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.

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:

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.

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. :ok:

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":D

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.

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.

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.:ugh:

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)

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.

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,

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.

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...
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).

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.

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.

Veruka, fair enough. I've always used 20 degrees AoB and flown a square base leg. No one has ever chipped me for it.

Agreed

Agreed also.

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

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:

Ecovictim, you asked:
Here you go:

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.

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.

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)

Trend vector? Oh yeah - got one of those now. :}

Doesn't say or even imply that the base leg is square. A curved base occurs before final, just as a square base does.

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 3º approach to the runway. :cool:

Checkboard said 60 I bet you couldn't name more than 40 of them. Unless we're talking the 1960's but then that wouldn't have been AN.
ps
All you blowhards who carry on about curved bases and other crap, are full of it.
Easiest picture I could find of a standard circuit is here
God help the poor newbies who listen to all this sooking about curved this and curved that. There are 5 legs to a standard circuit pattern and they are all straight and perpendicular to the previous leg. How you fly it is your business.

It was a guess, I admit. Hmmm ...

Perth, Kalgoorlie, Newman, Geraldton, Meekatharra, Cocos Is, Christmas Is, Bali, Barrow Is, Port Hedland, Argyle Mine, Karratha, Broome, Derby, Kununurra, Darwin, Gove, Groote Is, Weipa, Cairns, Hamilton Is, Townsville, Mt. Isa, Alice Springs, Ayers Rock, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide.

... Ok - not 60 :O

Still a lot of circuits, though. ;)

Ok thanks for that Checkboard
It's not 60, but 25 (Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide have not ever, nor are likely to be, (barring global warming) in the "north and west of Australia" (and 6 of those have ILS's), but still a very respectable list.
Your claim of "still a lot of circuits" does not hold much water when what you were probably doing was maneuvering in the circling area after carrying out some form of instrument/dme arrival.
Not really what this thread on training school circuits was about, though.

BSD

Not necessarily so!

Part of the problem, I think, is that the rules keep changing! For the first 15 years or so of my flying things were pretty much stable and most of us knew what we were doing. Then the inmates were put in charge of the nut house and most of us struggle to keep up with the changes.

Two things came out of my last "workover" with a very, very, very experienced senior instructor and ATO.

1) My nice square turn onto cross wind after TO is out and "a continuous rate one climbing turn onto downwind" is in, and

2) When joining overhead, flying crosswind over the downwind threshold is out, and crossing mid-runway to join mid-downwind is in.

My answer to all this? Keep my eyes peeled out the window and make it up as I go along. Seems to work OK as I flew into YCAB about five times before I figured out that it was RH circuits onto Rwy 30.

Dr :8

Hello Dr,
The 'racetrack' turn to downwind you described, is as taught by Ando and his cohorts and described earlier in this thread. I've also noticed the very military terms 'High Key and Low Key' appearing in CASA's Visual Pilot Guides as well. Maybe the oval circuit as taught at BFTS is the future.

What the law says about the circuit pattern
The answer to what should be a simple question is?????

A fun report :)

Exclusive Video: A Humorous But-Not-That-Gentle Look at Flying Traffic Patterns

By then it's too bloody late.

Why only a rate one turn? The rate of climb in a 30 degree banked turn is almost identical to that of a rate one. You would never pick the difference in the short time it takes to turn through 90 degrees. In a Cessna high wing type the blind spot during the turn means you spend more time blind at Rate One than if the turn is steeper for a shorter period.

The Rate One climbing turn harks from the old days in Tiger Moths where a circling climb to height prior setting course for a cross-country from over the field, was best done at Rate One in order to get to height more quickly that a continuous steep turn over the field over a smaller radius. Nothing wrong at all with a 30-35 degree angle of bank turn for the first crosswind leg -straighten up for a few seconds for spacing and a good look around, then same bank angle on to downwind. Same on base and final.

Aviast, Paul Bertorelli is pure gold....like his instructor shirt with multiplying gold bars...looks like the US runs into the same problems as we do here.

......Often wonderd about circs at PC...should you have to wear a life jacket?

That video was legendary!

That was a funny clip, but I'm not too sure about his advise on slipping to get down, sure it is a useful skill to have but side slipping near the ground for most students should be a big no no (unless of course they are flying an aircraft that uses sideslips to control descent) If we teach students to side slip down final all the time then when they start taking paying pax up they will be plastered to the side window.
Yes I think students are flying larger circuits then needed but there is also a point where the circuits can get a little too close, (if you fly AG ignore all of this, it is in no way aimed at you). Turning final at less than 500ft is unnecessary at most airports (there are always exceptions) it invites error and leaves little room for inexperienced pilots. On the other hand turning final at 1000ft is also unnecessary (unless you're trying to demonstrate something to a student) and shows poor airmanship. In a standard light single your final and base speed will be appx. 60-70kts, so to be at 500ft as you roll wings level on final should have you about 1.5nm from touchdown (standard 3deg profile).

@Aviast
 

Thanks for the picture you posted

In a downwind you are at a horizontal distance of approximately 6000 feet from the runway, and vertically about 1000 ft above runway. An observer at the runway will see your aircraft at an elevation of 10 degrees. ( 100 feet height over one NM subtends 1 degree arc)

Which means that the observer on runway should raise his eyesight 10 degrees above horizon to sight you. In the same manner you should see the observer 10 degrees below horizon from your left window.

