Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
Airrabbit, getting a bit dramatic there...
Where I come from, square circuits are never done (I always have a chuckle when I see a FCTM with a square circuit diagram akin to a Cesspit POH), descents onto final from MDA are commenced when you hit the nominal 3° slope after turning at 40" (+/- ½" per knot) and you roll out at 500ft AGL, 1.5-odd nm from the threshold. Just like a normal circuit/traffic pattern. With Vis of 5000m (ie low level VMC) Simple.
As for config, we have the Landing checklist completed before the base turn point. Nothing to do apart from fly around the turn and land.
Call it a cheat sheet procedure if you like; it works in the SIM and in real life.
Well, Capn, I’ve never been accused of being “born to be mild.” And I completely agree with the “square circuits” issue, but not as much as I agree with your description of descending from MDA. The “cheat sheet” issue that I was referencing – and there have been several – would be something, for example, that is worked out to get someone through the check and/or to look good on a training record. It can consist of, and I’ve seen several consisting of, almost anything. The glaring similarity is that, for most pilots, their initial observation of what is being done makes little if any sense. And the one that motivated the FAA’s National Simulator Program (NSP) staff to change their evaluation and qualification standards for the circle-to-land task, was when the simulator evaluator attempted to fly an ILS approach to Rwy 27R at one of the airport models this simulator sponsor had included in the simulator, followed by a circle to land on Rwy 9L, but he was unable to do so because visual contact with the airport/runway was lost.
Here’s how the FAA’s NSP staff described how they reached the decision that was verified all the way up the chain and resulted in the current NSP policy, reflecting FAA regulations. When that evaluator announced the unsuccessful result, one of the company’s pilots insisted on re-flying the approach. That was agreed to, and he did just that. After flying the ILS to Rwy 27R, when he reached MDA he leveled off and turned right (about 30 degrees of heading change) and punched the clock. At ~45 seconds, he turned back to the approximate heading he had held during the instrument approach … the landing runway was clearly visible out the left hand window… however just as the airplane was passing the approach end of the landing runway, on the proper speed and at the MDA, he reached down again and punched the clock, announced the he was going to “maintain runway heading for ~45 seconds.” Of course, it was only ~4 or ~5 seconds until there was nothing visible in the simulator’s visual system, either left or right, except for the typical scattering of generic surface environment lights and only the faintest hint of a horizon line. As the clock ticked to ~45 seconds, the pilot banked the airplane left, using approximately 30 degrees of bank, and held it for a turn of approximately 90 degrees, and rolled out wings level … he again punched the clock. When the clock reached ~15 seconds, he banked left to approximately 30 degrees, and turned through approximately 50 – 60 degrees of turn. When he rolled wings level the first few cross-bars of approach lighting and the strobes were visible at about 10 o’clock (ahead and slightly left). Needless to say, he completed the approach, and landed successfully on the landing runway. After stopping the inspector asked him if he maintained an identifiable portion of the airport/runway throughout the maneuver. He responded, “Of course not – once you pass the approach end, you have to fly based on timing until you can reverse course and again visually acquire the airport/runway environment. The NSP evaluator said, “OK. That is what I saw as well, and that is not in compliance with regulations. Therefore, this simulator will not be qualified for the circle-to-land maneuver unless you can show me a successful approach and circle-to-land maneuver where all the regulatory requirements are met.” The company representative wanted to know why – and was asked, in turn, if he, as a pilot in the airplane, would do this same procedure in an airplane? He said, “Of course not. It would be too dangerous without being able to know specifically where you are and you wouldn’t know that without knowing specifically where you were in relation to the airport.” The evaluator essentially told him that his answer was correct and he completed the unsatisfactory circle-to-land description for the simulator’s evaluation report. Apparently, later, the evaluator and the company’s training staff held a somewhat lengthy discussion as to how this procedure was developed and why it was desired to incorporate it into the simulator training. The long/short of the whole discussion was apparently that this was the easiest, most simple, least expensive way to perform the task and thereby have the circle-to-land maneuver included in their operating specifications.
As I have said, there are no simulators qualified by the FAA, anywhere in the world, that are authorized a circle-to-land task by the FAA unless that specific simulator has been evaluated and found to be satisfactory in completing a circle-to-land task where the pilot flying has been able to continuously keep an identifiable portion of the airport/runway in sight throughout the maneuver. It’s a simple concept and one that is entrenched in the FAA’s regulatory structure, including simulator training program approvals.
I apologize if all this sounds a bit “too dramatic.” The good thing in this story, is that the person fighting so hard to get this method approved in the simulator, recognized the fallacy of attempting the same method in an airplane on a dark and overcast night. I am hoping that by making the noise I’m making, there may be others who just might see the potential folly of using timing in lieu of visual contact when dealing with real metal, holding real people, flying in the real world.