Shaft:
We tend to fly climbing upwind turns in things with more power, you do have to level off in the turn but it's no major drama.
As for the Grob 109 needing a curved final approach - it's hardly got a massive long nose to hide the runway, Spitfire stylee, so not sure I agree with you on that one. The straight approach from 300ft is as much of a help for the fast jet driver to sort everything out as it is for the 16 year old with limited experience on the Grob.

Pitts:
Mil tend to fly numbers, the advantage of flying higher performance aircraft is that they are less affected by the vagaries of the atmosphere and are more likely to work. From starting the finals turn at 1000ft, you pick a point on the ground in line with the runway and about a mile back, and do whatever you have to do in the turn to overfly that point, on speed, on height and wings level - flying from one known position to another. Some might argue that it's a bit of a robotic technique, compared to your techniques, but it bloody works!
Again, not for a moment decrying your techniques, have done such things plenty enough myself on my PPL, and you're right it is amazingly satiisfying as you realise it's all going to come together nicely!

Dublin:
Spot on mate, numbers one and three are indeed correct. You'd better watch out though, or RAF Central Flying School will be pinching your drawings for their publications! Hope you and me can continue to keep the hatchet well and truly buried!

Only if you do it with your eyes shut, surely? - I, at least, was taught that part of the point of the overhead join was to watch what was going on on the runway.

(It's not just modern GA aircraft that can take off through the crossing point - an empty Tristar (I think it was) can do it too, which is why ATC held one until I'd finished crossing overhead the runway. Probably my most expensive rejoin ever - for someone else :ok:.)

Yes, the 109 has a short nose but the downward vis is still a little poor. So it doesn't need to curve but the point about is being a more stable, steady approach is still valid.

Dublinpilot from my experience no 1 is what I described.

p.s. as you can tell from the pic, this last straight in bit to get everything sorted out is necessary as a taildragger with a near 60' wingspan will float quite a bit if your too fast.

I'm sure we can ;)

The only obvious disadvantage I can think of, would be in a high wing aircraft. I don't have a lot of time in high wing aircraft, but my overriding memory of them was hating the turns in the circuit, as I lost sight of the runway....ie where I was going.

Wouldn't a curved approach in a Cessna constantly hide the runway, and make judging your curve much more difficult?

Of course we could just ban all high wing aircraft :p

dp

Apologies to bring this up again Nobby but max AOB is not necessarily 15 to 20, infact on both my current ac and my previous ac my max AOB was 45 degrees whilst in the circuit.

The limiting factor on your angle of bank used in the circuit is speed at which you will stall. This speed increases as you increase AOB and therefore load as such different types of aircraft will have different approach speeds and stall speeds. I suspect therefore that your information is specific to your type of aircraft and similar.

A much clearer explanation of this relationship is given on one of the fatal accident threads from the weekend.

What's certainly true is that if your instructor tells you that you are not to exceed 20 degrees AOB in the circuit then don't.

As pointed out, diagrams 1 and 3 are correct for military circuits. I would add that the join in 3 could be made at any point along that deadside track to fit in with traffic and expedite recovery.

Pitts 2112 is my erstwhile display formation buddy, so no guesses that we fly similiarly!

One thing that was overlooked in all the previous posts was the "belly-check".

When I call turning final, from base - I always make it a practice to roll wings level once perpendicular to the runway and have a good bloody lok down the extended centre line in case someone is inbound!

The other thing is that if flying the circuit that 2112 mentions, I avoid a cone of danger displaced upwind and 30 degrees either side of centre line just in case I missed the guy on long final!

Stik

Base leg
 

Thanks Slow-Rider for your time one last thing any one please, if my Vso 48kts and AOB is zero and my speed reduces to near 48kts and my AOB then increases slowly to 30* what condition of flight would I then be in. Am right in thinking that a stall or spin would ensue. So the two speed and
AOB go together, but we think more about speed than AOB. I know all aircraft are different but if we stay outside these conditoins then all is well.
The constant aspect during a PFLs works for me because I don't have to think too hard. 1000'agl line the wing tip up with target ie. piano keys and turn and line up at on the centre line
Thanks Nobby

Nobby

Assuming you did NOTHING. You would end up in a spiral dive, with rapidly increasing airspeed and roll rate.

If however, you tried to maintain level flight, by increasing back pressure and therefore load factor, you would stall and potentially enter a spin.

Only thing to add DP to your third drawing is that the crosswind turn can be earlier if required to fit in with others in the circuit; the run and break is essentially the same thing but the crosswind turn starts immediately you are abeam the downwind numbers and might start at a height lower than circuit height (usually so that you can lose speed in the resulting climbing turn). Run and breaks have been discussed here before but essentially are a bad idea at an uncontrolled airfield...

Tim

I quite enjoyed M14P's method of looking for traffic when joining. Look up and what do I see? Trees!

Oh, fer f*@k's sake, not again...:mad::ugh:
Another unqualified opinion with no basis in fact, reality or understanding...
Pitts2112

Well, I would ask why not.

