visual circling off an instrument approach

[Johnny_56]

Hi all,

I have a question for all the professional pilots who rumour on this network.

Lets say you are conducting a BLOGS RWY 05 VOR approach. The MDA staight in is 1300ft and for circling is 1600ft.

In the approach you break visual at 1350ft but are unable to land straigh in for some reason.

My question is can you then circle to land? After reading Jepps it says you must conduct a missed approach if you can't land off a runway approach unless you can circle at the circling minima. But then it says that you can descend below MDA if you are in day and can visually clear yourself from obstacles, with correct visual limits within you circling area (lits day and lets say we can see the obstacles)

Is this only from the circling minima that you are supposed to be at or can it be from straight in minima.

Cheers guys

[The Green Goblin]

If you are visual and by day you can maneuver as required provided you maintain 300 (I'm assuming you're cat b) feet obstacle clearance and remain in the 2.66nm circling area. You would also want to be pretty familiar with the aerodrome in IMC conditions to take this option. At night you must commence a missed approach if you are below the circling minima and can't land off the instrument let down to the MDA if it is lower than the circling minima.

If there is a chance you may need to circle at night you would brief the approach based on the circling minima, or be prepared to conduct the missed approach via the missed approach point if you're not visual.

[j3pipercub]

Jepp Terminal 3.13.3

OR

AIP ENR 1.7.3

Have a look for yourself

[Icarus2001]

The MDA staight in is 1300ft and for circling is 1600ft.
In the approach you break visual at 1350ft but are unable to land straigh in for some reason.
My bolding.

If you were planning to circle you would have briefed accordingly and bugged that way. So at 1600' you would have commenced a missed approach.

If you have briefed for a straight in and cannot do it you should make a missed approach.

However...:cool: At 1350' what are you agl? Do you know that the critical obstruction is X on one side of the runway and you can circle the other side?
Are you VERY familiar with the airport and surrounds?

[das Uber Soldat]

The regs make no distinction between night or day. You must go around unless you are able to circle in conditions that are equal to or better than the circling minima.

[j3pipercub]

here we go again,

The regs make no distinction between night or day. You must go around unless you are able to circle in conditions that are equal to or better than the circling minima.

Ummm, Uber, no.

JEPP Terminal 3.13.3 para 'e'

in daylight only, while complying with a., b. and c., maintains visual contact with obstacles along the intended flight path and obstacle clearance not less than the minimum for the aircraft performance category until the aircraft is aligned with the landing runway

Minimum Obstacle Clearance is 300ft for Cat A/B. That's not the circling minima in the majority of cases, that is well below.

AND, before you got quoting 3.10.1 para 'd', it says

[sic] A missed approach must be executed if:

d. a landing cannot be effected from a runway approach, unless a circling approach can be conducted in weather conditions equal to or better than those specified for circling

This does not mean that in order to conduct a circling approach the aircraft must be flown at the circling minima. It can be descended down to a minimum of 300ft above terrain in order to conduct a circling approach... until a position on downwind base or final...etc...

note. Almost all of this was copied from an earlier thread about 3 months ago

j3

[Monopole]

In the original question, a straight in approach was being conducted, and a landing could not 'effected', and he was BELOW the circling minima, therefore in your quote from the Jepps j3pipercub, a missed approach must be conducted.........

[The Green Goblin]

The regs make no distinction between night or day. You must go around unless you are able to circle in conditions that are equal to or better than the circling minima.

You can't be serious???

I think you better read the Jepps else you are going to lose some of that credibility!

[j3pipercub]

It amazes me how many people have difficulty with this simple process.

Monopole, provided the Straight in Approach minima was higher than 300ft AGL, you could descend below that minima to 300ft.

In daylight the circling minima is not the minimum height for circling (provided within circling area etc).

therefore in your quote from the Jepps j3pipercub, a missed approach must be conducted.........

I would REALLY like you to show me where that is in the JEPPS...

j3

[The Green Goblin]

In the original question, a straight in approach was being conducted, and a landing could not 'effected', and he was BELOW the circling minima, therefore in your quote from the Jepps j3pipercub, a missed approach must be conducted.........

At night yes, during the day no.

I hope you guys are not METAs teaching this crap!

And yes if you were in an A380 it's probably not a good idea to circle around Sydney below the MDA during the day.......however the regs will allow you to do it by day!

[Monopole]

Simple J3supercub, you said it yourself A missed approach must be executed if:


Quote:
d. a landing cannot be effected from a runway approach, unless a circling approach can be conducted in weather conditions equal to or better than those specified for circling
The conditions specified for circling are on the chart. In the case of Johnny_56 example it is x.x vis and 1600'. Just because you are allowed to decend to the OCA in day, does not mean you are allowed to do so and circle in conditions less then the circling minima. The circling minima is 1600' and the cloud base is 1350' in this example.
It amazes me how many people have difficulty with this simple process. :ugh::ugh:

[The Green Goblin]

Simple J3supercub, you said it yourself
Quote:
A missed approach must be executed if:


Quote:
d. a landing cannot be effected from a runway approach, unless a circling approach can be conducted in weather conditions equal to or better than those specified for circling
The conditions specified for circling are on the chart. In the case of Johnny_56 example it is x.x vis and 1600'. Just because you are allowed to decend to the OCA in day, does not mean you are allowed to do so and circle in conditions less then the circling minima. The circling minima is 1600' and the cloud base is 1350' in this example.
It amazes me how many people have difficulty with this simple process.

Conditions meaning VISIBILITY

It amazes me how many people have difficulty with this simple process.

Back at ya son!

Lets also think of this from an operational perspective, you are visual at 1300 feet however a tad high to land or you notice another aeroplane enter the runway. You would be pretty dopey to conduct a missed approach back into the soup and risk not getting in and diverting when you can circle around and maneuver as low 300 AGL if required. Personally I would just maintain the MDA and circle to land.

[desmotronic]

Yes you can Johnny, common sense as it was intended despite what pin heads and anal retentives might say.. if you can see the obstacles you only need OCA.

Now compare the viz requirements and MDA's for straight in v's circling...

eg.. consider you are making straight in approach and at the straight in MDA with sufficient visibility to circle but not land straight in...:E

[Monopole]

It might say maintain specified visibility along the intended flight path or whatever, but the conditions to perform a circling approach as depicted on the charts also include cloud base............. Lets also think of this from an operational perspective, you are visual at 1300 feet however a tad high to land or you notice another aeroplane enter the runway. You would be pretty dopey to conduct a missed approach back into the soup and risk not getting in and diverting when you can circle around and maneuver as low 300 AGL if required I'll rather look dope then be dead. If you are too high to land from a RWY aligned approach then a landing cannot be effected, and in my opinion, neither can you circle to land because you are in condition below the circling minima.

[Ando1Bar]

I'm with j3 and GG.

Monopole etc., so you're telling us that you've just completed an instrument approach down to the runway approach minima. You stopped descending, still in cloud, at the MDA, but prior to the MAP you break visual too close to the runway to land i.e. 'a landing cannot be effected'. Despite the fact you are visual, clear of cloud and can see the runway, you're going to now conduct a missed approach and attempt the whole thing again?

The rest of us are going to circle, going as low as 300ft above obstacles (not comfortable, I know) and land on the runway we initially intended to.

Obviously I can't do this as night, I'd need to climb to the circling MDA if I wanted to now circle (which is unlikely as it would most likely put me in to cloud again).

What about airports like Kingaroy (only one that comes to mind, I'm sure there are plenty of others across the country)? The only approach (excluding RNAV) is the NDB rwy-16 (runway aligned). Based on some people's theories it might be impossible to use the airport if wind conditions did not allow a landing on 16. Or how about the RFDS pilot coming in to land, breaks visual at night at 2500ft but is too high or unable to land straight ahead for whatever reason. What's to stop him now circling above the MDA of 2470? Missed approach? I don't think so.

Be careful with opting to do conduct a circling approach in this manor. Many ops procedures will preclude you from doing anything other than what you have briefed.

Then brief your circling options.

Some will argue that you could just brief that you will circle if you cant land straight in but most check and trainers will tell you this is not acceptable.


WTF? Really?


Late addition:
I'll rather look dope then be dead. If you are too high to land from a RWY aligned approach then a landing cannot be effected, and in my opinion, neither can you circle to land because you are in condition below the circling minima.

You are visual despite being below the circling minima. Just land the plane.

If in your example you mean you are still in cloud or the viz doesn't allow circling then speak up.

[Monopole]

Ando, well yes, unfortunately that is what I am saying based on what I have learnt (theory and experience). It aint a very big jet plane I am flying, but I sure as hell will not be circling at the OCA regardless of the weather conditions.

[j3pipercub]

It aint a very big jet plane I am flying, but I sure as hell will not be circling at the OCA regardless of the weather conditions.

That's nice, but what you would or wouldn't do has no bearing on the regs.

I am sorry that you are unable to see the regs for how they were written.

It might say maintain specified visibility along the intended flight path or whatever, but the conditions to perform a circling approach as depicted on the charts also include cloud base.............

Yes, and this is correct during the hours of night. However, during hours of daylight there is the condition of descent below the minima.

[Ando1Bar]

It aint a very big jet plane I am flying, but I sure as hell will not be circling at the OCA regardless of the weather conditions.

If you're circling at OCA it's a pretty farked up day and you've had to descend lower then the straight-in MDA to do so (most likely situation could be low cloud patches in the circuit). But based on the above posts you're ruling out any circling below the circling minima, which in most cases is anything up to 700 or 800 feet above ground level. We turn base every day at 500ft, it's not that scary flying so low.

Circling at OCA is an option available to you, nothing says you must circle this low.

Not a personal attack at you Monopole, but boy I've read some crap on this forum this afternoon. The circuit shape thread is a hoot.

[Monopole]

Not a personal attack at you Monopole, but boy I've read some crap on this forum this afternoon. The circuit shape thread is a hoot I know its not Ando. A healthy debate may have me (or you guys) seeing it a little bit of differant light.

But considering that I
a) do not have the jepps in front of me and
b) about to settle down for a few beers,

Im going to walk away from this topic until latter. I may even go over to the other thread, have a giggle and lighten up a touch. :ok:

[j3pipercub]

b) about to settle down for a few beers

lucky bugger :ok:

[AerocatS2A]

The conditions specified for circling are on the chart. In the case of Johnny_56 example it is x.x vis and 1600'. Just because you are allowed to decend to the OCA in day, does not mean you are allowed to do so and circle in conditions less then the circling minima. The circling minima is 1600' and the cloud base is 1350' in this example.


