I Germany we had this discussion for decades now. As far as I have understood the matter it is legally ok to fly a straight in approach and there is no law that could prevent that.Not even the “traffic patern” could really be enforced legally.
BUT: 90 percent of all airports in Germany have problems with their neighbours and are noise sensitive and the poor guys who run the radio on some airports get 20 calls per day from people living around the airport. It really HELPS them if you DON’T insist on your rights but to simply fly the pattern as it is drawn on the chart. And with todays avionics, iPhone, tablets … it’s really easier than ever.
So I for one decided to not be a rebel i this matter and simply fly the approach like the airport likes it best. That means I sometimes have to fly bizarre maneuvers to get into the pattern … but when it’s about VFR … I don’t really care.
alexisvc, I hear what you’re saying, but the quietest approach of all is a straight-in! In fact, noise-sensitive airports should promote this IMHO. After all, you arrive with minimum, constant power and your noise footprint is a fraction of what it would be if you were to fly the pattern.
> I hear what you’re saying, but the quietest approach of all is a straight-in!
Not everywhere unfortunately. We have some airfields here in Germany that require very strict adherence to their published traffic patterns, some even threaten with a fine otherwise (Bonn Hangelar for example). Where houses have been built close the the runway threshold (Schwäbisch Hall, Mengen to name two in my vicinity) a base leg with a very short final becomes mandatory. Obviously there is some legal basis for that, otherwise they could not fine piots who don’t adhere to the traffic pattern…
> but the quietest approach of all is a straight-in!
Only if it is flown as a low-power gliding approach. A lot of pilots configure early and fly their approach high-drag high-power making lots of noise on final. Some commercial operators with strict stability criteria (e.g. fully configured and on target speed -5/+10KT at latest 1000ft above field elevation) even mandate this kind of approach.
It’s not really worth a discussion … I think. I just fly the publsihed pattern, and you can ALWAYS ask if a long final is okay and many airfields have no problem with that.
Actual NOISE is not the problem at noise sensitive airports. As we all know AIRPORT ENEMIES SEE (!) NOISE!
For noise reasons, it could be better to fly straight (if there are no houses there) or follow the circuit (if you know that noise is a sensitive issue there). As for safety, is it safer to follow the circuit along with other pilots or do you see no real safety problems if you fly direct to final if you announce it well in the circuit or even ask for it first and keep announcing your position when approaching the field?
I tell you, all these theories lead nowhere. The airports that have prescribed traffic patterns have them the for a reason the way they are. So if you don’t need to insist on your “rights”, just do it the way they want it.
And – of course – if there is a hospital or otehr noise sensitive object under the 4 miles final it is NOT less noisy to overfly it directly
> So if you don’t need to insist on your “rights”, just do it the way they want it.
It is not so much about rights. Our aeroplane costs 50 to 60 Euros a minute to operate and burns around 20 litres of kerosene every minute in landing configuration at low level. So it must be in everybody’s interest if we can minimise our flying time, fuel burn, noise footprint and CO2 emission. A straight-in approach from a favorable position can save up to five minutes flying time over a full traffic pattern. So if traffic and airfield regulations permit, I will always ask for a direct approach (which I get almost everywhere).
> AeroPlus: As for safety, is it safer to follow the circuit along with other pilots or do you see no real safety problems if you fly direct to final if you announce it well…
I think this one is impossible to answer as it depends on a lot of factors. I consider flying in the same traffic pattern together with very different aircraft a great safety risk. Even if we slow down early, we as still twice as fast in the circuit as a microlight or a typical trainer like a C152. Many fast aircraft have poor outside visibility as well (I once flew the Metroliner where you can really only see straight ahead, traffic patterns were a nightmare with constant TCAS alerts) which makes things even worse. This means that you will have to deviate from the traffic pattern in any case, otherwise you risk collisions. And if you have to deviate from the pattern, you can fly a direct approach as well…
The direct approach on the other hand can be dangerous, when there are aircraft without radio (gliders, microlights) operating at the airfield. So in the end, it really depends.
>Our aeroplane costs 50 to 60 Euros a minute to operate
Ok, but that’s not exactly the airplane that typically flies Traffic Patters at small german airfields ;-)
What I wrote also does not apply to the X-15, I know that it better flies a long straight final ;-)
> Ok, but that’s not exactly the airplane that typically flies Traffic Patters at small german airfields ;-)
Well, that depends. During weekday mornings, most traffic at smaller airfields comes from Kingairs and Citations and suchlikes who perform business travel flights. The typical pattern traffic (trainers and leisure pilots) usually only starts in the afternoon. If you look at places like Schwäbisch Hall (where they “shoot” five to ten bizjets between 6:30 and 7 every morning during weekdays) or Egelsbach you will get my point!
> Flying the Final leg is arguably “following the circuit”….it can’t possibly mean you need to fly all 4 legs
That’s what I was thinking when I read this.
“Following the circuit” does not specify how and where to join the circuit: Overhead? 45 on downwind? Straight-in on final? Aren’t these just different techniques of eventually joining the circuit?
Having said that, I find it hard to imagine an approach where you do not eventually join the circuit, which would render the rule discussed above rather useless. ;-)
