How does your company describe circling approaches?

[Screwballs]

Hello all,

I would like to know how other companies describe the circling approach procedure, specifically the base turn to final from downwind. In my lot, with orange aircraft(Cat C), we start the stopwatch abeam the threshold as we pass downwind, timed 3 seconds per 100ft AAL corrected for wind. And then turn base.

The reason I am wondering about is to do with the protected area and the tightness of the turn to final. Cat C aircraft will have 4.2nm to manouevre inside safely. And this is based on a max speed of 180 knots with a 25 wind plus correction for TAS gives a speed of 215 knots for the circling area. (Jepp Text pg. 233 Table I-4-7-2) However, with that speed and timing based on 1,000ft AAL circle to land, you would end up approximately 2.7nm from the threshold.* Plus a turn inbound would still give you a margin on the 4.2nm. And that's at 215 knots! The normal reality would be closer to approximately 160 knots or so.

So my question is do other companies stick to something like 3 seconds per 100ft AAL? And if so why? Is there a EASA regulation there or is it up to the operator? Why not give a little bit more margin to create an easier final descent path? In practise, the AP is engaged and the aircraft is in level flight and well below the 3 degree path to land(being level downind). If we extended downwind just a little bit further then the final turn could be divide into more distinct parts 1) use the AP to establish on the centerline 2) disconnect and fly the descent manually. As opposed to the current procedure which is to do both at the same time. And give little time for a correction.

(Bearing in mind the responses that we should be able to do it all manually anyway etc etc, this is a particularly specific question about why the timing is the way it is)
*based on being 2nm distant from the threshold once abeam and a GS of 215kts for 30 seconds.

Thanks for any and all helpful replies.

[Ollie Onion]

Our company used 20 seconds per 500ft AAL. So we would go downwind for 40 seconds at 1000' assuming nil wind. That would be at Flap 3, approx 140 kts (A320). Would always have plenty of room and be well inside the 4.2nm circling area. 30 seconds downwind does seem to be cutting it a little tight unless you are going really fast, that would seem pointless though as why not be configured early.

[Screwballs]

Thanks for that, 40 seconds is a 33% increase on us and we do the same as you 319/320 F3, gear down approx 140knots turning base!

[Crossunder]

Circling is a visual manoeuvre. Why would you need to use a stopwatch? Because management does not trust you. And then they have to come up with some clever way of formalising and regulating your work. That's why the timing is the way it is ;-) Stopwatch circling is Taylorism defined.

[Screwballs]

Well at least I've learned something from you - "Taylorism"!

How do you circle?

[cosmo kramer]

It doesn't have to do with protected area, but the ability to keep the runway in sight. Min meteorological visibility for cat C aircraft is 2400 meters.

With 3 sec pr 100 feet, you are quickly at the limit, as can be seen from the example below:

Downwind:

If going 180 knots ground speed, that is 3 nm pr min.

Min circling alt is 600 feet = 18 secs

18/60 sec x 3 nm/min = 0.9 nm = 1666 m

Turn radium (30 deg bank):

r = V^2 / G x Tan AoB

If V = 180 knots = 5556 m/s
g = 9.80665
Tan 30 deg = 0,577

= 981 m

Max distance from runway:
1666 + 981 = 2647

So you have to go slower that 180 knots ground speed or increase your minima respectively.

[RAT 5]

Circling is a visual manoeuvre. Why would you need to use a stopwatch? Because management does not trust you. And then they have to come up with some clever way of formalising and regulating your work. That's why the timing is the way it is ;-) Stopwatch circling is Taylorism defined.



B737. Average circle ground speed F15 is in the order of 160kts. The downwind timing is adjusted for tail winds. I find 3sec/1000' works out fine, in the sim. Considering the allowed visibility, 2400m, for CAT C a/c, and considering a foggy night, rain, low cloud etc. etc. it is wise not to venture to far away from the runway. It would be easy to stray outside the visible segment. 4.2nm = >6000m. The required vis is not related to the circling height, unlike DA/VIS on a straight in approach. True, it is a visual manoeuvre, but it is also a combination of 'dead-reckoning'. At low level in marginal conditions it is a good confidence to have a method, backed up by Mk.1 eyeball, that puts you in the right place on base leg to make a stabilised finals.
Imagine you were flying on the outside of the circuit at 500'. i.e. a right hand circuit from the left seat. The cross-wind leg is flown on timing to give you the correct spacing. You will likely be blind to the runway. Turning downwind you acquire it again. If the timing has been correct you should be spaced correctly. A pure visual judgement/perspective at 500' is not easy as it is uncommon. Passing the threshold you will once again be blind to runway. Are you suggesting that the low experience F/O doing this for their first time visually navigates you round a low level circuit? Not for me, thank you. I've experienced a dead-reckoning system hat works and I'll back it up with Mk.1 eyeball.
Remember this manoeuvre/procedure needs to work in manual flight as well as autopilot.
I once did some sim checks on F/O's from a 'gone bust' Mediterranean airline. Perhaps they were used to good weather, perhaps they had not done circling; either way they did not have a procedure. I gave them a circle at 900' at a major flat ground airfield, in 8km vis. They became completely lost downwind, starting turning searching for the runway, descended and would have crashed. They had no idea or structure of how to fly this manoeuvre. It is true that the numbers game does work for those who have nothing else.
It was proven to me at night in a caribbean island B767. Minimal lighting, no DME, no direct approach aid. It worked in real life too.

[Screwballs]

Thanks for the info.

Cosmo, the circling is based on an Angle of Bank of 20 degrees. Ref Jepp Text pg. 33. Plus I think you've made an error in the calculation, you used thousands of meters per minute instead of meters per second. I get a radius of 1,522m at 180knts/30 Aob.

So you think it's more to do with keeping the runway in sight? Fair enough, do you have a reference to where that might be specified?

If you had to circle on a day with a low cloud base but great visibility, wouldn't it make sense to extend downwind a bit to give yourself more space?

[Skyjob]

3x AAL' works great, correct for wind though e.g. +/- 1 second for HW/TW.

Be careful your chart shows circling minima for JAR OPS or Standard, not TERPS as these are less as our brethren in US will acknowledge.

This is why using the JAR OPS the circling manoeuvre is at a higher speed for the same category of aircraft as in the FAA. You will find when using TERPS charts to stay within its protected area you need to fly fully configured, whereas in JAR OPS charts we can fly gear-down on downwind leg and configure final landing flap in base turn.

[latetonite]

My company interprets the B737 FCTM circling procedure, where it states:"do not decend below MDH untill intercepting the visual approach path" as maintain MDH until in Final, lined up with the runway. Try to do this with 2400 meters visibility.

[737aviator]

3 seconds per 100 AAL with a large European 737 operator too. Corrected for tail or headwind by 1 second per kt. We disconnect the AP once on the PAPIs so one may or may not (more likely) be on the extended centreline at that stage.

[cosmo kramer]

Screwballs,
I don't have Jeppesen available. In what context is 20 degs mentioned? One thing is what is used for procedure calculation, another thing is what you actually fly.

My calculation was meant as a practical example, and for sure I am using 30 degs AoB when needing to do a tight turn. Of course you are right, I took feet pr. min and not pr. second. Your calculation of approx 1500 meter for the radius is correct. Which just goes to show that it is not really possible to fly a circling in min visibility, especially if the MDH is higher than 600 and at high field elevation (higher TAS and hence GS). This emphasizes the need not to extent the downwind further than absolutely necessary.

My company recognized this problem by increasing our circling minima above the EU-OPS to 3000 meter met vis. It is still very tight at some fields, with MDA of 1100 feet, even if flying in landing configuration:

150 knot GS, 1100 feet for 33 seconds = 2546 meter
150 knot GS = 77 m/s, 30 deg AoB, radius = 1051 meter

150 knots GS is not unrealistically high for a 737-800, even in landing config flaps 40, if full of pax.

Max distance 3597 meter. BUT keep in mind that ICAO doesn't require you to keep the runway itself in sight, but runway environment. That includes approach lights system or "or other markings identifiable with the runway". So technically it is possible, but tight... I would probably consider a diversion, depending on other weather factors (is it just mist and steady wind.. or heavy rain and gusty/turbulent), and I am quite sure no one would blame me afterwards.

As for in better conditions, I don't see a reason to extend the downwind, if you start the descent when beginning base turn, you have (in the above example) 2546 meter + 1/2 circumference to descent 1100 feet.

1/2 C = (pi x 2 x r) / 2 = 3300 meter

5846 meter = 3.15 nm ~ 3 degs path. :) Also your downwind will already be extended further as you won't fly in landing config, hence your GS will be higher. Also you will have headwind (otherwise, why did you circle?). Plus you can adjust you AoB/fly the base a little further from the runway to give you more space..

There are other good reasons not to extend, depending on the airport. Izmir, LTBJ, runway 34R circle to land 16L is a good example of that. Yes they do that at times in good weather conditions despite ILS16L available. If you extent your downwind you end up over a 1240 feet high hill (circling altitude 1500 feet).Being over it and unable to see it is more uncomfortable than starting the turn just prior, as it would work with 33 seconds (MDH 1090 feet).

Like fighter pilots say (I was never one, but they have a lot of good sayings ;) ), "fight like you trained, and train like you fight".

[RAT 5]

My company interprets the B737 FCTM circling procedure, where it states:"do not decend below MDH untill intercepting the visual approach path" as maintain MDH until in Final, lined up with the runway. Try to do this with 2400 meters visibility.

The visual approach descent segment used to be +/- 30 of C.L. On a circle procedure using 3 x AGL/000's you should roll into the 60-30 degree cone with 2R 2W. You need to descend. If you stay level until on C.L. surely you'll end up 4W and diving. Not good if at only 500' to start with. If within the segment and visual why can't you descend to attack/maintain PAPI's to assure the stable landing gate; or would they rather you risk being unstable and landing long?

[latetonite]

To Rat5: I am trying to shoot down the argument as well, but lack the bullets. Where can I find this 30 degree description?

[Screwballs]

All good stuff, thanks. It is a rather theoretical question! But I like getting into the gritty details so the bigger details make more sense.

[RAT 5]

ref: +/- 30 degrees. Years ago in the days of PANS Ops introduction I was told that a circling approach was anywhere the final approach was outside 30 degrees of the RW C.L. Thus it was required to manoeuvre more than 30 degrees on short finals. I can't give a link.
How do your guys advise to fly a visual circuit? That should be a descending base leg onto finals for a CDA. A circling base leg onto finals is also a visual manoeuvre.

[cosmo kramer]

Doc 8168:

When the OCA/H is established, an MDA/H is also specified to allow for operational considerations. Descent below MDA/H should not be made until:

a) visual reference has been established and can be maintained;
b) the pilot has the landing threshold in sight; and
c) the required obstacle clearance can be maintained and the aircraft is in a position to carry out a landing.

No mention of 30 degs or being established on final..

[mcdhu]

You should be d/w at F speed (140 to 145) with F3 assuming 2 engs.
Diameter of turn at that TAS (no crosswind) is about 1.5nm so stay close.
3xht in secs corrected from abeam. Always go a little further if you can (5secs) then spin the TK Selector onto the RW TK, leaving the AP on. Watch the X-TK error counting down. Half way round, you should be only .7 or .8 cross TK. Now look out for the PAPIs. When you see 3 reds, AP off, FDs off, FPV to minus 3 degrees, flap full and keep an eye on the magenta donut if FPL is sequenced! Landing Checklist. Cleared to land? Et voila!!

[RAT 5]

"woods for the trees." KISS

[AirRabbit]

I posted a set of comments, not long ago, on what I believe I’m seeing more regularly in this industry … that being the development of, and the subsequent dependence on, a “set of numbers” that are presumed to be the “answer” to the problem or the situation under scrutiny. Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen, this practice has become a rather routine goal of an increasing number of aviators – the practice likely initiated when each person was a “new hire” … ostensibly generated either by that person, or other persons, to provide an outcome of the specified task, under the specified circumstances, using the specific set of numbers, to allow the appearance of an adequate piloting performance.

I even described several “number set” discussions …
“…for tasks such as … “what engine parameters should I set for a heavy weight landing in an XXX airplane type?” or “what rate of descent should I hold during a zero flap approach for an XXX airplane type?” or any of the multitude of other similar “examination crutches.”

The line of thought represented in this particular thread is yet another example of seeking and providing information regarding the accomplishment of a very specific flight task - here, the completion of a circle-to-land – where simply “plugging in the provided numbers” will provide an “adequate” result. The fact that a "circle-to-land" is a visual maneuver appears to be completely disregarded and replaced with a dependence on altitude and stop-watch timing to determine when to turn to land. It's a VISUAL maneuver. It has nothing to do with blindingly flying until a determined number of seconds has ticked by - and then doing something else - likely just as questionable. The reason such a task is included is to allow a pilot to fly an instrument approach procedure to get below a cloud deck or within visual range of the airport and from that point, visually maneuver the airplane to the runway on which the pilot was cleared to land. Nothing more. Nothing less. Deliberately ignoring the concept of keeping the landing runway in sight while maneuvering to land completely ignores the concept on which the procedure was developed - and potentially sets up a skills-deficient pilot for almost anything less pleasant than landing on the runway originally intended.

If I were ever to plead with anyone about flying an airplane – particularly an airplane with innocent passengers aboard – where their presence is only due to the fact that they “trusted” in the ability, knowledge, and professionalism” of the pilot – this is where and what I would plead ... Please … evaluate the reasons you are asking for such information … review the mechanics required to perform the task in question … talk with a flight instructor you trust … practice the mechanics involved in completing the task in question … ask your instructor to critique your performance and offer recommendations for improvement … and then repeat that sequence until you and your instructor agree that you have learned how to perform the task.

