Airborne_Again wrote:
I feel secure in my opinion is that the traffic circuit should be arranged so as to maximise the likelihood of being on speed and height over the threshold
Probably, but isn’t that already the case? A circuit with set altitudes, set speeds, set configurations (flaps, throttle etc) will result in fairly consistent alt and speed over the threshold. It’s the bread and butter for a good landing.
This pretty much defines the bare minimum currency and skill needed to operate an aircraft safely on a public airport. In Norway, you can use exactly the same method on all Avinor airports. They are all the same (Sweden too). The geography can be very different from airport to airport, but the circuits are all identical in all normal circumstances and for all practical aspects, and there are towers that help you all the way regarding other aircraft etc. minimizing distraction from occurring.
If that bare minimum is not met, then accidents are likely to occur, and the person should not fly. This is bare minimum however. It is not nearly enough to operate an aircraft on short, slippery, hilly, windy, cramped by geography small strips, particularly those you have never been too or visit seldom. In those circumstances it’s not “the circuit” and the procedures that is important. What is important is in many ways the ability to get to the threshold at correct alt and speed without things happening in the same manner every time. That and to recognize when a go around is warranted and to know what you have to do different the next time.
With that in mind, the “bare minimum procedure” isn’t really a necessity for a good landing, and certainly not for a safe landing. That’s something to think about. The procedures and methods that make airlines safe (I assume?), is not what makes GA safe. An average good GA pilot should be able to do the final any way he choses, and sees fit; curved, S-turns, different speeds, different alts and different VS, and still be able to be over the threshold at correct speed and altitude. This requires to be ahead of the plane, and to know when a go around is needed. It also requires more currency and skills and practice than what is needed for the bare minimum.
Or many (most?) French airports which require you to fly a pattern into the next-but-one departement to avoid overflying Granny’s cottage – take a look at Dax LFBY or Cannes LFMD. At Dax if you have an engine failure on downwind, you’re looking for a field to land in, for sure, no matter what your glide ratio.
LeSving wrote:
Probably, but isn’t that already the case? A circuit with set altitudes, set speeds, set configurations (flaps, throttle etc) will result in fairly consistent alt and speed over the threshold. It’s the bread and butter for a good landing.
Yes, it should be. My point is that it will likely not be if you set up the traffic circuit so that you can glide to the airfield from every point in case of an engine failure.
My plane will not glide to the runway from many or most points of even the relatively tight circuits I fly. So I’ve always hoped that maintaining a near constant, mild power setting down final will take me to the runway. On the upwind I hope for the best and don’t look at the buildings too closely. So far it’s worked, in this case reasonable care of the plane plus hope actually is a plan 
As an aside, as far as I know the only legally relevant traffic pattern definition for any airport where I’ve ever flown as PIC is the altitude downwind.
kwlf wrote:
your take off and landing count for 1/10 the flight time but about half the engine failures
I don’t dispute that these two phases of flight in a piston airplane are the most critical for engine failure (typically carb icing on approach and mechanical on takeoff), but counting that as part of the traffic pattern?
I probably wouldn’t try to land on the runway from most parts of the downwind leg but at least at 1000 feet you have a fair bit of discretion about where you touch down. If I had an engine failure on final approach I’d be hitting one hedge or another at flying-speed, if I were below the glide-slope when it happened. It seems like an easily avoidable scenario, so why not avoid it?
172driver wrote:
, but counting that as part of the traffic pattern?
I don’t follow the objection?
