Orbiting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DNMM/UK
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orbiting
I've looked through PPL books and the syllabus ad there is nothing in there about orbiting. My school discourages orbiting in the circuit, and after a near head on collision with another a/c on downwind I agree fully with them. But light aircraft at busy controlled airports are usually expect to asked to orbit while the big boys land. I have checked CAP 413 and it says nothing about orbiting.
So what in an orbit? what power settings/angle of bank/rate of turn do you use?
Capt. M
So what in an orbit? what power settings/angle of bank/rate of turn do you use?
Capt. M
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forget 2 minute turns. Those are for instrument procedures.
The turn you make (bank angle, radius) is going to vary depending on the met conditions, traffic conditions and terrain surrounding the airfield concerned.
The purpose of an orbit is to create a bit of space between you and the traffic you are following, without leaving the general area you were operating in. It is up to you to select a combination of speed, and bank angle that allows you to accomplish that spacing without losing your ability to spot other traffic and maintain your situational awareness.
2D
The turn you make (bank angle, radius) is going to vary depending on the met conditions, traffic conditions and terrain surrounding the airfield concerned.
The purpose of an orbit is to create a bit of space between you and the traffic you are following, without leaving the general area you were operating in. It is up to you to select a combination of speed, and bank angle that allows you to accomplish that spacing without losing your ability to spot other traffic and maintain your situational awareness.
2D
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 870
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If somebody has come close to a head on whilst orbiting in the circuit, then one or both of the parties involved were flying some pretty poor circuits.
As for speed, power settings, bank angle etc... just keep them the same as required for a standard circuit. As 2 Donks says, the whole point is just to create some separation from other circuit traffic, so at standard circuit speeds, the controller has at least some idea of where you will be relative to the other traffic following your orbit before requesting you to do so. Full power, max rate turns probably aren't the way forward.
If in your opinion, an adjustment is required to any of those settings, then make it, just the same as you would if you were failing to maintain adequate separation elsewhere in the circuit.
As for speed, power settings, bank angle etc... just keep them the same as required for a standard circuit. As 2 Donks says, the whole point is just to create some separation from other circuit traffic, so at standard circuit speeds, the controller has at least some idea of where you will be relative to the other traffic following your orbit before requesting you to do so. Full power, max rate turns probably aren't the way forward.
If in your opinion, an adjustment is required to any of those settings, then make it, just the same as you would if you were failing to maintain adequate separation elsewhere in the circuit.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Over here but sometimes over there.
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pick yourself a reference point on the ground, as the wind may cause you to actually fly an oval. Roll out in the turn if necessary to maintain your position in reference to you where you started it.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: England
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I was taught:
Select slow safe cruise ( see poh for particular type)
square orbits, making wind corrections, using cardinal compass points or obvious ground features with 30 second legs.
Two mins to go round in a square.
IMHO theres no need to bat along at cruise setting burning more fuel + continuous turn patterns mean you always blind sided
Select slow safe cruise ( see poh for particular type)
square orbits, making wind corrections, using cardinal compass points or obvious ground features with 30 second legs.
Two mins to go round in a square.
IMHO theres no need to bat along at cruise setting burning more fuel + continuous turn patterns mean you always blind sided
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DNMM/UK
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem I have is that there may be a few/many pilots out there (i'm one of them) who do not know what to do if told to orbit since its not in the PPL syllabus. I know that an orbit is a 360 deg turn. It's a bit like telling me to do an insrument approach or hold. I don't know what RT phraseology is used with respect to orbits so i don't know what to expect
G-XX orbit?
G-XX cleared to orbit??
G-XX maintain orbit???
will I be told how many orbits to do and where to do them?
Capt. M
G-XX orbit?
G-XX cleared to orbit??
G-XX maintain orbit???
will I be told how many orbits to do and where to do them?
Capt. M
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are told to "make one right hand orbit for spacing" by an ATCO, the only RT you need to conjure from your vast pool of learning is "Willco".
Should you feel that the request is unreasonable, or dangerous, you can say "Unable (give a reason)".
In flying an orbit, you are not being asked to peform some FAA Ground reference manoeuvre. You are simply being told to make some room, and flying a circle happens to be a neat way of doing that.
