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

As frustrating as it is for other circuit users, I can only assume that there is a good reason why circuits are taught this way?

Im not having a go at the schools, just trying to understand their reasoning.

Take longer, learn less, make more money? What other reasons?

If only I knew.....

When instructing a few years back I was following an aircraft from one of these organisations in the circuit one morning. Sitting alongside me was a Widebody Skipper who was getting a bit of currency in a lighty.

As our downwind following the preceding aircraft reached some ridiculous distance, he turned to me and commented "I fly smaller bloody circuits in a 767"!

But then this same training organisation also forbid intersection takeoff's because "that's not what airlines do." Clearly the person who wrote the SOP's has never been to any major airport in the world!:ugh:

I did my early training at Wellington International... we had to fly massive massive circuits so the neighbours don't cry about it. I've always had to overcome instinct to fly tight circuits at other aerodromes.

If they're THAT big, drop inside them and land. When the inevitable complaint comes over the radio you can reply: "Oh!, I'm sorry - I thought you had departed the circuit on some sort of navigation exercise!"

Agreed. Have seen it done and have done it myself, but usually would ask ATC first.

"Tower, can we turn inside the 747 / wide circuit" or words to that effect usually do the job. If the controller then feels they are a bit wide, they will ask them to tighten it up. It's not always something you have to persist with unless the circuit is quite busy and they need to fit in their 8 aircraft per side.

It's because the instructor doesn't ask the student to assess their spacing, or if they do, don't ask them what they are going to do about it if it looks all wrong.:ugh:

Seriously guys, when someone says "turning base behind the aircraft on ridiculously long final", THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG!

F:mad:ck em. They want to buy cheap next to the airport!
How loud is an O-320 at 1000' anyway???:rolleyes:

Complaints like that should attract a set of low level circuits!

Gee I guess none of you guys ever struggled early solo on downwind?

The airport I work at has a few schools that would fit this category and they generally aren't too bad. More often than not it depends on what level the student is at. From my days of instructing I recall most early circuit lessons the students struggled to get the pre landing checks done and the radio call on downwind completed (along with trying to fly the aeroplane). Whilst I like to keep it tight and would prompt along those lines, if I took over all the time how does the student learn? It was generally a non issue after a few lessons but still they can be busy early solo.

From an ATC perspective rarely will we tell you how to fly unless we specifically need it (ie Helicopter traffic inside the fixed wing circuit or about to leave the CTR).

Saying something can help, but a "can we tighten it up" has more effect than "am I following a 747 out there".

From my days instructing, I would do the radio and checks for them, until they had the circuit OK - then increase the workload as gradually as they could handle it.

As did I. The point I was trying to make is that early on they are busy doing all that stuff. Some of the closest circuits I see (and I see a lot every day) are the solo "airline" students. They aren't always the guilty ones, just the easiest target.

Well they aren't ready to go solo then are they?

How wide are we talking? more than a mile?

They sometimes fly seriously wide , I think I could do two circuits or close to that by the time they come in

Because none of their instructors have had a real engine failure in a single yet..

Easy - just ask for a glide or short approach and drop inside them. You'll catch them back up in 2-3 circuits, but it's all good - it's about SA and managing your own positioning. Or ask ATC for an opposite circuit. Don't get frustrated - turn it into a lesson that's more than a takeoff, 4 left (or right) turns and a landing.

I've seen some ome in on a 2-3 mile final from the circuit, I just ask for the opposite direction to what they're using at the time.

Some of the a/c being used have a nice engine out quality and glide a long way further than a 172 does.......and I can imagine that they could be the cause of your stress.

They could introduce sideslip into every cct and help you out! :ok:

unfortunately most of the ones I have seen are in 172s or Grobs.

They don't glide to well.

Large ccts because:

1. The instructor is too busy listening to his/her own voice and thinking the student needs to have some time to listen. Talk on the ground. Instruct in the air! Practice approach and landings when it's time to practice approach and landings. Practice straight and level away from the circuit. If you, as an instructor, have something important to say, make a full stop and talk on the taxi back to the threshold.

2. The student thinks he/she needs to have a long, stabilised approach for a good landing or he/she is just enjoying the view. What a waste of money!

Pretty frustrating at CN, especially if you are flying a Pitts or something similar. Overtaking rarely allowed and LL cts no longer permitted :ugh: not a lot of fun to be stuck behind warriors, 172s and the odd Grob flying circuits big enough to warrant an alternate.

Lets get down to tin tacks on this, What does everyone think is a correct size circuit.

I'm a PPL with 90 hrs (wow) I was taught to have the wing tip running parallel with the runway on downwind left hand circuit, and halfway along the wing on a right hand circuit.

Base and final was always taught to be within gliding distance in case of engine failure.

But flying at a D-Class airfield with regular RPT operators this is not always possible.

Your Thoughts

As per the Jeps recommended circuit spacing is 1/2 to 3/4 of a NM on the downwind leg for most single engine piston types.

For high performance types a continual turn from upwind to downwind is adequate spacing.

GG

I guess attitudes and so forth are different these days ...

