View Full Version : Help with circling now
MD82MD82
16th Jul 2009, 18:44
Hi
What is the correct Missed approach procedure for circling according to the rules?
Is it really a turn to the landing runway?. (So it will be a turn overhead the airport?).
Thanks in advance for answers:ok:
Rainboe
16th Jul 2009, 19:03
Turn towards the airfield and carry out the missed approach procedure for the instrument approach you were originally carrying out, not for the runway you are landing on.
Don't question it. Just do it. You are expected to hash something together following the above. The aim is to stay within the airport safety zone initially then climb away on your original approach, not the final approach.
That's it. Period.
bfisk
17th Jul 2009, 18:13
If below MDA/beyond MAPt you are in fact more or less on your own. PANS-OPS/TERPS do not cater for this possibility. If you need an escape route, do the best you can; but common sense says the mountain is probably not on the airport, so a climbing turn towards the airport, until you are above the OAS, and thus in a position to have obstacle clearance as a function of the IAP, would probably be wise. Some companies have their own escape procedures to follow, should visual reference be lost after circling is commenced.
Piltdown Man
18th Jul 2009, 10:44
Turn towards the airfield and carry out the missed approach procedure for the instrument approach you were originally carrying out, not for the runway you are landing on.
Is the standard missed approach, but there are exceptions, like in Holland. There, from a circling approach, you execute the missed approach for the runway you you are landing on.
Don't you just love exceptions...
PM
Rainboe
18th Jul 2009, 19:16
This was flogged to death a year or so ago. We have circling approaches and we have 'landing on the other parallel runway'. On many circling approaches, it would be impossible to fly a GA as on the original runway. If, say, 8 miles out your are switched to a new runway of similar alignment, you would be a fool to fly a different G/A to the runway you are actually landing on. A genuine circling approach is a different case,often onto a different runway, or the reciprocal, with limited or no aids and a G/A to reflect that. They are different animals. It is also really just academic- they are very, very rare.
They are different animals. It is also really just academic- they are very, very rare.
Yup, all too true.
Max Angle
18th Jul 2009, 23:04
you execute the missed approach for the runway you you are landing on.
Don't forget that on most circling approaches there won't be a missed approach for the landing runway because there is no approach procedure, that is why you are circling to it.
Capt Claret
19th Jul 2009, 00:03
Interesting, but at least in OZ it is mandated in our AIP that the first manoeuvre during a missed approach from a circling procedure is to "make a turn towards the runway environment."
in the version of the AIP in my Jeppesen Airways Manual [Terminal>AU-21>3.10.3]When a missed approach is required from visual circling, the expectation is that the pilot will make an initial climbing turn toward the landing runway ...
Take circling for RW33 at Cairns as an example. Turning towards the runway if executing a missed approach from downwind takes one towards a mountain range that precludes any circling west of the RW and encompasses an MSA of 6500'.
Whereas, turning away from the runway, takes one over the sea.
I don't believe that an expectation is mandatory.
I don't believe that an expectation is mandatory. - nor, I believe is it an expectation that you will always turn 'the shortest way' - a modicum of self-preservation is expected in crews!
bfisk
19th Jul 2009, 13:57
I guess this is why we need pilots on board planes, and not just system operators -- there are a lot of variables :)
Rainboe
20th Jul 2009, 12:11
I don't understand the Cairns reference above, which seems to cloud the issue. The philosophy of circling is that you descend on the best possible aid to circling limit, then keeping the airfield in sight, reposition yourself, keeping the airfield in sight (vis may be down to just a few miles)- try and get yourself on a downwind or base leg and keep in sight and get it on the ground. Any loss of visual contact requires a GA, turn towards the airfield and GA. So how can Cairns have mountains in the way of that? Are you indeed, on a circling approach, allowing terrain between you and the airfield? Any peculiarities with terrain are always reflected in special instructions on the landing plates specifically for circling approaches.
It seems to me you always turn towards the airfield and then pick up the original GA. You might be doing some peculiar turns, but it will be overhead the airfield within a guaranteed (safe) column of air.
What about go-around from EARLY base leg? Let's say you're on left base and you lose visual. Do you A) turn towards the runway i.e. a left turn and keep it going all the way round to join the published MA procedure or B) Turn RIGHT to join the MA procedure.......
Late base or final is more clear cut.
Over to you.
A4
I'd keep going left, as you should be pretty confident the area you just circled in will be clear of other traffic, so you can, in effect do 270 (or whatever)to pick up the MA.
Turning right may take you over the centerline, which should alse be clear, but personally I'd pick the former.
Dan Winterland
7th Aug 2009, 02:08
The whole idea of the Circling approach is that you should remain visual in the visual segment, therefore you are not in the same situation as flying the instrument approach part and it is less likely.
