Re: Base to Final Turn
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Massachusetts Bay Colony
Age: 57
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fournicator
I know, I was weak!
I did honestly try not to get caught up in the perennial discussion!
I did honestly try not to get caught up in the perennial discussion!
Must not look into the light!!!!
Pitts2112
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: on my own planet
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fournicator
Viffer:
Sorry mate, but I disagree with pretty much everything you've said.
I'd also question your motives for wanting to perform a RIAB.
I agree that a RIAB is not inherently dangerous, but prats who try to apply a procedure designed for high performance aircraft in a controlled circuit, to a low performance aircraft in an uncontrolled environment where other users are unfamiliar with it probably are pretty inconsiderate at least, if not dangerous.
Sorry mate, but I disagree with pretty much everything you've said.
I'd also question your motives for wanting to perform a RIAB.
I agree that a RIAB is not inherently dangerous, but prats who try to apply a procedure designed for high performance aircraft in a controlled circuit, to a low performance aircraft in an uncontrolled environment where other users are unfamiliar with it probably are pretty inconsiderate at least, if not dangerous.
Originally Posted by Fournicator
.
I agree that a RIAB is not inherently dangerous, but prats who try to apply a procedure designed for high performance aircraft in a controlled circuit, to a low performance aircraft in an uncontrolled environment where other users are unfamiliar with it probably are pretty inconsiderate at least, if not dangerous.
I agree that a RIAB is not inherently dangerous, but prats who try to apply a procedure designed for high performance aircraft in a controlled circuit, to a low performance aircraft in an uncontrolled environment where other users are unfamiliar with it probably are pretty inconsiderate at least, if not dangerous.
Originally Posted by Fournicator
When visiting another airfield you should conform to their procedures and circuit patterns.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buggleskelly
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didnt this thread start about circuit patterns not RIABs.
I have instructed civillian pilots in a 800ft military circuit pattern and although I was dubious at first my conclusion was that it produced a far better handling pilot. It also produced a pilot with better lookout and faster reactions and it was much easier to teach PFLs to these pilots. Also more circuits per hour meant earlier solos etc.
Noticably there were two other things unmentioned so far about oval patterns;
a touch and go was just that, a touch and go not a touch roll and go. The RAF teach go arounds from base leg. as well as final. In the particular circuit i am talking about there were Cessna 150s and Bulldogs, and Chipmunks at the weekend it all went very smoothly. On the otherhand at the other 12 flying schools i have worked at the circuit patterns were chaotic and dangerous but that is the main difference between civillain and military flying, discipline and standardisation. Get three different clubs and you would have three different patterns get three diffferent pilots and you would have another three different patterns even within schools you also have instructors teaching their own way rather than a standard agrred way. Out of all the 13 flying schools only 4 of them had agreed standardised patterns (I was CFI at those!) The thing about an oval is that it is much harder to deviate from a standard pattern. the problem with squares are that the crosswind leg becomes a cross country for some pilots who could never ever make a climbing turn downwind because its against the folk lore taught by some instructors
when i eventually owned my own school we taught both ovals and square circuits and each student elected to do an oval or a square in the pattern they were in at the time, allowing for other circuit traffic.
I got some criticism from the other schools on the airfield but interstingly when the cloud base got low they all still flew their students using 500 ft ovals. We always made a point of teaching both patterns but gave the student the choice of which to fly--no student ever preffered squares and why would they ovals are easier, quicker, safer and cheaper!
Teaching PFLs at the airfield was a doddle as all you did was join the oval circuit at 1500 ft downwind (the glide app oval circuit was 1500 ft agl)
the one argument you could use against ovals is that military student pilots are of a higher standard and ability that there civillian equivalents and therefore need more time and space. I beleived that till i started teaching ovals but I found that all the students i had over this 3 year period had no problems at all with ovals except when they were on dual land away cross country. they just couldnt belive that the aircraft on the horizon outside the ATZ was actually in the circuit!!!
I have instructed civillian pilots in a 800ft military circuit pattern and although I was dubious at first my conclusion was that it produced a far better handling pilot. It also produced a pilot with better lookout and faster reactions and it was much easier to teach PFLs to these pilots. Also more circuits per hour meant earlier solos etc.
