Standard Circuit?
Guest
Posts: n/a
smail- "late downwind" may not be in the book, but surely we can put this under the heading of airmanship? common sense shouldn't go out of the window just because of what is written down, and if I hav not managed to get my call in, either someone is waffling to much, or the traffic is so busy that we need to have as good an idea as possible where everyone is!
I also know about the join in the states,but i'm not teaching there, and I always point out to my students that if they fly in any other country they need to know the rules for where they are flying.
[This message has been edited by ianh (edited 19 December 1999).]
I also know about the join in the states,but i'm not teaching there, and I always point out to my students that if they fly in any other country they need to know the rules for where they are flying.
[This message has been edited by ianh (edited 19 December 1999).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Any thoughts on the use of an oval pattern for part of the circuit? I was taught (and it looks like I will teach)
- climb ahead to 500'
- 15 AoB
- Climbing turn to downwind at 1000'
These are the main points, we do use features to check progress through the turn and change AoB as required for spacing. The downwind, base and final are a square pattern. Spacing is most definitely gliding range (in PA28's)
- climb ahead to 500'
- 15 AoB
- Climbing turn to downwind at 1000'
These are the main points, we do use features to check progress through the turn and change AoB as required for spacing. The downwind, base and final are a square pattern. Spacing is most definitely gliding range (in PA28's)
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK guys (and gals)the differences are starting to show themselves at last.
Question for the Americans and the Oz's.
If a student came to you and said "I want a CAA licence, it's cheaper to do the training here rather than in the UK - but I'll do most of my flying in South London [for example]"..would you teach the CAA method, or your own national method?
Question for the Americans and the Oz's.
If a student came to you and said "I want a CAA licence, it's cheaper to do the training here rather than in the UK - but I'll do most of my flying in South London [for example]"..would you teach the CAA method, or your own national method?
My national method - that is what you know how to teach, satisfies the local expectations, and when they go home they will have plenty of time to assimilate any changes. Even gives them a different expierience.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OP If oval is standard for where you fly, then teach that ( though there are many a/c that i would be very surprised to see reach 1000ft from 500, even if you are not turning at the same time), the main thing is you teach the same as those around you teach, or you will really confuse the hell out of the studes.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oval circuits huh !!
Is that what its called to justify making a complete mess of turning downwind/base/final ?
And to think that Ive been calling them eagle swoops until now!
so now can I call complete pattern indiscipline "oval circuits" Thanks for that!
Is that what its called to justify making a complete mess of turning downwind/base/final ?
And to think that Ive been calling them eagle swoops until now!
so now can I call complete pattern indiscipline "oval circuits" Thanks for that!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was taught "oval circuits" for low-level circuits.
Basically I would teach what I know, or not at all.
If someone came to me and wanted a CAA syllabus, I would refer them to someone else as I am not familiar with the requirements.
I could not ever take their money if they are not going to get what they pay for!!! and I wouldn't expect any other instructor to either!!!
Basically I would teach what I know, or not at all.
If someone came to me and wanted a CAA syllabus, I would refer them to someone else as I am not familiar with the requirements.
I could not ever take their money if they are not going to get what they pay for!!! and I wouldn't expect any other instructor to either!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Squeakmail: I have taught CAA Private syllabus in the USA and used the recommended procedures ie. poor weather @ 500ft, "baulked" landings etc. It can be useful, especially if you are up in the Northeast as I was for a while. Adaptability is the name of the game.
As for oval patterns..why not? Suppose you fly a slow airplane like a Citabria. Better flying them at 500ft than at 1000ft!
As for oval patterns..why not? Suppose you fly a slow airplane like a Citabria. Better flying them at 500ft than at 1000ft!
Glasgow's Gallus Gigolo .... PPRuNeing is like making love to a beautiful woman ... I take hours.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the places I've flown light a/c at used square circuits, as we've discussed above. When I joined the UAS, though, we flew tight oval circuits, either at 800' (at military airfields) or at 1000' (at our home airfield, GLA/EGPF).
