Circling the departure airport... good idea, or not?

N659HB

N659HB

En-Route
Joined
Jul 20, 2013
Messages
2,511
Location
Lather, rinse repeat!
Display Name
Display name:
Pops
I've been puzzling over some advice my CFI provided during my BFR. Per his request, I compiled a paper flight plan to his home 'drome, where the review occurred. I had a short, straight leg departing my home field, where I climbed to my (fairly low) cruising altitude, and then turned on course. He asked why I had done this. When I explained my rationale, he suggested I instead circle the departure field to gain altitude, then turn on course above the airport. He stated that by doing so, I would be within gliding distance of a runway should the engine fail. (This is from a non-towered field, of course.) IIRC, the FAA Pilot's Handbook recommends a turn of 45 degrees or a straight out departure at non-towered fields.

Any one here do this (circling climb to cruise altitude) routinely? If so, how close to the airport do you remain?
 
Nope, don't do that nor teach it. 45/straight out is what I do and teach, then on course.
 
Seems unnecessary. Sure we try to mitigate risks all the time, but this seems a little over the top.
 
Would depend on the surrounding terrain ,and familiarity with the airport.
 
Well I guess if the plane is really sketchy, or just out of some type of engine MX, I might circle for a little while.

But for the most part, nope, just takeoff and B line it to my destination.
 
If you're flying a crappy plane in the mountains, it is not a bad idea to gain some altitude in the friendly environment of the airport.
 
N659HB said:
I've been puzzling over some advice my CFI provided during my BFR. Per his request, I compiled a paper flight plan to his home 'drome, where the review occurred. I had a short, straight leg departing my home field, where I climbed to my (fairly low) cruising altitude, and then turned on course. He asked why I had done this. When I explained my rationale, he suggested I instead circle the departure field to gain altitude, then turn on course above the airport. He stated that by doing so, I would be within gliding distance of a runway should the engine fail. (This is from a non-towered field, of course.) IIRC, the FAA Pilot's Handbook recommends a turn of 45 degrees or a straight out departure at non-towered fields.

Any one here do this (circling climb to cruise altitude) routinely? If so, how close to the airport do you remain?
Click to expand...

AIM 5-2-8 legitimizes "visual climb over airport" for instrument departures. For VFR, I can't think of an argument against it if there is any question as to whether a normal climb will clear those mountains surrounding your departure airport.

Bob Gardner
 
About 15 years ago in Australia I was taught to depart crosswind and over the field, climbing circuit/pattern really and then radio call the overhead departure

It was done because i would plan my flight legs using the airfield as the starting point for first magnetic heading, rather than somewhere in the pattern. We also quickly got into WAC map territory rather than our older VNC's or TAC's when near major cities.

But here is the states you have move VFR type ground references so it is easier to know where you are and get on track and headings.
 
My home field is surrounded by 2 Class D. We have some guys that don't have radios and that's what they do. They do left downwind and then climb above pattern altitude and circle until they are above the delta airspace and go where they are going.
 
Departing out of Sierra Blanca in New Mexico, on an ink-black night, you bet I circled the field until I was close to cruise altitude, and was glad of it. I knew from the (one) time I had landed and departed there before that "...there be hills in that dark..." and I was not certain enough to depart on-course without a lot of altitude - plus (of course) gliding distance.
 
If flying during an engine break-in or after extensive maintenance, then yes this is a good practice, otherwise, nah.
 
Thanks for the replies. I agree that in some cases it would be prudent. (I would consider circling in mountainous terrain, especially with my 65 HP engine!)

For this particular route, I flew straight out, then made a right turn onto course well away from the airport, at my cruise altitude (2500'). It added only a few extra miles to the route.
 
Except for the obvious - a circling climb above the airport to gain altitude before crossing terrain that may be beyond your aircraft's capabilities or a post-maintenance flight - it strikes me as the equivalent of the "in case your engine quits" reason for a tight landing pattern. A technique based on the reliability of aircraft engines in 1928.

[make sure you flame the right thing - I am not saying anything against a tight landing pattern, just that particular reason for it]
 
What's the AIM suggest? C'mon it's not that difficult.
 
Well, how good are you at the hairpin turnback?
Ever had an engine failure shortly after departure?
Good CFI.
 
This sounds like the "never fly a pattern more than gliding distance in case you have an engine failure" advice.
 
I've never understood why people think their engine is more likely to fail in the pattern than anywhere else in the flight. You can't do an entire flight in most cases without leaving "gliding distance of an airport."
 
I've done it whenever I take off from Tangier, its nice to have at least a few thousand feet before heading over the bay. Anywhere else, I climb in route.
 
Yeah, are we leaving an island surrounded by cold(any) water? How about leaving the valley airdrome to climb over higher terrain?

Then maybe it's a departure in KS, with large wheat fields in all directions? No need for absolutes, it may depend on the particulars at hand for the situation.
 
If you notice something odd during takeoff, sure, do it.
The logical extension of that practice, though, is you would never fly anywhere, ever.
The engine might quit 10 minutes, or 20 minutes, or 30 minutes later.
Better keep circling.
 
flyingron said:
I've never understood why people think their engine is more likely to fail in the pattern than anywhere else in the flight.
Click to expand...

More abrupt power changes was the old discussion around engine issues at patterns but I think it never really played out that way statistically
 
OzPilot said:
More abrupt power changes was the old discussion around engine issues at patterns but I think it never really played out that way statistically
Click to expand...
The only "abrupt" power change I make in the air is abeam the numbers on downwind.
 
When I depart 23 from Ocracoke (W95), I will circle the field. The Ocracoke inlet is only a few hundred yards beyond the end of the runway. Circling the field gives me some altitude before I cross the inlet and I get a nice veiw of the village. And all of village peasants get a view of a pretty plane, wishing that they could have their own plane instead of having to take the slow, hot ferry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top