LPC/OPC and Circling Approaches

[Buzzoff]

I am a 737 trainer, and before that, a trainer on 3 other types. I have spent a lot of my life in the back of simulators and have a good feel for what is well simulated and what is not.

I have become uncomfortable with the JAR-format proficiency check requiring pilots to demonstrate a circling approach - ie it is now a 'test' requirement, not a 'refresher' element. In most simulators, the visual system has a 120 or 150 degree visual segment, so it is impossible to look over your shoulder and keep the runway in view. In order to legally continue with a circling approach, the threshold must be in sight, obstacle clearance must be assured and the aircraft must be in a position to carry out a safe landing.

In a simulator, once you have passed abeam the threshold, none of these criteria can be fulfilled - and if you were in the actual aircraft you should go-around. I am not happy about testing a pilot on a procedure which is, in effect, illegal. Additionally I find that many pilots, me included, not surprisingly make a cock of it - including people who could fly the pants off me. I would prefer circling to be a refresher requirement - not a legislative one.

Has anyone else found difficulties with this, or am I just becoming an old woman?!

[Tinstaafl]

I certainly agree with the principle that legislating for an item to be tested is wrong if an approved device can't properly simulate it.

Wonder if the intent is to bring back a/c training? Seems counter productive since the sim can consistantly manage poor Wx, instead of the luck of the draw with in-a/c training.

[Capt Pit Bull]

I think your concerns are quite valid.

In the environment that I operate, the odds of needing to do a circling approach are extremely slim. I've been with my current mob for 4 years and have flown something like 3,000 sectors, without once doing a circling approach. It could be another 4 years before I do one for real.

By which time I'll have flown a minimum of 8 (assuming bare box-tick 1 per OPC) using the wrong technique, i.e. 'guesstimating' my way around the pattern.

One things for certain - when the chips are down, and the stress is up, people will revert to what they've actually been doing rather than what they should be doing.

Using the sim in this manner is reinforcing an unwanted behaviour.

CPB

[Buzzoff]

Thank you very much for your replies.

Capt PB, I think that the very fact that, in the European environment, the rarity of a circling approach is why it has been included as a regular item - but as you so rightly say, we don't have the facilities to practice it properly in the simulator and we have to 'willingly suspend our disbelief' in order to complete the manoeuvre.

Tinstaafl, we do in fact carry out A/C training at the end of our sim course - we don't have zero-flight time in our Company - and it's interesting that this training consists entirely of circling approaches, which are invariably flown well! In fact, since 1985 I have only sent one person back for further training after an A/C training session, and this was entirely due to inexperience, not inability. Conversely, I find myself having to repeat circling approaches in the sim with people who then fly visual circuits perfectly in 'real life'.

It's negative training, and would be far better remaining in the 'practise' arena rather than being a major test. In order to keep the confidence of pilots, a training/checking system must be believable and appropriate. This test strikes me as being counter -productive.


[This message has been edited by Buzzoff (edited 13 November 2000).]

[MFALK]

I agree with Buzzoff that this training for circling is defeating the main purpose of what the excercise should be all about, i.e. maintaining visual contact with the runway at all times.

In real life, you won't have the instructor calling out when you're abeam the runway etc. My opinion is that these approaches are so few and far between, that they should be banned altogether, and there will not be any significant commercial repurcussions.

In five years, I've only flown two circling approaches, only one with weather really at or close to the minimums.

[Captain Mainwaring]

Around the Uk flying Turboprops - IOM springs to mind, we regularly fly circling approaches and in fact where possible do our OPC/LPC's at that field. It is very relevant for us but i can see its irrelevance to you.

[Buzzoff]

Thanks again for your views.

Capt.MW, I well remember doing circling in the IOM in the F27 (Horrible turbulence with a Northerly wind I recall) and am very aware that many of our fraternity are called upon to do them regularly, which as I said, is probably why they have been brought into the LPC arena. I have, mentally at least, now suspended the 'test' bit of the approach once the chap or chappess has put the aircraft in the correct config, at the correct speed and at a sensible distance abeam the threshold. The rest of the approach is 'Training/Refresher'as far as I am concerned - and valuable as such.

[static]

I used to fly 747-400, and on that type, when we had to do the circling in the sim, the instructors used to have a relaxed way of judging it. Their approach would be: "ok, it`s a JAR requirement, but rediculous to attempt in the sim anyway, so enjoy the training". In 4 years on the 747 I never flew a circling approach.
Nowadays on 737, the instructors have a different approach (same company!). They will flunk you when messing up the circling approach. In my view this is ridiculous and inherently dangerous, because of negative training. They teach you this way that it`s ok to circle on minima without outside reference.
Accident waiting to happen?

BTW: 6 years on 737, no circlings yet, ample visual approaches though and enjoying it!

[Grandad Flyer]

Buzzoff, I agree with you. It is almost a complete waste of time!
However, there is a published circling approach at SZG which works quite nicely. Means all your SOPs can be practised, but there is a set procedure to do the approach, so it doesn't matter quite so much that you can't see the runway until you get around the corner.
It meets the JAR requirements for practicing the circling approach, and makes a bit more sense than flying a blind circuit.

[Buzzoff]

Granpa, Excellent! - thanks. ( PS, Check your Email re subject recently discussed)

static, thanks for that - you proved my point perfectly. It's somehow comforting to know that it isn't just the UK that has the same nonsense, although by your types and your location I suspect that I indirectly work for the same employer as you!

[This message has been edited by Buzzoff (edited 29 November 2000).]

[Check-in]

Ozzies also have the same nonsense, and we have at least one checkie in our company who will make you do the circling time and time again until it is to his satisfaction. He expects a 600 fpm descent to commence 20 to 30 seconds past the abeam threshold position, even tho you are of course blind at that point (always night in minimum vis)Definitely negative training when done under check conditions as it really gets some pilots up tight to have to keep repeating an un natural act.
One solution could be to fit some sort of visual ground lighting to the sim visuals as a lead-in system. Have a look at the system at Port Vila in Vanuatu and I am sure that there are others around the world. Then it could perhaps be tested rather than trained, but meantime I treat it as training only and would only consider a candidate to have failed if they got outside the circling area or altitude/speed parameters.

[BEagle]

This seems to be a problem only due to the inflexible attitude of some Examiners. In the military we do not require a formal check of the circling approach; we TEACH the technique in a flight simulator (which is as restricted as the one buzz use) making due allowance for its limitations. We then require our students to PRACTISE visual approaches in the VC10 during their conversion, but for noise reasons we don't practise at circling minimum as we used to. Consequently we arm our pilots with sufficient handling skills to be able to complete this rarely-needed technique without problem if it were ever required in anger.
The difference is that our examining requirements are practical and have been formulated by experienced aircrew who know what is and what is not reasonable; JAR requirements have been dreamed up by a bunch of Eurocrats with scant regard for reality and even less for common sense! Perhaps that's why our AT/AAR fleet has the safety record which it does!

[Buzzoff]

Ah, BEagle - the clarion call of common sense! You wouldn't like to take over the massed Training Inspectorates of Europe would you? At least ours in the UK is largely staffed by practical professionals, but that ain't the case everywhere I hear. And one or two of ours are........well, 'nuff said!