In ‘Transmit’ we recently published a letter from AOPA’s David Ogilvy about the practice of air traffic control orbiting general aviation aircraft. We fully endorse David’s desire to establish a better understanding between general aviation pilots and controllers on this issue. His letter was discussed at our Policy Committee meeting in June. The initial draft of our reply was reviewed by a panel of current operational controllers at a number of UK regional airports, most of whom are also private pilots. We have offered to General Aviation, both the magazine and the wider fraternity, these considered comments from the controllers’ professional association, which we have also fed back to the CAA. 

David’s letter was accompanied by two further letter sent to AOPA by student pilots which outlined a number of recent complaints. One was poor ATC, which was acknowledged by the unit concerned. One incident was complicated by an infringement of controlled airspace. Infringements are a matter of growing concern to controllers, which seem to have increased rather a lot following changes to the PPL training syllabus. Two complaints in particular were more serious and I’ll deal in more depth with those incidents, with a follow up section on circuit operations at public transport airfields.

Orbiting first solos

The Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers considers that orbiting a first solo is something that should only be done in extremis. What do I mean by that?  Here is a personal example from when I worked at Belfast Aldergrove. ATC received a pop up Pan call, updated shortly afterwards to a Mayday, from one of a pair of Jaguars. The other aircraft in the pair had experienced a sudden major fuel shortage, was 25 miles east of the airfield and needed a straight in low fast approach to runway 26. If I had had a first solo in the circuit, unless it was on short finals, I would have issued a go around or if downwind an instruction to orbit. I’d have kept a close eye on it, kept the pilot informed about the progress of the emergency so he didn’t feel isolated, but I would have orbited it. In the event of an aircraft accident blocking the runway, that first solo pilot may even have been required to land away. 

The lesson is, please teach a student how to orbit downwind and how to go around, and how to land away at the nearest alternative site, even on a first solo. I could have extended the first solo downwind, but the excellent local flying school discouraged us from doing that - yes we talked to each other, in Murray’s bar after work, as well as over the R/T or the telephone! The instructors were concerned in case the pilot became disorientated, lost sight of the field and even strayed into the approach. How do instructors view that as an alternative to orbiting now?

It’s a long time since I was at Aldergrove and everywhere times have changed. Instructors then would usually warn ATC by phone before they took off, if they thought it probable that they would send someone solo, and they would adjust the time of the solo flight to avoid any known traffic. ATC would let the instructor know if extra traffic popped up. When a first solo was airborne, we would also have extended any inbound or delayed any outbound slightly so that we didn’t disturb the first solo and also would have had the fire service sat in their engines on Local Standby within the fire station.

It is not an uncommon occurrence at one of our panel’s airfields for instructors advised of traffic before first solos to say to ATC, "orbit if necessary." If this were not done there would be very few first solos. Controllers do not orbit first solos unless absolutely necessary and normally offer them a degree of priority but there comes a time when an orbit is the safest option. 

Nowadays the gaps in traffic are far fewer and maybe the understanding and communication between instructors and controllers is also less good. Certainly some airport operators and airlines would now complain bitterly if they thought they were being delayed for any GA flight, even a first solo. ATC providers have contracts with airports that stipulate required runway rates to be achieved to sustain capacity and some airports can be pretty intolerant of inadequate performance. Controllers constantly seek to maintain safety whilst they juggle fairness and capacity. A complication is that far fewer controllers today have any practical experience of flying any aircraft. When I was at Aldergrove in the 1970s every controller was either ex-service aircrew or had (or had possessed) a PPL. That is quite rare now amongst younger controllers and along with other areas of aviation, ATC is sometimes disadvantaged by a lack of what used to be called “airmindedness”. 

Orbits on final

The second incident that concerns us in one in which a student  pilot (not a first solo this time and I would hope this situation couldn’t arise with a first solo) was told to orbit on short final. Any aircraft in a landing configuration is in more need of sensitive piloting and hence more sensitive ATC, but as I mentioned above, less and less controllers have the personal experience to augment their theoretical understanding of that fact. Any lack of cockpit workload knowledge and final approach control issues amongst controllers is a failing of the ATC industry not of pilots.

