Originally Posted by OK645
Even if you descend from the 9000' FAF to the rather high MDA of 8540' in 0.4 NM, that puts you at 2995' above the threshold 3.0 NM from the runway. Sure you can see it with 3 mile viz, but that's nearly a 10 degree FPA down to the runway. You aren't going to make it on that pass with a leisurely 60 degree right turn in. In fact you probably can't get in to 33 from this approach without turning your back at some point to the runway.
The preferable IAP to get into 33, in fact all the way down to an even lower 1300' OVC with 3 miles viz and winds, for example 330 at 30 in blowing snow is to fly the LOC to 15 to the lower 6800' MDA and circle southwest for a left turn into 33....using wind adjusted headings (geometry) and wind adjusted timing (stopwatch).
Miss safely if things don't go your way....or divert early if you're not approved for it or if you calmly assess even trying it to be 'nuts'. I'm not pushing doing something beyonds one's capability or authority.
But gaining unrestricted circling qualification on the LOC 27 circle to land 18R at MEM certainly neither prepares nor realistically qualifies you for this brand of circling approach, and doesn't distinguish between the two.
All VERY well said. And I certainly wouldn’t attempt to fly directly from the 9000 foot or the 8540 foot altitudes directly to the runway, even turning through that 60 degrees. That would, just as you point out, leave you “a bit high.” But the flight crew could certainly follow a ground path well to the left of a direct course (i.e., turn left at the FAF) presuming the pilot flying – which would likely make that the RHS pilot – could retain the airport/runway in sight continuously (eliminating the awkwardness of describing a visual maneuver that relies on flying "essentially blind" until the time runs out) displacing that overflown ground track to the southwest – which would increase the flying distance to the airport/runway. Certainly it shouldn’t be terribly unusual to expect a descent rate that is higher than that achieved on a 2.8 – 3.0 degree glide slope in solid IFR conditions. For example (and I’m not implying that it’s the same thing at all, but…) during a “normal” VFR traffic pattern – what is considered to be a normal rate of descent from the downwind leg to final approach? Of course it depends to a large degree on how far from the runway the ground path of the downwind leg is flown. As I recall, descent rates between 800 and 1200 fpm were not prohibited in any of the aircraft I’ve flown in descending from downwind, around the final turn and lining up on final. Of course, I would think it entirely appropriate that the company has a maximum descent rate in such circumstances. On the other hand, if the pilot was really intent on flying the approach to the opposite end of that particular runway and circling to land, essentially the same kind of wider displaced arc from the runway is likely to provide more than adequate visual references throughout the maneuver while allowing a much further ground distance to be covered, making the descent from circling MDA a lot more comfortable on the end of the maneuver – and since this time the circle would be on the “same side” of the airport, but approaching from the other end of the runway – it would be the LHS pilot doing the flying and the looking.
ALSO – while it may surprise you to learn – I completely agree with your position on the simulator circle-to-land at MEM27 CTL 18R. What it is … is legal … and to me, “legal” doesn’t necessarily provide what is needed. Unfortunately, I could probably provide a similar list of where simulator exposure doesn’t provide all that a lot of folks believes such exposure does provide (recall my post on the ABX crash). But that’s a whole different issue – well, different in that it affects other understandings and pilot practice beyond, and other than, the circle to land issues. In such cases, substantial additional training is absolutely necessary, in my view – of course, I’m not in charge. However, some of the more modern simulator visual systems DO, in fact, have very realistic visual systems that provide out-the-window displays that provide horizontal fields of view that exceed 220 degrees horizontally and 60 degrees vertically. In all but a very few cases, this kind of display capability is well within expectations of cockpit visibility from one airplane wing-tip around to the opposite wing-tip. Some simulator manufacturers have even experimented with horizontal adjustments that would allow “shifting” the projector mounting plates and the reflective screens (mylar or mirror) to either the left or right, to provide the pilot on THAT side of the airplane even further “over the shoulder” visual capabilities. With such a shift in the mechanics, the computer generation continues to position the visual scene directly in front of the airplane directly in front of the simulator cab as well. At this time I don’t know where those efforts stand – naturally, a manufacturer isn’t going to fully develop something that won’t sell … and if the airlines and training centers don’t want it (because the regulator does not – at least at this time – require it) it is very unlikely that manufacturers will continue to develop and refine something that will sit on their back shelf.
Thanks for a refreshingly frank exchange - I admire the way you participate here.