The concern I was registering – as you apparently recognized in my earlier post – is arguably the same recognizable factors under discussion in this thread.
No it's not. The other poster asked as
question, if a 60/60 deg turn was the right "formula" for at sidestep.... a maneuver that contains so many variables (distance from threshold, distance between the approaching and sidestepping runway to name a few), that the only way it can be flow, is by looking out the window... Even for a newbie, with no idea, the proposed 60/60 deg was so ridiculous (compared to the few deg heading change required to do a sidestep), that one can only assume he was posting it to provoke a reaction.. In internet terms a socalled "
troll".
Flying a high performance jet aircraft:
At night, in 2400 meter visibility, in rain, with strong wind, with turbulent conditions, with mountains surrounding the airport, with a cloud cover a few feets above your head,
in 600 feet AGL -
with out having a systematic approach to the task, flying by the seat of your pants,
is reckless!!
...is to allow a pilot to fly an instrument approach procedure to get below a cloud deck or within visual range of the airport and from that point, visually maneuver the airplane to the runway on which the pilot was cleared to land
A circling is rightly a visual maneuver, but
flown in IMC conditions. You are proposing to fly looking out the window when flying downwind. What visual reference do you expect to have? Is the terrain sloping, what horizon do you have to ensure a safe flight attitude? NONE. You have a pitch black, wet windscreen with mountains hiding ahead at a, by the authorities, precalculated safe distance. Flying a circling approach at night, in low vis, rain poring down your window, strong gusts and turbulence... I prefer you keep your eyes on the attitude indicator, not looking over your shoulder for the runway... thank you
(A runway you won't be able to see anyway, because the co-pilots head is in the way and the rest is covered by the circuit breaker panel).
Here is how it should go: When the timing is completed (co-pilot had the barely visible 90-degs-off-runway-lights in the corner of his eye during the downwind and does a sensibility crosscheck for position), you start rolling in. You won't be able to see the runway the first 45-60 degs of the inbound turn, because of the bank of the aircraft (no longer cover by co-pilots head, but co-pilots roof), so you continue to fly the ADI, and try to keep the aircraft under control from the turbulence from the nearby mountains. When the runway finally comes to view,
thereafter gradually you includes the lit runway into your scan, but stay mostly on the ADI to avoid vertigo (rain is still hammering on your otherwise black window). When aligned, and the runway and approach lights are giving you sufficient cues that maintaining wings level by their reference alone can be assured, you switch you primary reference to the runway, but still glance back on the ADI, until you are ready to flare.
Either you never tried or obviously forgot how humbling an experience it can be to fly to an airport with a complete dark environment (no moon, no cities), even on a good night, without rain, without turbulence, on a straight in, on an ILS, with the autopilot engaged! We have lots of those airports in our route structure, and most of them require circling if unfavorable wind.
I am no hero. In the above scenario, personally I would divert. Unless one of the factors was removed (like no rain or during daytime). I would however be able to do it, using the mentioned method if I had no other option. Knowing that you have no system and
no plan, I would be scared
, pardon my French, if I was a passenger on your aircraft (which I, must say fortunately, see from your profile I will never be).
Having a system is not for the purpose of breaking any rules, it's not the purpose to continue the approach despite loosing visual reference.
On the contrary, a system is in place to
ensure that you do not extend you downwind beyond the needlessly, so that you end up father away than the prevailing visibility will allow you to keep the airport in sight. Yet far enough, to assure that you within the remaining distance to go, can complete the approach and landing and at the same time remain inside all established approach criteria that your company may prescribe for circling approaches.
Being a pilot is highly individual ...
No, and yes...
Second reason is for standardization, so that good CRM in a difficult situation is supported. Pilot are indeed individuals, but they shouldn't each bring different work methods along to work for the simple reason that we need to be able to trust, predict and work together in an unambiguous manner.
The above method is not a choice for me (though I would choose it voluntarily too), it's a part of my airline's SOP, which is approved by our regulator.
P.s.
You keep harping about "taking with your instructor", which I actually find a bit insulting. This is a professional pilots forum, the contributors here are already (should be) educated pilots. If you have something to say about flight training in small aircrafts:
Professional Pilot Training (includes ground studies) - PPRuNe Forums
or here:
Private Flying - PPRuNe Forums
(I agree that a circling in a C172 or Piper Seneca is a no-brainer and at the speed they move/turning radius/ability to stop and descent on the spot, can easily be flown as you would a normal visual circuit. I could do a circling approach in either aircraft without leaving the airfield perimeter fence).