(My bolding.) That's dead wrong. The rules actually imply that you may only descend below the MDA by day if the cloud base forces you to do so.


Note 2. The pilot should maintain the maximum practical obstacle clearance...

"The maximum practical obstacle clearance." That means that if the cloud base allows you to fly at the MDA then you should maintain the MDA. The rule allows you to descend by day visually if the cloud base requires it, it does not allow you to descend below the MDA just because you feel like it. Therefore if you are using this clause the cloud base must be below the MDA which means that the conditions are, by your reading, less than the circling minima, yet you are not conducting a missed approach, you are circling with visual reference to obstacles and maintaining at least the min obstacle clearance.

[Icarus2001]

So WHERE does one find the critical obstruction information so that we can descend below the circling minima to the magical 300' above obstructions?

Anyone?

[Checkboard]

Despite the fact you are visual, clear of cloud and can see the runway, you're going to now conduct a missed approach and attempt the whole thing again?

The rest of us are going to circle, going as low as 300ft above obstacles (not comfortable, I know) and land on the runway we initially intended to.

It's called the professional responsibility of a pilot to obey the law. If you descended below the charted circling minima while still in cloud, became visual at a lower level, and then proceeded to circle with me as a passenger, I would have very strong words with you on the ground (should we make it) and file a report. :mad:

What about airports like Kingaroy (only one that comes to mind, I'm sure there are plenty of others across the country)? The only approach (excluding RNAV) is the NDB rwy-16 (runway aligned). Based on some people's theories it might be impossible to use the airport if wind conditions did not allow a landing on 16.

If the only approach is a runway aligned approach - and there is no charted circling minima - then you may definitely NOT use this approach to the runway minima and then circle. In this instance, circling is prohibited.

There is a world of difference in (by day) being permitted to descend slightly below the cloud base, to ensure that you can remain visual while circling and maintaining visual obstacle clearance, and making up your own minimum cloud base based on a visual appreciation of 300 feet. :eek:

If this has failed to convince you - consider this: this only matters in two instances
When you fail your IFR renewal by attempting to kill your examiner
When you crash, survive, and the judge is examining what THEY think "equal to or better than those specified for circling" is!


Good luck in trying to convince the judge that the Black & White printed minima in front of him are NOT "those specified", and your made-up-on-the-day "I can see the ground" conditions are. :hmm:

NB: In a jet, the question is moot, as the aircraft is configured in the landing configuration (ie landing flap) for a runway approach, and is thus not able to safely circle.

[Artificial Horizon]

This is a bit of a spurious question really, if you start the approach intending to ustilise a circling approach the you should NOT descend below the circling minima. Once you have tracked to the MAPT at the circling minima if you are not visual then a missed approach should be executed. If you are using a straight in runway aligned approach with a lower minima then you must be using this as conditions are suitable for a landing on that runway. In my opinion what you can't do is use the straight in minima purely as a basis to aloow descent below the circling minima knowing full well that you intend to circle.

Jepps state:

When daylight exists and obstacles can be seen, the pilot has the option of descending from MDA from any position within the circling area while maintaining an obstacle clearance not less that that require for the aircraft performance

In the case of CAT AB aircraft this is 300' (Jepp TERM 3.13.3).

So, if you are intending to circle then you must use the circling MDA and not below until you are visual, if you are then within the circling area and have to descend to maintain visual contact you MAY do so, but only during the day and maintaining the 300' clearance. If you use the straight in minima below the circling minima and consequently get visual and decide you can't land on that runway and then decide to circle using the above rule you could well find yourself with a bit of explaining to do if anything goes wrong. If this was truely a valid way of doing things then why have a circling minima during daylight operations anyway. Why not just use a minima 300' higher that the highest obstacle and be done with it. I suspect this was not the intention of this little note in JEPP's (to allow descent below the circling MDA before you are visual)

[MyNameIsIs]

It's a tricky one.

Like a few 'regulations' out there it can be open to interpretation- obvious by the differing opinions here!

I can read the circling situation and understand both sides of the situation.

But I feel like I copped too much crap for stating what I thought could be done in another thread (unrelated) so I won't bother offering my opinion here! Too many people who know everything and what they say is the only way. (Good on ya Proon!)


I have my mind made up on what I would be doing and I'm happy to back that up when and if challenged in a real situation.


eg.. consider you are making straight in approach and at the straight in MDA with sufficient visibility to circle but not land straight in...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif
desmo, I recall reading somewhere on the reasons behind the circling vis being less than the straight in... I should go find it, makes for good conversation.

[john_tullamarine]

So WHERE does one find the critical obstruction information so that we can descend below the circling minima to the magical 300' above obstructions?

As I've done in the past for running RTOW/RLW tables, ask the guy who designed the procedure. Even then, some of the design assessments are not as precise as I might desire to go off swanning around at low level in poor visibility ... but, then again, I am a fairly conservative sort of chap.

[Icarus2001]

Thanks John, I think you have helped make my point. Many pilots seem to think that they can rely on the obstructions shown on the aerodrome chart and just add 300' to the highest one.

Jeppesen Advise: Some, but not all, terrain high points and man-made structures are depicted, along with their elevation above mean sea level. THIS INFORMATION DOES NOT ASSURE CLEARANCE ABOVE OR AROUND THE TERRAIN OR MAN-MADE STRUCTURES AND MUST NOT BE RELIED ON FOR DESCENT BELOW THE MINMUM ALTITUDES DICTATED BY THE APPROACH PROCEDURE. Generally, terrain high points and man-made structures less than 400 feet above airport elevation are not depicted.

Ref: Jepp Intro 107. Their capitalisation.

So where do you find the critical obstruction to add 300' to?

Unless like John above you have access to the airport survey documents you cannot know this information and therefore it is simply best guess to add 300' to the highest point shown on the chart.

Mmmmmmmmmmm

[Ando1Bar]

It's called the professional responsibility of a pilot to obey the law. If you descended below the charted circling minima while still in cloud, became visual at a lower level, and then proceeded to circle with me as a passenger, I would have very strong words with you on the ground (should we make it) and file a report

I never spoke about busting MDAs, simply descending to the straight-in MDA. I welcome your filed report - I have discussed it with CASA folk (I'm waiting for the sniggers). I have obeyed the law.


A missed approach must be executed if:


Quote:
d. a landing cannot be effected from a runway approach, unless a circling approach can be conducted in weather conditions equal to or better than those specified for circling


I know were going around in circles, but...

I'm now below the cloud base due to flying the intended runway-aligned approach. Cloud is no longer an issue. I have more than the required visibility, which is usually around 2.4km (Cat B). As long as I now stay out of cloud, maintain visual contact with the runway environment, stay out of the circling area and maintain a minimum of 300feet about obstacles I can now circle to land.

If the cloud or viz did not allow me to maintain visual contact with the runway there is no way I'd be circling below the circling MDA.

Thanks John, I think you have helped make my point. Many pilots seem to think that they can rely on the obstructions shown on the aerodrome chart and just add 300' to the highest one.

I for one don't. It is a guide, which when combined with local knowledge and a mark-one eyeball allows you to avoid hitting something.

[desmotronic]

Icarus,
So where do you find the critical obstruction to add 300' to?

Who says you have to be 300' above a critical obstacle if you are visual and dont fly over it?

Artificial horizon,
This is a bit of a spurious question really, if you start the approach intending to ustilise a circling approach the you should NOT descend below the circling minima...In my opinion what you can't do is use the straight in minima purely as a basis to aloow descent below the circling minima knowing full well that you intend to circle.

Nothing spurious about the question except your opinion. Opinions are like assholes.. everybody has one.. Quote a reference to support your opinion !!

Checkboard,
It's called the professional responsibility of a pilot to obey the law. If you descended below the charted circling minima while still in cloud, became visual at a lower level, and then proceeded to circle with me as a passenger, I would have very strong words with you on the ground (should we make it) and file a report.

Report what? Which law is being broken??

When daylight exists and obstacles can be seen, the
pilot has the option of descending from MDA from any position within
the circling area while maintaining an obstacle clearance not
less than that required for the aircraft performance category.


1.7.3 During visual circling or during a NPA, descent below the MDA
may only occur when the pilot:
a. maintains the aircraft within the circling area; and
b. maintains a visibility, along the intended flight path, not less
than the minimum specified on the chart for the procedure; and
c. maintains visual contact with the landing runway environment
(ie, the runway threshold or approach lighting or other
markings identifiable with the runway);
and either
d. by night or day, while complying with a., b. and c. (at an altitude
not less than the MDA), intercepts a position on the downwind,
base or final leg of the landing traffic pattern, and, from this
position, can complete a continuous descent to the landing
threshold using rates of descent and flight manoeuvres which
are normal for the aircraft type and, during this descent, maintains
an obstacle clearance along the flight path not less than
the minimum for the aircraft performance category until the aircraft
is aligned with the landing runway;
or
e. in daylight only, while complying with a., b. and c., maintains visual
contact with obstacles along the intended flight path and
an obstacle clearance not less than the minimum for the aircraft
performance category until the aircraft is aligned with the landing
runway.


Which part of this do you guys not understand?

[das Uber Soldat]

Then why have a circling minima at all?

You could just fly the runway aligned approach down to its better minima, and if visual off that, circle in the day with your 300/400 feet. Are you telling me that I could fly an ILS down to visual @ 300 feet, then break off and circle (assuming 0 ground elevation and no obstacles)?

The regs in that section make a distinction between night and day for all other aspects of the visual approach and descent below the MDA. This particular reg doesn't however, strongly inferring that there isn't one. Whilst a CASA FOI certainly isn't the final authority on this, I asked this question yesterday and got the response I expected.

As the reg says, unless the landing can be affected from conditions equal to or better than the circling minima, a missed approach must be conducted. And by conditions, all conditions. Vis and cloud base. I understand that common sense suggests otherwise.

And for the love of god keep the self righteous abuse of others with a differing opinion to yourselves. I know we all like to think we are the final authority on everything aviation but its unnecessary.

[Car RAMROD]

To throw another cat amongst the pigeons:

1.7.3 During visual circling or during a NPA, descent below the MDA may only occur when the pilot:


Think about that. If you've become visual @ the straight-in MDA (which is below the circling MDA) and decide to circle, then you technically have busted 1.7.3 as you descended below the circling MDA before becoming visual (and subsequently before meeting the requirements of the rest of the paragraph) and commencing the circling approach itself.