There is nothing wrong with breaking down any flight task into the scientific and mathematic parameters that are involved … however, your reliance on being able to repeat any such sequence of parameters may well work only under circumstances essentially equal to the circumstances that existed for the task associated with the particular flight task on which the analysis was accomplished. Being a pilot is highly individual ... and is dependent upon being able to deal with the circumstances that exist at each individual point in time and space, which you, as a pilot, are expected to perform. It’s analogous to learning how to write by copying and committing to memory (both mental memory and muscle memory) very specific sentences, paragraphs, or books. Then, when you are inevitably asked to write the answer to “how do you feel?” you might well find yourself being quite ill-prepared to write an answer to that perplexing question. However, if you were to have learned how to read, write, spell, develop sentences, understand punctuation, and the like … you might be able to write an answer to such a question without having to be overly concerned about the concepts of verbs, adverbs, connectors, personal pronouns, and adjectives … like, “I am feeling pretty darn well, thank you.”

It may take some innovative thought processes on your part, and certainly a lot of effort and a lot of practice, but you will find it supremely beneficial to learn to fly rather than learning to apply a canned sequence of numbers to any specific circumstance you might meet in your aviation career.

[ZAZ]

To get lined up with the runway at the minima without breaking the lateral boundaries and the vertical limits.
FWIW I use the GPS to stay inside the limits, stick rudder and power to stay above the minima which until you are lined up with the centre line is the NOT BELOW Limit until established on the centre line.

Timing> WTF timing its a visual eyeball manouvre not more no less
You are off the panel and eyeballing for the runway LOW and SLOW as we were taught in IFR school.

No square crap either you fly for the runway and stay within the circling limits out there to stop you hitting something..like maybe a crane or radio mast

Unless its night and thats different again

[cosmo kramer]

Unless its night and thats different again

It's night...

[cosmo kramer]

...and not a Cessna 172 going 65 knots. Back to IFR school. :8

[cosmo kramer]

Could we please keep the PPL/General Aviation stuff in another forum where it belongs?

I posted a set of comments, not long ago, on what I believe I’m seeing more regularly in this industry … that being the development of, and the subsequent dependence on, a “set of numbers” that are presumed to be the “answer” to the problem or the situation under scrutiny.
It's been like this for 50 years or more, when flying high performance jet aircrafts. You ever heard about:

Flying by the numbers.

You don't go around guessing in a aircraft that e.g. has a TOW varying between 45000 and 77000 kg weight, depending on the task of the day. For a very good reason, we rely on either calculated values or set number to accomplish certain tasks. Your rant was appropriate in the previous thread about sidestep. But here it has absolutely no value, and unfortunately devaluates your position, as your post show lack of knowledge in airliner operation.

[Kefuddle]

Cosmo,
To be fair, I think AirRabbit is advocating a balance between numbers and execution. One should be confident in visually assessing the manoeuvrings required, but a solid starting point (the predicted numbers) is pretty essential for a reliable outcome too. However, it is certainly the case that some cirling approaches are so compact, that if the initial path isn't pretty much spot on, it will probably be a go-around and so numbers can be crucial to success.

AirRabbit,
The fact that a "circle-to-land" is a visual maneuver appears to be completely disregarded and replaced with a dependence on altitude and stop-watch timing to determine when to turn to land. It's a VISUAL maneuver. It has nothing to do with blindingly flying until a determined number of seconds has ticked by - and then doing something else - likely just as questionable.
I suspect, if this is the way people approach a circling approach it is because they only ever perform the act in the sim, where the visuals are not panoramic and actually require a calculated flight path such then when the runway is again sighted half way around base it is roughly in the right position.

[flyboyike]

I posted a set of comments, not long ago, on what I believe I’m seeing more regularly in this industry … that being the development of, and the subsequent dependence on, a “set of numbers” that are presumed to be the “answer” to the problem or the situation under scrutiny. Unfortunately, from what I’ve seen, this practice has become a rather routine goal of an increasing number of aviators – the practice likely initiated when each person was a “new hire” … ostensibly generated either by that person, or other persons, to provide an outcome of the specified task, under the specified circumstances, using the specific set of numbers, to allow the appearance of an adequate piloting performance.

I even described several “number set” discussions …
Quote:
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
“…for tasks such as … “what engine parameters should I set for a heavy weight landing in an XXX airplane type?” or “what rate of descent should I hold during a zero flap approach for an XXX airplane type?” or any of the multitude of other similar “examination crutches.”
The line of thought represented in this particular thread is yet another example of seeking and providing information regarding the accomplishment of a very specific flight task - here, the completion of a circle-to-land – where simply “plugging in the provided numbers” will provide an “adequate” result. The fact that a "circle-to-land" is a visual maneuver appears to be completely disregarded and replaced with a dependence on altitude and stop-watch timing to determine when to turn to land. It's a VISUAL maneuver. It has nothing to do with blindingly flying until a determined number of seconds has ticked by - and then doing something else - likely just as questionable. The reason such a task is included is to allow a pilot to fly an instrument approach procedure to get below a cloud deck or within visual range of the airport and from that point, visually maneuver the airplane to the runway on which the pilot was cleared to land. Nothing more. Nothing less. Deliberately ignoring the concept of keeping the landing runway in sight while maneuvering to land completely ignores the concept on which the procedure was developed - and potentially sets up a skills-deficient pilot for almost anything less pleasant than landing on the runway originally intended.

If I were ever to plead with anyone about flying an airplane – particularly an airplane with innocent passengers aboard – where their presence is only due to the fact that they “trusted” in the ability, knowledge, and professionalism” of the pilot – this is where and what I would plead ... Please … evaluate the reasons you are asking for such information … review the mechanics required to perform the task in question … talk with a flight instructor you trust … practice the mechanics involved in completing the task in question … ask your instructor to critique your performance and offer recommendations for improvement … and then repeat that sequence until you and your instructor agree that you have learned how to perform the task.

There is nothing wrong with breaking down any flight task into the scientific and mathematic parameters that are involved … however, your reliance on being able to repeat any such sequence of parameters may well work only under circumstances essentially equal to the circumstances that existed for the task associated with the particular flight task on which the analysis was accomplished. Being a pilot is highly individual ... and is dependent upon being able to deal with the circumstances that exist at each individual point in time and space, which you, as a pilot, are expected to perform. It’s analogous to learning how to write by copying and committing to memory (both mental memory and muscle memory) very specific sentences, paragraphs, or books. Then, when you are inevitably asked to write the answer to “how do you feel?” you might well find yourself being quite ill-prepared to write an answer to that perplexing question. However, if you were to have learned how to read, write, spell, develop sentences, understand punctuation, and the like … you might be able to write an answer to such a question without having to be overly concerned about the concepts of verbs, adverbs, connectors, personal pronouns, and adjectives … like, “I am feeling pretty darn well, thank you.”

It may take some innovative thought processes on your part, and certainly a lot of effort and a lot of practice, but you will find it supremely beneficial to learn to fly rather than learning to apply a canned sequence of numbers to any specific circumstance you might meet in your aviation career.


Cliff's Notes version, please. Or are you writing for yourself again?

[777boeings]

AirRabbit
Well said! Finally some common sense.

[RAT 5]

I challenge, nay defy, anyone to maintain visual contact at low level on a rainy night with 2400m vis when they are on the outside of the circuit turns. Given the experience of some guys in RHS who will trust their judgement that "it's OK to turn now, boss."
Been there, done that, in big a/c and it works. Sometimes numbers are a very useful tool. The same is true with power settings. If you set it too low to start with it ain't going to work, so why do it? OK, there are those who say if you need more then give it; same with less only reduce it. But I still advocate that it makes life simpler, less work load and puts me in charge and ahead of the a/c, if I set a sensible power setting first and then fine tune it. If I guess in the dark and have to chase after the a/c IMHO that's not the way. But that is a whole other philosophy than the circling matter. It's just an answer about 'the numbers' idea.

[AirRabbit]

It's been like this for 50 years or more, when flying high performance jet aircrafts. You ever heard about:

Flying by the numbers.

You don't go around guessing in a aircraft that e.g. has a TOW varying between 45000 and 77000 kg weight, depending on the task of the day. For a very good reason, we rely on either calculated values or set number to accomplish certain tasks. Your rant was appropriate in the previous thread about sidestep. But here it has absolutely no value, and unfortunately devaluates your position, as your post show lack of knowledge in airliner operation.


Hello Mr. kramer:

It goes without saying that everyone here is certainly, and obviously, entitled to their own opinions on posts … and … those who make them. Personally, while others may not feel this way, it doesn’t bother me that you may believe I have a “lack of knowledge in airliner operation.” You may or may not find that fact amusing or significant (that’s essentially irrelevant) because I’m perfectly comfortable with what I know and how I apply that knowledge … including MTGW of the airplanes I’ve flown (some of which, by the way, got up to just under the million pound mark) and I’m more than a little familiar with the associated variances in performance adjustments required when the weight of the airplane is different from “last time.”

The concern I was registering – as you apparently recognized in my earlier post – is arguably the same recognizable factors under discussion in this thread. It started with what was likely an apparently innocent question … “how other companies describe the circling approach procedure, specifically the base turn to final from downwind.” The combination of terms is what “set-off” my light bulb … as there are precious few actual “circling approach procedures” that include a “downwind leg, a base leg, and a final approach leg” … including the appropriate turns from one to the next … and where they DO exist … the procedures for accomplishing a circle-to-land should be equally applicable there as to any other circle-to-land maneuver. The mere fact that there are multiple categories of airplanes should be a giant clue to the fact that those who design the circle-to-land authorizations at any airport are acutely aware of the necessity to cover more ground (i.e., due to the necessity to maintain a higher airspeed for the larger categories of airplanes) and is the reason that some airports do not provide circle-to-land capabilities for some categories of airplanes.

In this thread, the original post, and some of the follow-on posts, seemed to be advocating the same sort of “fly the cheat-sheet numbers and no one will know that you don’t know how to do it.” The fact is that most of my colleagues are interested in populating their cockpits with trained and competent professionals. Many of those friends of mine are recognizing that some of their newer colleagues are frantically recalling (some actually ask for a reminder regarding configuration or techniques) the “cheat-sheet” methodology for some specific tasks.

If there are pilots who believe it necessary to recall the appropriate formulae and then calculate the existing airplane weight and configuration; temperature; density altitude; the true, calibrated, and/or indicated airspeed to hold; the required thrust necessary to achieve that particular speed – requiring a formula for fuel flow and EGT to compute the required thrust level; reference a manual for the throttle position that would yield that thrust level for the existing altitude; the needed bank angle to stay within the authorized ground distance from the runway; and all the other numerous facts, figures, and calculations deemed necessary to complete a circle-to-land maneuver … I say … go for it. Knock yourselves out. However, if I were your instructor, and circle-to-land was the subject at hand, I’d ask you (politely at first) to put away all that … well, stuff … and look out of the window, fly the airplane at the appropriate circle-to-land airspeed, keeping the required ground objects clearly in sight while maneuvering the airplane to align with the landing runway. Additionally, we (you and I) would continue that practice, at varying airport/runway combinations, until BOTH you and I realized that you had assimilated the required knowledge and awareness to repeat that task successfully – whenever and where ever it was necessary for you to do so. Of course, where I have worked, you would have had the capability to ask for a different instructor … but those instructors I know wouldn’t likely differ in their approach from what I was asking you to do.

While I’m not sure of the nationality of many of those on this forum, here is the specific regulatory requirement in the US for the circle-to-land:
Title 14CFR Part 91.175 (e) Missed approach procedures. Each pilot operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, shall immediately execute an appropriate missed approach procedure when either of the following conditions exist:
(1) …
(2) Whenever an identifiable part of the airport is not distinctly visible to the pilot during a circling maneuver at or above MDA, unless the inability to see an identifiable part of the airport results only from a normal bank of the aircraft during the circling approach.


Cliff's Notes version, please. Or are you writing for yourself again?
… as it seems to be getting harder and harder for you to read and comprehend my posts … please allow me to free you from what you may believe is your responsibility to read and understand what I write unless I do so in a “cliff notes” fashion … please feel free and welcome to disregard anything I post. I wouldn’t want you to strain your ability to comprehend beyond what is available in other notable and respected cheat sheets – like “cliff notes.”

EDIT:
Perhaps you should do what I've done - I'm relying on the logic that the "IGNORE" function will solve the problem for both of us....

[flyboyike]

So, that's a no to the first and yes to the second?

[Desert185]

My version with Cat D aircraft...

If downwind, slide out (vis permitting) for room to turn to final without overshoot. Go 30 seconds from abeam the threshold and start 180 turn to final, which is my standard, VFR night pattern procedure.

Them's the basics with variables for terrain, darkness, wind, etc. I don't have circling restrictions on my ATP types, BTW (and I don't believe any of us do).

We train, etc. for circling approaches every year in the sim, but prefer straight-in's with the heavies, and the missions normally allow for straight-in ILS or RNAV approaches. Thank you very much...:ok:

[B737900er]

Where abouts in the B737 FCTM does it mention 3secs/100AAL ?
I know we do it but I have never seen it!

My current FCTM mentions adjusting heading and timing so ground track does not exceed obstruction clearance distance.

I recall a note in the FCTM mentioning along the lines that timing is no longer needed due to GPS and the use of the FMC (fix page). But this might be for a visual approach.

[AirRabbit]

I suspect, if this is the way people approach a circling approach it is because they only ever perform the act in the sim, where the visuals are not panoramic and actually require a calculated flight path such then when the runway is again sighted half way around base it is roughly in the right position.

