Circuit/pattern spacing Q
Is the patern shown varied to account for local conditions, or a standard size fits all?
Similar or even more stringent examples at Grimbergen EBGB, or the ultralight field of Maillen EBML - active NIMBY communities everywhere, so it is in the field's interest to give them as little occasion for whining as possible. This is why almost all fields carefully fix their circuit, and one really needs to respect that.
BTW similar traditions at most small fields in Germany. France is looser, of course.
Don't think anyone would disagree with that but there's no doubt that folk fly circuits that are far too big even taking into account a/c performance.
In principle I also prefer 'oval' circuits for all the reasons you suggest. (Except that high wing aircraft like Cessnas are blind all the way around the longer turns) If only we could make it standard, instead of everyone doing something different.
That is not a very clear question...
Here in UK we have a small but gradually increasing number of airfields with specific circuit routings.
France is looser, of course.
MJ
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: South-East, United Kingdom
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose it depends how 'tight' is a tight circuit. If you use the logic that your wingtip should be on the edge of the runway when downwind, then it will vary depending on the type of aircraft and length of the wing. Plus some aircraft (e.g. a Saratoga maybe) might not be able easily fit the same tight pattern as a PA28 or C172. On the other hand an ex-military or otherwise aerobatic pilot might well go for an even tighhter Not wishing to make excuses for anyone, but thats the reality sometimes, particuarly at an uncontrolled airfield or one without specific traffic patterns due to noise abatement.
sharpend's advice is sounds, especially the listen with your ears bit, while making your own accueate announcements and keeping a very good visual lookout.
I had the opposite to you once. I had done 3 night circuits and wanted to land and stop doing circuits. But on final approach, once I had someone jump the gun and line up while I was on final, requiring me to go around, and on my 2nd approach I caught up with another aircraft (or he did a wider circuit (I dont know)) and also had to go around. On the 3rd attempt to land, I admit I was a little bit naughty and landed while the aircraft in front was literally exiting the runway, and hadnt made the "runway vacated" call, but in my assessment it was safe to land. Plus the aircraft had funny rattles going on (was in a school aircraft and not my own) and I wasnt comfortable doing yet another circuit in it. I accepted the slight wrist slap, but my complaints about other people circuit etiquette fell on n deaf ears.
Moral of the story ? - circuits are a busy place, sometimes it doesnt work out in your favour, but like weather and many other things, that is aviation, and we try our best to live with it and try and be safe.
Edit, I cited the wrong person's original advice.
sharpend's advice is sounds, especially the listen with your ears bit, while making your own accueate announcements and keeping a very good visual lookout.
I had the opposite to you once. I had done 3 night circuits and wanted to land and stop doing circuits. But on final approach, once I had someone jump the gun and line up while I was on final, requiring me to go around, and on my 2nd approach I caught up with another aircraft (or he did a wider circuit (I dont know)) and also had to go around. On the 3rd attempt to land, I admit I was a little bit naughty and landed while the aircraft in front was literally exiting the runway, and hadnt made the "runway vacated" call, but in my assessment it was safe to land. Plus the aircraft had funny rattles going on (was in a school aircraft and not my own) and I wasnt comfortable doing yet another circuit in it. I accepted the slight wrist slap, but my complaints about other people circuit etiquette fell on n deaf ears.
Moral of the story ? - circuits are a busy place, sometimes it doesnt work out in your favour, but like weather and many other things, that is aviation, and we try our best to live with it and try and be safe.
Edit, I cited the wrong person's original advice.
Last edited by piperarcher; 14th Apr 2014 at 11:34.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there really that much difference between a small square circuit, and an oval one?
If you consider the C152 (which I sometimes fly in the military circuit), keeping the climbing turns to 15 deg AOB, you won't be flying level on crosswind for long. Granted you can make the base/final turns much tighter.
If you consider the C152 (which I sometimes fly in the military circuit), keeping the climbing turns to 15 deg AOB, you won't be flying level on crosswind for long. Granted you can make the base/final turns much tighter.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there really that much difference between a small square circuit, and an oval one?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's very little difference between an oval and a tight square. The benefit to the tight square is you can not only level your wings on crosswind/base but it's also easier to raise the inside wing for lookout if you have a high wing (or a low wing on the final turn).
I agree with what thing said about staying in gliding distance. This is surely the most important factor for circuit size, and it's strange that so many flyers seem to give it so little thought.
I agree with what thing said about staying in gliding distance. This is surely the most important factor for circuit size, and it's strange that so many flyers seem to give it so little thought.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been shouted at by the CFI coming into a southern coast airfield in my 230knts Vmo twin TP works machine for cutting inside the circuit.
They were doing larger circuits than a CAT aircraft, I honestly thought the traffic I turned inside was departing the circuit. Any way they were already out at 5 miles and I turned inside for 500ft wings level final. At 135knts Vapp I would have had to go out to 7-8 miles with them turning in at 4-5 so I wouldn't catch them up.