I once asked the ATC Manager if he liked having us doing oval circuits, three flying clubs on the airfield doing square circuits, lots of turboprop traffic doing bigger square circuits (arriving from all directions), all fitting in with jet traffic.
He replied yes- then explained. GLA was used for training new ATCers, and that sort of workload made excellent training!
Sometimes they would even invite the light traffic (including the Loganair Twotters, which I flew later) to use 28, while keeping the airline traffic on 23. CROSSED circuits must have made ATC's life very interesting!
Sorry, a little off-topic there. What I was meaning to say is that a properly flown oval circuit is no more untidy than a properly flown square one; it just has to be approved by ATC. I think oval circuits date back to Spitfires or earlier- when you can't see the runway over the nose on a straight in approach, you want to delay the moment when you point at the runway as late as possible.
I once asked the ATC Manager if he liked having us doing oval circuits, three flying clubs on the airfield doing square circuits, lots of turboprop traffic doing bigger square circuits (arriving from all directions), all fitting in with jet traffic.
He replied yes- then explained. GLA was used for training new ATCers, and that sort of workload made excellent training!
Sometimes they would even invite the light traffic (including the Loganair Twotters, which I flew later) to use 28, while keeping the airline traffic on 23. CROSSED circuits must have made ATC's life very interesting!
Sorry, a little off-topic there. What I was meaning to say is that a properly flown oval circuit is no more untidy than a properly flown square one; it just has to be approved by ATC. I think oval circuits date back to Spitfires or earlier- when you can't see the runway over the nose on a straight in approach, you want to delay the moment when you point at the runway as late as possible.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's quite common here in the USA to have traffic using more than one runway at a time. Lakeland (home of Sun n' Fun) often do this and having talked to the Tower guys, they often prefer it as slower training traffic can be accomodated on one whilst bizjets etc. are on another one.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I might not have been 100% clear - the only part of the circuit we do oval is the upwind/crosswind/downwind. An oval (or circling) approach is IF "break visual" territory, another topic altogether...
What I've described is the promulgated standard for our school, the PA28's seem to comfortably get to 1000', it just seemed odd compared to the rest of the posts.
Sensible, if this is flown properly you roll out on downwind at height about 9 times out of 10 without further positioning - it's very neat.
The circuit we fly is aimed *primarily* at achieving the base turn point, from which (with the correct RoD) you'll always get a good landing.
[This message has been edited by Oz_Pilot (edited 23 December 1999).]
What I've described is the promulgated standard for our school, the PA28's seem to comfortably get to 1000', it just seemed odd compared to the rest of the posts.
Sensible, if this is flown properly you roll out on downwind at height about 9 times out of 10 without further positioning - it's very neat.
The circuit we fly is aimed *primarily* at achieving the base turn point, from which (with the correct RoD) you'll always get a good landing.
[This message has been edited by Oz_Pilot (edited 23 December 1999).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Vetflyer... what model of PA28 would that be, sir?
I was under the impression it was 73knots for best glide speed....although, having just looked it up in the flight manual for the PA28-151 it says 72knots....though to be fair to CFI..I've always heard it "rounded off" (CAA) to 75knots [although often heard 73kts by FAA].
[This message has been edited by squeakmail (edited 24 December 1999).]
I was under the impression it was 73knots for best glide speed....although, having just looked it up in the flight manual for the PA28-151 it says 72knots....though to be fair to CFI..I've always heard it "rounded off" (CAA) to 75knots [although often heard 73kts by FAA].
[This message has been edited by squeakmail (edited 24 December 1999).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
thanks for your replies ,my quoted figures were mph ,sorry. However my question was in essence :
should the approach speed used, be less than the best glide thereby encouraging the use of power and minimising the gliding during the approach.
Yes foxmoth i have heard of manuals and even look at the pictures occasinally .
ps it was a PA 28 -140
should the approach speed used, be less than the best glide thereby encouraging the use of power and minimising the gliding during the approach.
Yes foxmoth i have heard of manuals and even look at the pictures occasinally .
ps it was a PA 28 -140