This is my first post here, so I hope I’m putting it in the right place.
After a long time of just taking off and slamming on the AP, I decided that I wanted to actually learn to fly aircraft rather than just monitor systems. I started back in the C152 flying circuits and bumps at a leisurely 65-70 knots and really enjoyed the sensation of getting better at controlling the aircraft. After doing this for a fair while I moved up to the C172 and was still able to perform my circuits while keeping the airfield nice and close. However, as I have moved up to faster and more powerful aircraft I am finding it takes longer to stabilise the plane into level flight and before I know it I have left the airfield way behind and my circuits become bigger and bigger.
My question is, is this an acceptable thing to do? (In the sense of how it would be done in the real world), or should I be getting faster at stabilisation and still keep the airfield in view even though I’m now flying at 180 knots instead of 65?
In real life the pattern/circuit of an airfield is well-defined and significantly deviating from it is not allowed. If you are training on a specific airfield, I recommend downloading their VFR charts.
Several factors come in to play for the pattern, like noise reduction, visual references and dangerous obstacles. Depending on the airfield those patterns should be flyable with all UL and GA aircraft like a C172 or a Bonanza. If you increase to significantly faster airplanes (like jets) you may have problems with a pattern like that especially on final due to the higher stall speeds. In Europe patterns are usually only used for uncontrolled airports while on controlled airports ATC will tell you exactly where to go. Don’t know how that’s handled in other parts of the world.
Mostly the small uncontrolled airfields don’t cater to jets or turbo-props, so their patterns aren’t designed for them.
In essence you should fly a pattern systematically. Most patterns are at 1000ft above the airfield. No matter what aircraft you use, you usually try to climb at best climbing speed. That way you normally reach the correct altitude of the pattern in the crosswind leg, or around the time you turn into the downwind leg, start preparing for landing at the end of downwind, and again sink about 500ft in base leg and the rest in final. Also try to keep the speeds low. It’s no use accelerating too much in downwind and then have trouble reducing speed before the decent.
Thanks for the reply! I think I’ve been doing it wrong the whole time then.
My sequence is (C152):
Take off, Climb out at 75knots until I reach 1500 ft, throttle back, trim for level flight and then turn into my crosswind leg. Fly for 20 seconds then turn into my downwind leg, fly past the landing zone using a suitable landmark as a turning point then start my descent once I’ve leveled out from my turn.
I think from your reply that I’m doing it all wrong
My pleasure. You’re not doing it ALL wrong You’re just making life hard on yourself
But 1500 AGL is definitely too much. It takes you 50% longer to get up and down and doesn’t leave you any time to get your aircraft set up for landing. On some tight patterns on some small fields you wouldn’t even be able to reach 1500 AGL with a C152.
If you want to do it right, check the speeds in the POH for the aircraft you’re flying. Vy (best rate of climb speed) for the C152 is 67 knots (clean). So that should be the speed you climb with AFTER retracting the flaps. Initial climb with flaps at 10° is around 60 knots. For the decent you should keep the speed around 65 to 70 during decent. And 60 on final. The C172 is more powerful but also heavier, so the speeds are similar.
In fact the way most patterns are set up, they actually make it easier for the pilots to orient themselves around the airfield, because they often contain some visual clues, like masts, roads, ponds, buildings or small villages (which you shouldn’t fly over) which mark turning points for the four legs.
As you can see in this VFR chart the pattern is clearly defined by the motorway in the North, the small forest and the three small villages in the West, and the lake and river in the East. Most pilots actually fly over the lake and the river to stretch their final in the East. Thus they keep farther from the village and turn onto final over the middle of the lake.
I’d suggest a low wing aircraft over a highwinged on.
A pretty fast (300+ kts) example is my beloved Iris PC-21
Great view around due to the canopy, easy to fly, retractable gear, airbrake and equiped with a decent autopilot which brings you almost anywhere.
It is payware but to me it’s worth each and every peseta.
Freeware alternative are the VL3 915 and the Vertigo but especialy the Vertico is a wild horse that will catapult you into a crashsite if you mis handle it’s thottle/rudder and stick
Amazing! Thanks so much for your help. I’m going to look out the VFR chart for my local airfield (if there is one) and see what thay says - if not, I’ll build my own pattern using the link you provided earlier as a guide.
One further question, you mention that TP aircraft aren’t really suitable for small airfields - I know it’s not realistic that I should be flying one now, but in the real world, how would one go about flying patterns in one of those? At a bigger airport guided by ATC? Or would larger airports also have defined patterns?
I’m reasonably sure you can find a VFR chart for your airfield. If it has an ICAO code it will surely have at least a VFR map and an airport map.
