Finding out circuit height in the UK
 

This is a rant, but I'm sort of hoping that somebody knows a better source of information than I do.

I'm just putting together a planning pack for myself for a 2 day trip: Cranfield - Exeter - Leeds Bradford - Cranfield. Usual stuff: PLogs, pages from Pooleys, booked handling, lines on charts - we're all trained in it.

One thing that occurred to me, because I am very poor at remembering it at any given airport on a given day, is circuit height. A really fundamental bit of information if you are planning a visual approach.

So my question is WHY do so many airports make this information so damned hard to find.

Cranfield - it's buried on page 2 of a 3 page Pooleys entry, thankfully at the bottom of the first page of the AFE VFR guide entry, page 7 (of 8) of the ICAO textual data and nowhere in the ICAO aerodrome chart (=the thing most likely to be open on my kneeboard).

Exeter, nope, just can't find it anywhere - not in Pooleys, not in the ICAO textual data, not in the AFE VFR guide.

Leeds-Bradford, in the ICAO textual data on page 8 (of 12) I find a reference to minimum height for training circuits, but nothing applicable to standard circuits; nothing in Pooleys, nothing in AFE.


Okay, this is only a snapshot of three airfields - but surely for anybody arriving VFR, this is a vital bit of information, that should be immediately to hand? And taking a sample of randome airfields through Pooleys, at-least 50% of airfields in there aren't immediately declaring a circuit height.

So, we either guess - which we shouldn't do, but I'll bet it happens a lot, or clutter up the RT asking (which I hardly ever hear), or what???


Am I missing something really simple, or should this just be part of the standard ICAO aerodrome plate, and then by extrapolation the standard commercial flight guides? And somewhere really obvious!

I am aware that in the USA there's a standard circuit height of 1000ft aal unless declared otherwise, but I don't *think* that exists here?

G

I would phone up the airfield/airport you are visiting well in advance, but I agree the VFR flight guide misses out some important information with regards to circuit heights

Is 1000ft QFE not the standard circuit height if the height is not listed?

CAA safety poster:

GA Safety Poster: Standard Overhead Join | Publications | CAA

for "standard overhead join" gives 1,000ft for ?standard? circuit, maybe?

So that is what we teach!

But never seen it as the "default" in other publications.

I've always been under the impression that the default circuit height is 1000' QFE, and anything different from this should be in the AIP? I wouldn't necessarily gripe about a lack of information, I'd just fly at 1000' QFE.

Having said that, I know of at least one airport where the circuit height, as flown by local pilots and published in the VFR flight guides, is 800', although there is no mention of this in the AIP. This is where my gripe on this subject would be.

FFF
-----------

Shirley the default is 1000ft QFE with left hand circuits.

Any variance from this needs to be in the directories but not if default is used.

Cusco

1000 QFE is the normal default but airspace restrictions can lower the overhead join height e.g. White Waltham or cct height. Some like Goodwood have different cct heights for fixed wing (1200) and rotary (800 IIRC)whilst Popham has 800 ft for all with an inner microlight circuit and outer conventional fixed wing circuit. One of those UK charms that can catch you out and as one poster says, a call to a new destination can advise on local foibles and any noise procedures.

Shirley it's been circuit ALTITUDE for several years now (except for the miiltary who don't seem to understand what QNH is for)

Rocco,

I'm not sure that Popham fits into this debate, because it's unlicensed.

Licensed airfields are listed in the AIP, which is the definitive source of information about them (supposedly, but see my earlier post above). All pilots should know where to find this information.

At unlicensed airfields, on the other hand, all bets are off. Yes, I know that Popham is not your average unknown farmstrip, it is a well known busy airfield. But because it is not licensed, there is no definitive place that a pilot can go to find information except to the airfield owner. A full briefing from the airfield owner should really be considered essential at any unlicensed airfield.

FFF
----------

No need to phone Popham

Circuit Procedures

I would suggest that, if there's sufficient information there, reviewing the airfield's official website constitutes a "full briefing from the airfield owner"!

Popham isn't your typical farm-strip, but I still maintain that it's not representative of other airfields which are licensed, because the AIP is not the definitive place to look for this information. By linking to their website (which I guess probably is definitive), you've proved my point!

FFF
-------------

Correct me if im wrong here but isn't 100Ft QFE the standard circuit height for a licenced airfield, but if conducting an overhead join at an unlicenced airfield then this should be (in theory) conducted as an overhead join at 2000ft decending on deadside to QFE 1000ft then completing normal cicuit and approach.

The UK standard is definitely 1000ft AAL and LH pattern unless otherwise published.

Height is still height, even if you are using QNH and need to add elevation.

Those of you asserting that the UK standard is 1000ft / left hand, can anybody give an official document reference? 'cos I certainly couldn't find one.

G

Shirley
 

Who is this mystery person Shirley and what's her age and size bra and availability?

Genghis, this left hand bit comes from rule 12 (Flight in the vicinity of an aerodrome). Not sure of the 1000 feet though.

in Germany, traffic pattern heights are listed in the AIP charts in MSL for most fields (ALL are licenced here) and is usually 1000 ft. AGL.

