Don't know the cruise speed of a Eurostar, but I have slowed down an Archer II and a stage of flap to stay a proper distance behind a slower aircraft. I'm sure (and know) you can do it in a 172.

Ah, I see.

I don't think Mac meant that he wasn't able to do that, PA, just that he didn't want to.


MJ:ok:

OKee doke...

Well I think this is where we start talking about being cut up in the circuit again

The less flying you do, the less fuel you buy. If you don't fly at all you won't have to buy any fuel at all.

LevelAttitude, poor choice of words on my part - I didn't mean to imply that said a/c would need to rejoin the circuit. That's how I teach it also.

Nobody could argue with that, Mac.;)


MJ:ok:

Maybe I am missing something.. The landmarks are the turning point that is taught at the airfield for the circuit - aside from if someone is in a faster aircraft etc like an arrow.

There was no aircraft in front - they were the lead aircraft. 4 in the circuit including myself behind the lead aircraft and 2 behind.

The traffic pattern at home airfield is a pattern which is otherwise flown according to landmarks, headings, visual references etc - I turned base at the spot (as taught by the instructor) and so did the aircraft behind me which also had an Instructor on board.

Aircraft on the previous 2 approaches also turned in the same spot and flew what I would deem as a standard circuit..

Said aircraft that I was following was outside of the ATZ by extending their circuit. There is no 2 ways about it.

So according to the rule .. are you saying I should put myself also out of the ATZ ?? and what constitutes the traffic pattern - because IMHO this would mean that if you are "following an aircraft" and said aircraft is flying a non standard circuit - you would also be flying a non standard circuit..and the aircraft behind will be doing the same and if there is an aircraft behind they will also do the same due to the domino effect.

So for that "1 hour" - the lead aircraft will be putting all other aircraft out of the ATZ..

What would you do in that situation??

I apologise if I am nit picking or have confused the situation and I am far from the thousands of hours on SEP - but as my instructor once said - Air Law is one thing and the practical is another- people will do a free for all and you have to keep your wits about you.

If I have missed something then I welcome the education :ok:

Scoobster

Only picking up on the aspect of "landmarks" when flying a circuit.

Not heard the point that when away from base those "landmarks" are gone. All that's left is the age old runway threshold at 45 degs rule (Not the start of the runway always, due to displaced thresholds) Landmarks for circuits at night may well work due to street lighting and other lights at your home airfield etc, but again, anyone relying on landmarks for circuits when landing away, is not doing it right IMHO.

Yes, Scoob. That's how it's supposed to work.

Have a word with the 'big circuit' pilot on the ground later to find out what was the reason for the long downwind.

Having said that, it could also be said that, if the aircraft in front extends the downwind far enough, then it has left the 'circuit ' and has lost the right of way that being in the circuit would normally provide.

Where you draw the line is hard to say, and would depend a lot on how big you think a 'normal' circuit should be, and that will depend on what you are used to. I would suggest that any extension significantly outside the size of an ATZ, without any obvious reason could be a candidate for this line of thought.


MJ:ok:

Agreed when away from home.

I'm just wondering about following or conforming to the traffic pattern if lead aircraft at 'base' airfield is out of the ATZ.

Would one still be expected to conform just because they are setting the traffic pattern and would affect all other aircraft being outside also?

I do not advocate cutting up any aircraft and just trying to work out a how air law would fit into the scenario above

Ah okay.. Thanks MJ

In the US, the final rule of law is "see and avoid". Being behind the other plane you have the benefit of "see" and if you take action that fails to "avoid" a potential conflict, it would be on you.
Is the wording similar in the UK?
This is fun hearing other terms like "cut up". here it would be "cut off".
This is what I pictured when I first saw cut up.
Sliced Seminole

Your point about keeping the other aircraft in front of you to more easilly keep it in sight is a good one, Sky. When we 'cut up' or 'cut off' another aircraft, we often loose sight of it, and thus create another potential hazard.

I think that, although there are many procedural differences in the details of joining and flying the circuit pattern between the US and UK, the basic 'see and avoid' principle still holds good either side of the Atlantic.


MJ:ok:

The other problem with the outsized pattern pertains to my usual ride, a light twin.
104 knots is a good safe speed for all legs and turns, until short final. A big pattern of 100 KT downwind planes like 172's does not seem a problem, till we get to that long final leg.
Now the planes slow to 65 KTs or less, and I cannot negotiate a safe landing at all. With the big pattern, they get two planes on the final many times, dragging it in at a perfectly appropriate speed. It is just the time involved that is unworkable.
So we look at it with the tighter pattern. I blend in on a 200 yard wider downwind, in a good spot. I fly a slightly larger downwind leg, keeping well ahead of the plane behind by virtue of more speed. I am well in sight of following traffic. Now my downwind was longer, base leg a little longer, and when I get on final the leading plane is just touching down. I can now slow to 90 KT, and it works fine. Nobody has to do anything to their work to get me in.
When the thing gets big and slow, I have to beg a slot from one of my fellow aviators to arrive. Not usually a problem, but not necessary IMO.

Scoobster, Go Around from Base Leg - usually means you can fly the "normal" circuit next time round.

To the point on see and avoid... it also plays well to those not flying huge circuits.

http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/2013093.pdf

That report was astounding to me and reinforces the need to carefully study the laws and common practices of another country before flying there. That sort of thing is simply not done in the US, outside of restricted airspace or on designated Military Training Routes (MTRs). A 210KT Hercules @250 AGL would be something to behold :)
I had one opposite direction on an IFR flight with minimum separation once. We were in and out of the crud, and here he is at about half mile, and closing speed of 420 knots or so.

Thanks all for the observations and debate, very interesting. I only recently qualified and hence wanted to check my understanding. If things had progressed I would have applied power and gone around whilst also making a call on the radio to announce my intention.

Cheers,
Dan

Ps - it was at Barton, and it was busy (4 or 5 in the circuit I think from memory)

PA28181 and I are thinking the same thing.

IF you are new to flying, you will say something like: I turned base over granny's farm house.

That' s the problem. We use crutches like turn base over the power lines, when we should use the constants like the 45degree etc.

to the original poster: take some more lessons with instructors that might be out of your normal envelope (respected instructors).

I've always found it hard to fathom that flight instructors in england can do so without being commercial pilots.

Seen one which seemed much lower than that ... I was in a car at the time, not an aircraft, it gave the impression of just clearing the treetops, and the noise was something else entirely ...

(Yes I know that untrained ground observers rarely get within an order of magnitude when they estimate heights of aircraft. But it was still quite impressive.)

That rule being that from downwind to base the runway should be at a 45 degree angle as you look over your shoulder.

This is the same rule that you are referring to.. correct?

You might phrase it slightly more better than I have though :\

Scoobster