Why Fly Square Circuits?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why Fly Square Circuits?
Can anybody tell me why most flying schools teach a large, square circuit flown at almost cruise power. Apart from maximising enviromental bother the chances of making the runway if the engine quits is almost nil. I reckon it's purely to increase the amount of time each circuit takes - therefore more money for the flying schools.
Have we lost sight of why we are flying a circuit in the first place?
Have we lost sight of why we are flying a circuit in the first place?
Guest
Posts: n/a
As an instructor who teaches square circuits , i felt i had to respond to this post. Square circuits are flown to maximise lookout and reduce blind spots. If an oval circuit is flown in a high winged aircraft, the runway would be out of site as would other traffic. However i agree that a lot of circuits are too wide. Where I work we always teach that the airfield should be within gliding range at all times, this is not the case with all FTOs. Definatley a case of maximising their revenue, to the students cost. So a plea must go out for people to think about where they are going if the engine stops.
Guest
Posts: n/a
To be honest I was being a bit provocative with the square circuit thing! I personally find an oval circuit quite difficult to fly as well as having a poor view - however - the main thrust of my inquiry was to find out why such large circuits tend to be flown & why they are flown with high power?
I do not believe the argument that says "students need the time to get the checks done". I cannot think of an instance where a large circuit is better.
I do not believe the argument that says "students need the time to get the checks done". I cannot think of an instance where a large circuit is better.
Guest
Posts: n/a
M14P,
I think that accusing the schools of teaching square circuits simply to squeeze a bit more money out of proto-PPLs is a wee bit out of order.
The civilian square circuits have helped PPLs to pick their way around an airfield without bumping into each other. It's also convenient for ATC or A/G as it allows all and sundry to visualise where an aircraft actually is, or should be.
If we move on to ovals, then what do we call? "G-XX, at 120 degrees". "Roger, G-XX, call when at 265 degrees". Nah.
I'm aware that military circuits are oval, but then again a lot of military procedures are different. A run and break might be fun in a Yak 52, but probably a bit silly in a C150, don't you think?
A major reason why the civilian square circuit seems to work is that everyone is (or should be) following the same procedure. What really worries me is that some in the warbird community are beginning to follow military-style procedures (i.e. run and break) in the same circuits as merely mortal traffic. This can't be good for the health.
It seems to me that, if there's a problem with the civilian circuit, it's the fact that it's getting wider and wider.
TW
I think that accusing the schools of teaching square circuits simply to squeeze a bit more money out of proto-PPLs is a wee bit out of order.
The civilian square circuits have helped PPLs to pick their way around an airfield without bumping into each other. It's also convenient for ATC or A/G as it allows all and sundry to visualise where an aircraft actually is, or should be.
If we move on to ovals, then what do we call? "G-XX, at 120 degrees". "Roger, G-XX, call when at 265 degrees". Nah.
I'm aware that military circuits are oval, but then again a lot of military procedures are different. A run and break might be fun in a Yak 52, but probably a bit silly in a C150, don't you think?
A major reason why the civilian square circuit seems to work is that everyone is (or should be) following the same procedure. What really worries me is that some in the warbird community are beginning to follow military-style procedures (i.e. run and break) in the same circuits as merely mortal traffic. This can't be good for the health.
It seems to me that, if there's a problem with the civilian circuit, it's the fact that it's getting wider and wider.
TW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Touchy Touchy!
I am not condoning oval circuits and I think that a run & break at a civillian airfield - particularly by a singleton and especially in a non-jet aircraft - is downright silly & dangerous.
The simple fact is if the 'average' club 150's engine quit downwind at either of the clubs near me they'd be in a field. Extra risk, extra damage and a load of bad press.
What about the noise issue?
As a student would you rather do an hours' flying with five landings or ten? I'd take a wild guess at the student who'd be more competent as the one with the most landings
I am not condoning oval circuits and I think that a run & break at a civillian airfield - particularly by a singleton and especially in a non-jet aircraft - is downright silly & dangerous.
The simple fact is if the 'average' club 150's engine quit downwind at either of the clubs near me they'd be in a field. Extra risk, extra damage and a load of bad press.
What about the noise issue?
