Large Circuit Patterns
make me angry
Flies for fun
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Wishing it was somewhere sunny!
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Patterns are ok if you are flying aircraft with infallible engines. Those who fly aircraft with engines which may fail prefer tight patterns especially if they don't wish to burn off loads of fuel in the process. Anyway, don't people who fly 747 patterns fly "circuits" ?
ATC - are you remaining in the pattern or are you departing?
ATC - are you remaining in the pattern or are you departing?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prefer to remain close, just in case, but some places insist you fly the runway length away from the airport...in the case of a 10,000' runway, this is quite a way!
Cheers
EA
Cheers
EA
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I try and stay in a position where I can make a glide in if the engine quits ...
To date, the closest I have come, is the engine quitting with the student who flew the plane right after me, but ...
If there is someone in the pattern who is flying wide/long patterns, I deal with it by slowing right down, then turning base as I pass abeam them when they are coming in on final. That usually gives enough spacing, and saves me from having to fly too far out.
To date, the closest I have come, is the engine quitting with the student who flew the plane right after me, but ...
If there is someone in the pattern who is flying wide/long patterns, I deal with it by slowing right down, then turning base as I pass abeam them when they are coming in on final. That usually gives enough spacing, and saves me from having to fly too far out.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SURREY, U.K.
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having done some hours building in the US, primarily at Long Beach, I prefer flying the american style "Close Traffic Pattern"
This makes you very disciplined about speed managment and turning at the correct point. It is very frustrating when you are cleared by ATC to join as number two, and the chap in front seems to be doing a small cross country rather than a circuit at the airfield. This had happened to me on a number of occasions when rejoining at Shoreham. I know that some circuit patterns are larger than normal due to Noise Abatement Procedures, but As far as I am aware, such restrictions are not in place at EGKA. Is this the way that Students are now taught? I was always taught that a good means of positioning yourself on the downwind leg was to "scrape" the wingtip along the landing runway......and turn base when the threshold was 45° behind you. This has always worked for me......Perhaps some of you were taught another method. I would be interested to know, as these huge bomber circuits are my pet hate!
Blue Skies
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Paros, Greece
Posts: 768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was taught to climb to circuit height on crosswind, before turning downwind and I can see why this might cause problems, depending on a/c performance. I know for a fact that my solo circuits are always a lot tighter than those done with instructor weighing the a/c down.
I do try to be tolerant when someone is flying a rather large circuit - when you're learning there is so much going on and it can be difficult to strike a balance between doing things correctly and rushing. Even so, some people do seem a little extreme...
When following someone on a 'cross country' circuit, you tend to leave a bit of extra space to try to get more distance and I have noticed each sucsessive circuit get bigger and bigger, until someone finally lands and it all 'collapses' to the correct size again. If this appears to be happening I now deliberatley get right up behind the guy in front and go-around to break the pattern. Helps everyone out and good experience too.
I do try to be tolerant when someone is flying a rather large circuit - when you're learning there is so much going on and it can be difficult to strike a balance between doing things correctly and rushing. Even so, some people do seem a little extreme...
When following someone on a 'cross country' circuit, you tend to leave a bit of extra space to try to get more distance and I have noticed each sucsessive circuit get bigger and bigger, until someone finally lands and it all 'collapses' to the correct size again. If this appears to be happening I now deliberatley get right up behind the guy in front and go-around to break the pattern. Helps everyone out and good experience too.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I definitely prefer tight circuits - the tighter the better.
There are two reasons for flying large circuits as far as I can see: noise abatement, and following someone else flying large circuits.
Following others has already been dealth with pretty well by others - I can't think of much to add.