.. early circuit lessons the students struggled to get the pre landing checks done and the radio call on downwind completed ..

Then the student needs to be drilled before the first flight on the sequence of actions .. so that, by the second session in the circuit he/she is ahead of the aircraft throughout. The drilling takes a lot of time and effort on the part of both student and instructor .. but the result of such an approach and attitude is the student gets off solo in 4-6 hours and has the licence in minimum hours .. and ends up at a higher standard than the would be checklist reading airline student.

Some of the best fun I ever had in an aeroplane was half a dozen circuits in a 685 at Essendon years ago with the owner as payment for some engineering work I'd done on the aircraft. Didn't venture outside the aerodrome fenceline throughout (R17 as I recall). Tower thought it was great fun for a change and the owner (in the RHS) only saw the aerodrome on final ... he was an ex-airline driver in a past life and had raised eyebrows for the first one or two circuits (then again, I couldn't see too much myself on downwind) .... made the Shrike's performance look like a lawn mower's ... now, if only I could afford a 685 (or similar) for my weekend toy.

Oval circuits is the term, I believe ?

As a student at one of these "airline training organisations" I've always flown what I consider to be a "standard" circuit (see below). We're taught to use "half wing strut" spacing in a C172R. On many occasions I've had to widen my circuit due to other traffic but I can't say I've ever noticed anyone flying a much tighter circuit than myself, which seems to be what some of the posters in this thread are suggesting should be "normal". (?)

I use a GPS flight recorder to record most of my flights; here is a composite of 9 circuit training flights. The white line is 1.02nm long.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_N75r5-LFfE4/S0...4/circuits.jpg

The point I was trying to make is that in the first lesson, maybe 2, the student's work load is high. You can drill them for hours and hours, however actually flying the plane is different as I am sure everyone here is aware, otherwise everyone could get a license from playing MS Flight sim.

The camps we do with Air Force cadets we regularly send kids solo between 7-10hrs but meh. I am probably doing it wrong anyway.

Good luck with your wide circuits everyone.

Perhaps I have been flying oval circuits in turbines too long (for my limited memory anyhow:confused:) to be qualified to comment, however.

What is wrong with simply turning downwind immediately upon reaching circuit altitude? (perhaps beforehand if you have poor performance).
Likewise base at a specified timing from abeam the landing threshold (varied for wind).

Why stray further than required?, safety aside, the exercise is about returning to ground!

Agreed John Tullamarine re: drills, students should have worn ruts into the living room floor walking the procedures and mentally flying the circuit, prior to even booking the lesson.

Scrapping long and hard for every dollar towards a lesson soon motivates one to make it all count.:ok:

I agree with the comments about the student needing to fly bigger circuits because of the high workload on in ab-initio training. The purpose of the circuit is to position the aircraft, configure it and prepare for landing IMHO. If a pilot requires more room than someone else to do this initially then that is fine.

My beef with the whole big circuit thing is why aren't they later encouraged to see how tight they can make it. "Time is money" is what I was told even during PPL training (as I was then planning to jump straight to CPL). I see it daily, with commercial pilots (I use the term loosely) flying 2Nm circuits in aircraft rangine from 172's to 210's, meanwhile there are people in 402's, 404s, PA31's that are tighter.

Any ideas on that one guys, coz it has me stuffed.

Aviast, nice continuous spacings, (even if Qantas doesn't fly square circuits). Seriously though, the problem is that many students, and indeed, their instructors, don't notice the spacing on their downwinds. Myself and plenty of the other posters here do.

The correct spacings and attitudes should be the first thing demonstrated to any student starting circuits so that they can compare their spacing to what SHOULD be demonstrated correctly in the first place.
PRIMACY.

Maybe we should see more of the half a dozen students on pushbikes riding circuits and making their calls to the nominated "ATC" student/instructor standing in the middle so that they can handle the workload prior to flying?
Spot on, JT:ok:

Aviast, good heading control with your ccts mate. Straight lines.

Only a few of us fly circuits the way they're meant to be flown... only a few.

Don't diss the beginners, they're learning but as the air up there said, teach them later to fly proper ccts... if they haven't worked it out for themselves.

Whoever flew the cct at ywgt the other day to make time for me... thanks :ok: It was such a relief to see others fly the way I do :}

As aviast was brave enough to stick his neck out.. I see nothing wrong with the lateral spacing, however, the crosswind / base legs on a few of those are a bit further out than I'd personally want to be.

As to why xc circuits - 2 reasons I can see;

1) some people suggest if you're training for the airlines, you should fly your PA28 like an airliner. Personally I disagree.. if you're going to be professional, you ought to be professional enough to fly appropriately for each type!

2) More common at YMMB, there's a slow a/c or two in the circuit - So the a/c behind goes a little wider, and the one behind follows/wider still. Eventually you're 5 miles out.. It never seems to occur that even the 'fast' a/c can usually drop a couple of notches of flap, throttle back, and happily fly the downwind leg at the same speed as the c150 in front. Bonus there is that if you should happen to have an inconvenient engine failure, you can holler out on the radio, dump the flap and make a swift turn onto the airfield somewhere - anywhere.