I think if you check you will find that the US regulatory authority does not qualify a simulator for the circle-to-land maneuver UNLESS the visual scene presented to them during the evaluation includes sufficient visual cueing to meet the requirements of 14 CFR Part 91.117(e)(2) – which states, as I posted earlier, “…a missed approach must be made when an identifiable part of the airport is not distinctly visible to the pilot during a circling maneuver at or above MDA, unless the inability to see an identifiable part of the airport results only from a normal bank of the aircraft during the circling approach.”
If this requirement can be met and is observed by the simulator evaluator, then the simulator is qualified for that task – and the paperwork will include what airport and what runway combinations were used for that qualification. From there it is up to each individual training program approval authority (usually a principle operations inspector) and the airline using that simulator as to whether or not a circling approach may be included in the approved training program. Which is to say that if an identifiable part of the airport cannot be continuously in sight during the maneuver, that simulator would not be qualified for circle-to-land tasks. This means that flying beyond the visual system capability and relying on a stop watch and heading references to know when to turn - hoping to again be able to see the airport - is NOT something that the regulatory authority, at least in the US, would do.

[AirRabbit]

I challenge, nay defy, anyone to maintain visual contact at low level on a rainy night with 2400m vis when they are on the outside of the circuit turns. Given the experience of some guys in RHS who will trust their judgement that "it's OK to turn now, boss."
Been there, done that, in big a/c and it works. Sometimes numbers are a very useful tool. The same is true with power settings. If you set it too low to start with it ain't going to work, so why do it? OK, there are those who say if you need more then give it; same with less only reduce it. But I still advocate that it makes life simpler, less work load and puts me in charge and ahead of the a/c, if I set a sensible power setting first and then fine tune it. If I guess in the dark and have to chase after the a/c IMHO that's not the way. But that is a whole other philosophy than the circling matter. It's just an answer about 'the numbers' idea.

I think I mentioned that any pilot is free to fly their airplane in any manner that is safe and does not exceed the rules or the aircraft certification limits. Hopefully, the manner chosen by most pilots will be completely in line with both the company’s and the manufacturer’s preferences for how to do what it is they are doing. If it’s easier for you to run through a quick calculation to determine a logical power setting – and are adept at being able to make necessary adjustments to “fine tune” that setting to keep the airspeed where you want/need it … I am certainly not going to quarrel with you. In my experience, I have not come across very many who are able to do what you describe – I believe what you say and have no intent to dissuade you from your choice of actions. What I have seen is one prospective new-hire or one relatively new student surreptitiously attempting to pass the “gouge” along to others in the class to know what power setting and pitch attitude to use to maintain an appropriate airspeed during a no-flap approach, or engine-out approach and landing, as well as other, similar such “gouges” and other “cheat-sheet” assistance. Not only does that very likely ruin that individual’s chance at being honestly evaluated – it very likely will set up in that person’s mind that it’s the perceived performance that matters … and “doing the job” comes further on down the list of important factors. THAT is what I was objecting to – and I’ll continue to object to it, in the strongest of terms.

[cosmo kramer]

The concern I was registering – as you apparently recognized in my earlier post – is arguably the same recognizable factors under discussion in this thread.
No it's not. The other poster asked as :mad: question, if a 60/60 deg turn was the right "formula" for at sidestep.... a maneuver that contains so many variables (distance from threshold, distance between the approaching and sidestepping runway to name a few), that the only way it can be flow, is by looking out the window... Even for a newbie, with no idea, the proposed 60/60 deg was so ridiculous (compared to the few deg heading change required to do a sidestep), that one can only assume he was posting it to provoke a reaction.. In internet terms a socalled "troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet))".

Flying a high performance jet aircraft:
At night, in 2400 meter visibility, in rain, with strong wind, with turbulent conditions, with mountains surrounding the airport, with a cloud cover a few feets above your head, in 600 feet AGL - with out having a systematic approach to the task, flying by the seat of your pants, is reckless!!
...is to allow a pilot to fly an instrument approach procedure to get below a cloud deck or within visual range of the airport and from that point, visually maneuver the airplane to the runway on which the pilot was cleared to land
A circling is rightly a visual maneuver, but flown in IMC conditions. You are proposing to fly looking out the window when flying downwind. What visual reference do you expect to have? Is the terrain sloping, what horizon do you have to ensure a safe flight attitude? NONE. You have a pitch black, wet windscreen with mountains hiding ahead at a, by the authorities, precalculated safe distance. Flying a circling approach at night, in low vis, rain poring down your window, strong gusts and turbulence... I prefer you keep your eyes on the attitude indicator, not looking over your shoulder for the runway... thank you :ok:

(A runway you won't be able to see anyway, because the co-pilots head is in the way and the rest is covered by the circuit breaker panel).

Here is how it should go: When the timing is completed (co-pilot had the barely visible 90-degs-off-runway-lights in the corner of his eye during the downwind and does a sensibility crosscheck for position), you start rolling in. You won't be able to see the runway the first 45-60 degs of the inbound turn, because of the bank of the aircraft (no longer cover by co-pilots head, but co-pilots roof), so you continue to fly the ADI, and try to keep the aircraft under control from the turbulence from the nearby mountains. When the runway finally comes to view, thereafter gradually you includes the lit runway into your scan, but stay mostly on the ADI to avoid vertigo (rain is still hammering on your otherwise black window). When aligned, and the runway and approach lights are giving you sufficient cues that maintaining wings level by their reference alone can be assured, you switch you primary reference to the runway, but still glance back on the ADI, until you are ready to flare.

Either you never tried or obviously forgot how humbling an experience it can be to fly to an airport with a complete dark environment (no moon, no cities), even on a good night, without rain, without turbulence, on a straight in, on an ILS, with the autopilot engaged! We have lots of those airports in our route structure, and most of them require circling if unfavorable wind.

I am no hero. In the above scenario, personally I would divert. Unless one of the factors was removed (like no rain or during daytime). I would however be able to do it, using the mentioned method if I had no other option. Knowing that you have no system and no plan, I would be scared :mad:, pardon my French, if I was a passenger on your aircraft (which I, must say fortunately, see from your profile I will never be).

Having a system is not for the purpose of breaking any rules, it's not the purpose to continue the approach despite loosing visual reference. On the contrary, a system is in place to ensure that you do not extend you downwind beyond the needlessly, so that you end up father away than the prevailing visibility will allow you to keep the airport in sight. Yet far enough, to assure that you within the remaining distance to go, can complete the approach and landing and at the same time remain inside all established approach criteria that your company may prescribe for circling approaches.

Being a pilot is highly individual ...
No, and yes...
Second reason is for standardization, so that good CRM in a difficult situation is supported. Pilot are indeed individuals, but they shouldn't each bring different work methods along to work for the simple reason that we need to be able to trust, predict and work together in an unambiguous manner.

The above method is not a choice for me (though I would choose it voluntarily too), it's a part of my airline's SOP, which is approved by our regulator.


P.s.
You keep harping about "taking with your instructor", which I actually find a bit insulting. This is a professional pilots forum, the contributors here are already (should be) educated pilots. If you have something to say about flight training in small aircrafts:
Professional Pilot Training (includes ground studies) - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/professional-pilot-training-includes-ground-studies-14/)
or here:
Private Flying - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying-63/)
(I agree that a circling in a C172 or Piper Seneca is a no-brainer and at the speed they move/turning radius/ability to stop and descent on the spot, can easily be flown as you would a normal visual circuit. I could do a circling approach in either aircraft without leaving the airfield perimeter fence).

[cosmo kramer]

Originally Posted by RAT 5
The same is true with power settings. If you set it too low to start with it ain't going to work, so why do it?

Originally Posted by AirRabbit
If it’s easier for you to run through a quick calculation to determine a logical power setting – and are adept at being able to make necessary adjustments to “fine tune” that setting to keep the airspeed where you want/need it … I am certainly not going to quarrel with you.
Calculate?? Knowing SET NUMBER thrust settings (we are flying jets not piston props), could be essential to your survival!! Try flying with out airspeed indicator by the seat of your pants... you won't live long ...here it comes: :ugh:

[aterpster]

Of considerable significance for flying in areas with TERPS: last year the FAA began implementation of more conservative circle to land protected airspace. This will be accomplished on an attrition basis so the conversion won't reach all airports until perhaps 15 years, or so.

I presume this will affect other countries that use TERPs, but I don't know that with certainty.

Following is the pertinent legend material published by the FAA:


http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/FAACTL_zpsc02f87fe.jpg

[AirRabbit]

A circling is rightly a visual maneuver, but flown in IMC conditions. You are proposing to fly looking out the window when flying downwind. What visual reference do you expect to have? Is the terrain sloping, what horizon do you have to ensure a safe flight attitude? NONE. You have a pitch black, wet windscreen with mountains hiding ahead at a, by the authorities, precalculated safe distance. Flying a circling approach at night, in low vis, rain poring down your window, strong gusts and turbulence... I prefer you keep your eyes on the attitude indicator, not looking over your shoulder for the runway... thank you.

I hope that you take this post in the spirit in which it is offered … I have no intent to insult or belittle you in any way … I just wanted to offer the recognition of a concern and an explanation…

My concern is that you either are not aware of what the regulations say or have either misinterpreted it or have had it inappropriately explained to you. I know of no one who would write – let alone publish - the statement you made above, for anyone/everyone to see! I would encourage you to talk with someone who knows what rules are and knows how they can be, and often are, enforced - and I'm sure you know someone who would fit that description.

The answer to the first question you asked above (What visual reference do you expect to have?) is simple – I (and any other pilot with a license that I know) would expect to be able to see an identifiable part of the airport on which I expect to land. If I was not able to see and identify something I knew to be on the airport and knew exactly where on the airport that object was located, I would, in compliance with sound thinking AND the regulations, immediately execute the required missed approach. The understanding is that if the pilot knows what is seen on that airport, and knows the location of both what is seen AND the runway on that airport, there will be sufficient information to continue to fly toward where the airplane will be safely aligned with the runway to complete a safe approach and landing. That is a continual process – such that if at any time the pilot can no longer continue to see an identifiable portion of that airport, the regulation is clear, a missed approach must be initiated. There is a reason the FAA publishes regulations … and not recommendations. If a pilot accepts a clearance for a “circle-to-land,” and then deliberately elects to disregard what may or may not be visible “out the window” (and looking out the window during a circle-to-land is not as unimaginable as you may believe) that pilot has to be aware that he/she has just deliberately decided to operate contrary to an FAA Regulation. If the conditions ever get to a point similar to those conditions you described (i.e., pitch black, wet windscreen, mountains hiding ahead, low visibility, rain pouring down, strong gusts, and turbulence) and the pilot believes those conditions exceed his/her ability to continue with the task at hand (i.e., continue to circle to align with and then land on the designated runway) I would whole heartedly recommend that this pilot execute an immediate missed approach. Executing such a decision is, unfortunately, thought by many to be an admission of poor performance – and that is simply untrue! Executing a missed approach is a professional response to a professionally recognized set of circumstances that have been determined, by that professional, to exceed that professional’s knowledge and/or ability. AND, anyone who would criticize any pilot for making such a decision is, in my not-so-humble opinion, less than worthy of being called a pilot!

A runway you won't be able to see anyway, because the co-pilots head is in the way and the rest is covered by the circuit breaker panel…
…and that is why the regulation does not require that the pilot continually maintain visual contact with the runway – only that the pilot maintain visual contact with an identifiable part of the airport – again, presuming that the pilot knows where the runway IS in relation to what on that airport that pilot can continue to see.

Either you never tried or obviously forgot how humbling an experience it can be to fly to an airport with a complete dark environment (no moon, no cities), even on a good night, without rain, without turbulence, on a straight in, on an ILS, with the autopilot engaged! We have lots of those airports in our route structure, and most of them require circling if unfavorable wind.
I’d prefer to not get into a comparison of your respective logbook entries, number of hours flown, number of airplane types flown, places departed from, or where we’ve each landed an airplane. Those kinds of things simply no longer matter to me … but, suffice it to say that I vividly recall doing just what you say … although doing so with an A/P engaged didn’t come until I’d been around the pattern more than a few times.

During my career, I have earnestly attempted to ensure that I learned it (whatever “it” was) completely, developed a confidence on which I could depend, and then, when my career evolved into teaching and evaluating, I’d like to think that I took that level of understanding and humility along with me and was reasonably successful in using that as a primary characteristic in my teaching and evaluation. No one “knows” everything about everything – and everyone has to “learn” before they “know.” Not everyone has the same inherent abilities for everything they attempt. I’ve seen THE most agile basketball players bounce off their *ss when attempting to get onto an ice skating rink; and I’ve seen pilots perform the very best “Immelmann turn” and return to land only to “prang” one that likely should have blown the tires – and almost everything in between.

The “circle-to-land” authority was envisioned to assist pilots in landing at airports/runways that may not (or not yet) have a precision approach to assist landings on THAT runway in inclement weather. It’s the same thing with a “contact approach.” BUT, there are specific requirements that are associated with each – and those requirements are there for a reason. If, as you describe, the airport is on the opposite side of the cockpit from the person flying the airplane – logic would dictate that the other pilot (on whose side the airport/runway IS) should be one manipulating the controls to maneuver the airplane – otherwise the requirements are not met. The rule doesn’t say the maneuver may be continued as long as “someone” in the cockpit can maintain visual contact … it says, and, again, I quote from 14CFR Part 91.175(e)(2):
Each pilot … shall immediately execute an appropriate missed approach procedure when … the following condition exists:
(1)…
(2) Whenever an identifiable part of the airport is not distinctly visible to the pilot during a circling maneuver at or above MDA, unless the inability to see an identifiable part of the airport results only from a normal bank of the aircraft during the circling approach.
Please note … the language does not say that the approach may continue “when the airport is hard to see” or “the pilot can continue if someone else sees the necessary ground objects” ... or anything else.