Most TPs are simply built differently and for completely different purposes and clientel. They are usually high-flying business aircraft like the Piper M650 or the TBM. Apart from the PC-12 most aren’t rated to land on grass or dirt. And also apart from the PC-12 most need a runway of 800m or more at sea level. So take your average small airfield which will have a small grass or asphalt runway somewhere between 300 and maybe 1000m in length. The one I posted above has a usable runway of about 600m which at an elecation of over 2000ft on a hot day isn’t long enough to get a fully loaded C172 into the air. TPs are also heavier than the planes you’ll find at uncontrolled airfields. Maximum weight of a C172 is around 1100kg, for a M650 it’s 2700kg. There’s great chance you wouldn’t be allowed to land them, even if you could because of weight restrictions.
Furthermore TPs use Jet A fuel, while on small uncontrolled airfields you can usually only get AvGas and/or MoGas.
The planes are in general also IFR capable, so it doesn’t really make sense to keep your plane at an uncontrolled airfield where you’re only allowed to fly VFR.
Then there’s the clientel: aircraft like those are normally either used for charter purposes or as someone’s personal business plane. Those people normally expect some infrastructure for themselves and their baby, like a repair shop a high-end hangar, a lounge to wait while the pilot preps the plane, and maybe even customs facilities if they fly longer distances.
Controlled airports usually don’t have patterns. As the name suggests ATC controls the whole airspace around the airport (control zone) and monitors all planes and directs them. So for a controlled airport you would have to make one up. It’s a bit pointless though, since it’s not something you would do with a plane like that IRL.
If you want to learn procedures I recommend picking a favourite plane and training the most important stuff until you can fly the pattern in your sleep the same way every time and in every VFR weather condition. Also use some instruction good material in order learn it correctly. Don’t underestimate the difficulty of flying a perfect circuit the same way each time.
Then try flying the pattern at a different airfield that has a different pattern (shorter runway, narrower distance between downwind and runway etc). Then switch to something slower like the Savage Cub, then to something heavier and faster like the Bonanza.
Then you can play around with historic taildragger aircraft like the Beech D18 or the Beaver. To master all that should keep you occupied for a while
Oh and if you fly the C152 or C172, make sure you get the JPL mod for the C152, or the WBSim (payware) addon for the C172. They are far more realistic than the default versions and will raise the difficulty level further.
I don’t know about that, most TP singles are capable of STOL landings, including the 930. It’s just trickier that what feels like barely above idle power is where a 172 is to the firewall. Energy management is a bit busier, but I don’t see the 930/M500 not able to do anything the average Bonanza can do in the typical pattern, and they have reverse thrust on top of that. It’s easier to bring a 930 into Barth than an A36. BUT it takes more than a little bit of practice, look away and you’re at 2000fpm and shooting right through 140KT and accelerating fast.
A good early ‘honest’ low wing plane to fly patterns with is the rather simple but very good flight model Carenado Piper Archer II, which pretty much is a low wing 172 in envelope. Some of the stock planes are decent enough, but that one will get you into a low wing state of mind to bridge the gaps to Bonanzas and Mooneys and faster. I actually go back to it a LOT just to do good old fashioned ‘hourly rental’ touch and goes after spending a lot of time above 20,000’ at 250KT plus. We owned one for years as a kid and the thing gives me flashbacks. With this and the 172(particularly the classic steam), it gets you a lot of practice getting used to sight pictures and lining up base and final turns, etc.
The Diamonds are decent and the SR22 is now phenomenal(really top 10 GA material) if you want to start working glass into the mix. Although the SR22 is deceptively ‘diamondish’ looking but it’s faster than the Bonanza. ETA: scratch the SR22 for a while.
Depends really on if you’re struggling with the combined complexity and more powerful aircraft. Start slow and simple if that’s the case. People own and love 172’s for decades and still always find something new to learn. So it’s not exactly ‘I got 5 touch in goes perfect in the 172-time for the CJ!’ It’s almost better to learn on the 172 then try out rag-and-tube aircraft like cubs after that rather than something with speedbrakes. The Savage cub is pretty darn good and you can even fly from the back seat. A simpler tail-dragger will give you an honest piloting test as there’s a whole lot of forgiveness baked into a 172 or Archer or Diamond.
Heh, just saw the Savage Cub in your post. It’s quite a decent little true pilot’s plane just kind of lurking at the bottom of the hangar… First thing I thought too, 172 for a while, then to the Savage to test your actual piloting skills.
In the US it’s common to let your aircraft dictate what kind of pattern you’re flying. There might be a published pattern altitude, but that’s about it. Even at large airports, the pattern can vary greatly by type. You fly a much tighter pattern with a small maneuverable aircraft than you do a larger one.
I disagree.
Yes, you can find airports where it’s strictly defined because of terrain or noise abatement procedures, but in general it’s absolutely not.
Do you assume a A380 traffic pattern (yes, they do fly those to complete their training after sim sessions) is the same as for a Cessna 152 or ultralight?
