 1 dot low on the PAPI! Also, it makes sense for procedures to be as consistent as possible between the 200/300 and 400, so that transition between the two is not such a big deal. The 200/300 is indeed more nimble than the Q400 but I am always glad to see that people are pretty comfortable procedurally when they come over to the Q400.
For the jet drivers out there, do you use autothrust through the circuit? There may be a difference there too, as obviously the dash doesn't have a/t. Having completed the downwind leg and ready to descend we turn off the autopilot and it's all manual from there.
You're right, we can and indeed sometimes do tighter circuits when doing circling approaches off an instrument approach, usually rolling out at around 500 feet. No EGPWS squawks and no FDR issues, but the idea is that under visual conditions there's no point in taking out the fudge factor and unnecessarily requiring a go-around if things get a bit sloppy, not to mention the issues with VFR traffic. This might seem a little counter-intuitive: if we can do them, why not do them regularly so we are well practised when it's time to do them in anger? The difference is primarily the visual conditions and the potential for conflict with VFR traffic. On occasion we do practise low level circuits in visual conditions, as long as we are confident there is no one around.
I have actually experienced a case of the 1500 circuit being quite useful. Coming into a regional port one day after making all the usual CTAF calls, discovered a 182 on downwind with us but 500 feet below. He later professed that his radio must not have been working but I was also told that this person has a bit of a habit of trying to avoid landing charges. Needless to say I had a few choice words with the fellow...
And yeah, you'll often find guys who are quite comfortable to turn in before the 30 seconds is up, but in doing that you have to be considerate of the person in the other seat: are they comfortable with such a maneuver? I can always sense when someone is getting a little nervy beside me and their quality of support is reducing as a result. I'll admit I do it from time to time, but only once making sure that the other person is comfortable to do so.
I keep on coming up with little ideas to add, but I promise this will be the last: B200 is single crew, Dash is 2 crew. This makes a significant difference. You have to take the time to make sure both pilots are on the same page and working together. This can be a frustrating reality at times for us ex-GA drivers but it simply takes more time. To use someone's apparently facetious example, to turn on fuel pumps requires someone to turn them on and someone to check that it's done correctly. This takes mental energy and time; you are focusing on what you are doing as well as what someone else is doing. It's not so much a conscious thing, it's something you're just tracking out the corner of your eye, and you would be surprised how often a stuff-up gets made. The potential for both pilots to get loaded up is there.
I guess ultimately it's about knowing your and your crew's limits and working within them. And if you are going to do something different to the standard procedure, you want to be bloody sure you are going to get it right or those buggars upstairs will want a word or three with you!
First off, Q400 is Cat C actually.
The other thing I will mention is that the EGPWS in the Q400 is rather sensitive. It has a habit of going off too easily. The company is aware of this and is undertaking a software change with the manufacturer to fix it. I had a "terrain terrain" annunciation the other day, and we were only 1 dot low on the PAPI! Also, it makes sense for procedures to be as consistent as possible between the 200/300 and 400, so that transition between the two is not such a big deal. The 200/300 is indeed more nimble than the Q400 but I am always glad to see that people are pretty comfortable procedurally when they come over to the Q400.
For the jet drivers out there, do you use autothrust through the circuit? There may be a difference there too, as obviously the dash doesn't have a/t. Having completed the downwind leg and ready to descend we turn off the autopilot and it's all manual from there.
You're right, we can and indeed sometimes do tighter circuits when doing circling approaches off an instrument approach, usually rolling out at around 500 feet. No EGPWS squawks and no FDR issues, but the idea is that under visual conditions there's no point in taking out the fudge factor and unnecessarily requiring a go-around if things get a bit sloppy, not to mention the issues with VFR traffic. This might seem a little counter-intuitive: if we can do them, why not do them regularly so we are well practised when it's time to do them in anger? The difference is primarily the visual conditions and the potential for conflict with VFR traffic. On occasion we do practise low level circuits in visual conditions, as long as we are confident there is no one around.
I have actually experienced a case of the 1500 circuit being quite useful. Coming into a regional port one day after making all the usual CTAF calls, discovered a 182 on downwind with us but 500 feet below. He later professed that his radio must not have been working but I was also told that this person has a bit of a habit of trying to avoid landing charges. Needless to say I had a few choice words with the fellow...
And yeah, you'll often find guys who are quite comfortable to turn in before the 30 seconds is up, but in doing that you have to be considerate of the person in the other seat: are they comfortable with such a maneuver? I can always sense when someone is getting a little nervy beside me and their quality of support is reducing as a result. I'll admit I do it from time to time, but only once making sure that the other person is comfortable to do so.
I keep on coming up with little ideas to add, but I promise this will be the last: B200 is single crew, Dash is 2 crew. This makes a significant difference. You have to take the time to make sure both pilots are on the same page and working together. This can be a frustrating reality at times for us ex-GA drivers but it simply takes more time. To use someone's apparently facetious example, to turn on fuel pumps requires someone to turn them on and someone to check that it's done correctly. This takes mental energy and time; you are focusing on what you are doing as well as what someone else is doing. It's not so much a conscious thing, it's something you're just tracking out the corner of your eye, and you would be surprised how often a stuff-up gets made. The potential for both pilots to get loaded up is there.