I would hope that anyone reading this thread would take the time to reevaluate their own knowledge and abilities and determine not to attempt anything beyond that knowledge and those abilities ... and certainly determine to not deliberately operate an airplane contrary to the existing rules under which that flight is conducted.

[AirRabbit]

Try flying with out airspeed indicator by the seat of your pants... you won't live long ...here it comes: :ugh:

I certainly can’t believe that you are convinced that the pilots on that ill-fated Air France flight were doomed because of incorrectly reading airspeed indicators … are you? :=

[Screwballs]

If I could just pour some cold water on our more passionate members for a second...

The original query was "How does your company describe circling approaches?"

I would like to know how other companies describe the circling approach procedure, specifically the base turn to final from downwind.

(Bearing in mind the responses that we should be able to do it all manually anyway etc etc, this is a particularly specific question about why the timing is the way it is.)

I didn't ask how to circle, although hearing other pilots thoughts about is always nice.

I think the answer is that is up to the operator to specify how to do it, in the context of obstacle safe area and actual visibility.

Thanks for all the replies.

[No Fly Zone]

I won't even pretend that I can DO this. However, after wading through the many replies and looking at a pair of external sources, now I at least understand the procedure. I'm gratified to now that so many really do understand it, but a little surprised that the 'Official Company SOPs" vary so much. My sense is that virtually no one really does this with a stop watch anymore, deferring to the Magenta Line. And one of these days that little line will go Tango Uniform. Is this procedure still required for annual and semi-annual SIM qualifications? If not, perhaps it should at least be done, even if not part of your official evaluation. Great question!:D

[cosmo kramer]

My concern is that you either are not aware of what the regulations say or have either misinterpreted it or have had it inappropriately explained to you.
Thank you for your concern. I know the regulations very well. The thing is, not the whole word is flying FAA rules (in fact there the world is pretty big outside USA, which many Americans are too self-centered to recognize).

Circling definitions according to ICAO:
Visual manoeuvring (circling), 7.2.2
After initial visual contact, the basic assumption is that the runway environment should be kept in sight while at minimum descent altitude/height (MDA/H) for circling. The runway environment includes features such as the runway threshold or approach lighting aids or other markings identifiable with the runway.
As you can see, it is the runway that should be kept in visual contact. Not airport surroundings. Neither does it say that the Pilot Flying, should be the one to keep the runway in sight, for multi pilot airplanes.
I (and any other pilot with a license that I know) would expect to be able to see an identifiable part of the airport on which I expect to land.
If you are on downwind, 1 nm past the threshold, still going in the opposite direction, you will not able to fly with reference to the runway. Navigate, yes - aviate, no. And it is not a requirement either. The purpose of keeping the runway in sight is the ensure that you remain within obstacle protected area.

If flying in IMC conditions of 2400 meter (1.5 sm), 600 feet cloud base, rain and at night, I prefer to aviate according to my ADI. If you want to look over your shoulder while screaming YEEEHAAA, then good luck and I wish you lot of fun flying the missed approach when you inadvertently climb 50 feet back into the could base.

Here is what EU-OPS has to say:
OPS 1.435 - Terminology
“Circling”. The visual phase of an instrument approach to bring an aircraft into position for landing on a runway which is not suitably located for a straight-in approach.



What you describe....
The understanding is that if the pilot knows what is seen on that airport, and knows the location of both what is seen AND the runway on that airport, there will be sufficient information to continue to fly toward where the airplane will be safely aligned with the runway to complete a safe approach and landing.

...and...

…and that is why the regulation does not require that the pilot continually maintain visual contact with the runway – only that the pilot maintain visual contact with an identifiable part of the airport

...is in Europe called a Visual Approach:
OPS 1.435 Terminology
“Visual approach”. An approach when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to the terrain.
Here is is no requirement to have the runway in sight, as long as you can find your way with other identifiable terrain features (e.g. follow a coastline that leads to the airport). Hence you fly it looking out the window, and I don't time those either. :ok:

It has by way has a minimum RVR of 800 meter / 0.5 sm (much to my amusement when reading the usual uproar from American colleagues). :hmm:

OPS 1.430 Aerodrome operating minima
(g) Visual Approach. An operator shall not use an RVR of less than 800 m for a visual approach.


So to return to your original concern:
My concern is that you either are not aware of what the regulations say or have either misinterpreted it or have had it inappropriately explained to you.

...maybe it is time that you do some brushing up on your knowledge of international rules and regulations? Especially, if you want to comment with authority on an international (UK based) pilot forum and especially when answering a question from a poster (Screwballs) who is based in the UK...:ok: :D

(And yes, I don't care how many hours you have... eating a meal and taking a nap 5000 times over the Atlantic doesn't really make anyone an expert in circling approaches).

[cosmo kramer]

I certainly can’t believe that you are convinced that the pilots on that ill-fated Air France flight were doomed because of incorrectly reading airspeed indicators … are you? :=
No, on the contrary... You got this all backward. Had they known a normal pitch value for their aircraft (I mean a SET NUMBER, those that you oppose so much upon!), we would never have heard of AF447.

20 degs pitch is not normal in 37000 feet. That is why it's good to know normal pitch values for a lot of different situations. And no, not exact values that require a calculation. Like 5 degs and 65% for a 737. No matter the weight, this will keep you flying above clean speed, without exceeding any other limit at normal terminal altitude. Or 12-15 degs pitch after T/O. Or 1 deg 60% for flaps 30 on a 3 deg ILS.

Knowing such approximate values, not only help if your airspeed is unreliable. It also help to recognize situations that are out of the ordinary and correct accordingly. Like THY in AMS, having 15 degs pitch and idle on an ILS is not normal, to take an extreme case.

[aterpster]

Cosmo:


...maybe it is time that you do some brushing up on your knowledge of international rules and regulations? Especially, if you want to comment with authority on an international (UK based) pilot forum and especially when answering a question from a poster (Screwballs) who is based in the UK..
Perhaps the forum powers that be should make it clear this is a UK forum. Better yet, perhaps they should vet the membership so the members are all really pilots or air traffic controllers as does Pro Pilot World in the colonies.

[RAT 5]

There are a/c still flying that do not have the bells & whistles of a Map & magenta line. They are needles & dials a/c. They had a circling procedure based on stop watches & headings. It worked just fine. All the bells & whistles don't need to change everything. It is a brave new world out there for the newbies, but some of the old fart things are still valid and don't need fixing. They ain't broke.

There are airfields where the terrain is inhospitable. In dodgy weather I would like a procedure that I know will keep me safe as I concentrate on keeping the airfield environment in sight with concentration towards the final approach path & rwy.
There are also described tracks for some circling. These have been designed to enhance safety in difficult times. If you are prepared to fly those numbers, why not design your own (SOP's) to allow for all occasions.

What I did have question with was an SOP that insisted you fly a full circle at circling height even if you broke out of cloud well above circling. i.e. you had to land on the reciprocal rwy, but had broken out of cloud well above the much lower circling height. It seemed to me daft not to allow the pilot to determine that there was no intervening cloud to make the visual circuit a problem and thus level at a higher agl to give more space to position the a/c. The reason given was that the circle had been briefed and change in the approach had to be briefed, especially a visual one. My thinking was why put the a/c closer to the ground than necessary when not on finals; and why not allow yourself a longer finals to position the a/c into the slot earlier on finals. The SOP's did not include a cloud break procedure/brief. Thus if you knew it was BKN or OVC at >1500', but had to use a let down on the instrument rwy to then fly a circle, you could not brief such a manoeuvre. The thinking being that you could not guarantee the Wx conditions until visual at break out. What if there was some low lying cloud. My thinking was that a pilot should be able to brief a circle for minima and then revert to the same procedure but at a higher height. This idea was frowned upon and not allowed.

[Kefuddle]

Screwballs,
The original query was "How does your company describe circling approaches?My company doesn't. Our reference is the Boeing FCTM, which only describes how to level off and the configuration from downwind to final, but not how to maneuver to downwind. I revert on the basics what I was taught during my ME/IR.

Just to add, it had never occurred to me that somebody would plot out a magenta route in the FMC for a circling approach, how is this even possible when it is the associated instrument procedure should be in the FMC.

[Jetdriver]

Perhaps the forum powers that be should make it clear this is a UK forum But of course it isn't. It is a forum for technical discussion from anybody, provided it is relevant to the professional target audience.

[Pub User]

it had never occurred to me that somebody would plot out a magenta route in the FMC for a circling approach, how is this even possible when it is the associated instrument procedure should be in the FMC.

Heard of Route 2?

[AirRabbit]

Of course, my friend cosmo, I recognize that you are free to agree or disagree with anything I post here. Whether you choose to believe what I say or not, the fact is I am aware of the “differences” in language and the meaning of those differences – particularly as they impact regulation writing, the reading/interpretations of regulatory requirements, syntax vs. definition, and all the other kind of varying impacts anything written can have on those who don’t claim as “native” for the language in which those requirements are written. Whether you believe my comments are accurate, or not, is completely beyond my control. I am fully aware that many on this forum have been involved in aviation for longer periods than I – since I soled my first airplane in 1965, had the US Military pin wings on me in 1969, have been in the civilian industry since 1974, and have determined that at the end of this calendar year may be time for me to “hang up my spurs” and move on to the world of “consultancy.”

Of course, I wouldn’t expect that anyone with the background and history such as you have would ever be interested in having someone with the limited experience of someone like me try to inform you about anything – and I completely understand … but, maybe, just maybe, there might be some who are interested in what I have to say. However, even given those facts and my recent decisions, I assure you (for whatever that is worth), I am not the world’s leading authority on how such nomenclature “differences” are best dealt with between countries … and this is significantly due to the fact that I’ve only been regularly and significantly involved in the development and application of international regulatory matters applicable to aviation, training, and simulation since 1987. So, again, you may very well have a lot more experience in such instances than the 26 years I have, and may be well justified in “telling me off” as you have, so succinctly. Although, reverently and with no intent to retaliate “in kind,” I would point out that not every pilot gains flight experience via Transoceanic operations while eating and sleeping – as there are some who actually fly airplanes with the flight controls installed to do that – and sometimes it’s true that for a major portion of some individuals’ careers, those controls are used when engaged in pilot training and/or aircraft testing … but, of course, someone with your apparent experience surely is fully aware of those facts.

Again, I can only hope you can appreciate my relative inexperience and understand that I’m merely attempting to keep young, impressionable, relatively new pilots from looking for and expecting to find a “cheat-sheet” method for piloting an airplane. Also, in my limited travels around the world in the time I’ve been active in this industry, I’ve also come to understand the realism of the impression many around the world have about “American’s” in general and “American Pilots,” in particular. I’ll be the first to say, and am appropriately embarrassed to do so, that sometimes, those impressions are “spot-on accurate.” Of course, that isn’t the case every time, nor with every American – but far be it from me to cast dispersions on the necessity and legitimacy of an individual’s pride in his or her own country – even if that means uttering derogatory references to other nationalities’ aviators.

With respect to the exchange regarding “looking out of the window,” it probably doesn’t come as a terrific surprise to learn that the windows on BOTH sides of the cockpit were originally installed so that BOTH pilots would have the ability to see what is outside of his/her side of the airplane. With this understanding, your comment that “If you are on downwind, 1 nm past the threshold, still going in the opposite direction, you will not able to fly with reference to the runway” might be technically true if, but only if, you’re restricting the approach and landing to just 1 of the likely 2 pilots in the cockpit, and that 1 being on the side of the airplane OPPOSITE to where the airport/runway is located. I would submit for your consideration, that the pilot on the side of the airplane where the airport/runway IS located might be the most logical pilot to conduct this particular approach and landing … but again, not every airline does, nor are they necessarily approved for doing, the same things.

It used to be that the FAA regulations with respect to “circle-to-land,” used to reference “…objects identifiable with, or the approach end of, the runway.” That seemed to be adequate until it became apparent that the McDonalds Hamburger “Golden Arches,” the “Freeway Entrance Sign” and the “time and temperature display” for some business advertisement, that happened to be located across the street from the airport, adjacent to the runway soon came to be the kinds of things that pilots were using as circling and landing references. Unfortunately, the folks that own McDonalds’ franchises and all those other references are under no requirement to maintain their advertising or their signs in any particular manner and may, at any time, adjust, rebuild, move, or remove such signs. It became apparent that simply describing the “environment associated with the approach end of a runway” might not necessarily ensure that pilots who were using such references could be assured of a safe and accurate final approach segment and landing. It was at that time that the FAA changed the rules to cite “an identifiable part of the airport” for those required references … since airport diagrams are required and flight crews are required to have those diagrams with them when flying and buildings and structures on an airport are very closely regulated, marked, and shown on airport diagrams.