A general rule of thumb is that for small airplanes it’s 1000ft AGL, for larger ones 2000ft AGL, but that’s about it (if there are no airspace limitations). The size and shape of the pattern depends on the performance of the aircraft you fly and the wind (you’ll fly a shorter downwind when the wind is stronger). It’s up to the pilot. Unless it’s specified in the charts of course. In that case it might simply not be available for the aircraft you fly.
I’d go even further and suggest that trying to fly the same circuit in different types is actually detrimental to what you’re trying to accomplish here: learning to fly the plane. Whereas matching the same pattern would instead be learning a procedure. Is your pattern so wide you can’t make the field with an engine out or are causing a hinderance to traffic? Is it so narrow you can’t get stable on final? Should you be flying a box, or a continuous banking turn from downwind to final? Your type may dictate all of these things.
Agree to disagree then. Had you read all of my post you’d’ve seen what I wrote about controlled airports usually not having circuit patterns. Where I live all controlled airports are using reporting points and entry and exit corridors along which VFR planes are guided through the CTR.
Guess you won’t find many A380s flying VFR near uncontrolled airspace.
Predefined circuit patterns are the absolute norm here (see chart above) at uncontrolled airfields and deviating from it significantly can get you quite an expensive fine if someone reports you (especially because of noise. People building new houses near airfields are a pest)
If there still might be a case where an airfield doesn’t have one it’s predefined as a left hand pattern at 1000ft AGL. THEN you are free to chose the length of the legs yourself without overflying built-up areas if possible. Haven’t seen that here though.
Of course there may be many differences worldwide. I can only give you my own local flying experiences in German, Swiss and Austrian airspace, and should have made clearer that this might be different elsewhere.
The OP was asking if it’s required to fly the same pattern with different types of aircraft, because it gets hard with faster ones.
Your answer started with “yes, it’s absolutely required”. Now I read you’re post in its entirety it’s more clear what you meant, but still the first sentence is misleading and not correct. It should be “it depends on the airport and the airspace”.
BTW I can’t believe you don’t have flying club/private small airfields surrounded by fields and inside a G airspace in DE. Of course not in/near cities.
Even in controlled airspace you can ask for deviations. Just need to coordinate it with the tower (preferably before the flight). How else would airlines do line training, where the pattern is 10x larger than for a small GA plane.
That’s a misunderstanding. Uncontrolled airfields are mostly in G airspace. Still they normally have fixed circuit patterns. And they are rarely surrounded only by fields. There’s almost always some town or village nearby you have to fly around. Population density isn’t as high as in Japan but in Southern Germany there’s rarely more than one or two nm between villages.
Also on pleasant weekend there are a lot of small planes buzzing around the small airfields. Without a fixed pattern it can be difficult to keep that sorted out.
Agreed different nations have different rules for circuits/patterns. In North America all circuita are left unless noted in the sectional or CFS. There are even differences between Canada and US. This is the standard Canadian circuit, and you cannot simply deviate because your aircraft is “too fast”. You must manage your speed and fly the aircraft appropriately
I not sure if this answers the OP question base on their local, but I hope it clearly define the rules. Now of course this is a sim so you can do what ever you like.
He was never asking about the pattern itself and it’s ‘legality’. He’s having trouble getting faster aircraft into a stable pattern that he’s comfortable with. I’m sure he’s just done a few patterns with the base trainers and is trying to figure out how to comfortably get faster aircraft into the same deliberate sequence.
I don’t see any exact flight path in the document you linked. It indicates the shape, but not the size of the pattern. Of course there are some limitations (area, max altitude), but the size of the rectangle is not precisely defined.
This topic reminds me of two real life experiences for me.
First one: after flying Cherokee 140’s, C150’s and C172’s, the first higher performance aircraft I converted onto was a Piper Arrow 200. And for sure: all of the sudden, the circuit got VERY frantic! Just the addition of a constant speed prop and retractable undercarriage significantly impacted one’s workload, while the higher speed increased the pressure to get everything done in a timely fashion. Even the small addition to the workload that managing a fuel pump (absent on the high wing aircraft I mostly flew just before) had an effect.
Second event: the airport where I flew from (FACT at Cape Town, South Africa) was sometimes used by the nearby air force Maritime Reconnaissance squadron flying Piaggio P166’s to practice circuits and landings at a busier commercial airport. My event took place the night I did my solo circuits for my night rating. I was flying a C172 at the time and had to complete 5 circuits. Before I took off for the first time, I heard a Piaggio joining the circuit. After I took off, another one joined. By the time I started my second circuit there were FIVE P166’s in the circuit with me! Well, they certainly aren’t the fastest aircraft out there but they were certainly a LOT quicker than a C172. I ended up flying rather tight circuits without wasting a second to ensure I did not mess up their circuits. All quite stressful and I must admit I was happy to turn off the runway after my final landing!
All this to say: I can relate to the pressures one can experience in the circuit!