But if after becoming visual at the S-I MDA, I see no practical reason why you shouldn't be able to circle for another runway if you meet the rest of the requirements, afterall you are visual.
Technicalities :ugh:

[j3pipercub]

I'm with Ando in regards to maintaining the 300ft. If you don't have and IFR GPS ir DME then you have to eyeball a circling area...

I had about half a page written here, but I doubt it will change anyone's mind who is convinced to the opposite.

One thing I am sure of though. If any other pilot was to approach me and tell me that I was breaking the rules or to have 'words' with me would get several 'words' in return.

[das Uber Soldat]

disregard.

[desmotronic]

Then why have a circling minima at all?


For operations at night.

[das Uber Soldat]

So by day on the ILS, you'd fly down visual at 300 feet, then just circle around on that?

[apache]

So by day on the ILS, you'd fly down visual at 300 feet, then just circle around on that?


you wouldn't!


but you could :)

[john_tullamarine]

Many pilots seem to think that they can rely on the obstructions shown on the aerodrome chart and just add 300' to the highest one.

Brave (and, I think, a little foolish) pilots, indeed -

(a) not ALL relevant heights will be shown on such charts, necessarily. I can recall one or two celebrated examples where an aid box detail then overlaid the critical obstacle so it disappeared from the chart .. go figure.

(b) do consider the accuracy of any heights so identified .. if you are relying on such heights to be accurate to a foot or two, you might be in for a surprise

(c) terrain spot heights are just that and don't include surrounding vegetation .. some of those trees can be both tall and solid ... they'll win out every time over an aircraft ..

(d) if the chart design gets it right for cultural obstructions, well and good .. but the number of obstacle detail screwups we've seen in Australian charts over the years is a concern

(e) the guys who run up the designs start with available data and end up doing a series of flight checks at the relevant procedure heights. The terrain data nominated may not be a guarantee but, if you stay at circling height within the radii prescribed, you have a VERY good chance of NOT hitting anything hard, midairs notwithstanding.

(f) me, come below circling height ? Not on your Nellie... but, that's just my view. Getting in just isn't that important .. we can always come back for another looksee a bit later on. Accidents at Young come the mind ?

(g) if someone wants to use 300ft, fine, but do your OWN homework on the REAL obstacles as a due diligence exercise.

Unless like John above you have access to the airport survey documents

Getting copies of published data is not a difficult exercise and is open to any operator to do so. What I did, when considered necessary or appropriate, was actually speak with the specific procedure designer to find out what obstacle details he/she used in the design of the chart.

[desmotronic]

john,
The aircraft at young crashed at night 275 ft above airfield elevation. :confused:

[Captain Sand Dune]

There are rules and there’s common sense. Both don’t always line up.

In my opinion the rules give you the option to do what j3 (I’m not really a fighter pilot mate!) and Ando suggest – but would you always want to?!

AIP specifically states that the spot heights on the IALs do not necessarily indicate what’s out there. This is where research and local knowledge come in. There are three airfields into which I fly nearly every day. I reckon I know those airfields and their surrounds very well. Therefore I would be comfortable descending to 300FT above obstacles by day if I had to.

If I was operating into an unfamiliar airfield I would do some research as suggested by JT, but do you always have the time and/or the access to the information? Probably not. Therefore unless the conditions were quite clear below the cloud deck thus allowing me to see any potential obstacles in good time, I wouldn’t descend below circling MDA even by day.

In terms of the original scenario my decision would depend on my familiarity with the said airfield and whether it was day or night.
Day, and familiar with the airfield: Provided I am happy that I can meet the visibility and obstacle clearance requirements, I would continue for a circling approach.
Night, and familiar with the airfield: I can’t descend below circling MDA until on final at night, and I’m already below circling MDA. In this case I would fly the missed approach. (The Young prang is what precipitated the change in the rules for circling at night.)
Day or night and unfamiliar with the airfield: Missed approach.

And if you haven’t considered fuel for an alternate given those conditions regardless what the rules say - good luck to you!

[Tinstaafl]

Capt S D, I disagree with your statement that you can't descent below MDA at night until on final. The rules specify that at night the MDA must be maintained until the normal approach profile is intercepted. Depending on MDA that intercept can also occur on base or even downwind.

W.r.t the situation of reaching the Straight In MDA and deciding to circle instead of making a missed, I'm of the opinion that both vis & cloud must meet the circling minima for that approach to use the circling procedure - not the SI minima. If it's daytime and I can maintain at least 300' and the weather meets circling minima then I'd circle. I would also climb as much as conditions allow.

If it was at night then I'd commence the missed approach. During the missed if the circling requirements re Wx minima, MDA *and* still in sight of the approach end of the runway then I'd consider circling. Depends on why I couldn't complete the straight in approach. Was I a bit late descending so too high on final to continue or was the runway still occupied or similar?

Both cases presume there isn't a 'no circling' limitation that gets in the way. I always brief the circling procedure if I have any doubt about the approach, even for a straight in. Part of that includes considering how to change from straight in to a circling approach.

[judgee]

The only time this scenario would be a problem is if it were night time, and you could either perform a missed approach or climb to the MDA for circling and only descend when you have intercepted the normal approach path which would usually be around base or final. Therefore climb to MDA on the inbound course and once in the circling area join a normal circuit until you intercept the normal descent profile. But as you said you only get visual at 1350ft so you would climb straight back into cloud on your way to the circling MDA, so it would not be possible at night.


So my answer would be during the day, yes. During the night no. Also the aim is to get down to the MDA as quick as possible so if your high then youve completed a poor approach.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Capt S D, I disagree with your statement that you can't descent below MDA at night until on final. The rules specify that at night the MDA must be maintained until the normal approach profile is intercepted. Depending on MDA that intercept can also occur on base or even downwind.

Ummm......yeah....so do I!! Good to see someone spotted the intentional error...:\

[AerocatS2A]

In the original post, you're essentially using the S-I MDA to allow descent in IMC to a circling altitude below the circling MDA. In my opinion this is against the spirit of the rule allowing you to descend below the MDA by day. You may descend below the circling MDA if you can maintain obstacle clearance visually, but in the OPs hypothetical you are descending below the circling MDA in IMC. So, as I read it, as long as you start out at the circling MDA and are visual you can then descend below it if the conditions require and you can maintain the obstacle clearance, but I wouldn't be prepared to stand up in court and defend my actions if I'd descended to the S-I MDA in IMC and then circled.

[Mainframe]

Johnny 56

Suggest you pull the ATSB report for Monarch Air PA31 VH-NDU and have a good read. At the inquest much was made of a faulty auto pilot. Fact was that the aircraft was 2 crewed and made it to the Young airport, only to crunch it while circling at low altitude at night.

here's a summary:

On Friday 11 June 1993, at about 1918 EST, Piper PA31-350 Navajo Chieftain aircraft,
VH-NDU, while on a right base leg for a landing approach to runway 01 in conditions
of low cloud and darkness, struck trees at a height of 275 feet above the elevation of
the aerodrome at Young, New South Wales, and crashed. The aircraft, which was
being operated as Monarch Airlines flight OB301 on a regular public transport service
from Sydney to Young, was destroyed by impact forces and post crash fire. All seven
occupants, including the two pilots, suffered fatal injuries.
The investigation found that the circumstances of the accident were consistent with
controlled flight into terrain. Descent below the minimum circling altitude without
adequate visual reference was the culminating factor in a combination of local
contributing factors and organisational failures. The local contributing factors included
poor weather conditions, equipment deficiencies, inadequate procedures, inaccurate
visual perception, and possible skill fatigue. Organisational failures were identified
relating to the management of the airline by the company, and the regulation and
licensing of its operations by the Civil Aviation Authority.
During the investigation a number of interim safety recommendations were issued by
the Bureau. The recommendations and responses are summarised in Section 4 of
this report.

[judgee]

"In the original post, you're essentially using the S-I MDA to allow descent in IMC to a circling altitude below the circling MDA"

I do see where you are coming from but the scenario is that you are planning a straight in approach but you are too high. No where does it say that you have to state your intentions before you commit to an approach and cannot change your mind if conditions permit.

From a practical perspective the straight in approach has been designed to allow you to track a certain course inbound to not below a specific altitude while keeping you well above any obstacles. If you are on that track and too high you should technically be in no danger. If you do become visual and the conditions meet the minima for circling (clear of cloud, can see the runway, visibility etc) then whos to say your intentions were for a circling approach in the first place.

[Centaurus]

Hot off the press in USA.

B Names Probable Cause In 2008 NC Crash


Pilot Did Not Maintain Control In Instrument Conditions


The NTSB has issued a probable cause report in the February 1st, 2008 crash of a Raytheon C90A King Air in which six people were fatally injured. The board determined that the probable cause(s) of the accident to be the pilot's failure to maintain control of the airplane in instrument meteorological conditions. Contributing to the accident were the pilot's improper decision to descend below the minimum descent altitude, and failure to follow the published missed approach procedure.


NTSB Identification: NYC08MA090
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, February 01, 2008 in Mount Airy, NC
Probable Cause Approval Date: 4/22/2010
Aircraft: RAYTHEON AIRCRAFT COMPANY C90A, registration: N57WR
Injuries: 6 Fatal.


While flying a nonprecision approach, the pilot deliberately descended below the minimum descent altitude (MDA) and attempted to execute a circle to land below the published circling minimums instead of executing the published missed approach procedure. During the circle to land, visual contact with the airport environment was lost and engine power was never increased after the airplane had leveled off. The airplane decelerated and entered an aerodynamic stall, followed by an uncontrolled descent which continued until ground impact.


Weather at the time consisted of rain, with ceilings ranging from 300 to 600 feet, and visibility remaining relatively constant at 2.5 miles in fog. Review of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) audio revealed that the pilot had displayed some non professional behavior prior to initiating the approach. Also contained on the CVR were comments by the pilot indicating he planned to descend below the MDA prior to acquiring the airport visually, and would have to execute a circling approach. Moments after stating a circling approach would be needed, the pilot received a sink rate aural warning from the enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS). After several seconds, a series of stall warnings was recorded prior to the airplane impacting terrain.