There is surely an element of mountains and molehills here?
2D
Should you feel that the request is unreasonable, or dangerous, you can say "Unable (give a reason)".
In flying an orbit, you are not being asked to peform some FAA Ground reference manoeuvre. You are simply being told to make some room, and flying a circle happens to be a neat way of doing that.
There is surely an element of mountains and molehills here?
2D
'Orbits' are usually symptomatic of non-pilot ATCOs overcontrolling the visual circuit for commercial reasons and should be a last resort, rather than routine practice.
My advice is to turn in the direction of the circuit (in accordance with the Rules of the Air) unless ATC direct otherwise. All such turns should be nothing more than a simple 30 deg medium turn with bank adjusted to maintain position over a ground reference point.
Orbiting in the visual circuit is a very undesirable procedure and should be avoided wherever possible. It also has the insidious danger of taking captaincy decisions away from the lawful Commander and transferring them to an ATCO who is not trained to comprehend them fully.
My advice is to turn in the direction of the circuit (in accordance with the Rules of the Air) unless ATC direct otherwise. All such turns should be nothing more than a simple 30 deg medium turn with bank adjusted to maintain position over a ground reference point.
Orbiting in the visual circuit is a very undesirable procedure and should be avoided wherever possible. It also has the insidious danger of taking captaincy decisions away from the lawful Commander and transferring them to an ATCO who is not trained to comprehend them fully.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orbiting is just flying a 360 degree turn.
The main issue as you already found out that there may be others behind you who may not be on exactly the same track as you. This can lead to you meeting up head on.
When asked to orbit and I am not sure about other traffic I usually just leave the circuit and join later. Rather spend a bit more time flying out of a congested area than trying to hold on to my slot in the circuit.
FD
The main issue as you already found out that there may be others behind you who may not be on exactly the same track as you. This can lead to you meeting up head on.
When asked to orbit and I am not sure about other traffic I usually just leave the circuit and join later. Rather spend a bit more time flying out of a congested area than trying to hold on to my slot in the circuit.
FD
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Orbits' are usually symptomatic of non-pilot ATCOs overcontrolling the visual circuit for commercial reasons and should be a last resort, rather than routine practice.
HOWEVER - it's not the preserve of ATCO's. I often get asked by pilots "Can I do an orbit for spacing" when just tweaking the circuit a little wider to fit in with the traffic (which they can see 9 times out of 10) would do the job quite nicely.
It's the age old problem of people flying from ATC airfields with little or no A/G or FISO airfield experience. They're not equipped to make the decision for themselves and how some are, I suspect, taught, doesn't help either. They expect to be nannied and not have to think!
No, they have got used to being nannied. And they should NEVER "tweak the circuit a little wider"' they should continue in the normal circuit pattern, giving way to any traffic on final which has landing clearance by going around as necessary .
IFR traffic in VMC - even in Class D CTRs - is only entitled to be given traffic avoidance information about VFR traffic on request. They do not have any inherent 'priority' over such traffic, they just assume that they do - and ATC are often complicit in giving them this perception!
Too often do some ATCOs attempt to provide IFR separation standards in VMC in Class D airspace. IFR separation is only provided from other IFR traffic in Class D; pushing VFR traffic around to make life easy for the IFR inbound is unreasonable. However, 'traffic information' is available for VFR traffic, so if ATC advise that some airliner is inbound, then any VFR traffic should simply be told the postion of the inbound traffic ("CheapAir 737 IFR inbound at 10 miles") and arrange their own separation accordingly. And that doesn't mean some ATCO ordering orbits, extensions downwind or other non-standard aviation practices.
IFR traffic in VMC - even in Class D CTRs - is only entitled to be given traffic avoidance information about VFR traffic on request. They do not have any inherent 'priority' over such traffic, they just assume that they do - and ATC are often complicit in giving them this perception!