Noise abatement circuits are something I'm pretty familar with, flying from White Waltham. I have to say that I've never had an issue with the circuits there. Yes, they are much bigger than I'd like in an ideal world. But there are plenty of options for putting the aircraft down if the engine quits - maybe not on the airfield, but certainly safely. (In the places where options are limited, this is not due to the tightness of the circuits.) Certainly if a "published noise abatement circuit" took me somewhere unsafe, I would be very unhappy about it, and I'd speak to the CFI about getting it changed - although I'm not aware of anywhere where this is the case. The fact is that, when it comes to NIMBYs, there are more of them than there are of us, and they have a louder voice. We really must do whatever we can to keep them happy, without compromising safety.
<Begin really controversial bit>
I have always been a little baffled by the zealousness with which some people talk about flying tight circuits. For the vast majority of your flight you won't be within gliding distance of an airfield. So what difference if, during the 5 minutes or so that you're in the circuit, you're not within gliding distance? Well, for a start, you're lower than normal, so you have fewer options... ideally, you'd want to ensure that you weren't over a built up area at all, so that you could always land directly below reasonably safely. But that's the whole aim of noise-abatement, so that shouldn't be an issue. Sure, being within gliding distance of the field is always preferable - but I don't view it as being essential.
<End really controversial bit>
Stay safe!
FFF
-------------
There are two reasons for flying large circuits as far as I can see: noise abatement, and following someone else flying large circuits.
Following others has already been dealth with pretty well by others - I can't think of much to add.
Noise abatement circuits are something I'm pretty familar with, flying from White Waltham. I have to say that I've never had an issue with the circuits there. Yes, they are much bigger than I'd like in an ideal world. But there are plenty of options for putting the aircraft down if the engine quits - maybe not on the airfield, but certainly safely. (In the places where options are limited, this is not due to the tightness of the circuits.) Certainly if a "published noise abatement circuit" took me somewhere unsafe, I would be very unhappy about it, and I'd speak to the CFI about getting it changed - although I'm not aware of anywhere where this is the case. The fact is that, when it comes to NIMBYs, there are more of them than there are of us, and they have a louder voice. We really must do whatever we can to keep them happy, without compromising safety.
<Begin really controversial bit>
I have always been a little baffled by the zealousness with which some people talk about flying tight circuits. For the vast majority of your flight you won't be within gliding distance of an airfield. So what difference if, during the 5 minutes or so that you're in the circuit, you're not within gliding distance? Well, for a start, you're lower than normal, so you have fewer options... ideally, you'd want to ensure that you weren't over a built up area at all, so that you could always land directly below reasonably safely. But that's the whole aim of noise-abatement, so that shouldn't be an issue. Sure, being within gliding distance of the field is always preferable - but I don't view it as being essential.
<End really controversial bit>
Stay safe!
FFF
-------------
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: London
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a lot of these huge circuits are flown by students (certainly in my experience at EGKA). Ultimatly they're learning just like we all were (and still are!). Give them some slack and let them learn. The art of a tight circuit was lost on me for lots of my training! Now I can fly a comfortable tight citcuit. The art of flying behind someone who isn't is the next thing to learn!! I was behind a guy last week, I thought he was going to have to contact Lydd his downwind was so wide!
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFF is right to bring up the issue of noise abatement, of which more anon. Meanwhile, I agree with Kirstey. We all moan about people flying huge circuits but never admit to doing them ourselves. My circuits were huge when I was learning to fly, because I could not handle the workload and took too long to do things. One of the many pleasures of the post-solo consolidation phase, and the early PPL phase, was learning how to juggle speed, flaps settings and the like in order to fit in safely with with other traffic at various airfields .
I do suspect, however, that too many people are taught to fly circuits as automata (you fly at THIS speed and no other, you turn HERE and nowhere else, you lower flaps HERE and never elsewhere), and these habits can stick, particularly if you don't fly often. I wonder if there is too much emphasis on putting circuits together, component by component, rather than teaching people what their aims should be in approaching, joining and landing.
As for noise abatement: I agree that we cannot ignore, out-shout or otherwise defeat the opponents of our hobby and must accomodate them as best we can, but there are are places where the imposed circuit patterns give you little or no option for a safe forced landing (Elstree springs to mind, and I don't say this in order to re-start the Elstree-slagging cycle).