I think there is some confusion on here between Angle of Bank and Angle of Attack. They are not the same thing.

That wings level "belly check" on base that Stik refers to is pretty important if you want to have a good look at what's happening on final. Also, the person who I think is one of the higest authorities on landing a Pitts doesn't actually teach a curving approach. He teaches a quick base leg where you check final, then to fly 'the line' to the numbers which actually tracks along the ground in a line. It might appear to be curved from the cockpit, but that's because he is constantly changing his side slip all the way down a final approach that is a few degress off the extended centreline. Well, that's what I think he is doing :)

What is most important is that everybody does the same thing. So mixing these "military" patterns up with a "civilian" pattern might not be the most sensible thing to do. If you are flying in the US at an uncontrolled civilian airfield and you fly a downwind then a final without a base leg in between, and you hit somebody and survive, the FAA will be more likely to violate you than the other guy. The AIM shows a base leg, and although it is advisory, you will get into trouble if you cause an accident by not following the advice.

Normally, in an initial point join, you would turn in a little earlier than shown in DPs diagram part 3, crossing roughly the threshold of ‘09’. However its very easy to adjust this point, by extending or shortening the upwind leg, and slot into a place in a busy circuit.

There is no basis in fact for

Run and breaks have been discussed here before but essentially are a bad idea at an uncontrolled airfield...

that I can see, could you please substantiate this claim

Being violated by the FAA, sounds somewhat painful......

Can we please not go down the endless RIAB discussion road again please!?!

I suspect it is easier to teach the 'base leg' cct than the constant aspect. That said, I find the military style cct far easier to fly.

RIABs, I echo the comments of previous posters. Let's just let that one lie for now.

The BGA approved glider circuit has been 2 x 45 degree turns from downwind to crosswind followed by 90 degree final turn from crosswind for some time.

The 2 x 45's are so that you can still see the landing area rather than losing it under the wing going downwind. But it's a much tighter circuit than power

Isn't one of the factors against the military-style 1 x 180 finals turn that there is no belly check (awareness of what is outside the turn) whereas on a civil 2 x 90 the base leg provides an opportunity to check long finals or even a base leg join from the dead side (I've seen it done)? :confused:

It is however very easy to fly (and teach).

Mixing of the 2 types is difficult at best - we have both types where I work :ooh: and don't mention UHF vs VHF :oh:

Let me qualify.

A run and break manoeuvre is perfectly safe at an uncontrolled airfield if either (a) there is no circuit traffic, or (b) all the circuit traffic knows what a run and break means.

(a) is fine if you own the airfield, for example, or have amazing eyesight, or can guarantee that there is no NORDO traffic at the airfield. But it is hard to be 100% certain.

(b) is fine if the airfield is a military one (out of hours), or you know everybody who uses the airfield (e.g. you own it), but dodgy otherwise as it's not taught in the PPL syllabus.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about the manoeuvre, but it is not safe if there is other circuit traffic who do not know what to expect.

Tim

Don't quite follow yr reasoning there m8. Why should they have to expect anything? They should just continue on with their circuit procedures they are taught and everything will be fine, the RIAB is as you say a safe procedure. The same applies when civilian pilots visit military fields. They do what they are taught. As all pilots are taught to lookout and listen out and that 'flexibility is the key to air (power)' then there should be no problems at all. Unless this isn't the case where you are?

Viffer:

Sorry mate, but I disagree with pretty much everything you've said.

When visiting another airfield you should conform to their procedures and circuit patterns. When visiting civil airfields, even when flying HM's aircraft with my work hat on, I generally do what's expected at that airfield. Despite my feelings about them, I fly wide square circuits at civil airfields, because that's what everyone else is doing. In the same way I'd expect civil aircraft visiting mil airfields to fly oval circuits. In the same way, I tend to join civil circuits in the civil way. Exceptions made to this have been when taking a formation to the airfield in question, or when a RIAB has been requested by the airfield. Even in those cases, it has been thoroughly discussed on the phone before flying, and practised only at airfields used to the procedure and with the circuit clear.

Even if you can see other circuit traffic is well clear, your actions and unfamiliar RT will at the very least cause confusion. In addition, at an uncontrolled airfield you can never be entirely sure of the circuit traffic, so giving yourself the maximum time to locate it all by doing a standard join is surely advisable?

I'd also question your motives for wanting to perform a RIAB. RIABs are designed as the most expeditious way to recover one or more high performance aircraft, where the run-in speed is much faster than the normal circuit speed. There are very few civil aircraft for which that is the case, and the only real reason I can think of for it being required at civil airfields is as a convenient way to recover formations (although there are other options, as I've had to use on occasion when visiting civil airfields who've requested we don't RIAB).

I agree that a RIAB is not inherently dangerous, but prats who try to apply a procedure designed for high performance aircraft in a controlled circuit, to a low performance aircraft in an uncontrolled environment where other users are unfamiliar with it probably are pretty inconsiderate at least, if not dangerous.