Originally Posted by OK465
The only thing we had at CSM was the lady who sunbathed nude just west of the downwind. Sometimes though she was at the store or inside baking cookies.
Obviously, the reason I asked, as you probably picked up if you read my earlier posts on this thread, is that I am firmly of the opinion that the “circle-to-land” is strictly a visually based task … and since I AM married, I’ll side-step the sunbather issue – regardless of the degree of relevance … or importance … and I use that 2nd word ... tongue-in-cheek. However, ahem, once the pilot makes visual contact with the runway (and that is the RUNWAY, sunbathers notwithstanding) or the airport (and if it’s
just the airport, that pilot would have to know exactly where on that airport whatever it is that the pilot is able to see is located and where the runway is located in reference to that object) and, significantly, if the pilot doesn’t see the runway and/or the airport (with the same caveat, i.e., knowing where the runway is in reference to whatever is seen) the
entire time he/she is flying via visual references, it’s time to initiate that missed approach that you ensured your guys were capable of performing. There are (or at least were) some here who advocated flying by reference to the flight instruments and timing via a stop-watch. There was one comment that it would not be possible to see anything visually in some circumstances (night, rain, fog, etc.) so the pilot needed to “navigate” rather than “aviate.” In fact, this person even indicated that, of course, visual contact with airport/runway would
necessarily be lost (and doing so was apparently of little or no importance to this person) due to it’s “disappearing behind the F/E panel and all those circuit breakers.” I was apparently unsuccessful in convincing this person that it was imperative to maintain visual contact with something on the airport or the runway in order to continue to circle – but he was adamant that all was perfectly safe and legal even if the circuit breaker panel didn’t allow visual contact until the pilot reversed course.
Originally Posted by OK465
I didn't choose LTAT, it was discussed earlier. It certainly appears very representative of an airport that the only way to get in to one end of the runway with wx and winds and terrain as factors requires a circle. Substitute Butte, Montana for a similar setup then. ILS, RNAVs & LOC to 15 only with some VOR A/B circles, no approach to 33.
OK – sorry – I just couldn’t imagine using an obscure airport as a reference for a discussion where all kinds of experience and locations are represented.
But, at your suggestion, I did take a look at the Butte airport – and, of course, you’re right. It looks to be a “sporty” kind of airport. According to what I see, Butte has 2 runways – one that’s 5100ft X 75ft and the other that’s 9001ft X 150ft. I would presume that there is not a lot of commercial traffic on the 75ft wide runway, meaning that it’s probably Rwy 15/33 that gets most of the traffic. I see one(1) ILS and one(1) LOC/DME to Rwy 15, as well as a VOR or GPS-B to the same runway. But it looks like there is a VOR or GPS-A approach to the airport (a lot more aligned with the smaller runway - Rwy30) than with the larger runway (Rwy33) and because the inbound course for this “instrument approach” is 272 degrees, flying that approach requires a circle-to-land, which is the only chart- minimums listed on that chart. I can’t imagine passing up an ILS or LOC approach if you wanted to land on Rwy15, so I can’t imagine flying the VOR or GPS-B to the airport and circling to land on Rwy15 … so it probably is used by the larger category airplanes to circle to Rwy33 and for the smaller airplane to circle to Rwy30. With the visibility required for the Cat C or Cat D airplanes being 3 miles and an MDA of a bit more than 3000 feet AGL (almost from the final approach fix, FAF) the airport/runway (Rwy33) should be able to be seen within a short time of departing the FAF inbound, at an angle of about 60 degrees or so to the right of the nose.
I’ve never been there (obviously) and don’t think I’m going to make plans to go anytime soon. I also suspect the weather can be nasty at times and probably quite turbulent with windy conditions. All of which likely tightens the “butox” muscles on final approach for almost anyone – and likely even more if the sun is down. And I continue to say that larger airplanes have little (if NO) business in getting down in the weeds, or in this case, down in the snow drifts, wandering around looking for the landing runway. I used a technical term earlier – and it still applies. That would be just “NUTS!”