Noticably there were two other things unmentioned so far about oval patterns;
a touch and go was just that, a touch and go not a touch roll and go. The RAF teach go arounds from base leg. as well as final. In the particular circuit i am talking about there were Cessna 150s and Bulldogs, and Chipmunks at the weekend it all went very smoothly. On the otherhand at the other 12 flying schools i have worked at the circuit patterns were chaotic and dangerous but that is the main difference between civillain and military flying, discipline and standardisation. Get three different clubs and you would have three different patterns get three diffferent pilots and you would have another three different patterns even within schools you also have instructors teaching their own way rather than a standard agrred way. Out of all the 13 flying schools only 4 of them had agreed standardised patterns (I was CFI at those!) The thing about an oval is that it is much harder to deviate from a standard pattern. the problem with squares are that the crosswind leg becomes a cross country for some pilots who could never ever make a climbing turn downwind because its against the folk lore taught by some instructors
when i eventually owned my own school we taught both ovals and square circuits and each student elected to do an oval or a square in the pattern they were in at the time, allowing for other circuit traffic.
I got some criticism from the other schools on the airfield but interstingly when the cloud base got low they all still flew their students using 500 ft ovals. We always made a point of teaching both patterns but gave the student the choice of which to fly--no student ever preffered squares and why would they ovals are easier, quicker, safer and cheaper!
Teaching PFLs at the airfield was a doddle as all you did was join the oval circuit at 1500 ft downwind (the glide app oval circuit was 1500 ft agl)
the one argument you could use against ovals is that military student pilots are of a higher standard and ability that there civillian equivalents and therefore need more time and space. I beleived that till i started teaching ovals but I found that all the students i had over this 3 year period had no problems at all with ovals except when they were on dual land away cross country. they just couldnt belive that the aircraft on the horizon outside the ATZ was actually in the circuit!!!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: on my own planet
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thread did get a little hijacked there, sorry!
You could argue that the post-graduate Elementary Flying Training pilots are likely to be of a higher standard and ability, but you certainly could not use that argument for the University Air Squadron students or the Air Experience Flight cadet pilots and navigators. They arrive, more often than not without any previous flying experience and only need pass a rudimentary medical with no aptitude tests, yet they are all taught upwind climbing turns and racetrack military circuits with a constant turn from downwind to finals. They mostly seem to cope.
Originally Posted by theresalwaysone
...the one argument you could use against ovals is that military student pilots are of a higher standard and ability that there civillian equivalents and therefore need more time and space....
Guest
Posts: n/a
...they are all taught upwind climbing turns and racetrack military circuits with a constant turn from downwind to finals.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buggleskelly
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by High Wing Drifter
Definately reads like more fun, but what is the real world advantage of ovals at civ airfields? Blackbushe often has 6 or more in the circuit, often a mixture of fast and slow. That lot compacted into a dense oval shape should a nightmare, there'd more go-arounds than you could shake a stick at.
if airfield management established a rule you wouldnt get the problem but they dont thats my point, its free for all at airfields were civvy flying schools operate.
my last post i though explained the advantage of ovals in a civvy circuit but obviuosly its not always possible but dont forget you are teaching for life skills not just a skills test. If you were flying a £200 an hour a/c around the circuit and paying for it what shape would your circuits be!!??
Guest
Posts: n/a
6 or more in the circuit is usually a function of a busy GA field and many airfields do limit the amount of circuit only traffic.
In my limited PPL experience, flying a ciruit is usually a precursor to making a landing and this is what most of the 6 (or more) will be looking to do. ;-)
Anyway, if the airfield is A/G or AFIS, how does a "maximum number of aircraft" policy get policed?
IMHO, it is not the shape of the circuit that is the blocker at busy GA fields, but the inability of many PPLs to fly a nice tight circuit.
The US PPL training, in this respect, tends to produce better results in my experience.
Personally, I'm a fan of the oval circuit, but would hesitate to use it in an environment where it was not standard since, like the RIAB, the dangers are not inherent in the manouevre, but rather in the gap in situational awareness that they may create for some other pilots.
In my limited PPL experience, flying a ciruit is usually a precursor to making a landing and this is what most of the 6 (or more) will be looking to do. ;-)
Anyway, if the airfield is A/G or AFIS, how does a "maximum number of aircraft" policy get policed?
IMHO, it is not the shape of the circuit that is the blocker at busy GA fields, but the inability of many PPLs to fly a nice tight circuit.
The US PPL training, in this respect, tends to produce better results in my experience.
Personally, I'm a fan of the oval circuit, but would hesitate to use it in an environment where it was not standard since, like the RIAB, the dangers are not inherent in the manouevre, but rather in the gap in situational awareness that they may create for some other pilots.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with six in the circuit is that unless they are flying at the same speed it won't work.