Too often do some ATCOs attempt to provide IFR separation standards in VMC in Class D airspace. IFR separation is only provided from other IFR traffic in Class D; pushing VFR traffic around to make life easy for the IFR inbound is unreasonable. However, 'traffic information' is available for VFR traffic, so if ATC advise that some airliner is inbound, then any VFR traffic should simply be told the postion of the inbound traffic ("CheapAir 737 IFR inbound at 10 miles") and arrange their own separation accordingly. And that doesn't mean some ATCO ordering orbits, extensions downwind or other non-standard aviation practices.
I'm not quite sure I agree with you there BEagle.
Two VFR traffic should be (made) aware of each others position and sort their own positioning - that's fine.
But in the case you've described, that 737 must maintain IFR, and requires minimum separation from other traffic (be it IFR or VFR) to do so. So, you may need keeping out of his way, for his benefit - not yours. Mind you I do agree that there are better ways of doing it than orbitting very often, "height not above", "Do not turn North of", "Do not descend below", "do not turn base until instructed" are usually more elegant - and safer than an orbit within the circuit.
Having said that, it's the IFR traffic that needs to remain IFR, you don't need him to. So, it's much more appropriate for the controller to either ask him to become VFR, or to move him !
G
Two VFR traffic should be (made) aware of each others position and sort their own positioning - that's fine.
But in the case you've described, that 737 must maintain IFR, and requires minimum separation from other traffic (be it IFR or VFR) to do so. So, you may need keeping out of his way, for his benefit - not yours. Mind you I do agree that there are better ways of doing it than orbitting very often, "height not above", "Do not turn North of", "Do not descend below", "do not turn base until instructed" are usually more elegant - and safer than an orbit within the circuit.
Having said that, it's the IFR traffic that needs to remain IFR, you don't need him to. So, it's much more appropriate for the controller to either ask him to become VFR, or to move him !
G
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do we think of reducing speed to (your) slow flight speed as a mechanism to introduce spacing between you and the aircraft ahead?
My only concern with this is the pressure it puts on following aircraft, who may not be able to slow down as much. (60 Kts is a typical slow flight speed for what I fly).
Would you inform ATC that you were reducing speed for seperation purposes? (so that any aircraft following you would have an instant heads-up as to why you were getting closer!)
My only concern with this is the pressure it puts on following aircraft, who may not be able to slow down as much. (60 Kts is a typical slow flight speed for what I fly).
Would you inform ATC that you were reducing speed for seperation purposes? (so that any aircraft following you would have an instant heads-up as to why you were getting closer!)
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 2,212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags
This is where we're going to disagree, and where the difference between 'mil' and 'civil' will show itself.
In the mil world you send the guy around, the idea being that the go around takes him ahead and above the instrument traffic, positioning deadside to rejoin the circuit. Fair enough, it works in the mil environment, and that's what is expected.
However, in the civil world that VFR guy might not want to go around, he might want to land. (He's paying for it after all - not me, or H.M Queen Betty). In which case you pass traffic information and it's up to the guy who is number 2 (often, but not always the VFR) to adjust his circuit to fit behind the IFR traffic. This is done by orbiting (not tidy, not favoured) or slightly extending (tweaking) the visual circuit.
The thing is this practice is perfectly within the ANO
I, as an ATCO, have established an order of landing, and as such it is up to the aircraft involved to conform to that by whatever techniques are required and by fulfilling any conditions I put on it ('tweaking', slowing down, etc etc).
Bear in mind here that we're not talking about unnecessary separation - we're talking about only one aircraft being able to be able to land (by which I mean the actual transition from flight to non-flight) at any one time.
Also another thing to remember which sometimes enters the equation - civil Vortex Wake Criteria are larger than military, and these have to be attempted to be complied with for landing aircraft. (You can't say have to be - nobody can judge 3, 4, 6 or 8 miles in the circuit).
Come on Beags, you should know better - I cannot ask that. Choice of IFR or VFR is pilots decision only and if he wants to stay IFR there's nothing I can do about it. Even suggesting it would get me a one way interview with the boss!
Tacpot
If you're flying something that can fly that slow then you're never going to be asked - if anything people are going to, more often than not, ask you to keep your speed up. I would suggest you fly circuits at normal speed and leave the slowing up to more high performance aircraft which have a wider operating envelope. If you brought the speed back that far and I was behind you in an Aztec or similar expect to get over-taken 
And they should NEVER "tweak the circuit a little wider"' they should continue in the normal circuit pattern, giving way to any traffic on final which has landing clearance by going around as necessary .