EGPWS data revealed, the airplane had decelerated approximately 75 knots in the last 20 seconds of the flight. Examination of the wreckage did not reveal any preimpact failures or malfunctions with the airplane or any of its systems.
Toxicology testing detected sertraline in the pilot's kidney and liver. Sertraline is a prescription antidepressant medication used for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and social phobia. The pilot's personal medical records indicated that he had been treated previously with two other antidepressant medications for "anxiety and depression" and a history of "impatience" and "compulsiveness." The records also documented a diagnosis of diabetes without any indication of medications for the condition, and further noted three episodes of kidney stones, most recently experiencing "severe and profound discomfort" from a kidney stone while flying in 2005. None of these conditions or medications had been noted by the pilot on prior applications for an airman medical certificate. It is not clear whether any of the pilot's medical conditions could account for his behavior or may have contributed to the accident.


FMI: National Transportation Safety Board (http://www.ntsb.gov)

Which is the priority in terms of the Australian AIP on circling approach MDA? Deliberately descending below the circling MDA at night on downwind or base in order to suit a certain aircraft profile? OR - maintaining the circling MDA at night until lined up on final within the approach obstacle clearance splay. If the latter choice puts you in a position too high for a stable approach then the solution is simple - go around and if necessary divert.

[MilPilot]

e. in daylight only, while complying with a., b. and c., maintains visual
contact with obstacles along the intended flight path and
an obstacle clearance not less than the minimum for the aircraft
performance category until the aircraft is aligned with the landing
runway.

Just because you are allowed to fly lower than circling MDA doesn't change the fact that you need ceiling and visibility in order to shoot the approach if you are cirling.

[desmotronic]

johnny,


What mainframe didnt tell you is that the aircraft at Young was being operated with no RMI, no HSI, no autopilot and no AH on the pilots side with the R/H seat occupied by an unpaid and unqualified pilot. He descended at night to 275' above airfield elevation which given the geography guaranteed loss of visual reference and an accident. 2 other aircraft made safe & successful circling approaches at about the same time.

What centaurus didnt tell you about the accident at Mt Airy is that the pilot not only had a history of serious mental issues, had an unqualified pilot 'assisting' him with the instrument approach, had less than 400 hrs in command of any aircraft, was flying a kingair c90 in icing conditions, and was maintaining 100' above the circling minima in daylight about 5000m viz when he reentered cloud lost visual reference. Shortly after he lost situational awareness in imc, and after 2 gpw's stalled and crashed. After a review of the 'unprofessional' conversation on the cvr during the approach one could be forgiven thinking he was in the midst of a full blown psychotic episode and also was an utterly incompetent i/f pilot which is not suprising given his experience.

You might ask yourself what either of these incidents have to do with legally circling below circling mda in vsual conditions as any professional pilot worth his salt should be able to do.

Milpilot,
This is not america nor europe. You might have better luck in the fragrant harbour wannabes forum.

[43Inches]

Which is the priority in terms of the Australian AIP on circling approach MDA? Deliberately descending below the circling MDA at night on downwind or base in order to suit a certain aircraft profile? OR - maintaining the circling MDA at night until lined up on final within the approach obstacle clearance splay.

AIP ENR 1.5-1.7.2


Before commencing an instrument approach, pilots should familiarise themselves with the location and altitude of obstacles in the circling area by studying an appropriate topographic map.


Then you can, AIP ENR 1.5 1.7.3


Note 1: The concept is as follows:


(1) The pilot maintains visual contact with the landing runway while the aircraft is circled at MDA to a position within the traffic pattern that intercepts a normal downwind, base or final approach. If the MDA is above the downwind height, the aircraft maintains MDA and downwind spacing until it reaches a position from which it can descend at normal approach rates to join base


However in the actual rule section note that you must maintain minimum obstacle clearance until established on final (within the aerodrome OLS). This would be using your personal obstacle knowledge gained from the topographical survey (local knowledge).

Unfortunately VH-NDU crashed under the old rules which did not specify which terrain you had to have visual (eg along the flight path) and you could descend to minimum obstacle clearance at any time once within the circling area, night included.

A full read of the report including the CASA discusion toward the end is enlightening. At one point BASI recomends not descending below circling MDA at night until aligned with the runway OLS, but this is not the current rule. Assuming you are not familiar with obstacles within the area then apply;

maintaining the circling MDA at night until lined up on final within the approach obstacle clearance splay. If the latter choice puts you in a position too high for a stable approach then the solution is simple - go around and if necessary divert.


During daylight operations with regard to the original question you may;


(2) When daylight exists and obstacles can be seen, the pilot has the option of descending from MDA from any position within the circling area while maintaining an obstacle clearance not less than that required for the aircraft performance category.


However is this a safe option? No, unless you are very, very, very familiar with local terrain and even then there can be surprises.

And don't forget the last note;


Note 2. The pilot should maintain the maximum practical obstacle clearance.

[Baldnfat]

If you have to ask that sort of question now, it may be worth your while to do a decision making course before you try it out.

[AerocatS2A]

Which is the priority in terms of the Australian AIP on circling approach MDA? Deliberately descending below the circling MDA at night on downwind or base in order to suit a certain aircraft profile? OR - maintaining the circling MDA at night until lined up on final within the approach obstacle clearance splay. If the latter choice puts you in a position too high for a stable approach then the solution is simple - go around and if necessary divert.

Centaurus, I'd say the priority is the former. Consider this. The Cat B circling area is 2.66 miles from the threshold, an aircraft flying at 120 knots has a turning radius of about 1.2nm. IF you managed to use all of the available circling area you MIGHT manage to roll out on a 1.5 mile final. How high should you be at 1.5 nm? About 450'. How many aerodromes do you know of that have a circling MDA of 450'? Even if you have a lowish MDA of 600' you are still going to have to commence a descent in the latter part of the base turn if you want to be on profile. At the other extreme take somewhere like Cairns where the circling MDA is something like 1500'. There is simply no way you can circle from 1500' without descending on downwind.

Now if you can't make a normal descent and landing on a normal circuit profile in the circling area because there's an obstacle on base or late downwind then it should be a no-circling area.

So yes, the priority is to descend on downwind or base when you intercept your normal descent profile, that is what the AIP says, that is what they want you to do, it is the safe way. If you don't know what's underneath you then you shouldn't be circling.

I know you're very experienced but I do wonder how long it has been since you did a circling approach at night in a Cat B aircraft.

[Mainframe]

Hi Desmotronic,

I didn't with hold information, as the report is 93 pages long, I did invite reading the full report.

My main point was that circling at night carries a higher risk (than a runway aligned approach).

Again much was made of many unsatisfactory operating procedures and equipment at the inquest, and your informed comment:

What mainframe didnt tell you is that the aircraft at Young was being operated with no RMI, no HSI, no autopilot and no AH on the pilots side with the R/H seat occupied by an unpaid and unqualified pilot.

Despite these deficiencies, the aircraft was successfully navigated from Sydney to Young,
managed an instrument approach, then CFIT while circling at low level at night.

The Altimeters were serviceable, and the HSI, RMI, Autopilot and pilot's AI were unserviceable.

The aircraft did not crash because of the known unserviceabilities.

It crashed into terrain while circling at low level at night.

A runway aligned approach, be it NDB, VOR, or these days GPS RNAV) offer safer solutions than circling at night.

Circling to land off an instrument approach at night at or near the MDA requires intimate knowledge of the environs. It is a higher risk procedure.

In RPT operations CAR 217 requires route checking and airport checking to
minimise any knowledge or procedural gaps of the intended route and airport.

In Charter, SOP's may also apply, and a chief pilot may brief, or the pilot may self brief.

In private ops the pilot self briefs by careful preflight planning and applying that knowledge in the approach.

Flying into Thangool at night, for example, can surprise with a large hill in the circuit, Gayndah has surprises as well.

Most Ppruners know of Instrument Approaches that could be challenging at night in bad weather.

If planning to conduct an instrument approach at night to an unfamiliar airport, homework needs to be done.

Especially determining if a runway aligned approach exists,
to minimise the risk of circling at night in bad weather
in area often devoid of extensive ground lighting.

[Capn Bloggs]

Mainframe,
The Altimeters were serviceable, and the HSI, RMI, Autopilot and pilot's AI were unserviceable.

The aircraft did not crash because of the known unserviceabilities.

You've gotta be joking?! Don't you think an AI in front of you, whilst conducting a night circling approach, would have made life easier ie improved safety?

That flight was a cockup going somewhere to an accident site. To imply none of the unserviceabilities or crew quals had anything to do with the accident beggars belief.

[43Inches]

There is also suggestions in the VH-NDU report which hint at additional problems which lacked factual evidence due to the damage caused on impact.

1. The first two or three attempts which resulted in missed approaches were all conducted with the PAL lights off, it appears the other aircraft turned them on as they arrived later.

2. The altimeter settings found after the accident were about 3-4 Hpa above the local, meaning they were over-reading (the aircraft was lower than indicated), however BASI can not conclude whether the settings moved on impact or were set in flight.

3. Once visual the aircraft made a series of confusing manuevres over the aerodrome in which BASI speculate he may have had a gear problem.

The last may also have been partly due to disorientation with the lack of proper instrumentation, but nothing that can be proven as fact.

I do agree that this accident does prove how unforgiving low level operations at night can be. The crew had stacked up a wall of pressure against them at the end and pushed on into a bad situation.

Circling approaches are safe if you stack things in your favour with prior research planning and currency. If you just turn up and expect to just fly one into an unfamiliar port in an aircraft with unserviceable IFR equipment at minima, then one day it will catch you out.

[PA39]

:ok: The Young incident was why the "regulator" had a good look at/and changed the approach procedures at night. The guys didn't "know" the hill was there.

[Centaurus]

Circling at night. I wonder how many pilots have their WAC series map spread out over the cockpit and actually read them to ensure obstacle or terrain clearance.

[bentleg]

Circling at night. I wonder how many pilots have their WAC series map spread out over the cockpit and actually read them to ensure obstacle or terrain clearance.

:confused:

The research should be done beforehand as part of the planning process.

[Tee Emm]

The research should be done beforehand as part of the planning process.Makes you wonder why Air Services chart designers would spend all that money and effort publishing various circling MDA minima for different categories of aircraft when all the pilot has to do is study his WAC chart beforehand as part of the planning process and calculate his own MDA.

[Mainframe]

Capn Bloggs

You've gotta be joking?! Don't you think an AI in front of you, whilst conducting a night circling approach, would have made life easier ie improved safety?

That flight was a cockup going somewhere to an accident site. To imply none of the unserviceabilities or crew quals had anything to do with the accident beggars belief.

I think you missed the point. There were numerous shortcomings with the aircraft and the operator.
With all of the deficiencies noted, they had already conducted 2 missed approaches and flew into terrain while manoeuvering to land.