There is an official document for planning (NfL II 37/00) that puts the standard pattern above ground level for airplanes at 800 ft. and for ultralights at 600 ft., but most fields stick to the 1000 ft. AGL whenever possible.

No, if you are using QNH it is Altitude!

Altitude 1000 ft means your datum is QNH whilst
Height 1000 ft means you datum is QFE
CAP413 Ch 3 Level Reporting.

:rolleyes:

FFS people. Less QNH/QFE Altitude/Height willy waving and we might get somewhere!

Circuit height should be 1000ft aal

AKA Height: 1000ft QFE

AKA Altitude 1000ft QNH +/- Airfield Elevation.

:{

Well said:ugh: these always get confused.

Double FFS: height = altitude - elevation. It really isn't difficult, and makes absolutely no difference whether you use QNH and add elevation, or use QFE and don't: you're still at the same level relative to the runway you're going to land on. And it has nothing to do with the question.

I've just looked at an FAA airport directory incidentally; they list "TPA" traffic pattern altitude: and list two numbers the first is pattern altitude, the other is above airport elevation (in other words, circuit height!). QNH or QFE in effect, even if they don't use those terms over there. For example, it lists Palm Springs, which has a runway elevation of 477ft...

Just what I could do with here!

G

Good spot


However, back to circuit height....

G

Thanks for eddicating me, PatoWalker - a couple of centuries more and I'll begin to understand the subtleties of colloquial English. As long as I needn't master them to get a 6 on the ELP test...

AIRPLANE ROCKS!!:ok:

At the moment I am working on a project where I am establishing the circuit details (amongst other data) for all the airfields I can find.

It does seem that generally circuits operate at 1000 AAL. However, this is not a cut and dried rule by any stretch and a great deal of airfield managers (who dont have a Pooleys circuit page) heavily prefer to give circuit details by phone directly to the pilot when arranging PPR.

You could always fly a circuit and use a radar altimeter to find out how high you are...

A KRA10 costs about £15k to install.

Have you got round to asking Leeds what their handling charge is yet?

This seems to vary and I know people that have been charged anywhere from 0 - £75.

Apparently you can get a complimentary massage as well.

How would a massage at Leeds compare with a massage at Southend?

Are we comparing Essex girls with Loiners?

I guess the first will be provided by Sharon and the second by Lisa.

;)

I thought the only people doing complimentary massages these days were BA in Upper Class and the banks when it comes to massaging your overdraft - downwards with malice!

Yes I did.

For my 998kg MTOW aeroplane, £20 landing, £30 handling (£45 if you don't buy any fuel), and there was another £7 for something or other, but I forget what.

So, £57.

Still cheaper than going by train!

G

One reason for having a lower circuit height is the lateral size of the circuit is smaller. An example is RAF Newton close to Nottingham (Tollerton) airfield. Both the circuit heights were 800 ft (above respective aerodrome levels) because they were within about 3 miles of each other.

Yes, I know RAF Newton is now (very sadly) closed but the circuit height at Tollerton has remained at 800 ft.

Another reason is combined fixed wing/helicopter traffic. I don't know whether it's the same now but Oxford used to have a fixed wing circuit height of 1,200 feet with the helicopters having of 700 ft with opposite circuit directions - this meant you had 500 ft separation from helicopter traffic when overflying their live side at 1200 ft in a fixed wing a/c.

1,000 ft is the norm - any differences should be publishes in the AIP.

Thats actually not that bad. I think it used to be more than that.

I may venture up there myself, its been a while since I Played in the LBA xwinds.

Shirley they are talking about Shirley Crabtree? Look 'her' up. :)

When I last flew at Blackbushe (90s) it was 800ft agl for singles and 1200ft agl for twins by day and 1000ft agl for everything after dark.

And where is the document that states this - or are you just somebody else who *thinks* this is the case?

G

Genghis, I have to confess I don't know of any official document that says the "normal" circuit height is 1,000 ft - I guess that one reason for originally picking 1,000 ft is that when flying downwind at 1,000 ft the hundreds pointer on the altimeter is at the twelve o'clock position on the altimeter which makes it a bit easier for the inexperienced/student pilot to read and/or notice any deviations.

I suppose some ancient practices which have been established since the days when Pontius was a pilot aren't written down in referenced statute almost like the fact that (in the UK) we drive on the left hand side of the road - if you happen to find a reference please let me know!

I increasingly think that there isn't one, but if I find it I'll post it here.

Historically, I'm actually slightly more used to an 800ft circuit height anyhow! So I remain particularly uncertain of 1000ft.

If in doubt, I will ask ATC!

G

It's easiest at Denham; elevation 249 and circuit height 750, you work it out.

FWIW I have had a shufti at what used to be taught.

As stated in my own training manual Flight Briefing for Pilots Vol. I.(published 1961-9) written by the respected 'Birch & Bramson, circuit height is shown at 800 - 1000 ft.

Thus the "1000 ft unless otherwise stated" doesn't come from back then.
I agree it's often the case, but not the rule.

mikehallam