I'm learning at Biggin. I've been taught 2D's "over the shoulder" technique for flying the circuit which seems to work fairly well, and there are a few useful ground features such as the gypsy camp and the round building near the hospital to provide a reference. Can't say I have seen anyone disappearing off to Croydon when I've been circuiting, but there have been a few occasions where I have been asked to orbit downwind in order to slot in behind someone doing an ILS approach.

I wonder, just wonder, if practice ILS approaches at some training airfields might *just* be the original cause of the dreadful practice of bomber circuits?

G

Genghis:
That's possible, but most controllers I know tend to use 'orbit left/right at the end of the downwind leg and report (ILS traffic) in sight' rather than 'extend downwind' etc. RAF pilots as said before, will tend to maintain circuit height and go round on the dead side to reposition downwind. Could it be due to FISO's who of course, cannot actually instruct the pilots to orbit? Second thoughts no, because you don't get FISO's and ILS at the same airfield (unless of course, you know different!)

I hope not, but bomber circuits are not the exclusive province of AFISO airfields (in fact I'd suggest generally worse at "towered" fields).

G

Taught to fly tightish circuits (in the US), came home and had to learn long-wide-lazy round robins.

Tower sometimes effectively forces wide circuits here, especially with jet traffic inbound - "extend downwind/orbit left, report final number two, caution jet traffic, recommended spacing six miles" I prefer to be in glide distance of the runway thankyou. Many extend way out behind jet traffic and they'll even start decending on a base whilst two or three miles out. What's the problem with positioning to final at less than the recommended spacing, but flying the base and final high (well above the jet traffic glideslope), landing well beyond the jet touchdown zone (we do have nearly 3000m so there's no need to bang it down on the numbers) and thus preserving the tight-ish circuit, having the safety of being close in, whilst still not risking wake turbulence?

Local procedures also dictate no final turns over the village/small town about a half mile off the end of the runway - it doesn't say no final turns between the village and the runway, but far too many people interpret the "rule" as a requirement to fly a large circuit, turning final further out than the far end of the village, at maybe two miles. Turning final inside the village is very do-able and from normal downwind allows a power off base and final (often you see the extended circuiters flaps down, highish power, dragging in for two or three miles - doesn't leave many options if it goes quiet, does it?). I accept that a less than half-mile final may be challenging for new students, but for the experienced why fly an extra three miles outside of gliding range of the field?

Also, why do folks not slow down in preference to extending? If I end up joining downwind a bit close behind someone (and I'm at say 90-100kts), I'd far rather bring the speed back a bit than I would go half way across the county to make some space, but some seem to think that in a two seat trainer or low-performance four seat tourer you are only allowed to start to slow down after you turn base.

The other day I was following a 152 downwind, tower tells the 152 to call ready for base, tells me I'm following a 152 and then asks me to call ready for base too. I call ready for base before the 152 ahead which even before his call is a couple of miles out whereas I'm not that much further downwind than abeam the touchdown zone, so tower says "OK I guess you're number one now, clear to land". I flew a tightish right base and am parking back at the club before the 152 touches. Instructor in the 152 later bawls me out because he didn't think it was fair I "cut in".

Ghengis, I think what you might have really been getting at was extending downwind so that when turning final you may be intercepting the localiser 2 miles out, thereby getting a "free" ILS apporach for the last part of the approach?

I know it has been done before, and will continue to be dones so when airfileds charge over £10 a time for these approaches - I understand in the US they are usually free?

Is that what it costs at Cranfield then? If they want a free ILS, surely they could just wait until ATC is closed? A far as I know, ILS's aren't switched off except for maintenance.
Anyway I still think 'wide' circuits are mostly caused by noise requirements.

Chevron

ILS at Cranfield is over £13, and quite often they do switch it off at night! You'd think they'd at least leave it on as a safety aid wouldn't you?

DW

There's another thread where an instructor opines that SEPs following a glideslope of more than 3-4 degrees may become unstabilise.

The thrust of the post encourages pilots to use a 3-4 degree final - am I alone in thinking that this kind of arbitrary advice (nonsensical IMHO) could also contribute to bomber circuits? since you only descend about 300 fpm on a 3 degree G/S and even a 600 foot final turn (lower than many would choose) would equal 2NM final.