Personally, I prefer the racetrack circuit. However, that requires a lengthy shallow AoB turn onto downwind during which time a high wing aircraft is blind towards the active side of the circuit. In contrast, a 'square' circuit requires 2 short duration larger AoB turns between periods of straight flight. Hence the total 'blind time' is less. Low wing or high wing aircraft can cope with this together, hence it is, unfortunately, probably the better compromise for mixed civil light ac traffic.

Anybody flying beyond the normal visual circuit should be considered to have left that circuit; I suppose you could say "G-XX is visual with the traffic departing downwind and is turning left base" or something similar. Probably not in CAP413, but that assumes that people fly correctly! For example, the last time I went to Kidlington I was told to position behind the PA34 on final. Seeing one crossing the threshold I started to do so; however, I was told that I was turning inside the traffic. A quick reverse and I saw a dot on the horizon which was indeed a PA34 on hugely, enormously long final!! (Not my favourite aerodrome for many reasons - I was also very unimpressed to be waiting 'ready immediate' for departure only to be overtaken on the wrong side by some bizjet elbowing his way past the queue under some form of local priority system which does not appear in the AIP or Pooleys' and which no-one had briefed me about).

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 25 April 2001).]

I agree with you BEagle about the consideratons for those beyond the ATZ, however, I tried this a few times and occasionally got a huffy response from the 152 (despite being 500 yards clear of the runway when he was in the flare)

I guess if you're going to do it prepare to accept flak from the dingle you've just 'overtaken'.

Hoorah, sensible words Noggin, wingtip along the runway and turns when at 45degrees. Just how we try to teach them. Rectangular circuit within gliding range of the airfield. Its the landings that are important, not x country flying at this stage. Even when mixing it with 737s, this works, with just the odd orbit downwind for spacing. Admittedly it can be difficult if the aircraft ahead is flying cross country circuits, but a request for a right hand circuit instead of left hand normally allows a sensible circuit to be flown, provided noise abatment aspects permit. In reply to the comment about throwing things away when an approach goes pearshaped, definatly something we advocate, but it would be nice if we weren't charged for go-arounds.

Just like to make a couple of points as a military pilot who flies a lot of GA as well.

Noggin makes a good point about keeping the circuit to a sensible size, and running the wingtip down the runway is a good idea (if you're in a low wing aircraft); as is using the 45 degree point to turn finals (as a Jet Provost QFI we picked a point 45 ahead and on the extended centre line as a roll out point.

The main problem I see a lot is not the actual size or shape of the circuit (love those oval ones though), it's the fact that sometimes you get half a dozen aircraft flying half a dozen different sizes.

Run in an breaks - a quick method of a getting an aircraft down on the ground if you're coming in at 250kts+. not much use in a C152.

Interestingly, the Americans fly rectangular "patterns" but usually crank in approach flap at the end of the runway downwind and then start the descent, reducing power if necessary, turning on to a closer base leg.

This results in a tighter pattern, with the field "made" if the engine stops, but seems to be frowned upon in the UK.

Any comments from Jude or the other FI's?

[This message has been edited by Final 3 Greens (edited 25 April 2001).]

I think it very much depends on the type of aircraft flown. I used to teach it on some types where the first stage of flap was a relatively small deflection but gave a lower nose attitude thereby improving the view for the turn from downwind to finals. Also, the reduced speed makes for a tighter radius of turn thus allowing a lesser bank angle for the same rate of change and the increase in spanwise flow associated with flap application improves aileron effectiveness on most types.

All in all I would say that it is a valid procedure if it fits for the aircraft you usually fly.