The AI was not cited as a cause in the report (the aircraft had 2, the captain's was U/S).

I do not condone the culture which led to the accident.

I merely used it as an example of the extra risks associated with circling approaches to land at night.

Heavy RPT normally do not conduct night circling approaches, opting instead for runway aligned approaches.
You may remember a Gulf Air A320 coming to grief at night circa 2000.

here are the links to a couple of fatals that occurred during night circling approaches.

This is the report for the Chieftain at Young, 1993
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1993/AAIR/pdf/aair199301743_001.pdf

This is the report for the Chieftain at King Island, 1996
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1996/AAIR/pdf/ASOR199600399.pdf

searching will find others in Australia and the NTSB database also has many examples.

This thread was started by Johynny 56 who sought opinion and comment about circling at night off an approach.

My stance is that pilots must recognise that a night circling approach carries additional risks compared to a runway aligned approach.

I think I have provided some factual information from government archives that supports this.

There are very few new types of accidents available to pilots who wish to challenge Lady Luck.
Our job is perhaps to help remind them about ones which have already occurred and of which they know nothing.

[43Inches]

Makes you wonder why Air Services chart designers would spend all that money and effort publishing various circling MDA minima for different categories of aircraft when all the pilot has to do is study his WAC chart beforehand as part of the planning process and calculate his own MDA.


You are not calculating your own MDA but ensuring obstacle clearance once descent is commenced to land, from the MDA.

The problem also lies within the differences between the Obstacle Limit Surfaces (OLS, CASA aerodrome requirements) and chart design (PANS-OPS).

If an aerodrome has only a circling procedure the only additional obstacle clearance governed below it is within the OLS for the aerordrome.

If we look at a cat B aircraft flying into a code 2 aerodrome (which is the minimum requirement for RPT below 5700kg) we find some holes in the coverage.

Cat B aircraft circling area is up to 4900m for the runway;

The code 2 runway requires an obstacle approach clear gradient only out to 2500m for the approach ends and a inner horizontal splay out to a max of 3500m (npa approach) around the runway. .

The PANS-OPS circling splay guarantees you obstacle clearance above the MDA but what happens when you want to descend? You are on your own!

The further away from the runway you get even lined up with it you may not be safe for descent, unless you know exactly where the obstacles are. Some approaches may be circling only because of an obstacle in the normal approach path (outside 2500m).

[desmotronic]

Mainframe,

I think you missed the point. Johnny specifically asked about daylight circling approaches in vmc and if he could circle from the straight in mda. The answer is still yes.

In regards to the airworthiness of the aircraft at Young please refer to CAO 20.18 10.1 below. No way was that aircraft safe or legal.

10 Serviceability
10.1 In the case of a charter or regular public transport aircraft, all instruments and
equipment fitted to the aircraft must be serviceable before take-off, unless:
(a) flight with unserviceable instruments or equipment has been approved by CASA,
subject to such conditions as CASA specifies; or
(b) the unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in the minimum
equipment list for the aircraft and any applicable conditions under subregulation
37 (2) of the Regulations have been complied with; or
(c) CASA has approved the flight with the unserviceable instrument or equipment
and any applicable conditions that CASA has specified in writing have been
complied with; or
(d) the unserviceable instrument or equipment is a passenger convenience item only
and does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft.

[Mainframe]

Desmo,

Point taken, he did state circling by day, not night.

Night circling off an approach in marginal weather is a completely different game,
and hopefully Johnny will take into account my mistake in mentioning night circling and maybe add it to his store of knowledge anyway.

No argument that the aircraft was definitely unsafe and did not even meet the minimum requirements for IFR RPT.

[das Uber Soldat]

Finally got through to CASA on this issue. Turns out I was wrong.

A visual circuit can be conducted below visual circling minima after a landing cannot be conducted off a S-1 as long as the requirements for descent below MDA are met (in the day).

Apologies for providing incorrect advice.

[The Green Goblin]

Finally got through to CASA on this issue. Turns out I was wrong.

A visual circuit can be conducted below visual circling minima after a landing cannot be conducted off a S-1 as long as the requirements for descent below MDA are met (in the day).

Apologies for providing incorrect advice.

At least you're man enough to eat your humble pie :ok:

I've circled off a runway approach many times below the circling height (although above 300 AGL) when there is only an approach onto one runway and the downwind was unacceptable to land on that particular runway, with the reciprocal runway being the better choice.

[The Green Goblin]

You can't take the 300ft obstacle clearance for granted if you circle at the straight in MDA, ( ex: Albury )
I think any one doing this has rocks in their head,

Everybody agrees with that.

If you planned to do the runway approach by day, got visual but couldn't land, then provided you could maintain the runway in sight with the required visibility and maintained obstacle clearance there is nothing stopping you from circling.

I'd be pretty hesitant to do it in anything bigger than a 10 seat cabin twin however.

[Monopole]

A visual circuit can be conducted below visual circling minima after a landing cannot be conducted off a S-1 as long as the requirements for descent below MDA are met (in the day). Personally I am astounded that that is the case. But if that is the ruling than that is the ruling.

It has been said many times, that the regs need to be a little less ambiguous, and I still cant for the life of me read this particular scenario the same way as the likes of TGG.......

The argument is a mute point for me these days anyway as both my company SOPs prevent us from circling at the OCA and the aircraft configuration for a S/I approach would have you doing a missed approach at the MDA (not even at the MAP), but I still dont think I would of been happy doing it in previous types.

[The Green Goblin]

It has been said many times, that the regs need to be a little less ambiguous, and I still cant for the life of me read this particular scenario the same way as the likes of TGG.......

As I understand it there are different scenarios depending on the approach you are doing.

Conduct a GPS/DME arrival - generally the minima for the approach will be the circling minima. By day you may descend below provided you maintain the obstacle and visibility requirements and clear of cloud. At night remain at the circling MDA until you can land off a normal descent profile for your aeroplane type.

NDB/VOR - Some approaches are runway approaches and others require circling. I have noticed a lot of the circling style approaches being replaced with runway approaches such as rottnest of late. A Circling approach only has the circling minima whilst the runway approach will let you get lower due to the runway alignment. On a runway approach if you plan to circle then you must use the circling minima, if you plan to land off the approach you may use the lower minima, however by day you may circle if you are visual and satisfy the requirements. At night you would be obligated to conduct a missed approach. At night I would also be hesitant to climb to the circling minima of a runway approach if I could not land at the MDA. I would conduct a missed approach and start the process again. Perhaps in a light piston twin I would consider it, but not in a >5700 aeroplane.

ILS/LLZ - You'd raise a few eyebrows with ATC if you started circling.

GPS - Generally similar minimas to the runway VOR/NDB approaches with the same requirements.

[john_tullamarine]

Makes you wonder why Air Services chart designers would spend all that money and effort publishing various circling MDA minima for different categories of aircraft when all the pilot has to do is study his WAC chart beforehand as part of the planning process and calculate his own MDA.

I know, full well, that Tee Emm has posted a rhetorical question with a wry smile here. I know he has a good knowledge of chart realities and the fanciful optimism shown by many of the younger set. I make the experience distinction because the majority of the more experienced set are still here because they haven't stuck their necks out and taken all that many of the sillier chances available to pilots ...

However, at the expense of being boring, the problem is that none of these charts has sufficiently accurate data to stake your life on down low and dirty .. anyone who tries to use a WAC to figure hard bits down low can only be described as not very bright ... One needs to keep in mind that the procedures designer goes out and flight checks his/her chart data and that his/her initial drafting work is based on the best data available at the time ... and that, generally, is a lot better than WACs.

I wouldn't even stake my life solely on a 1:5000 detailed topo for circling - too many mistakes in the charts out there - without flying it by day first AT the desired level and examining within a reasonable radius from the aerodrome.

[AerocatS2A]

It's important to bear in mind when discussing these types of scenarios that there is the rules and there is safety and the two don't necessarily agree. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is safe in a particular set of circumstances. With everything going for you, intimate knowledge of the aerodrome, and good visibility (not just the min required), there are times when it is relatively safe to descend by day below the MDA. There are also times when it is not.

The answer to the questions "can I ... ?" and "should I ... ?" are often different and in these threads people often answer a "can I ...?" question with a "should I ...?" answer and then great discussion ensues with most of the participants talking past each other.

[john_tullamarine]

"Can I ?" is for the checkie to sign you off and provides a sound basis for "Should I ?" which is for the day to day on the line decision process.

He who considers the former to the exclusion of the latter may just come unstuck at some stage.

Such discussions here ought to look at both so that those coming up the ladder can benefit from the many very experienced folk on PPRuNe. As many have observed none of us has the time to make all the mistakes ourselves ...

[Johnny_56]

Hey guys,

Thanks for all the replies. I'm pretty new to using an instrument rating in anger and this popped up a while back and we had a few different schools of thought on the matter.

So just so i have it straight.

In day you can circle at the straight in minima (or below, so long as you have the required obstacle clearance) to land on whichever runway you want, so long as you maintain vis, clear of cloud, can see the runway environment etc.

At night you can only circle at the circling MDA, descending only when you have intercepted a point in the circuit where you can descend for a landing (or something like that - i don't have the jepps in front of me).

Thanks again, much appreciated :ok:

[Jabawocky]

Took a few pages hey!:}

[Tinstaafl]

If you decide to circle then the weather conditions also have meet the circling minima. Don't forget a precision approach can have its DH lower than the 300' minimum obstacle clearance required for circling so you may have to climb before circling.

At night off a straight-in/landing/runway approach you will have to climb to the circling MDA before circling (if the circling MDA is higher than the straight-in MDA.

[NorthSouth]

johnny_56:In day you can circle at the straight in minima (or below, so long as you have the required obstacle clearance) to land on whichever runway you want, so long as you maintain vis, clear of cloud, can see the runway environment etc.

At night you can only circle at the circling MDA, descending only when you have intercepted a point in the circuit where you can descend for a landing (or something like that - i don't have the jepps in front of me).I can't believe that's allowed in Oz. In the UK you most certainly cannot circle at the straight in minima, day or night. Take the example of a Cat 1 ILS with a DH of 200 ft, but where there's no ILS to the other end so you're flying it in a tailwind with the intention of circling to land from the other end. You get to 300 ft and see the lights. Brilliant! But the circling OCH is 395 ft because there's a 100ft mast under the downwind (Cat A/B MOC 295ft). So you climb to 400ft as you're turning off the ILS on to the downwind and very soon you find yourself in cloud. So you have to do a messy climbing go-around back towards the airfield. What's the point of that?
If the intention is to fly a circling approach it seems to me to be madness to continue descending below the circling minima, knowing that you have to climb again.
NS

[das Uber Soldat]

I think the spirit of the reg is that you must intend on actually landing on the runway associated with the runway aligned approach.