Also, if it is necessary to apologize to the owners/operators of this fine Aviation Forum, I certainly wouldn’t hesitate to do so … however, I strongly suspect that since there are specific sections of this forum that are dedicated to Rumors, News, Technical Issues, Australia, New Zealand, the Pacific, General Aviation, Africa, Canada, North America, Middle East, South Asia, the Far East, the Caribbean, Latin America, Nordic locations, France, Spain, Italy, Freight Operations, Helicopter Operations, Business Jets, Agricultural Operations, General Aviation, Military Operations, Flight Instructors, Cabin Crew, Pilot Training, Flight Testing, Jobs/Job Interviews, Air Traffic Control, Dispatchers, Medial and Health Issues, Private Flying, Airline Passengers, Spectators, Aviation History Buffs, Computer and Internet Issues, etc., it might seem to at least some posters, and to me, that your interpretation that I might not be able to comment with authority when commenting on “an international (UK based) pilot forum and especially when answering a question from a poster who is based in the UK…” might just be a slightly overly specific interpretation. Of course, as I’ve said above, I don’t claim, in fact, cannot claim, any authority, whatsoever, about anything, other than what level of authority YOU and/or others willingly offer.

Oh, and just to let you know … yes, I admit it … I could have responded to your post a bit more succinctly - perhaps with something deep and intelligent ... like "So you say!" or "You're entitled to your opinion as I am to mine!" … but after you went to such trouble to berate me … I thought I would just play “tag” with you a bit more. So … now ... you’re “IT” ... don’t drop the ball.

[flyboyike]

Holy Santa Ynez de Buenos Aires, he's really on a roll now!

[cosmo kramer]

So you say...

[AirRabbit]

Thanks cosmo ...

I had a 2-point wager with a colleague of mine that...
1) you would answer, and
2) you would answer the way you did.

If you were local I'd invite you to the local pub to share in the "fruits" of my winnings!

[cosmo kramer]

Well, I could have gone on about the professionality of navigating according to Hamburger signs, how you are expecting to see an "identifiable part of an airport" that is behind you etc...

But, the discussion ended for me as your ran out of arguments and the only thing you had left was to brag about you "merits". As I already said I don't care how many hours you have, or how many Pepsi's you drank or canapés you ate at some lunch-meeting being an international "negotiator".

I respect arguments and knowledge, the rest is just hot air. :D

Enjoy your beer...

[AirRabbit]

OK cosmo - I understand you don't like what I say - fine. I sincerely hope that the attitude you apparently want to hang onto doesn't cost your friends and family a lot of heart ache. You have what you want to believe in - and you feel it's safe and proper ... and apparently are not interested in taking a look at what you're describing from a somewhat different perspective. Of course, that's your choice. Despite the fact that you can't seem to decide between criticizing my lack of professional experience and criticizing the fact that I have considerable experience ... and despite the lack of logic in doing so ... you're welcome to do both if you'd like. Oh, those "merits" you say I described - are merely facts - if you choose to elevate them to the status of some degree of "merit," I'll not stand in your way. Also, you should know that if you have a question to which you'd like an answer ... all you need to do is ask. NO, I don't expect that you will ... but the offer is genuine anyway. Additionally, I will make one recommendation (presuming, of course, you won't like it nor act on it - so I'm probably wasting my typing skills, but ...) and that is you not jump down the throat of your colleagues before you know who they are, what they do, how well they do it, and whether your criticizing them will make them or you look bad. Despite our differences, I hope you complete each of your flights safely, avoiding all areas of "hot air," and that you enjoy the opportunity to do one of the most challenging and rewarding job functions on the planet.

Cheers.

[Kefuddle]

Heard of Route 2?
Nope :confused:

[cosmo kramer]

I am not criticizing your experience, which I have no possible way to evaluate or judge. What I am saying about your experience is I don't care!

This is a discussion forum, what counts here are what arguments and knowledge you present. Your post are longwinded, full of adjectives and small anecdotes that are irrelevant to the point. I didn't eat 5000 meals crossing the Atlantic (too young and also no desire), I don't waste my time doing lunch meetings. I became a pilot because I like flying, to which such activities are contra productive.

I do however, operate a 737-800 (as PIC if that matters to you, you seem very hung on status) into dark desolated (no MacDonalds to steer for) 1 runway-1 taxiway airports, surrounded by mountains on a regular basic. And occasionally do a circling at said airports (because the mountains do not allow to approach from either side). That I do according to the SOP of my company in a safe and efficient manner, as I am paid to do.

I don't say that to assert myself, but to explain the reason I felt I had something to contribute to this thread... What was your motivation, except for an opportunity to flash your, for your age quite (sorry) common CV?

You have what you want to believe in - and you feel it's safe and proper ... and apparently are not interested in taking a look at what you're describing from a somewhat different perspective.
If you take the time and look back in the thread, you will see that everyone here use the method I described (including US colleagues). That except for a few cheers to you from General Aviation pilots.

Face it, you are off track. And maybe it is time you review your perspective.

By the way, why aren't you out drinking beer? Colleague doesn't want to pay anyway? Time to throw the towel in the ring.

[cosmo kramer]

If you take the time and look back in the thread..

Of curiosity took a look for you:

Times the downwind of circling approach:
Screwballs
Cosmo Kramer
Ollie Onion
RAT 5
Skyjob
737aviator
mcdhu
Kefuddle
Desert185 (Western USA)
B737900er (Florida)

Does not time:
Crossunder
777boeings ("Can't remember" where he is)
ZAZ (General Aviation)
You

[flyboyike]

OK cosmo - I understand you don't like what I say - fine. I sincerely hope that the attitude you apparently want to hang onto doesn't cost your friends and family a lot of heart ache. You have what you want to believe in - and you feel it's safe and proper ... and apparently are not interested in taking a look at what you're describing from a somewhat different perspective. Of course, that's your choice. Despite the fact that you can't seem to decide between criticizing my lack of professional experience and criticizing the fact that I have considerable experience ... and despite the lack of logic in doing so ... you're welcome to do both if you'd like. Oh, those "merits" you say I described - are merely facts - if you choose to elevate them to the status of some degree of "merit," I'll not stand in your way. Also, you should know that if you have a question to which you'd like an answer ... all you need to do is ask. NO, I don't expect that you will ... but the offer is genuine anyway. Additionally, I will make one recommendation (presuming, of course, you won't like it nor act on it - so I'm probably wasting my typing skills, but ...) and that is you not jump down the throat of your colleagues before you know who they are, what they do, how well they do it, and whether your criticizing them will make them or you look bad. Despite our differences, I hope you complete each of your flights safely, avoiding all areas of "hot air," and that you enjoy the opportunity to do one of the most challenging and rewarding job functions on the planet.

Cheers.


Rabbit, I have a suggestion for you: if you truly want to help us whippersnappers like you say you do (which I think is a bunch of hooey, but I digress), consider toning down on the patronizing, self-glorifying tone just a tiny bit (tinier than my paycheck even). I really think it would help.

[JeroenC]

We time as well.

[latetonite]

Well, I take the time, I even time on a VNAV NPA. :ok:

[B737900er]

But where are the times noted in the FCTM, or any document?

Ive been taught it in the sim, and used it on the line but have never seen it mentioned in the books.

Visual approaches I don't use timing and just use an extended centre line and dme readings as a cross check.

[Kefuddle]

Ive been taught it in the sim, and used it on the line but have never seen it mentioned in the books.
I have only seen detailed explanations in the material supplied by my flight school during my initial instrument training.

[cosmo kramer]

B737900er, it's not described in the FCTM. In my opinion it is not within the responsibility of Boeing either, but the airline to make a decision of the appropriate method, given they may operate under different regulations or set higher requirements than what is regulated by the authority.

As I wrote previously, e.g. my airline decided to raise the circling minima to 3000 meters visibility given the fast speed of the -800. Hence, min visibility and timing are interconnected, and at my airline it has been considered as show in the calculation in my post on page 1 of this thread (before the discussion was derailed by AirRabbit). Another airline could in theory decide on 5 km min visibility and describe the circling as a visual approach if so inclined.

I think most of us would agree that a visual approach is flow looking out the window, with the only necessary working instrument being the airspeed indicator.

[B737900er]

Cosmo - cheers for the clarification.

I recall seeing a sentence in the FCTM that timing is no longer the preferred method due to the available functions of the FMC (presumably the fix page).

Funny enough I can no longer find that statement in the newest revisions.

[AirRabbit]

I am not criticizing your experience, which I have no possible way to evaluate or judge. What I am saying about your experience is I don't care!
…and you’ve made that abundantly clear.


This is a discussion forum, what counts here are what arguments and knowledge you present. Your post are longwinded, full of adjectives and small anecdotes that are irrelevant to the point.
Irrelevancy is often in the eye of the reader … and not all readers read the same thing into what is written … which is why I diligently attempt to say the same things differently to allow for just those kinds of potentials. Obviously, I haven’t yet found the formula to allow some here to understand my points. However, I guess I should offer my “thanks” for the compliment on my writing “style.”


I didn't eat 5000 meals crossing the Atlantic (too young and also no desire), I don't waste my time doing lunch meetings. I became a pilot because I like flying, to which such activities are contra productive.
I wasn’t saying that you DO eat 5000 meals crossing the Atlantic – I was attempting to refute that specific allegation … which you made as I’m sure you recall the following...
(And yes, I don't care how many hours you have... eating a meal and taking a nap 5000 times over the Atlantic doesn't really make anyone an expert in circling approaches).
…which was most certainly thrown in my direction.


I don't care how many hours you have, or how many Pepsi's you drank or canapés you ate at some lunch-meeting being an international "negotiator".
…and, just in case you continue to have that opinion, I think you might want to know that there are some here who do spend some valuable time in, as you describe, “international lunch meetings,” but I would suspect that they each believe they are contributing to the overall safety of ALL the world’s aviation operations – and very few, if any, of whom are specifically aware of, nor likely care, that you think they are wasting their time.


I do however, operate a 737-800 (as PIC if that matters to you, you seem very hung on status) into dark desolated (no MacDonalds to steer for) 1 runway-1 taxiway airports, surrounded by mountains on a regular basic. And occasionally do a circling at said airports (because the mountains do not allow to approach from either side). That I do according to the SOP of my company in a safe and efficient manner, as I am paid to do.
My suggestion would be that you slow down your reading rate – just a bit – in order to comprehend what is written … you might recall that what I wrote was a very brief history of why the US rules were changed from what is essentially the language you described (which was … “the basic assumption is that the runway environment should be kept in sight while at minimum descent altitude/height (MDA/H) for circling.” I attempted to explain why the US chose to refine that kind of wording, in that the term “runway environment” was thought to be insufficiently accurate – as it was learned that some pilots were using objects that should never have been used for the purposes that some pilots were using them … hence the new language … as I said:

That language seemed to be adequate until it became apparent that the McDonalds Hamburger “Golden Arches,” the “Freeway Entrance Sign” and the “time and temperature display” for some business advertisement, that happened to be located across the street from the airport, adjacent to the runway soon came to be the kinds of things that pilots were using as circling and landing references. Unfortunately, the folks that own McDonalds’ franchises and all those other references are under no requirement to maintain their advertising or their signs in any particular manner and may, at any time, adjust, rebuild, move, or remove such signs. It became apparent that simply describing the “environment associated with the approach end of a runway” might not necessarily ensure that pilots who were using such references could be assured of a safe and accurate final approach segment and landing. It was at that time that the FAA changed the rules to cite “an identifiable part of the airport” for those required references … since airport diagrams are required and flight crews are required to have those diagrams with them when flying and buildings and structures on an airport are very closely regulated, marked, and shown on those airport diagrams.

I’m just trying to understand your thought processes, cosmo… because what you wrote doesn't seem to make sense ...
As you can see, it is the runway that should be kept in visual contact. Not airport surroundings. Neither does it say that the Pilot Flying, should be the one to keep the runway in sight, for multi pilot airplanes.
If you are on downwind, 1 nm past the threshold, still going in the opposite direction, you will not able to fly with reference to the runway.
So … which is it? "The runway is kept in visual contact" … or … "you will not be able to fly with reference to the runway" … ? You can do one or the other … but I would submit … not both at the same time.

...and, since, according to you, the requirement says "...Visual manoeuvring (circling), 7.2.2. After initial visual contact, the basic assumption is that the runway environment should be kept in sight while at minimum descent altitude/height (MDA/H) for circling"... just who should it be that keeps "the runway environment in sight while at MDA"??? I ask only because in most cases, directions that are issued regarding how the airplane is to be flown are directed to the pilot doing the flying. Right?


I don't say that to assert myself, but to explain the reason I felt I had something to contribute to this thread... What was your motivation, except for an opportunity to flash your, for your age quite (sorry) common CV?
So … am I to understand that when you post something, the motivation is pure and contains heartfelt comments from a professional aviator … but when someone like me posts something it can only be “an opportunity to flash my quite sorry (and) common CV?


If you take the time and look back in the thread, you will see that everyone here use the method I described (including US colleagues). That except for a few cheers to you from General Aviation pilots.
As I read back through this thread I see that there are some who, very definitely, indicate that they do much as you do. I also see that some describe what they do in a manner that could be taken in one of several ways – meaning I am unsure of the specifics of what they describe – and, of course, there are some here who describe their actions as being similar to the procedures I’ve described and some who simply agree with what I’ve posted. I would hope that no one here blindly takes anything written on any forum – including this very fine forum – as justification for changing the way they comply with the way their company wants them to perform. What I do hope for is that those here who are unsure or would like to examine their own understanding of the issue brought to light in this or other forums would take those questions to their training department and have a frank and open discussion about what should be done – and how the airplane is to be flown.


Face it, you are off track. And maybe it is time you review your perspective.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion – and that includes both of us.


By the way, why aren't you out drinking beer? Colleague doesn't want to pay anyway? Time to throw the towel in the ring.
Well, the fact is that when you posted your response to my post – I had made arrangements to do just as you suggest. In fact, since I’m not scheduled to work for another couple of days, I just might repeat that activity with some close friends who I’ve asked to take a read of this particular thread, specifically the thoughts you have expressed. If they’re printable, I’ll let you know what they say.