As a student would you rather do an hours' flying with five landings or ten? I'd take a wild guess at the student who'd be more competent as the one with the most landings
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm an Oval circuit (or to give it's proper name, constant aspect circuit) fan myself. It gives better visibility of traffic ahead on finals, is quicker, allows you to reach the right touchdown point more accurately, and reduces the bank angle used in the circuit.
It also lends itself well to separation of traffic flying at different speeds (and sometimes heights) on the same runway.
A run and break, if flown, has to be combined with a constant aspect approach, but the converse is not true. All the same joins used in a rectangular civil circuit can still be flown.
G
[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 24 April 2001).]
It also lends itself well to separation of traffic flying at different speeds (and sometimes heights) on the same runway.
A run and break, if flown, has to be combined with a constant aspect approach, but the converse is not true. All the same joins used in a rectangular civil circuit can still be flown.
G
[This message has been edited by Genghis the Engineer (edited 24 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
M14P,
Touché, touché? Moi? Mais non, Mon Ami!
I was busily composing whilst you were busily back-tracking on your 'provocative' first post. If you really intended this thread to be a discussion on lose circuits, then perhaps a different title and post would have been a better idea? Ah well, onwards:
I guess that we both agree that the average circuit flown is too large. All we need is a quick land-away on the downwind and then we can all save pots of dish by doing our circuits and navs at the same time. There are plenty of stories around of people getting lost whilst doing circuits. In poor visibility, I grant you, but still...
What happens if the donkey quits? What about the neighbours, bless 'em? What on earth does that J3 Cub think it's doing under-taking in like that?
The trouble is that the same argument I used above (everyone doing the same thing) means that any anarchist mad enough to do safe, tight circuits will be censured by all and sundry for under-taking.
TW
Touché, touché? Moi? Mais non, Mon Ami!
I was busily composing whilst you were busily back-tracking on your 'provocative' first post. If you really intended this thread to be a discussion on lose circuits, then perhaps a different title and post would have been a better idea? Ah well, onwards:
I guess that we both agree that the average circuit flown is too large. All we need is a quick land-away on the downwind and then we can all save pots of dish by doing our circuits and navs at the same time. There are plenty of stories around of people getting lost whilst doing circuits. In poor visibility, I grant you, but still...
What happens if the donkey quits? What about the neighbours, bless 'em? What on earth does that J3 Cub think it's doing under-taking in like that?
The trouble is that the same argument I used above (everyone doing the same thing) means that any anarchist mad enough to do safe, tight circuits will be censured by all and sundry for under-taking.
TW
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is all true!
However, the best way of encouraging a discussion is by being deliberately provocative. If you read a random selecton of AAIB bulletin reports the vast majority are landing accidents of the 'bust the nosewheel off' variety. Surely this means that for all this supposed good circuit discipline described by Jude what is really needed is some proper instruction and lots of landings - not beetling around the pattern logging long-haul time.
I cannot help but think the one (poor circuits) probably leads on to the other (dodgy arrivals)
However, the best way of encouraging a discussion is by being deliberately provocative. If you read a random selecton of AAIB bulletin reports the vast majority are landing accidents of the 'bust the nosewheel off' variety. Surely this means that for all this supposed good circuit discipline described by Jude what is really needed is some proper instruction and lots of landings - not beetling around the pattern logging long-haul time.
I cannot help but think the one (poor circuits) probably leads on to the other (dodgy arrivals)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Must say I'm with Ghengis on the curvy patterns - quicker, safer, and very easy to spot all the other traffic. Mind you that could just be the superior brainwashing skills of UAS QFIs : ) Also concur on the silliness of run & break arrivals in a busy civvy environment in a piston single.
M14P's broader point is a valid one, I feel. Having spent plenty of a PPL course trucking round a square circuit the fact that as the circuit gets busier it almost always gets larger is to my mind a real problem. Cross-country style downwinds ensue, and all the previously highlighted issues surface. Jude - do you imply a square circuit is desirable simply because 152s are high-wing? And why do so many studes not get taught to keep patterns tight and simply go around again if they get baulked? Sorry to sound narky but some of the bomber circuits flown at my local club recently have caused much wailing and gnashing of teeth on my part.
[This message has been edited by RoughRunning (edited 24 April 2001).]