Either the faster one will end up doing a go-around, sometimes several times, before getting down, or he will have to extend the circuit downwind to create more distance before himself, and if he does that then it's pretty likely that some smartar*e behind him will cut him up on the inside.
That's what it is like at my two favourite examples of a free for all: Stapleford and Wellesbourne. The first one is particularly terrible and I have wondered whether some of the instructors even have a PPL.
I don't see that oval circuits will make a difference at these free for all locations, because few people bother to stick to the rule that you have to follow the previous traffic. They won't work, just like the rectangular ones don't work very well either. Would be OK on weekdays though.
Either the faster one will end up doing a go-around, sometimes several times, before getting down, or he will have to extend the circuit downwind to create more distance before himself, and if he does that then it's pretty likely that some smartar*e behind him will cut him up on the inside.
That's what it is like at my two favourite examples of a free for all: Stapleford and Wellesbourne. The first one is particularly terrible and I have wondered whether some of the instructors even have a PPL.
I don't see that oval circuits will make a difference at these free for all locations, because few people bother to stick to the rule that you have to follow the previous traffic. They won't work, just like the rectangular ones don't work very well either. Would be OK on weekdays though.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: on my own planet
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess some airfield managers think it ok to have that many in the circuit, indeed, perhaps the situation almost demands it, but it does sound like an incident waiting to happen. We have a maximum of 4 in, plus 2 to land, and that can get tricky keeping a tab on others, especially when I'm trying to get someone up to their first solo and the AEF mass launch is on recovery! 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buggleskelly
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WELESBOURNE, NOW THERES A PLACE!
10540 says--That's what it is like at my two favourite examples of a free for all: Stapleford and Wellesbourne. The first one is particularly terrible and I have wondered whether some of the instructors even have a PPL.
WELESBOURNE, NOW THERES A PLACE
Funny that because the circuit at Wellesbourne is why I stopped instucting in 1986. At that time the airfield manger was an ex-bankrupt second hand car dealer, a man with a mouth disproportionate to his brain. One of flyings greatest self appointed experts.
there are two incidents that finally lead me to refuse to send anyone solo in this circuit and to stick to airline flying.
1. a local twin owner requested a dead side direct left base join in a busy weekend circuit. (There never had been a Lh base on the southely runway due to the village) The spotty teenager in the tower,(A/g at that time) who probably didnt even have a RT licence gave him clearance to join directly onto the dead side base leg. I was with a student on the correct RH base leg-we were now head on but my student turned onto final well ahead of the twin. The pilot of the twin insisted that we go around but i took no notice and the twin had to go around. He later came into the flying school shouting his mouth off saying he was doing everyting correctly and he had 700 hours and a twin rating and he was right and i was wrong-I tried to explain to him that only an ATC unit with an ATCO can issue a clearance and that A/G is advisory I even showed him the section in the ANO but you see he had a twin and 700 hours!!!!--all quite funny really but awhile later the same pilot in the same twin flew back from Europe and cleared customs at Birmingham--he elected not to refuel even though both tanks were showing close to empty. On take off the one engine stopped due to fuel starvation and the aircraft rolled right over on its back and arrived on the grass inverted, fortunately the self appointed expert survived.lookout for him i think he is still at Wellesbourne, Derek is his name and I belive he still thinks he is an ace!
2. And this was the final one for me. The parachute Islander from Long Marston joined dead side and flew underneath us on downwind missing us by about 50 feet--he never even saw us and even though there was someone in the tower, another teenager, there was no traffic information or not even any comment by anyone.
I realised then that I could no longer send students solo in the circuit safely and gave up.
I could write a book about incidents at this airfield but I will leave you with a more pleasant thought
Why would you continue to call an airfield Wellesbourne when the most well know town in the world is a few miles away?
WELESBOURNE, NOW THERES A PLACE
Funny that because the circuit at Wellesbourne is why I stopped instucting in 1986. At that time the airfield manger was an ex-bankrupt second hand car dealer, a man with a mouth disproportionate to his brain. One of flyings greatest self appointed experts.
there are two incidents that finally lead me to refuse to send anyone solo in this circuit and to stick to airline flying.