Dealing with the specific situation, turning or reporting final with an aircraft still on the runway, presents the controller too with a conundrum, especially if the aircraft on the runway has been cleared to takeoff. In my home office, on a summer Sunday afternoon, its easy for me to think; “cancel the takeoff clearance, issue a go around, say you’d appreciate an early left/right turn if possible and report commencing the turn, check the go around traffic is clear of the departure route and then reissue the takeoff clearance”. The controller may have much less time and more distractions. One thing is sure though, if as the pilot you are issued an instruction you can’t comply with – for whatever reason - say so and state what you intend to do instead, or if time permits what you would like to do. The controller may not like being told “unable to orbit and going around runway 26” but at least the controller has the information to formulate an alternative plan. Its our opinion that expecting a GA aircraft to hold on finals within 2 miles (approximate height of 650 feet) is unreasonable under normal operations, but at four miles from touchdown at circuit height or higher– why not? 

Like so many things resolving these problems comes down to local communication, between flying clubs and the airport, between instructors and ATC, between pilot and controller. We can all do our bit. As pilots did you ever think of having a ‘Meet the Controllers Day’ at the flying club, coffee, a flight, a barbecue and over a drink holding a ‘brains trust’ on local problems. The Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers will be running a series of Pilot/Controller forums in the near future. If you as a pilot or controller would like one in your area, talk to us. Better still, talk to each other first and ask us jointly, you have to start communicating somewhere. 

Circuit operations at airfields with periods of sustained air transport operations.

David Ogilvy's comments that an orbit contravenes all a student pilot is taught is worrying. If this is the case the teaching methods used by some flying instructors or even the PPL syllabus need examining. Any instructor sending a student pilot to an aerodrome with public transport operations without being confident that the student can hold is being negligent. We would also consider it imperative that any student pilot sent to an airfield with ATC and controlled airspace, should have had some previous dual experience of that environment during appropriate traffic levels and should have received specific instruction on procedures for that flight. 

Controllers do their utmost to provide a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic, however, there are very few airports in the UK where holding is unavoidable at times. Most airports with public transport operations will have to orbit light aircraft as a matter of course. Most airfields, especially those with controlled airspace are limited for space. A light aircraft needs six miles spacing behind a medium and eight miles behind a heavy. How is this spacing achieved? By orbiting. Our panel said they would much rather orbit student pilots than send them downwind for six miles or so and possibly lose sight of them and risk getting lost/mixed up with the approach sequence or stumble into an adjacent airfield’s traffic pattern.

Perhaps more practical research should be done on wake turbulence and its effect on light aircraft. It might be found that a closer circuit to a marked touchdown point well up the runway from the standard threshold and an early crosswind turn would mean that separation could be reduced between commercial and light training traffic.

At least one airport now “manages” circuit traffic by charging a landing fee for every landing, including Touch and Go’s, and the fee is higher during peak commercial traffic times. 

Techniques controllers will use for orbiting in the circuit

Orbits in the circuit are considered a legitimate, even essential technique for integrating light GA
traffic with bigger faster IFR traffic, and controllers are trained as such. Student controllers are taught to orbit traffic against the circuit direction, orbit the last first and if possible use both downwind legs. This is not always possible and sometimes circuit traffic has to be instructed to land or to hold in the vicinity of a Visual Reference Point. They are not normally sent around, as the overhead is the last place for a light aircraft. If right and left hand circuits are in use there is no dead side. Overhead joins are strongly discouraged as public transport departures usually have to climb straight ahead through the level of the circuit before turning.

Alternative ideas for pilots and CAA to consider, from ATCO pilots on the panel.

Sustained holding can risk a pilot becoming disorientating, especially in less clement weather conditions. If a pilot is concerned that this is, or could become, a problem, tell the controller!

One panel member suggested that if asked to "orbit" for any length of time in the circuit ask if you can do a racetrack hold, either aligned on the downwind leg track or at 90 degrees to the downwind leg/base turn, flying on the outside of the circuit. This can be done visually, allows for drift compensation and the stable level flight of the inbound/outbound legs prevents disorientation. Perhaps the procedure and phraseology should be "hold" rather than "orbit" and allow a racetrack instead? Other benefits are that when flying the inbound leg the traffic on final approach and the airfield are in sight for longer and local noise is dispersed over a wider area. The only drawback is that it might limit the number of aircraft in the circuit.

It was also reported to us that orbits in the circuit aren't only experienced at public transport airports, but also at many busy GA aerodromes. Some pilots actually request to orbit at the end of the downwind leg in a busy circuit, simply to avoid going beyond single-engine aerodrome gliding range.

One further thing that ATCOs are concerned about is what they consider excessively large circuits flown by PPLs and the inevitable consequence of an extended approach. It was suggested that perhaps instructors could teach a close circuit with speed reduction on finals only - then ATC would have more confidence in a pilots ability to accept a "quick" circuit for a touch and go and less holding would be done.

   Click here to return to Policy Papers Main Page