M14P's broader point is a valid one, I feel. Having spent plenty of a PPL course trucking round a square circuit the fact that as the circuit gets busier it almost always gets larger is to my mind a real problem. Cross-country style downwinds ensue, and all the previously highlighted issues surface. Jude - do you imply a square circuit is desirable simply because 152s are high-wing? And why do so many studes not get taught to keep patterns tight and simply go around again if they get baulked? Sorry to sound narky but some of the bomber circuits flown at my local club recently have caused much wailing and gnashing of teeth on my part.
[This message has been edited by RoughRunning (edited 24 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
An interesting topic. Sorry to be picky, but do we all actually mean "square" circuits, or are we talking about rectangular circuits?
Personally, I've always been taught to fly rectangular circuits, and although I can't say I've ever flown a circular one, I think I'm more happy with the rectangle.
I can't imagine why square circuits would ever be flown! Is there any reason why the crosswind and base legs have to be the same length as the downwind?!
I have completed most of my training at PIK, can you imagine me extending the crosswind to the same lenght as the runway!
"G-BOAH, report overhead GLA"
For me flying rectangular circuits gives a very clear definition between the legs. For example, I've always been taught that as soon as you roll out on base leg, reduce the power and add 2 stages of flap. Although this could still be done whilst flying a circular pattern, I think it's easier for a low hour pilot (like me!) to clarify these things exactly.
Four 90* turns is easier in my opinion, than maintaining a continual bank angle.
But I'm always open to suggestions!
FJW.
Personally, I've always been taught to fly rectangular circuits, and although I can't say I've ever flown a circular one, I think I'm more happy with the rectangle.
I can't imagine why square circuits would ever be flown! Is there any reason why the crosswind and base legs have to be the same length as the downwind?!
I have completed most of my training at PIK, can you imagine me extending the crosswind to the same lenght as the runway!
"G-BOAH, report overhead GLA"
For me flying rectangular circuits gives a very clear definition between the legs. For example, I've always been taught that as soon as you roll out on base leg, reduce the power and add 2 stages of flap. Although this could still be done whilst flying a circular pattern, I think it's easier for a low hour pilot (like me!) to clarify these things exactly.
Four 90* turns is easier in my opinion, than maintaining a continual bank angle.
But I'm always open to suggestions!
FJW.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hooray!
RoughRunning gets the point - there isn't enough common sense out there (sorry to generalise but we are all guilty of it from time to time)
If you really want to clean the circuit up the best way is to pick your touchdown spot so as to minimise time on the runway (on long runways with finite turnoffs). The student who practises many landings can start to absorb this airmanship through a greater exposure to the bit of the circuit that tends to be most critical.
Go on chaps, give it a go and try to fly a little tighter, maybe a little steeper and in a much more thoughtful way.
FJW - by square I think it's safe to assume we all mean squared off. I am the first to admit that a totally oval pattern is incompatible with everyday life but a shorter crosswind leg will keep you in a better position in the event of an engine failure. Whilst learning by wrote (as you describe) is a good first step it becomes impossible to deal with contingecies as they arise. What if - due to other traffic your base leg is further out than normal? The resultant descent rate and configuration of your aircraft will not be satifactory for the rest of the approach.
In general datums (such at base leg and two stages of flap) are a good way, I feel, to approach the circuit but must not be applied robotically. Perhaps the robotic method of teaching is the root cause of ever larger circuits.
[This message has been edited by M14P (edited 24 April 2001).]
RoughRunning gets the point - there isn't enough common sense out there (sorry to generalise but we are all guilty of it from time to time)
If you really want to clean the circuit up the best way is to pick your touchdown spot so as to minimise time on the runway (on long runways with finite turnoffs). The student who practises many landings can start to absorb this airmanship through a greater exposure to the bit of the circuit that tends to be most critical.
Go on chaps, give it a go and try to fly a little tighter, maybe a little steeper and in a much more thoughtful way.
FJW - by square I think it's safe to assume we all mean squared off. I am the first to admit that a totally oval pattern is incompatible with everyday life but a shorter crosswind leg will keep you in a better position in the event of an engine failure. Whilst learning by wrote (as you describe) is a good first step it becomes impossible to deal with contingecies as they arise. What if - due to other traffic your base leg is further out than normal? The resultant descent rate and configuration of your aircraft will not be satifactory for the rest of the approach.