However, you may have to go round for other reasons. It it looks as if a go around is possible due to other factors such as a strong crosswind, ask ATC what they would like you to do. We have a destination in my company's network where Circling is common due to there being no instrument approach being available on one runway because of a mountain being in the way. If you were to fly to a position where you could fly the MA for the instument approach for the oppsoite runway, then you would probably meet the next guy coming down the procedure and it would be chaos.
So I always ask what ATC what they would want me to do and the answer is usually different each time due to other traffic or weather conditions, but never what is published.
Eddie_Crane
7th Aug 2009, 16:24
D.W. could I ask what destination that is? Just pure curiousity really. If for whatever reason you can't post such info on the board, I understand.
Cheers.
OzExpat
9th Aug 2009, 13:18
If I'm going to circle off an approach, I brief it carefully in advance. This includes a comparison of the circling MDA with the elevation of surrounding terrain, with particular emphasis on the lowest terrain for an escape route. There could be more than one reason why you might need to use the manoeuvre - losing visual reference is the usual one but it isn't the only one.
The circling manoeuvre is more than just making a close circuit to another runway and shouldn't be cobbled together at the very last possible moment.
If you were to fly to a position where you could fly the MA for the instument approach for the oppsoite runway, then you would probably meet the next guy coming down the procedure and it would be chaos. - you will find that where g/a's clash with the IAP ATC normally allow for one g/a to go back up the approach path in their spacing of arrivals - eg Innsbruck.
One hopes Chambery do as well - but I have my doubts......................:eek:
Dan Winterland
11th Aug 2009, 21:52
D.W. could I ask what destination that is?
Pusan, Korea. It's a TERPS airfileld with a 2.3 NM circling radius compared with the PANSOPS 4.6. A Air China 767 forgot this in 2001 and flew into a hill here. A very challenging destination.
- you will find that where g/a's clash with the IAP ATC normally allow for one g/a to go back up the approach path in their spacing of arrivals - eg Innsbruck
In an ideal world. On my last approach into Pusan, we nearly went around just as the next guy was starting his visual segment. It would have been messy.
In an ideal world. - yes, I was in that world..... I have no useful suggestions for Pusan other than.........................:) As for TERPs - I have never been able to understand the logic of 2.3nm., and it has killed quite a few.
I have never been able to understand the logic of 2.3nm....
Two general reasons, IMO...
It allows the basic circling minima (600-2, terrian permitting) for a category D airplane, that otherwise would be restricted to a higher minima, and...
It weeds out those who cannot from those who can (fly the airplane properly within close tolerances, at a two mile circling distance.
Dan Winterland
12th Aug 2009, 09:48
What a stupid attitude. So it weeds out a few - by killing them? If it's killing people, it needs changing.
If you have to do the circling to 18 at PUS, it's because the tailwind has exceeded 10 knots on 36. And this invariably means that at circuit height the wind is about 240 at 45 - which means you are flying at the very limits of the aircraft's performance at 2,3nm spacing. You have to work very hard to make the stabilization criteria (300' in the Circling 36 to 18 case at PUS my company have set) from the downwind altitude of 1100'. My last approach there required a constant 30 degree turn and we still got blown through the centreline. Fly to the limits and the safety margins are eroded.
Now although it's challenging, I have always got in without breaking any limits or triggering GPWS warnings, so I obviously pass the 411a selection test. But others haven't.
As for the TERPS limits, Korea is joining the civilized world by adopting PANSOPS. Both Incheon and Gimpo are now PANSOPS airports, but Pusan will never be. You just won't fit the circling approach in that valley at 4.6NM radius.
Quite, DW - a stereo-typical stupid attitude - a 2.3nm pattern is impossible to fly even in Cat C in a strong tightening wind. I don't know the airfield, but could PANOPS not be adopted with a 'modified' radius between 2.3 and 4.6?
What a stupid attitude. So it weeds out a few -
You many think it as 'stupid', DW, but I can assure you that the FAA certainly does not.
Type rating requirements for circling in a category D airplane mandate circling within two miles, otherwise a restriction is placed on ones license restricting circling to VFR conditions only.
Now, airlines can do as they like if they wish to restrict circling at certain airports, or ban it altogether for their crews, in the interests of 'safety'.
Indeed, many have.
Our particular ops require circling on a regular basis with our rather large heavy jet, otherwise flights would be rather severely restricted.
Quite, DW - a stereo-typical stupid attitude - a 2.3nm pattern is impossible to fly even in Cat C in a strong tightening wind.
If this is so, then there is an option...it's called diversion to a suitable alternate.
No one is 'forcing' you to circle in your CAT C airplane, BOAC....if you are unable, due to weather or inability to actually follow the procedure, diversion, I would suggest, is your best alternative.
I generally find that many Europeans (and this includes those in the UK) tend to blame 'others' for their own particular shortcommings.
Harry Truman, long ago, said it best...'can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen'.