Standard mil circuits (as practiced by US fighters at least) are racetrack patterns, Often its executed as a high speed (and therefore high-G) break over the runway (almost like a GA overhead join but on the live side directly to downwind).
A refresher:
In the UK, the base turn scenario is taught.
In the UK, pilots are taught that 30 deg AOB is a reasonable maximum within the cct and this reduces to 15 deg AOB when climbing out.
In the UK, pilots are tight about the risks associated with flying through the centreline and trying to compensate by increasing AOB and/or adding into-turn rudder.
In the UK, pilots are taught spiral dive recovery technique (useful if you’ve gone to a high AOB and then allowed the nose to drop too far).
In the UK, it seems there are a significant number of pilots who have forgotten what they have been taught.
PS. All of the above is examined/monitored during Skills Test.
Ibra wrote:
I don’t think one will stall if you do a 180 degrees half circles to land on 5km runways?
Uh?
speed wrote:
Is a base turn a specific military manoeuvre?
I don’t think one will stall if you do a 180 degrees half circles to land on 5km runways? military circuits do looks more like eggs than sharp edge rectangles…
You may stall if you do sharp 90 degrees manoeuvres while trying to avoid airspace/noise areas and fitting in a 350m runway 
Probably, we should have been taught to drop the nose 15 degrees bellow horizon with 60 degrees bank base to final on C152? apparently they do not seem to stall
Other less appealing alternatives involve steep bank angle and rate of decent…..
Airborne_Again wrote:
For one thing, in an F-5 you can eject
Never to let the plane exit normal flying condition. But I guess it works somehow. We don’t see airliners falling down from the sky on a daily basis.
Unfortunately AF447 is a proof of what happens when basic understanding of flight principles and recovery training are missing.
speed wrote:
For sure you can eject in a F-5, but if you do it on base because you stalled the aircraft and you didn’t recover it, you better be prepared to meet your Sqn Ldr.
What I meant was that if something goes wrong during stall training, you can eject, That’s not an option civilian pilots have.
There are reasons for differences in basic flight training between ATPL and the military. For one thing, in an F-5 you can eject. Also, the manoeuvres you normally do in civilian flying is quite different from what is done in military flying
Is a base turn a specific military manoeuvre? Will a GA aircraft be more benevolent with you than a military aircraft? Basic training for basic manoeuvres should be identical. I am not talking about hi yo-yo or rolling scissors, I am talking about stalling an aircraft in the circuit.
For sure you can eject in a F-5, but if you do it on base because you stalled the aircraft and you didn’t recover it, you better be prepared to meet your Sqn Ldr.
speed wrote:
They only performed levelled stalls with and without power and when hearing the stall warning they would recover!
I wonder what the exact thoughts behind this are. Never to let the plane exit normal flying condition. But I guess it works somehow. We don’t see airliners falling down from the sky on a daily basis. That may also be due to many other reasons though, like strict adherence to procedure, very reliable equipment and the whole system (ATC etc) working as planned all the time. You are extremely unlikely to end up in a situation where ad hoc solutions are needed, and where this could increase the possibility of entering into a stall.
For light GA the situation is different. Here loss of control is a major cause of accident, and stalling close to the ground is one of them. In light GA you have to adapt all the time. Suddenly the circuit is crowded, weather deteriorates, a passenger needs to pee and so on. The whole concept is different. Everything is ad hoc in comparison to airliners, and more focus should be given to train basic stick and rudder skills, and how the aircraft works in all conditions. By that I mean everything the airplane could possibly enter into.
Maybe I’m getting old, I don’t know, but I’m also getting more and more the opinion that any pilot can check himself out on any SEP “just like that” is a major cause of accidents (well, it’s not just me getting old, all data supports this). Aircraft, even similar ones, can behave very different when “pushing the envelope”, or the envelopes are so different that lots of training is needed in any case. At least there should be information/course/training for how to check yourself out on a new aircraft. This should include stalling in all configurations and attitudes, landing in all different configurations, doing steep turns satisfactory, training emergency landings and so on. Basic systems and cockpit familiarization.
speed wrote:
Due to my military flight training, I was teached and evaluated on how to stall the aircraft with and without power, levelled, on final and on base leg (most critical). We performed that at a height so we had enough altitude to recover. We let the aircraft go into a deep stall, well beyond buffeting so we could see the aircraft going from 45 to almost 90 degrees of bank in a second while descending.
For the recover, we applied full power while rolling out so we could reduced the AOA allowing the aircraft to fly again. I remember the F-5 being specifically critical on this manoeuvre but it was necessary to learn it since you could see yourself in that situation quite often if you pulled too hard on base.
There are reasons for differences in basic flight training between ATPL and the military. For one thing, in an F-5 you can eject. Also, the manoeuvres you normally do in civilian flying is quite different from what is done in military flying.
This question has arised may time among pilots in my aeroclub in Spain.
Due to my military flight training, I was teached and evaluated on how to stall the aircraft with and without power, levelled, on final and on base leg (most critical). We performed that at a height so we had enough altitude to recover. We let the aircraft go into a deep stall, well beyond buffeting so we could see the aircraft going from 45 to almost 90 degrees of bank in a second while descending.
For the recover, we applied full power while rolling out so we could reduced the AOA allowing the aircraft to fly again. I remember the F-5 being specifically critical on this manoeuvre but it was necessary to learn it since you could see yourself in that situation quite often if you pulled too hard on base.
During my first assignment I was based in a shared airport as a FJ instructor and we had an ATPL flight school next door. During one of the civ/mil bbqs we used to have, this particular topic arised and I was VERY surprised that during their commercial training, not a single day they stalled the airplane. They only performed levelled stalls with and without power and when hearing the stall warning they would recover! They didn’t know about the buffeting or what is like fly/recover an aircraft that is stalling.
Another big important mistake, specially when talking with non-professional pilots is how does an aircraft stall. Roughly 80% of the pilots at your local club will say that is because of lack of speed. FALSE: the aircraft stalls because of an excess of AOA (see any lift chart for reference). Both are related, that is true, but the aircraft stalls because AOA.
And you know what? I’ve seen many mishaps during: “Oh there is my house, let’s circle it. My stall speed is 50kts, I am at 60kts so I’m ok.” FALSE. If you continue circling at 60kts at let’s say 45º of bank, if you don’t want to loose altitude, you are going to have to pull →increasing your AOA and then stalling your aircraft because that speed of 50kts was calculated for a wings levelled situation.
Regards