Hence, if before starting the approach you knew that the wind was not suitable to use the S-!, then you need to use the circling minima, even in the day.

Only in the situation where you expected to use runway associated with the S-1, but then were unable to for some reason once visual, would you then be able to circle at this new, lower minima providing of course that you met the descent below MDA requirements in the first place.

Speaking with CASA about the issue a while back they made it fairly clear that they would take a fairly dim view to people intentionally using the S-1 minima whilst knowingly having the intent to circle to another runway from the outset.

[Jack Ranga]

mmmmmm..........'in the spirit of'

There's no way I'd be doing anything in the spirit of what CASA intended.

I'd be listening very carefully to those who've been there and done it and surivived it and have taught it and checked it in airline ops :cool:

[das Uber Soldat]

Im not passing judgment on what is a good idea or not, what to do or how to do it. Only relaying what was told to me. Something along the lines of 'if you absolutely had the intention of landing off the S-1 on its associated runway, but found yourself at the minima and unable to land on that runway for whatever reason, then you could by day circle at this reduced minima asl ong as you met the descent below MDA criteria.'

This whole section of the regs are terribly written in the first place. In fact all the regs are terribly written, but thats a different thread.

[43Inches]

You get to 300 ft and see the lights. Brilliant! But the circling OCH is 395 ft because there's a 100ft mast under the downwind (Cat A/B MOC 295ft). So you climb to 400ft as you're turning off the ILS on to the downwind and very soon you find yourself in cloud. So you have to do a messy climbing go-around back towards the airfield. What's the point of that?
If the intention is to fly a circling approach it seems to me to be madness to continue descending below the circling minima, knowing that you have to climb again.
NS


You can not climb to achieve the minimum circling height as the AIP states;

1. That you must maintain at least minimum obstacle clearance until established on final approach (visual circling by day requirement). This means if there is an obstacle which restricts your descent you can not descend until beyond it.

2. If circling is not possible a missed approach must be commenced (missed approach requirement). If you are already below the minimum height you would require during your circle to land then you can not circle and a missed aproach must be commenced unless you can land straight-in. Once a missed approach is commenced the procedure must be completed.

[Jack Ranga]

This whole section of the regs are terribly written in the first place. In fact all the regs are terribly written, but thats a different thread.


Agree totally with you, my personal opinion, there are not that many ME-CIR Instructors that I would trust to have enough experience to teach you how to stay alive left in GA.

There are a few crusty old bastards on here, and you'll work out who they are, that may just save your skin if you listen (read) carefully to what they have to say.

(Not targetting you das, when I say 'you' I mean all of us)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

In years past, I did multiple MECIR renewals with the late Noel Bellamy, who prided himself on knowing the regs to the letter, and took great pleasure in winning the debate with any FOI foolish enough to argue about what he could and could not do in situations like this.

I would be interested to hear from any experienced instrument rated GA pilots on whether this is a real issue today or just of academic interest.

Maybe I am spoilt! Have yet to go somewhere that my TSO 145/6 Garmin 430 would not allow me to fly a straight-in approach.

Are there really professional pilots out there who don't have the option flying a GPS RNAV appr. I show my age by feeling the need to have an ADF on board, but apart from maintaining currency and for renewals - I never use it.

Dr :8

[das Uber Soldat]

2. If circling is not possible a missed approach must be commenced (missed approach requirement). If you are already below the minimum height you would require during your circle to land then you can not circle and a missed aproach must be commenced unless you can land straight-in. Once a missed approach is commenced the procedure must be completed.

By day, this is wrong. I originally believed this, however upon calling CASA was informed the contrary. If you're below the circling minima by day, but meet the descent below MDA requirements, you don't have to climb back up to the circling minima to circle.

Sounds stupid but there you go.

[Angle of Attack]

And the funny thing was whenever I had to circle off an NDB approach, and there was scud around dictating to duck down to 300agl by day generally the NDB Tower was the biggest threat to me!

[j3pipercub]

Are there really professional pilots out there who don't have the option flying a GPS RNAV appr. I show my age by feeling the need to have an ADF on board, but apart from maintaining currency and for renewals - I never use it.

Yes, on a daily basis... I wish I could use RNAV. And we're not talking Shrike or Chieftan size either, over 5700kgs.

I would be interested to hear from any experienced instrument rated GA pilots on whether this is a real issue today or just of academic interest.

Yes, definitely a practice vs academic.

Sounds stupid but there you go.

Errrmm, to me it sounds like a perfectly logical way to allow a pilot to use his/her JUDGEMENT.

j3

[A37575]

In years past, I did multiple MECIR renewals with the late Noel Bellamy, who prided himself on knowing the regs to the letter, and took great pleasure in winning the debate with any FOI foolish enough to argue about what he could and could not do in situations like this.


Ah yes...the same bloke who as a brand new QFI on the RAAF C130 Hercules at Richmond showing off the steep climb capabilities of his Herc to a bunch of frightened unstrapped journalists down the back, caused one to fall and fracture his skull. Knew the Regulations to the letter, though...

[das Uber Soldat]

Errrmm, to me it sounds like a perfectly logical way to allow a pilot to use his/her JUDGEMENT.

Just like to reinforce the point that, as I said, I'm not making judgement about whats good or bad, or what to do and how to do it with regard to this reg.

When I remarked that it sounds stupid, I simply mean the wording of it. The fact that the circling minima has nothing to do with the minima to circle in many situations. Thats all mate.

:)

[reynoldsno1]

circle around and maneuver as low 300 AGL if required
I don't think so. Cat A/B minimum obstacle clearance is 90m (295ft). Lower limit for OCH for Cat A is 120m (394ft), Cat B 150m (492ft).

Ref: PANS-OPS Ed 5 V2.

[43Inches]

circle around and maneuver as low 300 AGL if required


and

I don't think so. Cat A/B minimum obstacle clearance is 90m (295ft). Lower limit for OCH for Cat A is 120m (394ft), Cat B 150m (492ft).

Ref: PANS-OPS Ed 5 V2.

Both are wrong with regard to Australian rules, AIP states minimum required obstacle clearance cat A & B as 300ft during visual circling. This is the minimum height you must pass over any obstruction until on final, AGL (above ground level) is above terrain not obstacles.


Errrmm, to me it sounds like a perfectly logical way to allow a pilot to use his/her JUDGEMENT.


The Australian rules allow for more judgement from the pilot and it is his final authority which determines whether it is acceptable to land at an aerodrome. We don't have approach bans or any rules prohibiting approaches to minima even in known bad weather, its the pilots choice.


This whole section of the regs are terribly written in the first place. In fact all the regs are terribly written, but thats a different thread.

The AIP are not regs but an interpretation document apparently written in plain english for us to understand. Some sections are guidelines only, others using the words must and shall are directly associated with a particular regulation (and usually attach the reference to CAR), these are the ones you must particularly adhere to. However if you operate outside any of the wording you will have a hard time justifying your actions if it goes wrong.

[calogero_vizzini]

I'd call it a visual go-around and visual manoeuvring for the opposite runway.

It's an academic indulgence to harp on about misseds because it's straight in changing to circling etc. Pragmatically you're coming in, got visual, went around (nb "around", not "missed") and re-circuited for the opposite runway.

As long as all the visual part post go around was done with aerodrome minima, whats the problem?

[ballistix71]

Please don't give people information that is out of context. If someone wants to know the airlaw get them to read complete references. As I use Jepp I'll give the references people are referring to;

Jepp Terminal Instrument Approach/Takeoff Procedures 3.10.1 (pg 21)

A missed approach must be executed if:
a. refers to nav tolerances.
b. refers to suspect navaids.
c. refers to not establishing visual reference at or before MAP/DA/RH.

The one being spoken about;
d. a landing cannot be effected from a runway approach, unless a circling approach can be conducted in weather condictions equal or better than those specified for circling; or

e. refers to loss of visual reference when circling.

Section 3.13 Visual circling or during non-precision approach (NPA) deals with the requirements of visual circling. Please note that it does state that ;

'the assumption is that the runway environment will be kept in sight while at the MDA for circling.

Section 3.13.3 is the section that people will refer to when saying that they can circle to land from a straight in approach below the circling minima. When used in conjunction with 3.10.1 at the MDA for a NPA you can only circle to land if the conditions meet those required for a circling approach.

You can't circle to land if you meet the condition to descend below the MDA for a circling approach 'after' having already descended below the circling MDA in conditions that were below the circling minima and would have resulted in you having to conduct missed approach at the circling minima.

If circling and straight in approaches were the same thing then they would only ever list minima for the straight in approach and not for a circling approach. The only way you'd even get close to circling would be if you met visual approach requirements at the MDA for the straight in approach including minimum altitude requirements.

[Capn Bloggs]

You can't circle to land if you meet the condition to descend below the MDA for a circling approach 'after' having already descended below the circling MDA in conditions that were below the circling minima
I disagree. Take VOR 12 at YBAS for example. Inbound from NW. Intending to do a SI approach, get Visual under solid overcast with good vis at 600ft AAL but can't land straight-in for whatever reason.

You are quite legal to maintain terrain clearance visually ie 300ft AGL Cat A/B and manoeuvre for a full circuit back onto 12 or indeed onto 30 if the tower lets you.

If pilots were never permitted to do anything other than land straight-in or go around off a runway approach then the book would say so.

However, don't do it if you don't know the terrain, and make sure you've briefed/considered it beforehand!

[Ando1Bar]

94 replies later and this is still being argued?

Apart from guys in heavy metal whose ops manuals don't permit circling off S-I approaches, this argument seems to be fought between two main groups: those that have real IFR experience and those who are arguing the toss with experience from only an IREX book.

Ballistix, I'm happy that you've learned to reference and retype the Jepps. Have a think what you are going to do next time you conduct a runway aligned (S-I) approach, in the pouring rain, at an airfield which is only available in one direction. You break visual but are above profile because of the unexpected tailwind up your butt. Are you really going to commence a missed approach, climb back up into the soup all while watching your fuel margin get lower and lower? It's your right to, but I'm circling and getting back on the deck as I've only got 20 mins of fuel left before I hit my reserves.