In order that this 10 degree line of sight to pass through "half wing strut" and pilots eye, the pilot's eye must be at the same level as the glare shield. You can do this small exercise using a protractor and 3 plane view in the manual.

As you maintained that you did these circuits with "Half-wing-strut", the only way to accommodate a comfortable eye hight and the 1.02 NM wide downwind leg is by flying at 1500 AGL instead of normal 1000 AGL.

Usually the half wing strut method gives a width of 3/4 statute miles or 4000 feet approx. While in your case it gave a width of 1 NM, i.e. 6000 ft. Which led me to think there must be something wrong, but still you have managed fairly consistent widths, Is it possible that you were using any landmark other than the runway itself? My primary instructor emphasized that I should be able to do the pattern with reference to the runway, the aircraft and nothing else.


In my opinion safe distance from runway for single engine piston aircrafts is no more than 4 times the pattern height above ground. Then instead of 10 degrees it ought to be 15 degrees elevation.


One of the foremost consideration in designating such relation is the scenario of power loss in pattern. Just from how far can a trainee pilot safely land at airport in case of an emergency? We must take into account, representative glide ratio, adverse winds and low time pilot.

Any one trying to maintain wider than 3/4 sm in SE Piston is a safety hazard. There are several schools especially outside USA which recommend patterns as wide as 1nm to 1.5nm for SE Piston. I have never understood why they do so?

A few years ago, an instructor commenting on this issue at Jandakot, reckoned a certain foreign school used circuits as nav. exercises, such was the distance from the field.

And for this reason the standard three degree profile is not the best for SEP aircrafts, they ought to be more on 6-8 degrees.

Two points from me.

First, it is unlikely you'll safely make the runway in the case of power loss mid-downwind, no matter what your spacing. You might physically reach the runway you've just departed from, but you're pretty sure of running off the end (unless you happen to be training at Edwards AFB). Much more achievable is a turnback from ~500+ feet AGL after takeoff, or through crosswind, or early downwind. From mid-downwind onwards, on a regular training circuit you just won't make the runway. (There's a narrow window just before base turn, but that's discounted in this discussion as it's a highly unlikely scenario).

So we can discount trying to make the runway as a factor in circuit design. This brings me to my...

Second point. The primary reason for flying circuits is to give a student pilot the opportunity to practice takeoff, approach, and landing. Therefore, the circuit should maximize the student's training value, by being as efficient as possible while coonsidering the aircraft's performance characteristics. As student ability changes, so should the manner in which the circuit is taught/flown. In my opinion, the oval circuit is better, as it challenges judgment and assessment in ways the square pattern cannot, and it copes better with changing wind conditions.

Isn't power of 180 landing a part of FAA commercial pilot practical test standards for ASEL, which all CPL applicant have to demonstrate.

The applicant must land the aircraft within 200 feet of a point on runway abeam the point in downwind where the engine failed.

If one can do it at the end of the runway, you can do it at the middle of the runway.

Millions of pilots have demonstrated and passed the Power of 180 accuracy landing from traffic pattern.

?? Surely you jest!

Isn't that why the retractable undercarriage was invented?

Dr :8

I'm actually a fan of both the square AND the round circuit (depending on terrain) and staying within gliding distance - but maybe thats just a Papua thing :}

A typical single engine trainer with full flap, 60-70 knots and a trickle of power is not a "standard 3 degree profile" by any stretch of the imagination. The three degree profile was put in place for jet transport aircraft where a combination of thrust amount, approach speed and aircraft weight (inertia) meant a rate of descent not exceeding 1000 ft per minute to allow for inertia in the flare.

Of course you can drag a Cessna 150 in with full flap on a estimated three degree glide slope but you will need considerable power to keep the speed up. The normal approach angle for a light single with landing flap, 60-70 knots and 1200 to 1500 rpm is more like five or six degrees and perfectly comfortable. Try flying a PAPI or ILS in a Cessna 150 or Warrior and you will soon discover that significant power is needed to make such a relatively shallow approach if flap is full down.

A three degree approach at 65 knots ground speed gives a rate of descent of 325 feet per minute. Try a 15 knot headwind component and the rate of descent reduces further to 250 fpm. 250 fpm in a Warrior with full flap means an awful lot of power. That means from 500 ft on final it takes you two minutes to the flare. For 140 knots airspeed the rate of descent is around 700 fpm which is omfortable for a 737/A320 allowing for inertia in the flare.

Aiming for a "standard" three degree glide path profile in light aircraft is impractical and unnecessary.

Tee Emm,

that's why I keep the 210 at 140 knots til just under a mile... :}

(in all seriousness though, I agree - no one could argue that the half-screen attitude taught for final approach in baby cessnas results in three degrees...)

Go down hard, or go fast! :ok:

Because when you fly at places like Point Cook where the clowns from the school down there have 6-7 planes in the circuit at a time you need to space yourself out. But for some reason this is beyond their comprehension and they continue to do short finals and go arounds without getting any actual useful practice in. Use your common sense......

there are few flying colleges that flies light aircraft down a 3 degree profile, not the usual 4, for most light aircraft. This means that downwind (and base) is extended slightly, so as to prevent an excessive ROD on base/final. The result is a bigger circuit.