Huge circuits
 

Is it just me, or is the size of circuits being flown by the newer commercial pilots getting bigger.
Flying a high performance aircraft I realise the importance of spacing and not cramping the circuit, and being larger and faster should put me outside of most other circuit traffic. Recently this hasnt been the case. Is it that newer CPLs arnt being trained to the same standards of old, or do they just have no spatial orientation and concept of faster following traffic.
In my younger years bug smashers would either giveway to higher performing aicraft (out of consideration, think bigger uglier harder to slow down and turn) or keep it tight to keep out of the way.
This isnt a wind up, just a personal gripe.
Any thoughts...

I sense a touch of deja vu here! :ugh:

G'day ;)

The shape is changing as well; some are square, some rectangular, some oval some triangular and some even kidney shaped :ugh: :ugh:

Atlas,

Are you talking about my Straight In Approaches:ooh: :ooh:

If someone would not keep rubbing out the dotted white lines some folk might be able to do a nice neat circuit!

J:ok:

I empathise with you. At work i try to teach the smallest circuits I can, its very much my 'pet thing', however I notice a large proportion of training organizations are getting wider, and wider.

The trouble this places on us is we cant easily teach circuit sequences due getting jammed up behind the preceding, either having to go around, fly slow cruise on downwind (in a 152!) or fly an enormous circuit ourselves, very much a last resort.

I do however come up short when I trying to affect a solution for all this, short of attaching a screenshot from google earth and drawing a 'proper' circuit on it in big bold colors with some angry text below on the staff notice board. :ugh:

Speaking of circuits, driving through Bankstown Airport in recent times, I've seen some absolutely shocking finals being flown for 11R. Triangular ain't the word. One was in line with the bloody tower about 100 feet of centre, on a CALM morning, and only aligned themselves properly at about 150 feet. I feel for the poor instructors trying to correct their students...

EDIT: Changed to 11R, courtesy of Kickatinalong

In my days in ol Kununurra I witnessed some shockingly wide circuits that required airways clearances from Darwin if not Dili approach - the way to fix it is to tell them... generally via some cheap shot comment on the radio.:}

Pride on their behalf usually steps in and they'll correct it.

Efficiency should never be at the expense of safety though :ok:

At my local airfield where I did my training and had my 1st GA job there were two flight schools.

My flight school taught what I consider a nice circuit with good circuit spacing but the other flight school did circuits that were about 1.5 times wider than ours. This was a major hassel and slowed down the whole process greatly.

Once I got into one of the local charter companys the tower would often clear us in on the inside of the traffic in the downwind that were well wide. This was a great help from the tower because we did not have to slow a 206 down to fit in behind a 152 in the early and wide downwind positon.

ARPs

I would suspect people paid by the flight hour stay in the air as long as possible. :eek: Its a wonder you didn't see the bungles done with 20' flap and 70 knots............ all the way back to the kunna's. :}

Who told you?
My circuits tend to vary from AC to AC, and also depending on type of operation, as an instructor I try to teach closer rather then wide circuits as the student then gets more landings in their time period. I still remember watching a Fletcher fly a circuit entirely inside the airport boundary at what I must assume to be 500', now that was a circuit. :ok:

Ever has it been thus. :}

ahhh thats my trick wiz

usualy though I only slow down for the goverment clients := or when it's a nice day for flying.

I too am not a fan of huge circuits, however in response to drshmoo, the non-existant circuit size encouraged by one KU operator (I'm sure many know who) is not only unsafe but encourages pilots to compete with each other. When I was there it was a gear up/stall during turn onto final/unable to land on remaining runway after EFATO waiting to happen. :=

One day I decided to have a chat to one of these guys to make a suggestion about not doing steep (ie 45 degrees angle of bank) gliding turns from really close downwind straight onto the numbers. :ugh: He set me straight by confidently telling me how in a steep gliding turn the aircraft has to generate much, much less lift than in level flight and that reduced the chance of a stall, particularly in a fully loaded Cessna single. :D

I thanked him for setting me straight and went on my way, tail between my legs.

Jedi, maybe it is because they don't understand your aircraft performance is so good? Maybe a little time to get familiar with the aircraft types and performances operating around them will eventually sort it out?

Jedi

I feel your pain!:uhoh:

Rather than teach "closer rather than wider" circuit width, perhaps you should teach a normal circuit width depending on aircraft type. Depending on load and wind, this may well involve a climbing turn on to the downwind leg. For example the manufacturer's original flight crew training manual for Boeing 737 series recommends typically one mile to one and a half mile width downwind leg. Recently that was changed to two miles to standardise with all Boeing models including wide-bodies..

Light training aircraft need to be only half a mile wide at the most.

Once you start working it doesn't change, there are some individuals who just don't get it, once in to the regionals guess what, more of the same!:hmm:

I suspect those who fly with the majors have the same gripes...;)

I can definately see why instructors fly wider CTS, it gives them more time to instruct checks, and patter base finals etc. But jesus its tough work flying a pitts when you have 152s bashing the circuit.

Those wide CTS can be the bain of your existance if you get an engine failure on base, as you wouldnt be gliding distance to the runway :rolleyes:

I remember the days of flying the Bankstown Circuit, and tower saying Sydney CTR is complaining about the wideness of the circuits, "could everyone fly closer to runway as your infringing airspace"

Was that last week or the week before? :} :} :}

Now now Pseudonymn, you know I have trouble remembering anything greater then a week ago.:}

I always used to use the rule of 1/4 inside the wing tip as a good DOWNWIND spacing. it seemed to work. whether it was a C10, AP38, PA28.. whatever. now I have moved onto aircraft that have MORE performance, I find that tghe runway ON the wingtip seems to work better. I would presuem that aircraft with MORE performance (E120 etc) that are now having to fly a 1500' cct would probably be wider again!!!

I was always taught form ab-initio, that wdownwind spacing was JUST enufff to let me GLIDE to a place wher could land on the runway!!!(which was NORMALLY 1/3 inside the wing tip!_)