[cosmo kramer]

So … which is it? "The runway is kept in visual contact" … or … "you will not be able to fly with reference to the runway" … ? You can do one or the other … but I would submit … not both at the same time.
I can indeed have both:
Fly (aviate) is maintaining altitude, altitude and speed. Or the longwinded version :{ :
Every time you, as a pilot, move a control surface, make a power adjustment, or anything that will affect the existing condition of the airplane (and I use the term “condition” to mean the airplane’s attitude, altitude, airspeed, angle-of-attack, direction of flight, configuration, energy state, etc.), AND you should know that what you are doing is correct and proper to regain or maintain the airplane condition that YOU desire and/or the condition you want for the airplane in the next second … application by application.

You can't do that looking over your shoulder. Especially with mountains, strong wind and turbulence, your would have to work to keep the aircraft on the desired path, that may be with a very limited margin defined by MDA/cloudbase - being too close to do a 180 and too far to keep the runway or associated lights in sight. On a dark, poor vis, rainy night, I would even recommend you fly (aviate) with reference to your ADI, as previously described a few posts back. Not looking out the window for the nearest MacDonald.

Keeping the runway in sight is navigate. To rely on that sight alone for navigation, with all associated optical illusions due to darkness, rain, unusual altitude, poor runway lightning seen from an angle etc., I maintain is reckless.

So … am I to understand that when you post something, the motivation is pure and contains heartfelt comments from a professional aviator … but when someone like me posts something it can only be “an opportunity to flash my quite sorry (and) common CV?
I wrote because the subject interested me. And, frankly, there is an egoistical reason for all me to post on this forum too - my own benefit of being forced to look things up and refreshing my memory (like where is what exactly written).

You on the other hand jumped in with a completely off-topic post where you are trying to assert yourself as some master, who discovered a new trend before anyone else. There after, again "the master", is telling us everything we do is wrong and continue to "back up" your argument with a CV that is (sorry to say) not that particular extraordinary. It usually comes with growing older that you did a lot of "stuff".

Previous in my career I flew with 20,000 hour Captains, that didn't know the alternate planning minima and could handfly if their life depended on it (certainly not without the FD). So I learned that doing stuff for a long time is no guarantee of competence. In fact I have the experience that the less people feel they need to assert themselves, usually the more competent they are....



P.s.
I wasn't complementing your writing style, being clear, concise and to the point is something to admire. And "quotation marks" around a word means that it shouldn't be taken literal, that in fact the writer means something else than the typical meaning of the word or as a plain expression of irony.

[AirRabbit]

Just for your information ... and your reading pleasure ... with respect to "circle to land" ...

Routine Airline Flights end up killing passengers, Failure of CRM, Failure of cockpit SOPs, Airliner crashes (http://airlinesafety.com/editorials/RoutineKillerFlights.htm)

ASN Aircraft accident Boeing 767-2J6ER B-2552 Pusan-Kimhae Airport (PUS) (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20020415-0)

ASN News » Report: Yemenia A310 stalled into the sea during unstabilized circle-to-land approach (http://news.aviation-safety.net/2013/07/04/report-yemenia-a310-stalled-into-the-sea-during-unstabilized-circle-to-land-approach/)

Rockwell Commander Plane Crash in New Haven, Connecticut | Kreindler & Kreindler LLP | National (http://www.kreindler.com/Recent-Aviation-Accident-Investigations/Rockwell-Commander-Plane-Crash-in-New-Haven-Connecticut.shtml)

[cosmo kramer]

Don't have time to read all of them now, but the first of you example, just begs for a comment, as it supports my case:
The pilots assumed this was a routine flight. After all, the weather was good and there was nothing wrong with their aircraft just minutes before landing.

As it turns out, the captain, who was the pilot flying, was compelled to attempt a night visual approach to the runway, even though the VOR Runway 17 instrument approach was briefed and set up earlier.
It just highlights that a night visual is a difficult maneuver, even into an airport with wich the crew was familiar at daytime.

Exactly the reason an even more difficult night-circling approach should be dealt with in an almost scientific systematic manner. It should not be taken lightly and regarded as a tight visual approach, and as such the timing method is a good system to ensure that you are where you want to be. ;)

[AirRabbit]

OK … I’m getting confused trying to stay up with what it is you are trying to say …

Here is is no requirement to have the runway in sight, as long as you can find your way with other identifiable terrain features (e.g. follow a coastline that leads to the airport). Hence you fly it looking out the window…
Who “flys it” looking out the window? The pilot flying? The pilot looking out the window? Or is one pilot doing both? I thought you said that wasn’t the way you flew?

You can't do that looking over your shoulder. Especially with mountains, strong wind and turbulence, your would have to work to keep the aircraft on the desired path, that may be with a very limited margin defined by MDA/cloudbase - being too close to do a 180 and too far to keep the runway or associated lights in sight. On a dark, poor vis, rainy night, I would even recommend you fly (aviate) with reference to your ADI, as previously described a few posts back. Not looking out the window for the nearest MacDonald.
When I described a pilot moving a control surface or making another flight control adjustment you come back with a statement that again says “…you can’t do that looking over your shoulder…” indicating that you can’t do that when looking out the window …?

Keeping the runway in sight is navigate. To rely on that sight alone for navigation, with all associated optical illusions due to darkness, rain, unusual altitude, poor runway lightning seen from an angle etc., I maintain is reckless.
And here … we’re going back the other way … relying on looking out the window is a proper way to navigate, but it’s reckless.

I’m not trying to make you angry … I’m just pointing out an apparent lack of continuity in your thought process.

You on the other hand jumped in with a completely off-topic post where you are trying to assert yourself as some master, who discovered a new trend before anyone else. There after, again "the master", is telling us everything we do is wrong and continue to "back up" your argument with a CV that is (sorry to say) not that particular extraordinary. It usually comes with growing older that you did a lot of "stuff.
Actually, I “jumped in” to comment on what appeared to be the generation (and acceptance) of yet another in a series of “cheat-sheet” methods to reduce the amount of flight awareness that simply must be maintained during flight operations. And I’m still not sure that what was being described is not one of those “feel-good-rules-of thumb” that have little to do with the task at hand. In fact, I cannot believe that with the amount of time and experience you claim, that you have not seen a pilot attempt to drag out from memory a set of specifically-committed-to-memory-values that is thought by that pilot to be “the way” to address the situation at hand. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that the Asiana 214 tragedy involved at least some pre-conceived “it’s-always-worked-before” kind of “semi-procedure” that, when it was failing, because it HAD always worked before, neither pilot at the controls recognized that something was wrong and going even more wrong – until the stick shaker shook them back to reality just in time to push up the throttles and have the tail smack the sea-wall. You, and others who believe as you do, will just have to pardon the fact that my interest and commitment to urge the elimination of such “cheat-sheet” methods, because invariably they allow semi-competent pilots to attempt to operate airplanes with passengers aboard. My skepticism and my digging into what is visible only on the surface, together with others who share my concerns, has been one of my primary responsibilities for a good share of my career. I can appreciate that some don’t like to have something that they’ve become accustomed to doing to be criticized … but I would hope that understanding why such criticisms are made – that being to better ensure that pilots remain aware of what their airplane is doing, understand why it is doing that specific thing, and agree that what is being observed is what was asked for by the pilot at the controls.

So, please continue to attempt to belittle me or criticize my thoughts or motivations if you choose – you aren’t the first … and likely won’t be the last … and I say that because such criticisms do, on occasion, make sense, and requires those of us who believe the way we do that some additional issues have to be addressed. That is a good thing … and I don’t object … at all. However, apparent disconnects with the criticisms … an appearance to stubbornly hold on to issues that are inherently inaccurate or have been known to generate problems simply cannot be allowed to go unchallenged and uncorrected.

As I said previously – I hope you continue to operate safely and continue to enjoy the best profession on the planet.

[cosmo kramer]

I’m not trying to make you angry … I’m just pointing out an apparent lack of continuity in your thought process.

You apparently didn't read my posts.

Cirling approach, downwind, runway behind you, poor weather:
You can't fly (aviate) the aircraft looking out the window, because you may have nothing but a black windscreen a head of you. Hence, you are forced to fly on your ADI.

Visual approach, anywhere one the approach, runway might not even be visible (shallow fog, behind next mountain etc.), good inflight visibility, terrain features recognizable (airport up that valley, behind the next mountain):

Cosmo Kramer:
I think most of us would agree that a visual approach is flow looking out the window, with the only necessary working instrument being the airspeed indicator.

[AirRabbit]

You apparently didn't read my posts.

Cirling approach, downwind, runway behind you, poor weather:
You can't fly (aviate) the aircraft looking out the window, because you may have nothing but a black windscreen a head of you. Hence, you are forced to fly on your ADI.

Visual approach, anywhere one the approach, runway might not even be visible (shallow fog, behind next mountain etc.), good inflight visibility, terrain features recognizable (airport up that valley, behind the next mountain):

This is just the kind of thing I’m trying to point out …


As you can see, it is the runway that should be kept in visual contact.

There is no requirement to have the runway in sight, as long as you can find your way with other identifiable terrain features…

A circling is rightly a visual maneuver, but flown in IMC conditions.

You are proposing to fly looking out the window when flying downwind. What visual reference do you expect to have?

I think most of us would agree that a visual approach is flow looking out the window, with the only necessary working instrument being the airspeed indicator.

My guess is that you’re having at least some difficulty in recognizing the fact that your statements directly contradict each other. That leaves those of us trying to understand a bit in “a fuddle.”

You say a visual approach is flown looking out the window. You’ve posted quotes from various sources that indicate that a “circle-to-land” is visually flown from the point in which you reach visual conditions until you land. You’ve also said that you cannot fly a circle-to-land if you have to look out the window. What does that mean?

You say that a circle-to-land is “rightly a visual maneuver but flown in IMC conditions.” Do those IMC conditions have a minimum value for you to be legal to initiate the approach? Where do you find what those minimum IMC conditions have to be? What do those numbers mean? What are you supposed to do with that information?

You’ve said that on a “Visual approach, anywhere on the approach, the runway might not even be visible.” Is there anything that the pilot must be able to see to fly a “visual approach” or is it just “the ground.” If it is just the ground – is there no particular object on that ground that must be seen?

If we intend to fly an instrument approach with a circle-to-land clearance, do you not think that those minimums are published for a reason? I’m curious – presuming the ceiling and visibility is exactly what is printed on the chart … what is it that you expect to be able to see when you get to the point where you are about to break off from the instrument approach and being the circle-to-land maneuver? Do you expect to see … the airport … the runway … or some other identifiable ground object? If it is some other object – how would you know what to look for unless it’s printed on the chart? If it is the runway and you later lose sight of that runway (which you say may happen) ... now, what do you do? If, as you say, you know that the runway might not be visible when you get down to circling minimums – why is it you believe you are authorized to begin the approach? Unless, of course, there is some other feature that you can identify visually … but what would that be? There are requirements that exist that tell you when you must initiate a missed approach … right? Would it not be that you lost sight of something – what is that something? Is it what you had in sight initially? What is it that you have to see to continue? Is that information included on the approach chart under "circling minimums?"

Cosmo, my friend … I think confusion is beginning to reign supreme … and it’s not me that’s confused.

[Screwballs]

AirRabbit, you have written quite a few words on this thread so far. However, I don't see your answer to the original question! Can we have a concise summary of how you would perform a circle to land procedure? For the example lets use a Cat C aircraft, Boeing 737 if you like.

[AirRabbit]

AirRabbit, you have written quite a few words on this thread so far. However, I don't see your answer to the original question! Can we have a concise summary of how you would perform a circle to land procedure? For the example lets use a Cat C aircraft, Boeing 737 if you like.


Sure thing Screwballs – just let me know what airport, what runway to approach and what runway to land after circle, "existing" weather conditions, and, if you have access, an appropriate approach plate. If you don’t have one, I may be able to come up with one. I’ll await your information.

...and, as I've been saying, the reason I posted anything here is that it seemed to me that some inexperienced aviators may have thought it wise to jump on the series of suggested numbers that were being thrown around very casually. I know that many "newbies" have a tendency to take some of those "number references," commit them to memory for a given set of circumstances, and may at some point in the future be tempted to apply those "number references" to some different, but similar-looking circumstances, and without knowing for sure what they're doing, choose to apply the wrong application to the set of circumstances with which they have been confronted. There seems to be a marked increase in that kind of "cheat-sheet" approach when difficult sets of circumstances present themselves. I've said that I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the Asiana tragedy at SFO may have had just such an "its-always-worked-before" set of "canned procedures" that were used by that crew.

[Ollie Onion]

Woah, chill out guys. The question ways about 'how your airline describes circling'. Just do it the way your manual tells you too, I have never done a circling approach in anywhere near minima conditions. I only use a timing method as that is how I was taught and it makes it easy in the Sim where the visuals might not be the best.

[flyboyike]

My current airline (as well as my previous one) solved this whole problem rather bluntly as reflected on the back of my certificate in the limitations section, which reads in part:

ATP CIRC APPCH - VMC ONLY
CL-65 ERJ-170 ERJ-190 CIRC APPCH - VMC ONLY

Besides, there are only two airports where we do any kind of circling with any kind of frequency, those being LGA and DCA, in the former case only if one is to consider Expressway Visual Rwy 31 a circling approach.

[RAT 5]

…..or set higher requirements than what is regulated by the authority.

e.g. my airline decided to raise the circling minima to 3000 meters visibility given the fast speed of the -800.