At other places, there are safe landing options from the circuit , but you will never make the airfield (with its fire-crew, phones etc). When the engine failed on me, turning downwind on the day my instructor had planned to send me solo, the instructor, taking over, initially pointed us at the airfield to land downwind, but immediately abandoned that plan, realising that it could not succeed, and put us down smoothly in a convenient field closer by. I mention this because, when the donkey died, we were exactly where the noise abatement pattern for that airfield said that we should be. That put us out of range of the airfield (especially in a Mark 1 Gliding-Brick aka Beagle Pup, but a Cessna or Piper wouldn't have made it either).
I do suspect, however, that too many people are taught to fly circuits as automata (you fly at THIS speed and no other, you turn HERE and nowhere else, you lower flaps HERE and never elsewhere), and these habits can stick, particularly if you don't fly often. I wonder if there is too much emphasis on putting circuits together, component by component, rather than teaching people what their aims should be in approaching, joining and landing.
As for noise abatement: I agree that we cannot ignore, out-shout or otherwise defeat the opponents of our hobby and must accomodate them as best we can, but there are are places where the imposed circuit patterns give you little or no option for a safe forced landing (Elstree springs to mind, and I don't say this in order to re-start the Elstree-slagging cycle).
At other places, there are safe landing options from the circuit , but you will never make the airfield (with its fire-crew, phones etc). When the engine failed on me, turning downwind on the day my instructor had planned to send me solo, the instructor, taking over, initially pointed us at the airfield to land downwind, but immediately abandoned that plan, realising that it could not succeed, and put us down smoothly in a convenient field closer by. I mention this because, when the donkey died, we were exactly where the noise abatement pattern for that airfield said that we should be. That put us out of range of the airfield (especially in a Mark 1 Gliding-Brick aka Beagle Pup, but a Cessna or Piper wouldn't have made it either).
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's horrid at EGCB flying the Chippy, trimmed back to slow speed, at 800 feet over the heavily built up area you end up over if you extend miles downwind for 27, following someone on a 'Bomber' circuit - the norm at our field, I'm afraid.
If the engine quits, you'd go into the houses. Why do these peole do it??
Makes me mad, too :~((((
SSD
If the engine quits, you'd go into the houses. Why do these peole do it??
Makes me mad, too :~((((
SSD
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Kandahar Afghanistan
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the US we call large or wide patterns B52 patterns and as a controller I DO NOT like them and will tell you to tighten your pattern up closer to the airport, I do this for your safety and so that I can better control pattern traffic.
Wide patterns make it harder for the controller to see you, and to give you a sequence. In a situation with multiple acft in the pattern, you run the risk of being cut off by someone else who is flying a normal pattern.
If for some odd reason you want to fly wide patterns, ask for approval from ATC, this way you don't surprise the controller.
Mike
Wide patterns make it harder for the controller to see you, and to give you a sequence. In a situation with multiple acft in the pattern, you run the risk of being cut off by someone else who is flying a normal pattern.
If for some odd reason you want to fly wide patterns, ask for approval from ATC, this way you don't surprise the controller.
Mike
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: www.tiovicente.com
Age: 44
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong but regardless of whether the circuit is designed for noise abatement or not, each aerodrome has a circuit pattern which pilots should adhere to. It's the pilot's responsibility to brief him/herself on what that circuit pattern is.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Large circuits do not necessarily mean a student or bad pilot. I flew a Seneca II yesterday and ended up having to do large circuits as otherwise I would have hit the preceeding Cessna 172 up the arse!
The other issue is that you may not have a choice if the tower has extended your downwind or left the base call to their discretion.
Anyway its all loggable
The other issue is that you may not have a choice if the tower has extended your downwind or left the base call to their discretion.
Anyway its all loggable
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: What????
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have often heard it said that one should always be within gliding distance of the field and many people claim that they adhere to this.Surely the only way to achieve this is to always use a glide approach as any need for power means that you are beyond gliding distance,so unless you intend to always carry out a glide approach the whole argument breaks down late downwind.