1. a local twin owner requested a dead side direct left base join in a busy weekend circuit. (There never had been a Lh base on the southely runway due to the village) The spotty teenager in the tower,(A/g at that time) who probably didnt even have a RT licence gave him clearance to join directly onto the dead side base leg. I was with a student on the correct RH base leg-we were now head on but my student turned onto final well ahead of the twin. The pilot of the twin insisted that we go around but i took no notice and the twin had to go around. He later came into the flying school shouting his mouth off saying he was doing everyting correctly and he had 700 hours and a twin rating and he was right and i was wrong-I tried to explain to him that only an ATC unit with an ATCO can issue a clearance and that A/G is advisory I even showed him the section in the ANO but you see he had a twin and 700 hours!!!!--all quite funny really but awhile later the same pilot in the same twin flew back from Europe and cleared customs at Birmingham--he elected not to refuel even though both tanks were showing close to empty. On take off the one engine stopped due to fuel starvation and the aircraft rolled right over on its back and arrived on the grass inverted, fortunately the self appointed expert survived.lookout for him i think he is still at Wellesbourne, Derek is his name and I belive he still thinks he is an ace!
2. And this was the final one for me. The parachute Islander from Long Marston joined dead side and flew underneath us on downwind missing us by about 50 feet--he never even saw us and even though there was someone in the tower, another teenager, there was no traffic information or not even any comment by anyone.
I realised then that I could no longer send students solo in the circuit safely and gave up.
I could write a book about incidents at this airfield but I will leave you with a more pleasant thought
Why would you continue to call an airfield Wellesbourne when the most well know town in the world is a few miles away?
Clearly you haven't been there recently - things have changed for the better over the last 20 years since you stopped instructing.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, Wellesbourne is much nicer now!
Perhaps in recognition of the part RAF Wellesbourne Mountford played in maintaining the freedom of this country from the Nazis?
Tim
Why would you continue to call an airfield Wellesbourne when the most well know town in the world is a few miles away?
Tim
Thread Starter
To be honest I didn't realise that there was such disparity in circuits. I'm sure local factors at airfields mean they have to be tailored to suit but is there no CAA equivalent of a CFS - a standards unit that examines instructors?
p.s. I have also seen aircraft that fly circuits about 30miles wide! Especially one guy who flew downwind and did a 4 mile final, causing a knock on for everyone else behind him.
p.s. I have also seen aircraft that fly circuits about 30miles wide! Especially one guy who flew downwind and did a 4 mile final, causing a knock on for everyone else behind him.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buggleskelly
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tmmorris
Agreed, Wellesbourne is much nicer now!
Perhaps in recognition of the part RAF Wellesbourne Mountford played in maintaining the freedom of this country from the Nazis?
Tim
Perhaps in recognition of the part RAF Wellesbourne Mountford played in maintaining the freedom of this country from the Nazis?
Tim
20 years ago I found the the Smith Aviation stone plaque which was thrown up the back, outside the hangar which commemorated the Duke of Edinburgh re- opening the airfield so I dont suspect its present name remains due to any respect for anything or anybody, although its a nice thought not shared by Wolverhampton, Leicester, Nottingham, Northampton, Oxford, Birmingham etc . (possibly A better recognition would be a history of the airfields part in the war on display, if not already there, sadly missing from many ex WW2 airfields)
If it helps with the re-naming Fred was a Rolls Royce test development engineer during the war and said to have made a major contribution to the RR test programme.
Glad to here the airfield has changed but it was never the airfield that was the problem!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the airfield manger was an ex-bankrupt second hand car dealer
Astonishing..... he was thus perfectly qualified to run any business in general aviation.
I think a lot of people forget that any radio operator below the rank of ATC has no authority to "clear" anybody anywhere (much as some like to pretend otherwise) and the pilot can do what he likes.
So, if I am coming into some piece of grass, and the man on the radio is "ordering" me to fly an overhead join (another antiquated olde English tradition, designed originally to enable another wonderful olde tradition, the signals square, to be inspected) and I have already got it from him that he has no known traffic anywhere, I will just do a straight in, making the "final" call at various distances.
Astonishing..... he was thus perfectly qualified to run any business in general aviation.
I think a lot of people forget that any radio operator below the rank of ATC has no authority to "clear" anybody anywhere (much as some like to pretend otherwise) and the pilot can do what he likes.
So, if I am coming into some piece of grass, and the man on the radio is "ordering" me to fly an overhead join (another antiquated olde English tradition, designed originally to enable another wonderful olde tradition, the signals square, to be inspected) and I have already got it from him that he has no known traffic anywhere, I will just do a straight in, making the "final" call at various distances.