Then we have my personal pet hate.. people extend downwind for spacing all the time, rather than slowing on downwind.. but they still put some flap out on base, and the rest of it when they turn final - somewhere around the inbound reporting point. (sorry, that's turning into a rant...) think it's because people are taught by numbers, "turn final, 2000rpm, 2 stages flap" rather than to fly the aeroplane: "well, that looks a bit high, better put some flap out"

Most of us seem to agree that the first few circuit exercises as a new student are going to produce wide circuits. Mine certainly did and its a workload thing.

...Then at YMMB we work out the Springvale Road/Boundary road/Heatherton Road/golfclub or whatever landmarks and our circuit performance improves. Get real, after a few circuits at YMMB you are following roads and aiming at clubhouses and nurseries, not judging distances by wing struts, etc.


....Then we go away from the familiar airport and mess it up all over again at a shorter, narrower, unfamiliar strip like I regularly do.

As for slowing down to get the spacing, I do that all the time, and occasionally I'm rewarded with an early Left turn by ATC.

There are two more common reasons for wide circuits at large flying schools.

If there are many aircraft (7? 8?) in the circuit all using the same runway, the circuit will increase in size simply to fit that number of aircraft in. Whilst in theory there is still no need to extend wide or long downwind, in practice someone does and then everyone else must follow suit.

With different types operating in a busy circuit, it is often difficult for students to judge the correct spacing behind preceding aircraft. Therefore students will extend "just a little bit" to get enough space on final. Whether necessary or not, this compounds very quickly in a busy circuit.

Rgds,
O8

Maybe can understand at a busy Airfield but why big circuits when there's only one or two Aircraft at a regional or remote Airfield? Apart from lack of ability that is.

ahhh the old "GFS" circuit. I remember

"ABC you're number 2 to a 172 on wide downwind."

"Looking for the traffic ABC"

"Ahh ABC that traffic is now in your 3o'clock you're now number 1..." :}

The air up there:

The biggest difference between the bare CPL and the multi IFR driver is that the IFR guys are well aware how big their circling area is and they're always keeping the a/c within it (even when its CAVOK and above MDA). Plus time is money!

Eocvictim, I think you have summed up this thread with saying. "Plus time is money!":ugh:

I have sat back and watched the usual dribble come out from the self-proclaimed experts, but I can't hold back any longer. I'm not defending large circuits, in fact the instructor shouldn't let this consistently happen.

The notion large circuits are flown to bleed money from the student is plain wrong. Many 'airline' training organisations have to stick damn close to the syllabus otherwise they leave themselves wide open when airline 'X' audits them. So it's not just a matter of turning a 1.0 lesson into a 1.2 or 1.3 hour flight so everyone can make more money. Flying a wide pattern benefits no one - only achieving six circuits in a lesson is not a beneficial as eight.

"Ahh, but you can charge extra remedial time when the student doesn't get to solo in the normal time" some bright spark will no doubt comment. That's true, but again it is nobody's interest for this to happen. The airline/client starts questionning why their students are overflying (and run the risk of losing their contract), or the student is scrubbed from the course. Not a good outcome for anyone.

So why the 'wide' circuit? Most clients have a requirement for their students to be taught good profile and speed control, in particular using a 3 degree profile. If you do the maths such a profile puts you 1.57 nm from the aim point at 500 feet.

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.

Later in the student's training there may come a time when "Bloggs, I believe you won't be off to airline X in the short term and will have to cut your teeth up north. If might not always be appropriate to fly like we have been, how about we look at a closer circuit to save your boss some money". We attempt to teach them good habits if their headed for a single engine charter job in the near future, but hopefully by the time the student is at airline X they can fall back on the rule of primacy (flying the required profile they learnt back at the start).

So why the wide circuit? From my experience the crosswind/downwind leg (once mastered) isn't really much larger than what anyone else is flying. It's the positioning of the base turn which makes it challenging from those behind teaching steeper approaches.

The Qantas circuit diagram shows a racecourse crosswind turn on to downwind, and a 'square base'. That's what we teach/fly, traffic permitting.

Probably further out than what he wanted as well. No doubt due to delaying the turn due to traffic ahead.

Now let me get my shield out as those who have never taught such students in such training environments take pot shots at my comments.

Cool, I'll start. :}

Why would you teach an airline procedure to a basic student not flying an airliner? :confused:

Qf jets aim for a 2 - 2.5nm spacing from the runway on downwind, therefore checkboards question of students flying the Qf circuit procedure isn't correct as it is modified for a light training aircraft type.
Looking at aviasts piccy, I would say he is being taught well. (Might just straighten up that downwind track to parallel the runway though).

Thats strange I have never seen or been on a QF flight that has flown a square base.


Flying training organisations, Airlines and all instructors, it takes sweet fu^kall training to convert your average CPL candidate from <5700kg ops to transport category ops. In other words, fly the bloody aircraft as per the POH and the DAY VFR syllabus not like the space shuttle.

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.