I did fly a CAT C a/c and the promulgated minimum vis was 2400m, as now. The local XAA FOI did a calculation regarding the radius of a continuos turn from downwind to finals. He concluded that 2400m was not enough to keep the runway in sight at the spacing required to make a rate 1 turn onto finals. He enforced 3600m (CAT D) on the airline. We disagreed by performing in the sim and found a downwind spacing of 2400m to be sufficient for the turn. No success. His opinion was that 2400m vis at 500' agl was not healthy and that was it. Minima are just that.

[Screwballs]

Sure thing Screwballs – just let me know what airport, what runway to approach and what runway to land after circle, "existing" weather conditions, and, if you have access, an appropriate approach plate. If you don’t have one, I may be able to come up with one. I’ll await your information.

A theoretical, sea level airport. 09/27 4000m nil slope dry runway. ILS on 09. Minima for Cat C. Company minima 1,000ft AMSL. Actual weather 10km visibility. Cloud base is minima plus 200ft(1,200ft). Nil significant weather. Wind is only 270/10. ATC request you circle to land on 27. Nil terrain issue, MSA in all sectors 1,100ft. Temperature 15. QNH 1013.25. Boeing 737-700 at a nominal weight. Approach speed 140. It's 1224Z on the 17th of February. 2012. You are on the prime meridian. The sun is up. If I haven't mentioned it, it isn't there.

So back once again to the original query: how do you describe the circle to land, specifically the downwind leg and turn from there through base to final?

[AirRabbit]

Hi Screwballs - I'd be happy to describe how a circle-to-land maneuver should be conducted at the "theoretical" airport you have described ... but, in that you're describing a theoretical, not a real, airport, I doubt there is an approach plate available. As you would certainly recognize, having the information available on that plate is crucial to the performance of any such instrument approach - regardless of whether or not a circle-to-land is planned. While the information you provided is relatively comprehensive - there is substantial information that is not available in your description: the layout of the airport, including the locations of runways, taxiways, tower, hangars, fire departments, airport locator beacon, and other buildings, the location and elevation of any obstacles, the ceiling and visibility required for the approach, the ceiling and visibility required for conducting the circle maneuver, minimum altitude to maintain during the circle, other restrictions to any circle authorizations, limitations to and locations of appropriate reference points for the ILS to be flown (OM, MM, IM, FAF, MAP and the means used to identify those points), any instrument procedures and similar reference points for authorized instrument procedures for the runway of intended landing (if any), and, unfortunately, the list could go on rather extensively. In fact, a picture is worth 10,000 words. However, and I think importantly, before we get to whatever potential solution might be appropriate to answer your request of me … I think there may be a larger question to resolve first.

In your opening post you said…
The reason I am wondering about is to do with the protected area and the tightness of the turn to final. Cat C aircraft will have 4.2nm to manouevre inside safely. And this is based on a max speed of 180 knots with a 25 wind plus correction for TAS gives a speed of 215 knots for the circling area. (Jepp Text pg. 233 Table I-4-7-2) However, with that speed and timing based on 1,000ft AAL circle to land, you would end up approximately 2.7nm from the threshold.* Plus a turn inbound would still give you a margin on the 4.2nm. And that's at 215 knots! The normal reality would be closer to approximately 160 knots or so.

I’m not sure what it is you are saying here. Why would you presume that you would have to circle at 215 knots? I think that if you check the approach plate for an ILS at any airport/runway you know well, you’ll find the distance from the OM to the runway threshold is on the order of 4.5 to 5.0 miles. You’re describing a “safe maneuvering radius” of 4.2 nautical miles, which is over 25,500 feet – more than twice the distance of some of the longest runways in the world. Additionally, the safe circling distance from the end of the runway you are describing would be just inside of that OM/FAF location. Given the fact that most ILS OM/FAFs are at 1500 feet AGL, and you’re describing a circling altitude of 1,000 feet AGL, it would seem to me that you should find yourself quite comfortable with those circumstances. The circling distances are calculated for the various categories of airplanes in accordance with their maximum gross landing weight and the airspeed they would have to maintain to be safe at those weights – plus whatever margin above that distance the airport/approach planners allow. Of course, we all recognize that a circle-to-land authorization does not guarantee that everything will work out well and that the landing is guaranteed. That’s why they have missed approach procedures. However, IF the airplane is flown carefully and within the parameters prescribed, and there are no unusual “winds aloft,” there is little reason that the approach and landing could not be safely accomplished – and they are – regularly. Again, my interest was initiated strictly due to what appeared to be the attempted structure of a “set of numbers” solution to a set of specific circumstances that inexperienced pilots might want to apply to a different circumstance that could easily get them into trouble. And, I continue to think there is more to learn about the Asiana landing accident at SFO along these specific lines.

However, given all these issues, if you desire that I describe how a specific circle-to-land should be flown, I can still do that for you, IF the information that is typically available on an approach plate is available for that description.

[Capn Bloggs]

It all depends on how sacrosanct your stabilised approach criteria is. If you need to be stabilised at 500ft AGL on final, you must turn base abeam that point (ie 1.6nm/2900m/40sec at 140GS). It is impossible to remain within circling visibility criteria from the threshold (we need to keep the runway environment in sight;not withstanding metallic obstacles to vision!) while still complying with the turn point.

Flyboy Mike's outfit realises that by ruling:
ATP CIRC APPCH - VMC ONLY
CL-65 ERJ-170 ERJ-190 CIRC APPCH - VMC ONLY
circling in VMC only.

and Rat 5's FOI was also onto it:
The local XAA FOI did a calculation regarding the radius of a continuos turn from downwind to finals. He concluded that 2400m was not enough to keep the runway in sight at the spacing required to make a rate 1 turn onto finals. He enforced 3600m (CAT D) on the airline. We disagreed by performing in the sim and found a downwind spacing of 2400m to be sufficient for the turn. No success. His opinion was that 2400m vis at 500' agl was not healthy and that was it.
VMC flight at low level can be safely accomplished within a 4.2nm circling area so you do retain MDA protection; not sure about in a TERPS area...

As for altitudes, it is obvious that 3" per hundred doesn't work: If you're circling at 500ft, you're not going to turn at 15" and if you have any hope of getting wings level by 500ft on final on a 3° slope.

[aterpster]

Capn Bloggs:


VMC flight at low level can be safely accomplished within a 4.2nm circling area so you do retain MDA protection; not sure about in a TERPS area...


See Post #37 for TERPs. Perhaps in 10-15 years the new TERPS CTL protected airspace will migrate throughout all TERPS IAPs.


In the meantime, 1.7 miles for CAT C and 2.3 miles for CAT D is absurd.

[Capn Bloggs]

Thanks aterpster. I thought it was quite small. I remember having a "discussion" with 411A about him staying inside that in his L1011 on a circle... :)

Even 2.7nm will be very tight...

[aterpster]

Capn Bloggs:


Thanks aterpster. I thought it was quite small. I remember having a "discussion" with 411A about him staying inside that in his L1011 on a circle... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

Even 2.7nm will be very tight...


The L1011 would get at least 3.6 miles.

[cosmo kramer]

AirRabbit, there are no contradictions in anything I wrote. You are mixing interchangeably what I wrote about: 1) Circling approach and 2) Visual Approach. You mix "visual" with "visual meteorological conditions". Etc.

You say a visual approach is flown looking out the window. You’ve posted quotes from various sources that indicate that a “circle-to-land” is visually flown from the point in which you reach visual conditions until you land. You’ve also said that you cannot fly a circle-to-land if you have to look out the window. What does that mean?

1) A circling approach is flown in IMC. Runway should be kept in sight, to ensure that you don't leave the protected area.

2) A visual is flown in VMC or at least in conditions that makes is possible to fly the aircraft looking out the window. By flying I mean navigate AND aviate.

Of course a circling may be flown in VMC as well, although it would probably make more sense (economy) to fly a visual approach instead if conditions permit.

Speaking of circling the assumption is of course worst allowable weather conditions. Which are 2400 meter (1.5 miles) visibility and 600 feet cloud base (EU-OPS). Combined with rain, night and turbulence, those are not conditions that permit to aviate the aircraft with reference to outside view, during certain parts of the approach. Like now mentioned a numerous times as example, downwind, flying away from the airport.

You’ve said that on a “Visual approach, anywhere on the approach, the runway might not even be visible.” Is there anything that the pilot must be able to see to fly a “visual approach” or is it just “the ground.” If it is just the ground – is there no particular object on that ground that must be seen?
No, according to EU-OPS there are no particular objects that needs to be seen. I have given following as an example before of one type of Visual Approach that is legal according to EU-OPS:

Airport is covered in fog 800 meter (0.5 miles) visibility. Prior to the airport is a mountain that requires a longwinded approach, that would normally have you fly overhead the field, back outbound and then inbound for an ILS. With mountain clearly visible, you may ask for a visual approach, fly over the mountain and pick up the ILS directly on the other side for a straight in landing on the ILS in the fog.
OPS 1.435 Terminology
“Visual approach”. An approach when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to the terrain.

If we intend to fly ... a circle-to-land ... what is it that you expect ... to see when .. you are about to break off from the instrument approach ..? ... If it is the runway and you later lose sight of that runway (which you say may happen) ... now, what do you do? (Edited for brevity :E)
Yes according to ICAO and EU OPS it is the runway, and nothing else, except object associated with the runway. Like the approach lighting system (no MacDonalds).

I don't think I said that "it may happen", but in that case a go-around is required. If you have doubts about that at this stage in your career, I think really it is time to consider yourself lucky, hang up your spurs and cowboy hat, before something goes terrible wrong. Or wait... was that a condescending rhetorical question?

[cosmo kramer]

Capn Bloggs:
As for altitudes, it is obvious that 3" per hundred doesn't work: If you're circling at 500ft, you're not going to turn at 15" and if you have any hope of getting wings level by 500ft on final on a 3° slope.

My airline solved that quite cleverly. We have 3 "gates" for stabilized approach written into our procedures.

1)
First gate is the industry standard 1000 feet. However, it is defined as the aircraft has to be on correct flight path + all the usual standard established criteria.

For an ILS it means everything has to be completed (final configuration, checklist complete, aligned with the runway), because it's appropriate for the type of approach.

For a flying a visual approach, the aircraft has to be configured and checklist completed at 1000 feet according to the above, but doesn't have to be aligned with the runway, as long as it is on correct flight path.

2)
At 500 feet, a visual approach must additionally be aligned with the runway centerline.

Specifically for circling, landing flap and completion of landing checklist must be completed as well. Still we only have to be on correct flight path. Which at this point is doing the inbound turn.

3)
Last "gate", for circling only, is at 300 feet where it must be aligned with the centerline.

It doesn't mean that our established criteria for circling is 300 feet. The respective criteria for each previous gate has to be met as well.


In my case minimum EU OPS circling altitude is 600 feet and not 500. So to do a calculation if 3 sec pr 100 feet pr. MDH would be possible:

3 x 6 = 18 secs at 160 knots (82 m/s) = ca. 1500 meter = ca. 0.8 nm downwind = ca. 0.8 nm final.

So we have the inbound turn to descent 300 feet and roll out at 300 feet at 0.8 nm inbound or on approx. 3.5 deg final descent angle.

That said, it is theory. I can't think of any fields in our structure with 600 feet minima. The lowest I can find during a quick search is 730 feet AGL. Mostly, our problem is that the circling height is in the area of 1000-1200 feet, which makes it difficult to stay within 3000 meter of the airport. The most ridiculous example is an MDH of 2200 feet but still with 2400 meter visibility required and that with additionally a field elevation of almost 3500 feet. Common sense required. :hmm:

[AirRabbit]

It all depends on how sacrosanct your stabilised approach criteria is. If you need to be stabilised at 500ft AGL on final, you must turn base abeam that point (ie 1.6nm/2900m/40sec at 140GS). It is impossible to remain within circling visibility criteria from the threshold (we need to keep the runway environment in sight; not withstanding metallic obstacles to vision!) while still complying with the turn point.

OK, I’m sure that I’ll get hammered for going on and on – well, I’m used to it by now – but if anyone feels the need to post their objections … fire away:

Capn Bloggs, generally I agree with your statement that … “it depends on how sacrosanct your stabilized approach criteria is…” HOWEVER … I’m sure you would agree that there is no requirement to fly a “squared” traffic pattern (with a downwind, base, and final approach legs) as part of a circle-to-land maneuver. In fact, the pilot is free to maneuver the airplane over virtually any ground track as long as the airplane stays within the circling area and the pilot is cognizant of the referenced obstacles (respecting their location and height) and complies with all the regulatory requirements applicable to the task. Again, while the requirement used to say essentially what is currently said in many other regulatory agencies, but today, in the US at least, the requirement is (and I quote) “…the pilot may not exceed visibility criteria or descend below the appropriate circling altitude until in a position to make a descent to a normal landing.” That does not say that the airplane has to be physically “on” or “above” the final approach path before leaving the MDA – BUT, the requirement DOES say that a “normal rate of descent” is required. Of course, there is no way that I believe having a wide-body airplane wallowing around “down in the weeds” on a circle-to-land authorization is anything close to being a wise decision. I think, as an industry, we were pushing the limits of this particular clearance when we were flying DC-9s and old generation B-737s and B-727s. I think that once we got into the size of a B-757 we had passed into the very gray area of circle-to-land maneuvering – of course that is a highly personal observation – and I understand that various regulatory authorities tend to continue to approve these kinds of approaches for anything with wings. Also, typically, the circle-to-land maneuver is initially taught and evaluated in a simulator. As everyone knows simulators come in a whole litany of visual capabilities … some have VERY restricted visual systems (from having them only directly in front of each pilot – with no cross-cockpit visual capability) all the way to a continuous 220 degree horizontal (essentially visual capability from wing-tip to wing-tip) by 60 degree vertical field of view (mostly with 25 degrees “up” and 35 degrees “down” – and, of course, there are some variations) all of which is optically correct for both pilots.