SSD...I too have taken a bite out of my seat on the approach to 27 a couple of times and not with my teeth I can tell you!! The only other option is a swim in the ship canal.
P.S. my preference is to use a glide approach as much as practical but so many times I am forced to abandon it due to other traffic..ATC extending downwind etc..so I think the best policy is just to stay as tight as possible under the given circumstances and not worry about it too much afterwards,after all,in a normal powered approach,the only time you could feasibly glide back to the field is from the end of crosswind to the point on downwind where you would turn for a glide approach.
Best Wishes,
Beethoven
SSD...I too have taken a bite out of my seat on the approach to 27 a couple of times and not with my teeth I can tell you!! The only other option is a swim in the ship canal.
P.S. my preference is to use a glide approach as much as practical but so many times I am forced to abandon it due to other traffic..ATC extending downwind etc..so I think the best policy is just to stay as tight as possible under the given circumstances and not worry about it too much afterwards,after all,in a normal powered approach,the only time you could feasibly glide back to the field is from the end of crosswind to the point on downwind where you would turn for a glide approach.
Best Wishes,
Beethoven
Correct me if I'm wrong but regardless of whether the circuit is designed for noise abatement or not, each aerodrome has a circuit pattern which pilots should adhere to.
It's simply not possible to have a one-size-fits-all circuit, which is why, for all the whining here and elsewhere, a recommendation of a specific distance is not published in the AIP, or the AIM, or anywhere else with any authority. I share a circuit with aircraft whose normal cruise speed is below my Vmca, as well as those whom I don't want to get within three minutes of for fear of what their wake will do to me. Many aircraft beyond the scope of the primary trainer don't appreciate having the power shoved on full for take-off and then yanked all the way off for a glide approach minutes later.
FFF wrote:
I have always been a little baffled by the zealousness with which some people talk about flying tight circuits.
Yes, teach students to fly sensible circuits consistent with the aircraft they're flying, but let's show a little tolerance for the diversity of needs in aviation and not get carried away with this. It's not a way of scoring points over other pilots.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At EGCB there is no ATC, and the 'bombers' are the likes of 172s and PA28s. So there's no excuse for it. And by no means are all of them are students with a heavy workload.
On downwind, the runway should be on or about the wingtip, turn base when you've just passed the downwind end.
These guys extend literally a mile or so beyond that!
WHY????
It's tempting to cut in behind them and land in front - you could have re-fuelled, put the aeroplane away, and be enjoying a coffee in the clubhouse befpore they land. But unless you know for sure that they *are* going to fly halfway to Yorkshire before turning base, you could end up just cutting them up. So you sit behind them willing them to TURN BASE NOW YOU DUMB ***###!!!!
What to do about it? I don't know
SSD
On downwind, the runway should be on or about the wingtip, turn base when you've just passed the downwind end.
These guys extend literally a mile or so beyond that!
WHY????
It's tempting to cut in behind them and land in front - you could have re-fuelled, put the aeroplane away, and be enjoying a coffee in the clubhouse befpore they land. But unless you know for sure that they *are* going to fly halfway to Yorkshire before turning base, you could end up just cutting them up. So you sit behind them willing them to TURN BASE NOW YOU DUMB ***###!!!!
What to do about it? I don't know
SSD
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: What????
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"enjoying a coffe in the clubhouse"....I take it you are referring to a different EGCB or else taking your own coffee!!.Sadly this is something that can never change unless we fundamentally change the way we teach ppl's from the outset.The circuits are much tighter in the states and their SPL's seem to cope ok.I too flew from Long Beach and was impressed at the tightness of the circuits..didn't have much of a problem with them.Instructor did all the checks until I was ready to include them and it worked well for me.
Is there anything wrong with turning downwind early and continuing the climb to circuit height on downwind?..well yes I suppose there is if you take into account popping-up in front of traffic joining downwind,but it seemed to be the norm in the US.Any thoughts?