In the mil world you send the guy around, the idea being that the go around takes him ahead and above the instrument traffic, positioning deadside to rejoin the circuit. Fair enough, it works in the mil environment, and that's what is expected.
However, in the civil world that VFR guy might not want to go around, he might want to land. (He's paying for it after all - not me, or H.M Queen Betty). In which case you pass traffic information and it's up to the guy who is number 2 (often, but not always the VFR) to adjust his circuit to fit behind the IFR traffic. This is done by orbiting (not tidy, not favoured) or slightly extending (tweaking) the visual circuit.
The thing is this practice is perfectly within the ANO
I, as an ATCO, have established an order of landing, and as such it is up to the aircraft involved to conform to that by whatever techniques are required and by fulfilling any conditions I put on it ('tweaking', slowing down, etc etc).Bear in mind here that we're not talking about unnecessary separation - we're talking about only one aircraft being able to be able to land (by which I mean the actual transition from flight to non-flight) at any one time.
Also another thing to remember which sometimes enters the equation - civil Vortex Wake Criteria are larger than military, and these have to be attempted to be complied with for landing aircraft. (You can't say have to be - nobody can judge 3, 4, 6 or 8 miles in the circuit).
Having said that, it's the IFR traffic that needs to remain IFR, you don't need him to. So, it's much more appropriate for the controller to either ask him to become VFR, or to move him !
Tacpot
What do we think of reducing speed to (your) slow flight speed as a mechanism to introduce spacing between you and the aircraft ahead?
My only concern with this is the pressure it puts on following aircraft, who may not be able to slow down as much. (60 Kts is a typical slow flight speed for what I fly).
My only concern with this is the pressure it puts on following aircraft, who may not be able to slow down as much. (60 Kts is a typical slow flight speed for what I fly).
Last edited by Chilli Monster; 26th Jul 2004 at 12:53.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle,
Taking your point then, how does non variance of the Standard Circuit in your argument cope with an inbound stream of Medium to Heavy vortex wake category aircraft against Bloggs in his light aircraft bashing the visual cct?
Remembering that the recomended vortex wake separation between a light and a medium is 6 miles, between a light and a heavy is 8 miles and that training and GA traffic does take the lowest flight priorities, Category Z (unless classed as a NORMAL FLIGHT by filing a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routing procudures, or is an Initial IR test conducted by the CAA FEU under the c/s EXAM), where do you suggest Bloggs goes?
The visual circuit is not a rigid pattern as you would expect an instrument pattern to be. Flexibility in this is sometimes required for an ATCO to service the needs of all aircraft in the sky. We are tasked to provide a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic, which at times means being flexible and adjusting the order in which things happen, and how aircraft are and can be integrated.
In the visual cct, both the pilot and the controller should be looking out of the window anyway.
No ATCO in my experience would try (or even want to) make an executive decision for the pilot, or compromise his command authority. If a pilot is unable to comply with a request or instruction, all he has to do is say so and what he intends to do as an alternative. If the alternative can be accommodated then great (the controller may not have thought of that solution), however if it not feasable to accommodate it then the aircraft will have the option of going with option 1, or leaving the cct/ATZ until a more suitable time. I would suggest however that maintaining a standard pattern to roll out 2 miles behind a Heavy would not be one of the pilot's better decisions, nor would continually going around into the departure sector upwind.
I suggest that lack of flexibility in the vis cct could be counter productive to students.
PS Genghis, do you mean VFR or "visual"? There is a difference!!
Taking your point then, how does non variance of the Standard Circuit in your argument cope with an inbound stream of Medium to Heavy vortex wake category aircraft against Bloggs in his light aircraft bashing the visual cct?
Remembering that the recomended vortex wake separation between a light and a medium is 6 miles, between a light and a heavy is 8 miles and that training and GA traffic does take the lowest flight priorities, Category Z (unless classed as a NORMAL FLIGHT by filing a flight plan in the normal way and conforming with normal routing procudures, or is an Initial IR test conducted by the CAA FEU under the c/s EXAM), where do you suggest Bloggs goes?