There is nothing stopping you from circling as long as you meet all of the circling requirements. The only time you need to climb to the circling MDA is at night where you cannot see the terrain.

Go back and read the last five pages of replies before posting again - there are some very good arguments from some very experienced pilots.

[tmpffisch]

I'm also stunned this is still being discussed. The rules are clear and simple, and Ando1Bar is 100% correct. Circling MDA is only for flying at night.

If anyone is still in doubt, go speak to your ATO, FOI, Head of Checking & Training or Chief Pilot for some remedial training! :ugh:

[ballistix71]

Ando1 & Tmp, I do fly IFR and have done for quite some time.

CP looked at the BAS VOR, the circling minima is still above the straight in minima. The cloud base wouldn't be met for visual circling as per the plate. If you plan to circle to land on 12 and briefed a circling approach you wouldn't be going down to the S-I minima in the first place. Are you saying you always brief the 50/50 bet for a straight in approach that you may need to circle?

Tmpffisch: it concerns me that circling MDAs are being touted as night only. If only for night why not call it Night Circling MDA?

Ando1Bar: With 20mins fuel why not go again and compensate for the wind?....Its why there is a section for declarations of emergencies that allow you to continue in conditions below the required minima. Unless your caught out with unexpected weather surely you would have alternate fuel loads?

Arguments regardless of how logical they appear don't give the PIC cart blanche to do what they like. Similarly the perceptions that 'airlines' don't do it but they are different to GA are at odds with the safety culture that the industry tries to put forward.

Rob, using that logic and interpretation I could say that para (d) allows me to circle at the S-I MDA (both day and night) to land on any runway so long as I do not descend below the S-I MDA and I intercept downwind, base or final. For example PH 24 LOC approach would have me circling at 492' AGL at night with circling vis. I meet the requirements of the procedure being flown (the S-I approach) for cloud and circling vis so all is good.

Ultimately, like people have said, the pilot can do what he 'thinks' is the correct actions. Just let those of us who disagree know your flying before we get on the aircraft with you guys. At least then I get to make a decision about my safety that way.

[Capn Bloggs]

Are you saying you always brief the 50/50 bet for a straight in approach that you may need to circle?
No I'm not. But it makes a big difference if I'm in a Baron or PC12 verses a 747.

[A37575]

If anyone is still in doubt, go speak to your ATO, FOI, Head of Checking & Training or Chief Pilot for some remedial training!

And every one of those august appointments will have a different personal opinion if asked singly and all will share the same opinion of the most senior appointment if asked at a conference around the table...

[ballistix71]

Rob not sure what your getting at with the following;

"Why is it safer to scud run under the lowering cloud base to an obstacle clearance height of whichever category, in daylight. Than to continue an approved approach to the same point? be visual at the same point? and continue the "extension" of your approach from the same point?

Even if I am visual at circling minima in daylight depending on airport configuration and where im circling to will determine my "break off" point. I can still continue the approach to my npa mda and break off from there..."

In both the above examples you are effectively stating that you meet the vis requirements prior to the visual circling MDA if I read it correctly. Meeting the circling requirements and then descending means you already have the AD environment in sight. Being visual at the circling minima and opting for a S-I approach and landing also meets the circling requirements.

I see that as a different situation to breaking clear of cloud at the S-I MDA and then deciding to circle to land. If it is ok to do this by day then you could argue the reference to point d. in my earlier post that I could do it an night as I am not below the S-I MDA and I have the circling vis, clear of cloud etc. Not sure how many people would agree with that statement given the consensus seemed to be that the circling MDA must be adhered to at night.

From what I am understanding, you are saying I could also then draw a conclusion that if my vis is ok for circling but not ok for the S-I approach I could circle to land even though I do not meet the requirements to have landed from the S-I approach which should result in a missed approach.

Looking at the charts the S-I approach generally has higher vis requirements (LOC normally the exception). If you could just circle to land why not have the same vis requirement for both?

Eg Using YBAS VOR RWY 12.
I fly the S-I approach at the MDA the visibility is 2.4KM and the cloud base is BKN at 2370'. The vis is ok for circling but not acceptable for a S-I. The cloud is ok for the S-I approach but not for the circling approach. When will you actually conduct a missed approach? At the circling minima you have no idea that you will break clear of cloud and at the S-I you are supposed to do a missed approach because you don't meet the minima.

[knightflyer]

Your ATO, CFI, CP should all have the same opinion, anyone seen the check captains handbook recently published by CASA?? It's very black and white, (no pun intended), attempt to circle from below the circling minima day or night and you fail your check, just as the regs say. By day you may descend below the circling minima once inside the circling area for your category of aircraft to not below minimum obstacle clearance height (NOT AGL) in order to maintain visual circling, not achieve visual for circling. By night, not below circling minima till once inside the circling area and at a point in the cct that you would normally descend from that height. :ugh::ugh::ugh:, how many pages for something thats in black and white, read the regs how you like fellas but remember, you are the one that has to explain your actions to the CP if it goes pear shaped, and thats always a lot easier if you have erred on the side of caution, the company may not like it that you didn't give it a "little nudge" to get in but as long as you have given it your best shot within the rules you can't be sacked for bringing 'em back alive.:mad: me, several have tried and lost:}

[ballistix71]

Rob,

Thanks I was getting a bit confused with the analogy. I know this is probably one of the most argued pieces of air law but I always looked at it from the safest option and not from how I can make my boss the most $$.

[desmotronic]

Xcel,
The rules are quite clear.

PM me if you like.

[Ando1Bar]

Ando1Bar: With 20mins fuel why not go again and compensate for the wind?....Its why there is a section for declarations of emergencies that allow you to continue in conditions below the required minima. Unless your caught out with unexpected weather surely you would have alternate fuel loads?


Yep, sounds good. Why didn't I think of that? Declare an emergency and intentionally set out to bust a minima on the second approach despite the fact I was safely visual on the previous approach.

For those who want to join in the debate, jump on:

http://www.exponentialprograms.com/internet/bootcamp/images/merry-go-round-%20first%20pull.jpg

I'm outta here. I'm comfortable with my view of circling and I have the support of my colleagues and CASA ATOs I've spoken to.

[The Green Goblin]

It's like everything in aviation in Australia, open to personal interpretation.

What about descending not below LSALT until within 30nm and visual (yet in another section you can descend any time below LSALT in VMC??)

What about requiring an alternate if you don't have a 'firm' forecast, yet in another section you can depart provided you receive a firm forecast 30 mins after departure and have fuel to return to your departure point for up to 60 mins?

What about being cleared to descend to say 5000 feet, then being cleared for an instrument approach, then being chipped by ATC for descending below 5000? Even though they cleared you for an instrument approach? (very prevalent in Darwin)

I could go on and on and on.

IMO and from a practical perspective as I have stated earlier, you would be pretty dopey after conducting a runway approach by day, breaking visual, but not being able to land due to a myriad of reasons, and not circling if you can do so safely with the obstacle clearance requirements satisfied.

What Australia clearly needs is a set of clearly defined regulations. Remember it's not what you say, but how it is perceived that counts!

[das Uber Soldat]

"Good question to the original poster - shame so many "professional pilots" take this many pages to argue a very straight forward and everyday procedure."

Hi Rob.

I called CASA about this directly and spoke with more than 1 person. The official position given to me was that you're wrong. So I think its a bit unfair take a shot at people who disagree with your interpretation as not being professional or competent.

I agree with the GG. The rules are ****, so looking down on anyone for having a different interpretation of them just makes you an idiot.

[Xcel]

Das uber solat and gg...

As previously stated by others, we too have talked to our FOI's with feedback to the contrary. If the authority can't get a consensus view what hope do the rest of us have. The remark you quoted above in context is a clear dig at the fact that if you require 6 argued pages off a rumour network to define your ops then it clearly isn't "professional" is it...

I gave the option to those who interpret this differently, that perhaps a better path to travel, would be talk to your CP and do as your SOP's state. These to can be a more stringet and safer set of techniques again such as I quoted from our ops manual.

At the end of the day if you hit the cumulus granitus and survive you better have stronger point than a verbal from Casa, a personal interpretation, or evidence from a rumour network... If your company manual says in black and white initiate from circling mda then do it. If not get the CP to type something up so you have a clear black and white copy of instructions given to you to satisfy your operations requirements.

Bring it up at your next safety meeting and ensure your operating to company standards. Because even if I took your interpretation I am still illegal as our SOP's are very clear in indicating what they want. Shouldn't be any need to invent something if it is black and white... As many have told me "if in doubt... Check the book"... And they weren't referring to the regs! (even though I as others are interperating the regs the same as my sop example)

Hope this helps

cheers
Rob

[das Uber Soldat]

I don't see anyone defining their ops here.

I have enjoyed the thread though, am glad its lasted 6 pages as it has furthered my knowledge on the subject.

[VH-FTS]

I don't think anyone throughout this thread disagrees that circling below the circling MDA at night is wrong. Therefore, the arguments relate to day flight.

One could also argue that it is a little dodgy to knowingly use the S-I MDA to get visual when the pilot knows they will have to circle to use the other runway.

However, there is nothing to stop the pilot from now circling, once becoming visual using the S-I MDA if they can no longer achieve a landing on the intended runway. As long as they meet the visual circling criteria (viz, obstacle clearance, distance dimensions etc.) there is now nothing that requires them to climb back up to the circling MDA. At night - yes, during the day - no. The missed approach criteria and circling requirements in the Jepps/AIPs all back this up.

The circling MDA is designed to keep the pilot safe when they cannot see the ground i.e. at night or in cloud. If they are visual at day there is no longer a requirement to maintain this height.

Based on the arguments of those that believe a missed approach must be conducted if a landing cannot be achieved using the S-I MDA, despite being visual, they must also subscribe to the following actions:

What if you became visual off the S-I MDA, everything was looking good but then an aircraft pulls out in front of you on the runway? The S-I MDA was 400ft, the circling MDA 600ft. Are you saying you must now conduct the full missed approach and climb back in to cloud? Why not now circle to land again at 500ft, assuming this meets all of the circling criteria?

If you say on one hand that you can circle after this go-around, but must conduct a missed approach if too high off the runway aligned approach, you are contradicting yourself.

