Originally Posted by
mikewil
Not always as clear cut as that though.
For example, If we have 10km visibility below a cloud base of 1000 and the only way to get down below that base is an RNAV to straight in minima, would you be breaking any rules by 'circling' to land on the reciprocal runway?
Clearly this is a breach of the regulations, but one could argue that you are now in VMC and can conduct a visual circuit to the reciprocal runway. Despite having descended way below the circling minima to break clear of cloud.
I would say the intent of the AIP is clear, though I would agree it's not exhaustive and I note it doesn't say 'don't crash' either. Ironically that part of the AIP has been amended at least once because of a hole in the ground.
In your example if you are in VMC and allowed AND ABLE to operate under VFR, switch to VFR, same as any stage of flight, otherwise I would suggest you must immediately initiate a missed approach.
In the USA, the rules are very clear, but in many cases you would be much closer to the ground at the circling MDA. (they use a different criteria than Australia). I note that NZ has adopted the FAA wording.
It's certainly clear to me what is required. Perhaps if they spent all that money on those farcical new regulations on well designed and modern approaches your question would not arise, which brings us back somewhat to the original topic...