The visual circuit is not a rigid pattern as you would expect an instrument pattern to be. Flexibility in this is sometimes required for an ATCO to service the needs of all aircraft in the sky. We are tasked to provide a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic, which at times means being flexible and adjusting the order in which things happen, and how aircraft are and can be integrated.
In the visual cct, both the pilot and the controller should be looking out of the window anyway.
No ATCO in my experience would try (or even want to) make an executive decision for the pilot, or compromise his command authority. If a pilot is unable to comply with a request or instruction, all he has to do is say so and what he intends to do as an alternative. If the alternative can be accommodated then great (the controller may not have thought of that solution), however if it not feasable to accommodate it then the aircraft will have the option of going with option 1, or leaving the cct/ATZ until a more suitable time. I would suggest however that maintaining a standard pattern to roll out 2 miles behind a Heavy would not be one of the pilot's better decisions, nor would continually going around into the departure sector upwind.
I suggest that lack of flexibility in the vis cct could be counter productive to students.
PS Genghis, do you mean VFR or "visual"? There is a difference!!
Last edited by Ops and Mops; 26th Jul 2004 at 14:05.
No, they have got used to being nannied. And they should NEVER "tweak the circuit a little wider"' they should continue in the normal circuit pattern, giving way to any traffic on final which has landing clearance by going around as necessary.
So what options for modifying circuits to fit in with other traffic do you approve of and why? I can think of the following, but there may be more:
Extending upwind
Extending downwind
Flying wider (and what is the standard width then?)
Flying narrower
Changing speed
Overtaking
Orbiting
I mean VFR - the issue is whether a particular aircraft needs to maintain Instrument Flight Rules or not. If it does, whether it's visual or not, it needs minimum separation - if it does not, then it it can fly VFR - and that again is irrelevant to whether it can see the other traffic or not.
Incidentally:-
That was me not Beagle, but I can't quite see the point. Is it not reasonable to ask an aircraft that is in VMC to operate VFR if that is convenient to everybody else. They can, of-course, say no?
G
Incidentally:-
Come on Beags, you should know better - I cannot ask that. Choice of IFR or VFR is pilots decision only and if he wants to stay IFR there's nothing I can do about it. Even suggesting it would get me a one way interview with the boss!
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 26th Jul 2004 at 14:11.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming we're not talking about orbits in strongly curved space time, then I was always taught maintain current configuration, altitude and speed and roll into a 30° banked turn, referencing a position on the ground. I have in the past reported "orbit complete" to ATC on completion of the orbit, though dunno if its strictly nescessary.
Not too keen on them, I think they're handed out rather too liberally at some airports. Last time into a certain field I orbited three seperate times in the space of about 5 miles....
I agree though that it would be unfair to ask CheapAir 123 to "cancel IFR" just because they're visual, and no doubt their SOPs won't allow it anyway. I would also leave the circuit of an "uncontrolled" field rather than orbit..........
EA
Not too keen on them, I think they're handed out rather too liberally at some airports. Last time into a certain field I orbited three seperate times in the space of about 5 miles....
I agree though that it would be unfair to ask CheapAir 123 to "cancel IFR" just because they're visual, and no doubt their SOPs won't allow it anyway. I would also leave the circuit of an "uncontrolled" field rather than orbit..........
EA
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it not reasonable to ask an aircraft that is in VMC to operate VFR if that is convenient to everybody else.
When an aircraft "changes" from IFR to VFR, their IFR flight plan is cancelled in toto and they would then need to refile if they susequently required to fly IFR at a later stage, and it also limits the maximum service available to the aircraft to RIS.
Again most company SOP's require aircraft to fly IFR to afford the the extra protection that somes with those flight rules. In the approach phase, more flexibility can be achieved by flying a visual approach under IFR, where the pilot can manouevre more freely maintaining his own separation from terrain and conflicting traffic he is visual with.
ATC can say to a pilot "report if you wish to continue visually at any time" suggesting that the traffic situation and the wx would allow a visual approach, but a controller is not permitted to either tell a pilot, or suggest to a pilot to change flight rules.