So the very first thing anybody may want to check before accepting a circling approach is whether it's Terps or Pans Ops -- and maybe think of going somewhere else if Terps.
RBF:
Let me start by saying that I am by no means a Terps defender or advocate. It is simply the standard that the approaches I am accustomed to flying are designed under. With that being the case, I have endeavored to learn what I can about how approaches are designed, but there is room for much more learning. Early on, it became apparent to me that there is little room for error and that none should be expected. What follows is just some of my observations related to the conduct of circling approaches. My comments are intended as "food for thought".
It should go without saying that careful analysis of each instrument approach procedure is prudent prior to beginning an approach. Additional planning and briefing is necessary when a circling maneuver will be required. Obviously, if it cannot be determined that the aircraft will remain well within the protected airspace or that any other condition exists which casts doubt on the safety of the maneuver, it should not be attempted.
That said, it should be understood that instrument approach minimums are just that. Minimums. Pilots and their employers retain the right to adjust them upwards. It may not always be prudent to execute an approach to minimums just because it meets "legal" requirements.Terps obstacle clearance protection is of smaller size than Pans Ops and without allowance for the effect of winds or TAS adjustments for altitude. These variables must be accounted for and applied by the flight crew.There is no allowance for flying outside the protection area. Large deviations outside the protected area should be considered suicidal. With all this in mind, it should be apparent that circling approaches designed under Terps criteria must be flown according to a well thought out plan and must be flown accurately. Allowance for known variables must be applied and a descent point identified. The flight path to join the missed approach procedure while remaining in protected airspace must be briefed. The limitations of the obstacle protection provided must be understood and respected. The same might be said of any procedure. If there is any doubt that this can be done, the plan should be scrapped and a less critical procedure or perhaps another airport selected.
The FAA has been considering the adoption of Pans Ops equivalent standards for many years. The argument against appears to concern the loss of utility projected to occur as the result of the higher minima which would be required as a consequence of the larger obstacle protection areas dictated under this standard.
As a pilot who has executed a fair number of Category D circling approaches, I will say that I wish that Terps approach design criteria were a little more widely known in the pilot and training community and that training in the planning and conduct of circling procedures were emphasized to a greater degree. Not that it isn't done at sim training. It is. But circling is just one of many items that must be accomplished in a very limited amount of time. As it stands now, it is largely up to pilots to learn the nuances for themselves, of their own volition. So I respectfully suggest that we either assure that we are fully prepared to plan and execute circling procedures within the limitations of the design and our ability to execute it under the prevailing circumstances or be prepared to follow the advise in the quote that begins this post. There is little room for error or uncertainty.
Best regards,
Westhawk