Why can we not get clarification from our beloved friends at a certain authority? A large percentage of them have either: no experience in dealing with such real life situations (flight instruction or military flying is a totally different kettle of fish - you are rarely subjected to such considerations); or are the rejects of the industry that could never get anywhere in their flying careers. If you don't believe me have a look at the situational awareness video that was put out late last year - the VFR fellow who with 500 hours decided to fly into cloud to get above it all, then decend back in to it over terrain really sums it all up.

Sorry about the slight thread drift at the end.

[bentleg]

I don't think anyone throughout this thread believes that circling below the circling MDA at night is wrong


My reading is that almost EVERYONE reading this thread believes that circling below circling MDA at night IS wrong.

[VH-FTS]

Oops, that's what I meant to say. Sorry about my poor spanglish - I got too excited about the debate.

[Capn Bloggs]

For example the fact that yes we can depart a strip at t/o minima with down to 0ft cieling and 550m. Fly 30 mins with no forecast and without obtaining it be forced to turn back to point of departure. Yes there other "options" but taken in context how is this illegal?

Of course that's illegal. The book plainly says that the wx at the Dep airfield must permit a return within 1 hour.

[The Green Goblin]

If we take any rule outside of it's intention they all seem silly. For example the fact that yes we can depart a strip at t/o minima with down to 0ft cieling and 550m. Fly 30 mins with no forecast and without obtaining it be forced to turn back to point of departure.

No you couldn't do this, as the conditions need to be such that you can safely return to the departure aerodrome for up to 60 mins.

To depart with a 0ft cloud base and 500m vis, you need to make sure that you can climb to the enroute LSALT on one engine, and land at a suitable aerodrome within 60 mins of single engine flight time. This is my consideration in these situations.

Having said that, I for one would use the the lowest minima for the most accurate instrument approach as my takeoff minima. What if you had an engine fire? Or worse! I want to know if something happens, I can get back in!

As for the rest of this discussion, it's academic. Practically you'd avoid getting back in the soup unless it was imperative for the safety of the flight.

[Captain Sand Dune]

military flying is a totally different kettle of fish - you are rarely subjected to such considerations
Speaking from experience, mate?:hmm:

[Capn Bloggs]

Do military not fly IMC? Surely high performance single seat in radar trail with bingo fuel adds many more considerations, not less.
There are plenty of considerations, but none of those involve the fine commercial line between getting in or being required, by the rules, to Go Around or divert. ;)

[VH-FTS]

Speaking from experience, mate?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif

If you mean flying the beasts, no. If you mean dealing with the ex-miltary folk with the "my **** don't stink/you can't land a plane son/today's pilots cannot attitude fly", then yes. Not all have this attitude, just certain individuals which I alluded to.

I'm sure they were good pilots, heck I'm sure their stick and rudder skills were probably better than mine. However, how many have flown a PA31, Metro, B200 or Islander in anger (commercial ops) apart from the right seat grilling the pilot during a check? At some stage the thought pops in to their head "maybe, just maybe I am a god of aviation", which then allows them to interpret the regs as they see fit and expect us mere mortals to follow them.

And we are then left with multiple ways of skinning the cat rather than clarification...

[A37575]

However, how many have flown a PA31, Metro, B200 or Islander in anger (commercial ops)

And who happily accept a dozen defects that are not shown in the maintenance release because the PA31, Metro, B200 or Islander commercial ops pilot are too scared to write them up in case they get the boot and so allow the next poor bastard to find out for themselves. :mad:

[Johnny_56]

Hi guys,

Just for a bit of clarification the reason i originally posted this was we had an issues where an aircraft ahead of us conducted an instrument approach (RNAV from memory) down to it's straight in minima - by the time they got there the wind had changed and was favouring the reciprical runway - they circled and landed... no dramas

We then followed them round for the same initial approach. It was a two crew operation and the captain i had on the flight decended to the circling minima was not visual and conducted the missed approach. I was/am fairly new to IFR flying and wasn't 100% on the rules so this seemed like a fair plan, we eventually got visual on an approach to the recipricol runway.

I had overheard in the past IFR instructors talking about this issue and they also both had differing views as to whether you had to climb back to the circliing minima to circle by day.

Thanks again for the discussion

[The Green Goblin]

In an above 5700kg I would conduct the missed approach too.

It's not a nice place circling in low vis in something like a Metro with poor visibility out of the slits called windows even in CAVOK conditions. Coupled with the multi crew thing, it can become a very high work load situation very quickly

In a light twin I would not hesitate.

[The Butcher's Dog]

6 pages of debate and conjecture???

Circling at either the circling minima or at a height required for obstacle clearance CAN and in MOST cases will be a very high workload and high risk flight segment.

Check the following link - http://flightsafety.org/files/cfit_check.pdf (http://flightsafety.org/files/cfit_check.pdf)

Pre approach planning is vital with a clear mentally rehearsed plan essential. The "should I" or "shouldn’t I circle" questions is usually a trigger to "NOT" circle – despite being compliant with the required circling criteria. Be careful fellas – there are plenty of "low viz, low altitude" circling manoeuvres that have ended in tragedy!!:{

[Capn Bloggs]

Circling at either the circling minima or at a height required for obstacle clearance CAN and in MOST cases will be a very high workload and high risk flight segment.
Flightsafety is about 20 years too late. Australian RPT operators (and probably GA) have forgotten more about NPAs and circling approaches than FS will ever know. The only reason they are apparently dangerous is because pilots aren't trained to fly them properly with sound SOPs that work, driven in large part by the propensity for pilots to have forgotten how to fly, deferring instead to the magenta line (because management let them).

Now that we have SI Apps (RNAV) on all runways, the time has come for circling to be reduced; that doesn't mean it's dangerous or very high workload, particularly if the vis is good. At 100kt, turning on a sixpence, if you think they're dangerous you shouldn't be in the cockpit.

[GBO]

CASAs recommended answer is in CAAPs.


CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches Dated OCT2004 page 11

3.5 IF I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE WIND IS CAN I DESCEND TO THE STRAIGHT-IN MDA? Yes, but you need to consider the possibility that you might need to circle and it may be advisable to limit descent to the circling MDA. In most cases the landing MDA is lower than the circling MDA, and if descent is continued to the lower altitude a circling approach may not be possible. Pilots should not commit to a straight in landing unless they can be satisfied that wind conditions are suitable.

[The Green Goblin]

Well there we go, you can circle at the straight in minima as we have all been telling the nay sayers for all this time.

The key here is to use your command judgement, sometimes it is acceptable, other times it may not be.

Like everything in aviation, you can't put it in a box and tie a ribbon around it. You need to use your experience and good decision making, using all available information to reach the desired outcome safely.

[Jack Ranga]

You need to use your experience


What if you haven't got any? What if the instructor that taught you IFR hasn't got any 'real world' experience of these? (This happens a lot especially when the experienced fellas have gone to the big boys)

[Trent 972]

Pilots should not commit to a straight in landing unless they can be satisfied that wind conditions are suitable.
In legal documents the word 'should' usually has the same meaning as 'shall'. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif
(Friends in the 'legal arts' suggest the use of the word 'should' in a document, is a sign of poor drafting.)

[cac_sabre]

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/sabrejet/pinpointradionavigationgpswhoneedsit.jpg

[anothertwit]

well said capn bloggs! right on the money :ok:

[PLovett]

You need to use your experience and good decision making, using all available information to reach the desired outcome safely

I have usually found that experience is what you have just after you needed it. :ok:

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

Bummer hanging around waiting for station passage.

Go back through the DCA Safety Digest and you find plenty of circling approach accidents including;

1. AC500 at Hobart that flew into the water at night time, mind you the PPL pilot doing a charter flight during an airline strike and holding an IFR rating probably did help the cause either,

2. AC560 down out King Island flying into the ground on the down-wind leg at night-time,

3. Piper PA-31/350 at King Island on a night freight flight flew into the ground on base leg,

4. AC500 on medical flight into YWBL at night time flight flew into the ground on the downwind leg,

5. AC560 on a night time Reg203 flight flew into the ground during a night circuit,

6. Piper PA-31/350 crashed turning final after a circling approach at Launceston,

7. Piper PA-31/350 crashed at Young during a night cirling approach,

Just to name a few.

Pity a bit more effort was put into teaching the IFR student how to fly a bad weather circuit in marginal conditions.

[PLovett]

Bummer hanging around waiting for station passage.

Go back through the DCA Safety Digest and you find plenty of circling approach accidents including;

1. AC500 at Hobart that flew into the water at night time, mind you the PPL pilot doing a charter flight during an airline strike and NOT holding an IFR rating probably did help the cause either,

2. AC560 down out King Island flying into the ground on the down-wind leg at night-time,

3. Piper PA-31/350 at King Island on a night freight flight flew into the ground on base leg,

4. AC500 on medical flight into YWBL at night time flight flew into the ground on the downwind leg,

5. AC560 on a night time Reg203 flight flew into the ground during a night circuit,

6. Piper PA-31/350 crashed turning final after a circling approach at Launceston,

7. Piper PA-31/350 crashed at Young during a night cirling approach,

Just to name a few.

Pity a bit more effort was put into teaching the IFR student how to fly a bad weather circuit in marginal conditions.

There, fixed it for you.

[The Butcher's Dog]

“Flightsafety is about 20 years too late.”

But not early enough for some – Circling approaches at the bottom of a now called NPA in low viz, are a high risk/high workload segment – no doubt. Some are blissfully unaware of the collaborative factors that can quickly escalate when in the wrong place at the wrong time. These types of approaches require respect. You can’t simplify or stylize a technique, each circumstance is different, a good SOP is a starting point.

“Australian RPT operators (and probably GA) have forgotten more about NPAs and circling approaches than FS will ever know.”

Maybe forgotten a little too much perhaps – from what I have read on this thread.

“The only reason they are apparently dangerous is because pilots aren't trained to fly them properly with sound SOPs that work,”

Yes, they ARE dangerous under these circumstances, but that’s the situation many inexperienced pilots find themselves, and training is the issue. Some of the trainers lack experience in the form of actual exposure to the condition that can arise.

“Now that we have SI Apps (RNAV) on all runways, the time has come for circling to be reduced; that doesn't mean it's dangerous or very high workload, particularly if the vis is good.”

No, there are many runways requiring you to circle.

The issue to circle in adverse conditions at the minima with low viz has enormous potential for CFIT – if you are not aware of the factors then the link to Flightsafety is a good point of first enquiry.

“At 100kt, turning on a sixpence, if you think they're dangerous you shouldn't be in the cockpit.”

It isn’t a sixpence, the rest of your statement is well……..a bit bland and inflammatory.