nutters in the circuit!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CCT, ego's, idiots & money
Oh! how I hate flying into airfields with a lot of trainning going on, just how big can the CCT be? the other day I had to fly about 4 miles to follow someone in a C152 with no traffic ahead of him, full flap at 1000ft and dragging it in at 65kt. No doubt the airline pilot wannbe instructor was congratulating his student on a fine "stablized approach"!
Next day.............. Africa............. 78,000kg jet, the FO flys a speed stable visual CCT all within 2 NM of the airfield rolling the wings level on the runway centre line at 500Ft.
A few days later I send a student solo after about 10 hours total instructional time, he is doing perfect CCT's at 800ft all within about a mile of the airfield.
So why are we taking so much airspace for a simple CCT?
It is clearly not for aircraft performance, The sudents that I see are self selecting so they are not "above average" but seem to have no problem with the concept or workload in a tight CCT.
So we are left with one or two factors, I know that noise abatment is an issue at some airfields but the trainning providors at Elstree must be laughing all the way to the bank with the extra flying they are selling with the CCT that they agreed to fly.
Secondly the Airline wannabe instructors like the extra flying time in the logbook, but were do they get this 4 mile stable approach thing from? it can only be from too much airline wannabe bull................please guys remember you are teaching people to fly a light aircraft and if you have to do things the "airline way" then speed stable at 500ft is fine by most airlines on a visual approach................................ not 4 miles & 1000 ft!
Next day.............. Africa............. 78,000kg jet, the FO flys a speed stable visual CCT all within 2 NM of the airfield rolling the wings level on the runway centre line at 500Ft.
A few days later I send a student solo after about 10 hours total instructional time, he is doing perfect CCT's at 800ft all within about a mile of the airfield.
So why are we taking so much airspace for a simple CCT?
It is clearly not for aircraft performance, The sudents that I see are self selecting so they are not "above average" but seem to have no problem with the concept or workload in a tight CCT.
So we are left with one or two factors, I know that noise abatment is an issue at some airfields but the trainning providors at Elstree must be laughing all the way to the bank with the extra flying they are selling with the CCT that they agreed to fly.
Secondly the Airline wannabe instructors like the extra flying time in the logbook, but were do they get this 4 mile stable approach thing from? it can only be from too much airline wannabe bull................please guys remember you are teaching people to fly a light aircraft and if you have to do things the "airline way" then speed stable at 500ft is fine by most airlines on a visual approach................................ not 4 miles & 1000 ft!
"Many of us have seen aircraft going the wrong way in a circuit; that is a good reason for joining correctly, i.e. a standard overhead join where you can observe what is going on, and avoid the dangerous situation of joining directly and getting it wrong. If everyone flew a correct size circuit others would see them and know what they are doing."
The Overhead Join was 'STANDARD' in the days when non-radio and signals squares were the norm. There's no way these days that it could be described as standard. Many airfields have no deadside. What then?
If there's a left-hand circuit, put the airfield on your left, get onto the reciprocal of the runway in use. (i.e. for a landing on 24 put 24 at the bottom of the DI), and as if by magic you'll find yourself downwind.
Simple.
The Overhead Join was 'STANDARD' in the days when non-radio and signals squares were the norm. There's no way these days that it could be described as standard. Many airfields have no deadside. What then?
If there's a left-hand circuit, put the airfield on your left, get onto the reciprocal of the runway in use. (i.e. for a landing on 24 put 24 at the bottom of the DI), and as if by magic you'll find yourself downwind.
Simple.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP 413 uses the phrase "take off roll"
See chapter 4.
"1.7.13 When an aircraft is about to take-off or has commenced the take-off roll "
When I said I commenced my roll, that was short for "take-off roll".
It had nothing to do with a touch and go....and I wasn't doing a roller.
I think a lot of pilots know what is meant by take-off roll, or what I meant by saying I "commenced my roll".
See chapter 4.
"1.7.13 When an aircraft is about to take-off or has commenced the take-off roll "
When I said I commenced my roll, that was short for "take-off roll".
It had nothing to do with a touch and go....and I wasn't doing a roller.
I think a lot of pilots know what is meant by take-off roll, or what I meant by saying I "commenced my roll".
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why are we taking so much airspace for a simple CCT?
CAP 413 uses the phrase "take off roll"
See chapter 4.
"1.7.13 When an aircraft is about to take-off or has commenced the take-off roll "
See chapter 4.
"1.7.13 When an aircraft is about to take-off or has commenced the take-off roll "
When a pilot has commenced his or her take off roll (or is about to) then the CAP413 phrase is "Taking off". The military I'm sure may have their own phraseology.
Last edited by FREDAcheck; 8th Sep 2010 at 10:29.
The Cooler King
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: In the Desert
Posts: 1,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try circuit bashing in the States.......Florida springs to mind.
Can remember two pasty faced individuals staggering out of a 172 having come within a hair's breadth of a twin who blasted across a circuit 1000 below assigned alt.
Mr. Collins......are you around?
Can remember two pasty faced individuals staggering out of a 172 having come within a hair's breadth of a twin who blasted across a circuit 1000 below assigned alt.
