duncan_bayne Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Hi All, I've been hunting all over the web trying to find the circuit height guidelines for an RA licence, but I can't. I know that one must be able to hold circuit height to +/- 100' for a PPL, and +/- 20' for a CPL, but I can't find the equivalent for RA. I've read the Ops manual end-to-end but it just states that one must fly circuits in accordance with published requirements; there's nothing there about the standard that students must demonstrate during a flight test. TIA for any pointers. I get the feeling I must have failed to find some of the relevant documentation online. Yours, Duncan Bayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Check out AIP for Circuit Information, Separation Minima and Height for general regulations: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/pending/aip/enr/1_1_1-116.pdf Section 57.1. Regarding height maintenance, I'm not aware of RA-Aus having any exception to the standard of +/- 100ft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan_bayne Posted July 14, 2009 Author Share Posted July 14, 2009 Check out AIP for Circuit Information, Separation Minima and Height for general regulations: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/pending/aip/enr/1_1_1-116.pdf Section 57.1.Regarding height maintenance, I'm not aware of RA-Aus having any exception to the standard of +/- 100ft. Sweet, thanks. Didn't think there would be; was just having a debate a CPL-H holder over RA-Aus standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 We all have to use the one circuit so it makes sense - what did the CPL-H say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan_bayne Posted July 15, 2009 Author Share Posted July 15, 2009 We all have to use the one circuit so it makes sense - what did the CPL-H say? We were having a debate over recreational and private licences; said CPL-H has a dim view of airmanship standards in general, having had some uncomfortably close encounters with unobservant fixed-wing pilots and having observed a generally poor understanding of helicopter operations amongst fixed-wing pilots at GAAP aerodromes. This includes things like student pilots not being aware & not being made aware of the existence of helicopter circuits. It's the opinion of said CPL-H that the standards required of PPL holders should be raised to be identical to CPL standards where there is equivalence, e.g. the requirement to maintain altitude in a circuit should be the same regardless of licence type. I'm still undecided on the issue myself; with a grand total of 12 hours flying time I'm more than happy to come within 100' of the altitude I'm aiming at :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simonflyer Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Thanks for your posts duncan.. I sometimes visit another GA based aviation site, and there is definitely a dim view of RA held by quite a few Pilots there.I recently posted something that was specifically designed to get people talking( )and was met with huge amounts of abuse probably because i had forcefully responded to a few posters who i now realise are consistent abusers of the site and i shouldnt have bitten so hard:sorry: to begin with, but it ended up being a mostly positive conversation about RA. I think that its a mix of factors that creates the problems.. The first is the lack of GA people like yourself who will go looking for info amongst the community who actually know..i.e Pilots actually flying in the RA world.I cant get over the amount of GA Pilots who still think RA flying is a batch of sub-human stupid people with "lawn-mowers strapped to their A**es"..This was actually a quote from one of the enlightened members of Prune. The second is that i think some RA pilots and definitely not the majority could improve in basic operational and procedural things such as radio calls, joining/departure procedures, and a few other things of the like that make the skies safer for us all, but i would say the exact same thing of Ga pilots.. Anyway.Again you have my attention, because i personaly would like to see the two entities working beside each other and with each other in a healthy way that sees both sections improving and getting a lot out of the other.. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Duncan, I fly at a low traffic field - if we have four in the circuit we're sayijng "this is what it should be", but we also share it with sky divers, so we effectively only use one side, and we also have multi passenger Bass Strait helicopters in a very harmonious situation, you do tend to do a 360 degree scan and take a couple of seconds to unwind your neck when you hear one, but mostly they join our circuit at our speed and land upwind with us, si I guess we have Camelot. At Moorabbin I expect there could be several helicopters and a LOT of aircraft in the twin circuits, so there's no time for a missed message or slow chatter. A hyperactive eyeball becomes a must as part of the tool kit, and aircraft exactly on their allocated circuit height makes the "visible circuit" that much easier to judge. At your hours (and on many occasions mine) it seems like an impossible task to maintain altitude, but in a few hours time you'll look own at the altimeter and see it dead on the line. Plus or minus 100 feet would be a very very sloppy pilot, so I'd recommend you aim for +- 20 feet as your standard, as a matter of pride rather tah any compliance. Simon, on this occasion the heat seemed to be Rotary vs planks, rather than GA vs RA - hope I wasn't one of the ones who abused you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest burbles1 Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I fly at YWOL, where there is often a mix of microlights, larger RA aircraft and GA aircraft. I've been told there are three circuit heights to be aware of: 500 AGL for microlights 1000 AGL