In general datums (such at base leg and two stages of flap) are a good way, I feel, to approach the circuit but must not be applied robotically. Perhaps the robotic method of teaching is the root cause of ever larger circuits.
[This message has been edited by M14P (edited 24 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
The comment about a robotic approach to teaching circuits is interesting. When doing my wobbly prop conversion some months after getting my PPL, my instructor told me to stop flying "numpty PPL stude circuits" and tried to get me to approach the circuit as an exercise in progressive energy management (starting from when you join or level off from the climb out). Doing it this way, the power setting can often be a lot lower a lot earlier, but I can appreciate that in aircraft with little power to spare it may be thought best to keep the power a bit higher.
If people are following slower aircraft but still religiously flying all the numbers they were taught, they may end up over extending and enlarging the circuit, rather than slowing down and keeping tight by, eg a power reduction and even a stage of flap early on.
To this it might be said that you shouldn't be encouraging students or low hours PPLs to fly slowly at 1000 feet or lower, but I'm not talking about dangerously critical airspeeds or angles of dangle, and being able to chug along at (say) 80 knots instead of 95 ought to be something the average PPL could handle as a result of his/her training.
Of course none of this takes account of the loony circuits imposed by noise constraints. Quick straw poll of how many GA airfields have circuits which are "standard" on all or main runways? North Weald? Duxford? What others?
If people are following slower aircraft but still religiously flying all the numbers they were taught, they may end up over extending and enlarging the circuit, rather than slowing down and keeping tight by, eg a power reduction and even a stage of flap early on.
To this it might be said that you shouldn't be encouraging students or low hours PPLs to fly slowly at 1000 feet or lower, but I'm not talking about dangerously critical airspeeds or angles of dangle, and being able to chug along at (say) 80 knots instead of 95 ought to be something the average PPL could handle as a result of his/her training.
Of course none of this takes account of the loony circuits imposed by noise constraints. Quick straw poll of how many GA airfields have circuits which are "standard" on all or main runways? North Weald? Duxford? What others?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just thought I'd lobb in my two 'pennorth.....When I have flown in the US, a frequent clearance from ATC was to fly a "Close Pattern" This involved a circuit which was VERY compact, and meant that as soon as 600 feet was reached, a climbing turn was made straight onto downwind at 1000 feet. As soon as the numbers were 45° behind the shoulder, power off first stage flap, and descend onto base, and thence onto finals. It makes some circuits I've seen here look like mini cross countrys.
Tailwinds
Tailwinds
Guest
Posts: n/a
When aircraft first flew they could turn on a sixpence so the rectangular circuit was borne. The oval circuit followed primarily because forward vision was obscured nescessitating a curved approach. As the performance of military aircraft increased, an oval circuit was the only realistic option.
The average PPL student and many PPL holders require thinking time, an oval circuit correctly flown simply overloads them and does not provide them with the necessary time. A rectangular circuit therefore provides more time and a better lookout for the inexperienced.
That said, lets keep them a sensible size, Runway on the wingtip downwind, and not more than 45 degrees past the threshold for a Normal circuit.
The average PPL student and many PPL holders require thinking time, an oval circuit correctly flown simply overloads them and does not provide them with the necessary time. A rectangular circuit therefore provides more time and a better lookout for the inexperienced.
That said, lets keep them a sensible size, Runway on the wingtip downwind, and not more than 45 degrees past the threshold for a Normal circuit.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Much hot air on this thread - only Jude has got it right.
Square circuits reduce 'blind time' for high wing ac; the military does not use high wing ac for training, hence they can safely use the standard racetrack circuit which optimises the look-out for low wing ac - particularly those which fly at high AoA around the final turn. In civilian flying training there is a mixture of both low and high wing ac; hence a compromise circuit pattern is required - this is the 'square' circuit.
There is no intrinsic reason why ac flying a 'square' circuit should be out of gliding range for the aerodrome - that's basic airmanship. Although tarnished by local nosie-moaners perhaps.
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 24 April 2001).]
Square circuits reduce 'blind time' for high wing ac; the military does not use high wing ac for training, hence they can safely use the standard racetrack circuit which optimises the look-out for low wing ac - particularly those which fly at high AoA around the final turn. In civilian flying training there is a mixture of both low and high wing ac; hence a compromise circuit pattern is required - this is the 'square' circuit.
