Sorry, mixing up my mile & kms, but take a look at the “circuit diagram”…really?
(“flying club/aerodrome” is specifically mentioned…If talking about a huge international airport with 3deg papis etc, why not say so, and even then you should really be considering such things as wake turbulence…)
Seba wrote:
I guess it’s a matter of taste. I find them childish and condescending.
With a different perspective, the one shown at the beginning (“O sole mio”) is as condescending towards professional pilots:
Isn’t it illustrating the stereotype that professional airline pilots (not surprisingly labeled "Shark-Air) are recklessly speeding through uncontrolled airspace and overtaking much to closely without taking any considerations for the poor GA pilots that do nothing than having fun and enjoying life?
skydriller wrote:
But have you seen the EASA ones? Some of those have distinctly dodgy advice in them aswell, like the one suggesting a huge long drag-it in final and being “stable on approach at 2.5NM, if not go around” or some such rubbish…
How about glide approaches from downwind? the impact on residents perceived noise is better and they help pilots to keep their forced landing skills in shape 
Just a bit selfish to execute one when other traffic is around…
skydriller wrote:
Sorry, mixing up my mile & kms, but take a look at the “circuit diagram”…really?
(“flying club/aerodrome” is specifically mentioned…If talking about a huge international airport with 3deg papis etc, why not say so, and even then you should really be considering such things as wake turbulence…)
Yeah this doesn’t look much better. Also, I don’t understand why they all insist on the comic book style, I hate it but again it is probably a matter of taste.
In this case, the idea of a stabilized approach is of course an important concept to learn, but suggesting a 500ft decision threshold is a bit extreme. I usually do my base-to-final turn at roughly that distance/height at LFST, so that would allow for no error in the descent during base to perfectly intercept the slope every single time with no correction on final. Not realistic, especially in windy conditions.
skydriller wrote:
Cartoon circuits
Does anyone with any currency actually fly a circuit as shown in the diagram? It looks to me as if you’d be in the next county by the time you turn base.
The humour on this must have been lost on them
Malibuflyer wrote:
With a different perspective, the one shown at the beginning (“O sole mio”) is as condescending towards professional pilots:Isn’t it illustrating the stereotype that professional airline pilots (not surprisingly labeled "Shark-Air) are recklessly speeding through uncontrolled airspace and overtaking much to closely without taking any considerations for the poor GA pilots that do nothing than having fun and enjoying life?
I am not sure. Personally I never felt like in our aeroclub there is this stereotype. Having to share the airport with airliners we generally just try to get out of their way, after all, they are making money, we are burning it :D
But true, the drawing itself seems to suggest some sort of recklessness of commercial aviation. Whether or not that is how most french pilots feel, it is hard to tell from my perspective (besides the fact that it is objectively false).
Off_Field wrote:
Does anyone with any currency actually fly a circuit as shown in the diagram? It looks to me as if you’d be in the next county by the time you turn base.The humour on this must have been lost on them
Well, the distances need to be adapted to the airfield you are approaching (hence the absurdity of the 1.5NM threshold). The shape and relative dimensions are of course the same unless the approach chart suggests otherwise.
How would you do a circuit?
I certainly don’t; I doubt I ever get more than 500m from the airfield at any point during the circuit (while at Andreas, other airfields can differ, e.g. I’m probably not going to be < 500m from the runway at all times at somewhere like Gloucester when there’s 6 fixed wing and 3 helicopters about). Keeping it in close means I can see if any tractors or animals are about to get on the runway, or if someone’s taxiing out in the flexwing that doesn’t have a radio etc.
Seba wrote:
Well, the distances need to be adapted to the airfield you are approaching (hence the absurdity of the 1.5NM threshold). The shape and relative dimensions are of course the same unless the approach chart suggests otherwise.
How would you do a circuit?
Even more they should be adapted to the aircraft you are flying (and its approach speeds).
For most aircrafts, however, there are few fields where it is a good idea to fly downwind and base at a constant altitude and only start descend in final as it is shown in the pictures. And that is a little bit the challenge with stabilized approaches in VFR: The whole concept is based on long straight in approaches while in VFR it is quite normal to fly a descending final turn (if not a descending base turn as well). In that case “stabilized” is much more difficult to define and/or fly.
Seba wrote:
How would you do a circuit?
It depends on the traffic and the airfield, but I tend to do pretty tight circuits, I try not to get out of glide range to the runway. If in a circuit I will probably start my descent on the base turn and be above the 3 degree glideslope.
I certainly don’t think being stabilised at 500feet at 1.5nm is safer for people on the ground as cartoon states.