for most aircraft (less than 120 kt) 1500 AGL for faster GA aircraft. I'm guilty of flying a sloppy circuit, where once I was about 1150 AGL mid downwind. I attempted to correct by descending to 1000 but my instructor mentioned it's better to maintain that height rather than descend and risk coming down on another AC. I think +- 100 ft is acceptable - anything more precise and you're probably going to get distracted with flying a super-accurate circuit and missing other things like looking for traffic, landing checks etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Give it another few hours Burbles and I'm sure the whole thing will fall into place regardless of what accuracy you work to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Pilot training and education you will find a PDF kneepad guide here. I think it is a bit silly to have low speed ultralights (up to 55kts) mixing it with helicopters. i was sure that they changed it and put helicopters at 800ft. but must have miss read it or they changed it back. As for the +/- allowance i would assume that either this is an oversight in the RAA sylibus or that there is the assumption that it automatically follows the GA requierment as the procedures for operations in the circuit for Non Towered fields are the same REG Turbplanner what height do the helicopters fly the circuit height at? Ozzie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Ozzie, your post seems to have disappeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 [/url]Turbplanner what height do the helicopters fly the circuit height at?Ozzie As far as I can recall they were at 1000' - most of the coming togethers I had were when I was on downwind and they were on final, or I was on final and focussed on not mowing the mangroves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Ozzie, I thought your three level explanation was good because a lot of guys don't seem to be aware of it. Why is this thread not coming up in New Posts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I deleted my first post on this as i put it as a 4 level seperation as i was pretty sure about the moving of helicopters from 500ft to 800ft. but as it is published as three levels i removed it and posted the above. honestly i think it is pretty poor thinking to mix rotary wings that can travel pretty quick and mix them with slow flying ultralights without making the fling wings to the same speed. I don't fly at airports in my Lazair because it flys slow at around 35/40mph and if i had to i'd be lower than 500ft and a bit closer. having an augusta running me over don't sound like fun. there is also 'phraseology' memory jog on that kneepad guide. remember that long winded thread? Ozzie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I'm not sure, but I would have thought 500' would be reserved for the slow a/c. Haven't studied small helicopter cruise speeds, but they must be getting up to around Savannah level. One way or the other, it would be safer to grade circuit heights by speeds than a/c types, because its running over each other you're trying to avoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahlocks Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 .... i was sure that they changed it and put helicopters at 800ft. but must have miss read it or they changed it back... Nah, you're not losing it Ozzie. That's what is quoted in the VFR flight guide from CASA - JULY 2007 Ver 2 issue. Current AIP puts choppers and <55knt U/ls at 500ft still. No mention of 800ft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 phew,that's what i thought. so the AIP is incorrect.(CASA is God so they can't be wrong) When it first came out i emailed CASA and asked them to review it. then i saw version 2 somewhere and thought that maybe they do listen. But everytime i see it like the Narromine advisory the fling wings are back at 500'. either way the rear view mirror and the paddock bashing stay for the Lazair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahlocks Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Errr, I'd stick with the AIP. I recall Tubz having a few terse words about errors in the VFR guide... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Terse Ahlocks? You must be frigging joking. Don't have a problem with the CASA VFR guide, but Aviation Theory Centre publish a Visual Flight Guide, and say different things, then don't respond to written advice on safety mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 So who do i sue when i turn into a nervous wreck after a close call. CASA, the publishers of the VFG, or the AIP people, or the RAAus for not following up my complaint? ahh hell i'll just put them all up against the wall when i'm da King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Of all of the documents reference in the thread, only the AIP is a controlled document. Despite being a CASA publication, their VFG is not a controlled document and is not reviewed/revised/released in the same manner as the AIP or other controlled documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Just to clarify, there are two books, the CASA FVR, and ATC's VFG. I bought the ATC book and wasted my money because although it is approved by CASA, it has the problems outlined above. Many of the raging debates occur on these threads because of the convoluted and confusing array of source material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahlocks Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 1. Act 2. Regs 3. Orders AIP etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Ahlocks, you may have taken my comments about your aircraft too seriously - I can't remember ever saying it was recycled...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahlocks Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 You mean it's not made out of old melbourne bitter cans?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now