There is no intrinsic reason why ac flying a 'square' circuit should be out of gliding range for the aerodrome - that's basic airmanship. Although tarnished by local nosie-moaners perhaps.
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 24 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'd like to see a combination of oval and rectangular circuits as the pattern/traffic/ATC dictates. As a Controller at a very busy class G airfield, there is nothing more infuriating than having all your circuit traffic outside the ATZ because the Cessna who was number one when he turned downwind ended up on a three mile final at 65kts with an Arrow, a Robin and a Seneca behind him...it happened last weekend...and it happens regularly! but at the other end of the spectrum, a 'constant-aspect' type cutting up a £300 per hour IR trainer (despite having been told twice "Number two, follow...") causing him to break off his Instrument approach is just as annoying for all concerned. A potential problem with keeping circuits too tight, however, is finding time and space to get departures off. The point I think I'm trying to make is that pilots will encounter a different circuit pattern almost every time they fly...I always seem to.... so they need to be prepared to deal with every eventuality..short apporaches, slow flight and constant aspect approaches should be taught to everyone, early in their careers
Guest
Posts: n/a
BEagle - I think you might be grasping the wrong end of the stick a little. As RoughRunning mentioned the logical conclusion of Judes argument is that we should adjust everybodys circuit behaviour just for high winged aircraft which is simply nuts.
I say again - to fly a sensibly sized rectangular circuit is one thing but to burn up miles of sky simply to arrive back a the same point is just clunky and nonsensical.
If the aircraft in front on downwid has just left the ATZ before managing to turn base what would you do? I suggest that he's no longer in the circuit and is a prime candidate for overtaking but airmanship may dictate your being a little more circumspect than that. If the chap has just spent more than three miles flying away from the field he may not even be aware of your presence. Thoughts?
[This message has been edited by M14P (edited 24 April 2001).]
I say again - to fly a sensibly sized rectangular circuit is one thing but to burn up miles of sky simply to arrive back a the same point is just clunky and nonsensical.
If the aircraft in front on downwid has just left the ATZ before managing to turn base what would you do? I suggest that he's no longer in the circuit and is a prime candidate for overtaking but airmanship may dictate your being a little more circumspect than that. If the chap has just spent more than three miles flying away from the field he may not even be aware of your presence. Thoughts?
[This message has been edited by M14P (edited 24 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't agree with this high wing / blind time theory being banded about. A properly flown constant aspect circuit uses a very shallow bank angle, and since you're mostly either in a climbing or descending turn , the traffic in front is always more-or-less ahead, and above the coaming. With a rectangular circuit the Viz of traffic ahead is fine in the climbout, but non-existent in most high-coaming aircraft on finals. The wing is irrelevant where aircraft you could interfere with are concerned.
A genuinely tight circuit has to be constant-aspect, unless you are planning to use 60°+ bank in the circuit turns, which wouldn't be very clever. But, the airfields where people routinely fly circuits that require a chart, drive me up the wall, even if flying square circuits. Having said that, it's usually the fault of individual pilots, not the airfield itself.
At BDN we used to regularly mix everthing from a Vigilant to Tornado in the same circuit (23L usually), constant aspect, with heights and distances from the runway altered for each aircraft to maintain a constant circuit duration (about 5 minutes) and position. I don't recall it ever causing us a significant problem.
Also, a constant aspect approach is the only (in my opinion) sensible approach to flying a PFL. John Stewart-Smith's article on the subject in FSB sums it up without me going into it more. And if you're going to use it for a PFL, why not practice it at home!
G
A genuinely tight circuit has to be constant-aspect, unless you are planning to use 60°+ bank in the circuit turns, which wouldn't be very clever. But, the airfields where people routinely fly circuits that require a chart, drive me up the wall, even if flying square circuits. Having said that, it's usually the fault of individual pilots, not the airfield itself.
At BDN we used to regularly mix everthing from a Vigilant to Tornado in the same circuit (23L usually), constant aspect, with heights and distances from the runway altered for each aircraft to maintain a constant circuit duration (about 5 minutes) and position. I don't recall it ever causing us a significant problem.
Also, a constant aspect approach is the only (in my opinion) sensible approach to flying a PFL. John Stewart-Smith's article on the subject in FSB sums it up without me going into it more. And if you're going to use it for a PFL, why not practice it at home!
G