I guess ultimately it's about knowing your and your crew's limits and working within them. And if you are going to do something different to the standard procedure, you want to be bloody sure you are going to get it right or those buggars upstairs will want a word or three with you!
Last edited by Gen. Anaesthetic; 27th Jun 2011 at 09:08.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tjuntjuntjarra
Age: 54
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To use someone's apparently facetious example
I think its pretty much understood that bigger planes do bigger circuits, but little planes doing big circuits is retarded. This was what my fuel pump comment was aimed at.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having completed the downwind leg and ready to descend we turn off the autopilot and it's all manual from there.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: In the front, on the right
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MFS / Oxford used to be the classics for for flying jet circuits in Moorabbin (not sure if its still the case as havent flown there since finishing training). I guess glass cockpit C172's require downwind legs, 3-5nm off the runway to facilitate all the button pressing and fancy 'multicrew procedures' that they do.
Really wanted to hear some aspiring jet jockey call "XXX, C172 Heavy.." one day for a good laugh!
Really wanted to hear some aspiring jet jockey call "XXX, C172 Heavy.." one day for a good laugh!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plenty of schools at MB still fly huge circuits.
Not uncommon to see aircraft turning base over Southland (over 2Nm from the airport).
On a southerly day it's common to see aircraft with a downwind spacing that will have them on the bay side of Nepean highway by early-downwind. For those that aren't locals, that's around a 2.5Nm downwind spacing
(When I used to fly there I could keep my downwind along Warrigal road)
DIVOSH!
Not uncommon to see aircraft turning base over Southland (over 2Nm from the airport).
On a southerly day it's common to see aircraft with a downwind spacing that will have them on the bay side of Nepean highway by early-downwind. For those that aren't locals, that's around a 2.5Nm downwind spacing
(When I used to fly there I could keep my downwind along Warrigal road)
DIVOSH!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't.
Not much point really. All I'd do is request from the traffic in front (or the tower at MB) that I'd like to do a tighter circuit inside their circuit. Never had an issue with either MB tower or the other traffic.
IMHO, 'having a word' can escalate to similar to road-rage.
I've had a 'few words' in the circuit (or on the ground) to other pilots about their procedures. More to do with joining on base at night at MB, entering and slow backtracking when I'm turning base (forcing me to go around), no calls at all on a CTAF, etc. All I've ever got in return was abuse. I've spoken to flying schools about some of their aircraft. About the best response I've had was "What do you expect us to do?"
DIVOSH!
Not much point really. All I'd do is request from the traffic in front (or the tower at MB) that I'd like to do a tighter circuit inside their circuit. Never had an issue with either MB tower or the other traffic.
IMHO, 'having a word' can escalate to similar to road-rage.
I've had a 'few words' in the circuit (or on the ground) to other pilots about their procedures. More to do with joining on base at night at MB, entering and slow backtracking when I'm turning base (forcing me to go around), no calls at all on a CTAF, etc. All I've ever got in return was abuse. I've spoken to flying schools about some of their aircraft. About the best response I've had was "What do you expect us to do?"
DIVOSH!
The EGPWS calling ''too low flaps, too low gear, terrain terrain pull up'' is nearly an everyday occurrence in PNG Dash 8 ops.
The hosties complain about how loud the voice is.
The hosties complain about how loud the voice is.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The cloud
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your doing ccts with these guys - a few approaches I used to use were-
Turn early crosswind, or request low level cct... To remain inside them
Second was a request for any of the following from tower -
Taf for nearby airport in the direction of ridiculous cct
Ask if sartime is required on this nav
Request vectors back to the field as you turn base
When you get to a normal spacing ask tower if the preceding traffic has turned as you've lost visual ( even when you can clearly see them)
Lastly confirm you are following xxxx aircraft as they appear to be departing for xxxx
Or a simple request to the aircraft wouldn't go a stray...
P.s Resume - I'm surprised you still don't use the tried and tested "inhibit" approach...
Turn early crosswind, or request low level cct... To remain inside them
Second was a request for any of the following from tower -
Taf for nearby airport in the direction of ridiculous cct
Ask if sartime is required on this nav
Request vectors back to the field as you turn base
When you get to a normal spacing ask tower if the preceding traffic has turned as you've lost visual ( even when you can clearly see them)
Lastly confirm you are following xxxx aircraft as they appear to be departing for xxxx
Or a simple request to the aircraft wouldn't go a stray...
P.s Resume - I'm surprised you still don't use the tried and tested "inhibit" approach...
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course FTOs who are training airline cadets (Parafield etc) or keen wannabes (Moorabbin etc) must fly enormous circuits for two main reasons:
1. They have to get used to flying Boeing/Airbus circuits sooner rather than later anyway.
2. By extending each circuit by 0.1 hour and therefore less circuits per lesson, the student will need more circuit lessons which helps the instructor expedite his 1500 hour target for applying to the airlines.
1. They have to get used to flying Boeing/Airbus circuits sooner rather than later anyway.
2. By extending each circuit by 0.1 hour and therefore less circuits per lesson, the student will need more circuit lessons which helps the instructor expedite his 1500 hour target for applying to the airlines.