Again it this teaching of Pseudo airline ops pish which is screwing things up and people flying 3 degree PAPI approaches with some stabilised approach bollocks in VFR conditions at 1000ft. Obviously nobody has told them that visually in CAT ops you only need to be stabilised at 500ft AGL in visual conditions so they aren't even doing the pseudo airline ops pish correctly.
They were doing larger circuits than a CAT aircraft, I honestly thought the traffic I turned inside was departing the circuit. Any way they were already out at 5 miles and I turned inside for 500ft wings level final. At 135knts Vapp I would have had to go out to 7-8 miles with them turning in at 4-5 so I wouldn't catch them up.
Again it this teaching of Pseudo airline ops pish which is screwing things up and people flying 3 degree PAPI approaches with some stabilised approach bollocks in VFR conditions at 1000ft. Obviously nobody has told them that visually in CAT ops you only need to be stabilised at 500ft AGL in visual conditions so they aren't even doing the pseudo airline ops pish correctly.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like The500man, I was taught to fly a circuit that was within gliding distance at any point on the downwind, crosswind and final legs, if flying a single-engine aircraft.
The CFI was contemptuous of what he called "Bomber Command circuits"; especially on finals. If he saw a member "dragging it in on the prop" he would ground him/her and insist on remedial training.
That was a long time ago, but in later life where I was able to influence things I have had many acrimonious conversations with CFIs and their ab-initio instructors who defraud their clients by getting in so few landings in an hour's circuit flying.
Circuits are not for practising flying straight and level for several miles and then doing an approach and landing under power, they are for practising approaches and landings from 500ft final turns, with an 800 ft QFE downwind leg close enough to turn and land after losing all power.
I agree that an oval pattern is infinitely better than the ridiculous square pattern. The same CFI encouraged his staff to take control immediately after take-off, climbing 180 turn to 500ft, level 180 turn and hand control back to the student nicely positioned for a powerless approach from 500ft and landing. OK, that was 1960s and no ATC, private airfield, keep a b****y good lookout for other club aircraft doing the same thing, probably not possible now. But we did a huge number of landings (necessarily, in an Auster) and got our money's worth.
But the training industry needs a shake up; there are instructors out there who really don't understand what is so wrong with wide, wide circuits, endless downwind legs, and ridiculous final approaches that need almost full power all the way down. Are they wannabee airline pilots? It's like teaching people to drive on the M1.
The CFI was contemptuous of what he called "Bomber Command circuits"; especially on finals. If he saw a member "dragging it in on the prop" he would ground him/her and insist on remedial training.
That was a long time ago, but in later life where I was able to influence things I have had many acrimonious conversations with CFIs and their ab-initio instructors who defraud their clients by getting in so few landings in an hour's circuit flying.
Circuits are not for practising flying straight and level for several miles and then doing an approach and landing under power, they are for practising approaches and landings from 500ft final turns, with an 800 ft QFE downwind leg close enough to turn and land after losing all power.
I agree that an oval pattern is infinitely better than the ridiculous square pattern. The same CFI encouraged his staff to take control immediately after take-off, climbing 180 turn to 500ft, level 180 turn and hand control back to the student nicely positioned for a powerless approach from 500ft and landing. OK, that was 1960s and no ATC, private airfield, keep a b****y good lookout for other club aircraft doing the same thing, probably not possible now. But we did a huge number of landings (necessarily, in an Auster) and got our money's worth.
But the training industry needs a shake up; there are instructors out there who really don't understand what is so wrong with wide, wide circuits, endless downwind legs, and ridiculous final approaches that need almost full power all the way down. Are they wannabee airline pilots? It's like teaching people to drive on the M1.
Last edited by Capot; 15th Apr 2014 at 18:29.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did my tailwheel conversion training, during my last session we practiced bad wx circuits, and because the RWY was veeery long for the L-18C, the instructor set some parameters:
Max 500ft AGL, base leg abeam the tarmac undershoot, and crosswind/downwind inside the taxiway in the dispersal area south of the runway, as seen here: MAP- ENDU
Hard? Heck no, just a great way to no get "long runway complacent" in an aircraft with nimble handling
It was nice to get a lot of strict circuits in, because all the short fields we used off base for the L-18C required very non-standard circuits due to terrain and angry neighbors.
Max 500ft AGL, base leg abeam the tarmac undershoot, and crosswind/downwind inside the taxiway in the dispersal area south of the runway, as seen here: MAP- ENDU
Hard? Heck no, just a great way to no get "long runway complacent" in an aircraft with nimble handling
It was nice to get a lot of strict circuits in, because all the short fields we used off base for the L-18C required very non-standard circuits due to terrain and angry neighbors.