Is there anything wrong with turning downwind early and continuing the climb to circuit height on downwind?..well yes I suppose there is if you take into account popping-up in front of traffic joining downwind,but it seemed to be the norm in the US.Any thoughts?
Why do it if it's not fun?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 4,779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see any reason to not be at circuit height by the time you turn downwind... or at least by the time you pass abeam the upwind end of the runway. If necessary, extend the upwind leg. I was taught to turn crosswind at 500' agl, which pretty much guarantees you'll be at circuit height in time.
As you say, not being at circuit height by this point introduces a risk of collision with joining traffic. And that applies on both sides of the pond, with a 45-degree join as well as with a standard overhead join.
Traffic considerations apart, turning at very low level doesn't seem safe. Build up speed, get a bit of distance between you and the ground, get the flaps up - then think about turning crosswind.
FFF
--------------
As you say, not being at circuit height by this point introduces a risk of collision with joining traffic. And that applies on both sides of the pond, with a 45-degree join as well as with a standard overhead join.
Traffic considerations apart, turning at very low level doesn't seem safe. Build up speed, get a bit of distance between you and the ground, get the flaps up - then think about turning crosswind.
FFF
--------------
I say there boy
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good case in point of the perils of bomber circuits happened to me the other week. The visibility (officially 7000m) was getting low, the sun was low making matters worse, in the circuit I was cleared to final as #3 in a Tiger with a Duchess at #2.
Turning downwind we were visual with Duchess but couldn't see #1. The standard speeds for the Duchess made it 30knots quicker than us downwind and so it pulled away from us and eventually we lost it in the haze. As we went late downwind to we could see a low wing high tail type in the haze on a 2+nm final - I think to myself it's exactly where the Duchess should be if he's extended just a little and that he'll be level with the wing at the 'standard' downwind/base turn point, so the spacing is coming together nicely. Only when we get on final do we realise we're still #3, the type infront is a PA38, still #1 and we have cut up the #2 Duchess who was on long final and is rightly pi**ed off.
What was the root cause? Well, despite the lack of other traffic the PA38 decided that he needed a 3+mile final at min. safe approach speed - causing the faster Duchess to extend what must have been five or six miles downwind before turning base to give himself room.
Now, the slip in Situational Awareness of not identifying the traffic in the circuit and not asking for a position check on the radio were our fault, but the whole damn thing was caused by a totally unnecessary bomber circuit in low vis conditions! This all happened with me flying from the RHS and a mega-hour FIC instructor in the LHS, both of us thought the Traumahawk was the Duchess, so it could happen to anyone.
Another withdrawal from the luck account to credit to the experience account.
cheers!
foggy.
Turning downwind we were visual with Duchess but couldn't see #1. The standard speeds for the Duchess made it 30knots quicker than us downwind and so it pulled away from us and eventually we lost it in the haze. As we went late downwind to we could see a low wing high tail type in the haze on a 2+nm final - I think to myself it's exactly where the Duchess should be if he's extended just a little and that he'll be level with the wing at the 'standard' downwind/base turn point, so the spacing is coming together nicely. Only when we get on final do we realise we're still #3, the type infront is a PA38, still #1 and we have cut up the #2 Duchess who was on long final and is rightly pi**ed off.
What was the root cause? Well, despite the lack of other traffic the PA38 decided that he needed a 3+mile final at min. safe approach speed - causing the faster Duchess to extend what must have been five or six miles downwind before turning base to give himself room.
Now, the slip in Situational Awareness of not identifying the traffic in the circuit and not asking for a position check on the radio were our fault, but the whole damn thing was caused by a totally unnecessary bomber circuit in low vis conditions! This all happened with me flying from the RHS and a mega-hour FIC instructor in the LHS, both of us thought the Traumahawk was the Duchess, so it could happen to anyone.
Another withdrawal from the luck account to credit to the experience account.
cheers!
foggy.
Last edited by foghorn; 30th Oct 2002 at 14:01.