Mr. Collins......are you around?
the trainning providors at Elstree must be laughing all the way to the bank with the extra flying they are selling with the CCT that they agreed to fly
we can't all fly within a mile of the airfield...
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
At a secret Cornish heli-base we normally had simultaneous left and right handed circuits with four/five in each - A and C's 4 miles, full-flap, 65 kt driver wouldn't have lasted long after the SATCO had read his horoscope ... 
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 431 Likes
on
227 Posts
If the ATZ is 2nm radius, can an aircraft on a 4nm final be considered to be in the circuit? An aircraft joining must comply with the existing traffic pattern.
This is where the military "deadside join" (not an overhead join) has an advantage. It was designed for a busy circuit. The joining aircraft avoids the liveside pattern, by flying parallel to the duty runway, on the deadside at circuit height and fits into the pattern on the crosswind end. If anyone has to extend, it's the joining aircraft and he goes further upwind. This avoids anyone having to fly the dreaded "extended down wind leg", which gets longer and longer as more aircraft have to follow suit.
This is where the military "deadside join" (not an overhead join) has an advantage. It was designed for a busy circuit. The joining aircraft avoids the liveside pattern, by flying parallel to the duty runway, on the deadside at circuit height and fits into the pattern on the crosswind end. If anyone has to extend, it's the joining aircraft and he goes further upwind. This avoids anyone having to fly the dreaded "extended down wind leg", which gets longer and longer as more aircraft have to follow suit.
This is where the military "deadside join" (not an overhead join) has an advantage. It was designed for a busy circuit. The joining aircraft avoids the liveside pattern, by flying parallel to the duty runway, on the deadside at circuit height and fits into the pattern on the crosswind end. If anyone has to extend, it's the joining aircraft and he goes further upwind. This avoids anyone having to fly the dreaded "extended down wind leg", which gets longer and longer as more aircraft have to follow suit.
The only reasons for NOT joining overhead are glider winching and parajumping - both should be covered by adequate published procedures. Or am I being naive?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rumour has it that some people have been speaking to Stapleford whilst landing at North Weald
Conversely I have approached Stapleford while talking to Cranfield (who couldn't hear me).
Easy to do. Only one decimal different. Fortunately I realised my mistake before joining the circuit.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
speed stable at 500ft is fine
I was also told to put in full flap when turning final. This is not usually necessary unless the circuit is very tight.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FREDAcheck
Only place I used the word "roll" was in describing what happened to my "colleagues" on pprune.
Where do I say in my post that used the word "roll" over the radio ?
Airpolice
I was not aware that Typhoons now say "final for touch and go" rather than "final to roll...".
What do they call it in a rotary?
Only place I used the word "roll" was in describing what happened to my "colleagues" on pprune.
Where do I say in my post that used the word "roll" over the radio ?
Airpolice
I was not aware that Typhoons now say "final for touch and go" rather than "final to roll...".
What do they call it in a rotary?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so from the great film...The Blues Brothers
[Elwood Blues has just passed on a red light, and a police car rolls up behind them. The words are said in the same rhythm as a blues song ("Soothe Me") on the car stereo]
Elwood: ****.
Jake: What?
Elwood: Rollers...
Jake: No.
Elwood: Yeah.
Jake: ****.
Elwood should say "Touch and Go's"
What a great film that was.
[Elwood Blues has just passed on a red light, and a police car rolls up behind them. The words are said in the same rhythm as a blues song ("Soothe Me") on the car stereo]
Elwood: ****.
Jake: What?
Elwood: Rollers...
Jake: No.
Elwood: Yeah.
Jake: ****.
Elwood should say "Touch and Go's"
What a great film that was.
Where did you get the 500 foot above circuit that you mentioned in your earlier post?
As a matter of fact, several Belgian a/d's have explicited this "rule", EBHN for one example with the circuit at 700' and "integration" at 1200'. Several can't, however, like poor EBGB with its ATZ tucked in a forlorn corner of Brussels CTR and topped off at 1000'. Again: final info comes from authorative sources like the AIP, or, lacking that, from the a/d operator.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 431 Likes
on
227 Posts
All of this can be done equally, or even better, from a standard overhead join. I don't understand all this fuss, neither do I see any advantage to a deadside join vs. an overhead - overhead join is published standard, 500 feet above circuit, though it can of course be overridden by local practice but then this should be published. And how are you going to check the signal square from a deadside join?
The only reasons for NOT joining overhead are glider winching and parajumping - both should be covered by adequate published procedures. Or am I being naive?
The only reasons for NOT joining overhead are glider winching and parajumping - both should be covered by adequate published procedures. Or am I being naive?
I was taught and have taught both, being military and civilian instructor qualified. The military would teach an overhead join to a low-time student but expect more advanced students to carry out a deadside join, obviously only if there is a radio frequency and the duty runaway is known.
Overhead joins can be dangerous where two aircraft are joining at a similar time. Pilots' attention is diverted from a lookout for other aircraft as they organise themselves in the overhead for the correct runway. As you say, they look at the signals square, where fitted, and the airfield layout, at the very time they might be converging with another airframe doing the same thing, from the same place. During a deadside join there is a blind spot under the aircraft. Because the join pattern tends to be fixed and rigid in some pilot's minds, they do sometimes tend to cut in ahead of other circuit traffic.