There have been operators who have simulators with the more restricted fields of view but who also want to train crews on circle-to-land, and result to exerting a lot of pressure on their respective approving authority … and sometimes this approval is granted. But, in the US at least, each simulator is evaluated and qualified for specific usage by the National Simulator Program staff – a part of FAA's Flight Standards Service. As a part of these evaluations and subsequent qualification, no simulator will be qualified for the circle-to-land task UNLESS the evaluation of that specific simulator has included the evaluation of a successful circle-to-land maneuver, while complying with the regulatory requirement - again, which used to say what is said on some other regulatory environments, but in the US, it clearly states that “an identifiable portion of the airport remains continually in sight throughout the maneuver (except for airplane geometry issues)" and it presumes that the airplane is at it's maximum weight and the maneuver will not be flown unless the minimum visibility authorized for such an approach is reported. Then, as part of the official paper work accompanying the qualification, the specific airport and specific runway combinations evaluated for this task will be clearly indicated for that specific simulator. This is particularly accomplished to ensure that the circle-to-land function may be properly and appropriately conducted in that specific simulator – ensuring that the regulatory requirement that “Whenever an identifiable part of the airport is not distinctly visible to the pilot during a circling maneuver at or above MDA, unless the inability to see an identifiable part of the airport results only from a normal bank of the aircraft during the circling approach … the pilot must execute a missed approach ... and doing precisely that will be completely in compliance with the rules. With the qualification including this specific information, applicable to this specific simulator, the airline or training facility is free to seek approval from the regulator for other operating limitations and requirements, including circle-to-land procedures. But I will also point out that there have been some very “red” faces on some FAA inspectors and some airline or training provider management personnel after it became apparent that the training or checking was not conducted in compliance with these rules.

It is my contention that this particular practice is part of the developing of a “cheat sheet” approach to operations – almost all of which have been developed almost exclusively to allow, or at least assist, pilots in passing check rides and showing satisfactory progress during training. Unfortunately, when a pilot demonstrates his/her ability to perform any task for an FAA Inspector OR for a Company Check Airman, and is passed on that check, that pilot invariably feels supremely confident in performing that same set of procedures during normal line operations. However, if the simulator task was dependent upon starting a stop watch when passing the approach end of the landing runway, continuing to fly for some designated number of seconds toward a black void, using only the flight instruments for reference (i.e. NOT maintaining visual contact with the airport), then turn a prescribed number of degrees for some other specified number of seconds on that stop watch, and then again turn to the runway heading, anticipating the airplane to be aligned with that landing runway … and now that identical procedure is performed in an airplane, THAT is absolute folly, if for NO other reason than it is performed in direct opposition to the regulatory requirements – in the US at least – and may lead to the ultimate penalty for doing so. And it is for THAT reason that members of the FAA’s National Simulator Program staff will not qualify a simulator for circle-to-land UNLESS it can be accomplished completely in accordance with the regulations.

If, in accordance with company procedures, the pilot must have the airplane stabilized on final approach, on or approaching the glide slope (visual or electronic) while still at an altitude no lower than circling minimums (and a good share of the approach plates I’ve seen that authorize “Circle” show that to be somewhere between 400 and 500 feet AGL for Category C airplanes – and of course there are exceptions on both sides of that range) then that pilot is going to have to allow for the course intercept, final flap configuration, final airspeed and final descent rate adjustments PRIOR to initiating a descent – which, with little doubt would increase the difficulty of completing the task successfully. However, on most of the approach charts with which I am familiar, the circling MDA is equal to or almost equal to, the altitude that should be cross-referenced at the MM if flying a precision approach to that same runway, ON the glide slope. Those charts show the location of the MM to be at a point on the final approach course at a distance from the runway threshold of between 0.9 and 1.2 NM – meaning that the altitude flown during the circle-to-land would intersect the ILS glide slope at a point inside of, and therefore closer to the runway, than the visibility limit, which is usually between 1.5 and 1.6 NM. Also, since those distances are to the runway threshold, should there be an approach lighting system installed for that particular runway, or other identifiable airport structures, lights, etc., the final visual alignment should present even less of a challenge. However, let me quickly say that a circle-to-land is, in my opinion, a VERY challenging task under the best of conditions, and I am NOT attempting to “make lite” of the knowledge and proficiency requirements involved. But, if the pilot has maintained an identifiable portion of the airport throughout the circle, regardless of the ground path flown, and is of the opinion that he/she may begin a “normal rate of descent to the landing runway” prior to fully aligning with the final approach course, he/she is permitted to depart that MDA altitude while finally aligning with the landing runway. These requirements are not cavalierly chosen nor intended to be indiscriminately flown – but they do not allow continuing with the procedure when an identifiable portion of the landing airport cannot be continually maintained.

It is my understanding that as long as a company chooses to do so, they may set specifically designed minimum criteria for a circle-to-land maneuver, and as long as they do not violate any regulatory requirement (including the requirements posted on the approach plate) and can obtain appropriate authorization from their assigned regulatory authority, they may do just that. Again, my reason for jumping into this thread is to offer an observation that, in my experience, is becoming all too frequent … the development of a procedure that works – or generally works – in a simulated environment – but leaves out one or two or more very specific requirements that are more than likely to appear in the real world. I call these “sometimes-they-work” solutions “cheat sheet” approaches to getting through training and/or passing tests … and unfortunately, I am beginning to see this occur with much greater frequency … and it’s something that I think any professional pilot should be aware of and avoid at all costs.

[AirRabbit]

I think really it is time to consider yourself lucky, hang up your spurs and cowboy hat, before something goes terrible wrong. Or wait... was that a condescending rhetorical question?

Cosmo – I WILL say that you certainly are no “shrinking violet.” And, at least some of what you say does make some sense, at times. But to keep both of us on a track that might be seen as mutually beneficial, I’m going to select the same option with you as I did with another person I used to banter with – that being IGNORE. Have a great career!

[flyboyike]

You keep making this about you, Rabbit. That's not really helpful to us whippersnappers.

[cosmo kramer]

It is my contention that this particular practice is part of the developing of a “cheat sheet” approach to operations
Cheat sheet? A good pilot should be able to do simple arithmetics without difficulty. Starting a stopwatch, is basic dead reckoning, something taught in PPL lesson no. 1.
Distance = time x speed plus 3 x altitude thrown in. That is where 3 sec pr. 100 feet altitude comes in. It's no cheat sheet... it's predicting where your aircraft will be in a certain timeframe. Basic piloting skills.

However, if the simulator task was dependent upon starting a stop watch when passing the approach end of the landing runway, continuing to fly for some designated number of seconds toward a black void, using only the flight instruments for reference...
Who is talking about simulator?? And as for dark void, there is a world outside neon-MacDonalds-lit-bankrupt USA....


...(i.e. NOT maintaining visual contact with the airport),...
Now you fantasy is carrying you away. It was specifically said throughout the discussion, that the runway (not airport, for the 10th time) has to be kept in sight, that includes in number 3 window and includes that the PM may be assigned such task.


...then turn a prescribed number of degrees for some other specified number of seconds on that stop watch, and then again turn to the runway heading, anticipating the airplane to be aligned with that landing runway
Again your fantasy. Provide one quote from previous in the thread.

Have a great career!
Well you did run out of arguments a long time ago... :)

[AirRabbit]

Well you did run out of arguments a long time ago...

Nope. Just a lack of willingness to continue pointing out the fallacies of some who think they know it all, those who claim to have been there and done all that, and those who insist that flying a commercial jet during a circle-to-land on the basis of a stop watch is an appropriate thing to do. I'd bet you light a match to see your way to the door of the dynamite storage room too.:rolleyes: So ... no thanks ... you're on your own.
Sheesh.

[Capn Bloggs]

Airrabbit, getting a bit dramatic there...

Where I come from, square circuits are never done (I always have a chuckle when I see a FCTM with a square circuit diagram akin to a Cesspit POH), descents onto final from MDA are commenced when you hit the nominal 3° slope after turning at 40" (+/- ½" per knot) and you roll out at 500ft AGL, 1.5-odd nm from the threshold. Just like a normal circuit/traffic pattern. With Vis of 5000m (ie low level VMC) Simple.

As for config, we have the Landing checklist completed before the base turn point. Nothing to do apart from fly around the turn and land.

Call it a cheat sheet procedure if you like; it works in the SIM and in real life. :ok:

Edit: Sorry Cosmo, I didn't see your last post above Air Rabbit's. Rolling out at 300ft in a jet is dodgy; ironic, isn't it that on a gin-clear day the stabilised approach criteria is 500ft, when the weather is cr@p, it's only 300ft? BTW, 3.5° is 4 whites on the PAPI. "Go Around!"

[cosmo kramer]

As I see I am not on your ignore list anyway, I am curios to hear your "method" (the one that you have been keeping secret through out the thread). Looking forward to an enlightening response!!

I will provide you with the example plates requested.

Conditions:
Wind: 030/20
Visibility: 2400m (1.5 statute miles)
Rain
Overcast 800 feet
Night

There are no approach lights for runway 03R, it does however, has a 3 deg PAPI.

I'll provide you a satellite section of google maps as well for reference. As you can see, not a lot of MacDonalds to aim for (no Burger King, Wendy's or Jack in the Box either).

You are on the ILS 21L, GPWS has just called out "1000", we are flying... Good luck!

http://s27.postimg.org/6gih2fapv/Screen_Shot_2013_12_12_at_23_31_31.png

http://s27.postimg.org/7g8ry4pvn/Screen_Shot_2013_12_12_at_23_33_19.png

http://s17.postimg.org/jkgz889xr/Screen_Shot_2013_12_12_at_23_43_55.png

[cosmo kramer]

Rolling out at 300ft in a jet is dodgy; ironic, isn't it that on a gin-clear day the stabilised approach criteria is 500ft, when the weather is cr@p, it's only 300ft? BTW, 3.5° is 4 whites on the PAPI. "Go Around!"
Well, I still have to be stabilized in 500 feet (on speed, engines spooled, configured, checklist completed on correct lateral and vertical path). Only thing that is allowed to be an open "item" until 300 feet is wings level. Ironic? Yes I agree. Dodgy, no. But extra vigilance is definitely required.

PAPI indication alone is not a reason for go around. Especially 4 whites, which would steadily correct toward 2 white. As long as sink rate doesn't exceed 1000 fpm and aim point stays fixed on the windscreen (PAPI to be disregard below 200 feet anyway according to my OM-A, following the other active thread about it for another official reference).

At a certain airport we fly to, where we often fly visuals, the PAPI is so weak, that during daytime you won't see it until the last 500 feet. And if you follow it, it will take you in too high, so my assumption is that it is additionally calibrated wrong. I usually brief that I will fly 2.5 to 3 deg degs visual path, as recommended by Boeing, and to disregard the PAPI when it becomes visible. It often shows 4 reds, and I don't go around for that either.

So I think it is a matter to be conscious about such indications and plan and brief for them in advance. If it would be a surprise, and cause for wonder, why I see 4 white or red, for sure I will go around too.

[AirRabbit]

Airrabbit, getting a bit dramatic there...

Where I come from, square circuits are never done (I always have a chuckle when I see a FCTM with a square circuit diagram akin to a Cesspit POH), descents onto final from MDA are commenced when you hit the nominal 3° slope after turning at 40" (+/- ½" per knot) and you roll out at 500ft AGL, 1.5-odd nm from the threshold. Just like a normal circuit/traffic pattern. With Vis of 5000m (ie low level VMC) Simple.

As for config, we have the Landing checklist completed before the base turn point. Nothing to do apart from fly around the turn and land.

Call it a cheat sheet procedure if you like; it works in the SIM and in real life.

Well, Capn, I’ve never been accused of being “born to be mild.” And I completely agree with the “square circuits” issue, but not as much as I agree with your description of descending from MDA. The “cheat sheet” issue that I was referencing – and there have been several – would be something, for example, that is worked out to get someone through the check and/or to look good on a training record. It can consist of, and I’ve seen several consisting of, almost anything. The glaring similarity is that, for most pilots, their initial observation of what is being done makes little if any sense. And the one that motivated the FAA’s National Simulator Program (NSP) staff to change their evaluation and qualification standards for the circle-to-land task, was when the simulator evaluator attempted to fly an ILS approach to Rwy 27R at one of the airport models this simulator sponsor had included in the simulator, followed by a circle to land on Rwy 9L, but he was unable to do so because visual contact with the airport/runway was lost.

Here’s how the FAA’s NSP staff described how they reached the decision that was verified all the way up the chain and resulted in the current NSP policy, reflecting FAA regulations. When that evaluator announced the unsuccessful result, one of the company’s pilots insisted on re-flying the approach. That was agreed to, and he did just that. After flying the ILS to Rwy 27R, when he reached MDA he leveled off and turned right (about 30 degrees of heading change) and punched the clock. At ~45 seconds, he turned back to the approximate heading he had held during the instrument approach … the landing runway was clearly visible out the left hand window… however just as the airplane was passing the approach end of the landing runway, on the proper speed and at the MDA, he reached down again and punched the clock, announced the he was going to “maintain runway heading for ~45 seconds.” Of course, it was only ~4 or ~5 seconds until there was nothing visible in the simulator’s visual system, either left or right, except for the typical scattering of generic surface environment lights and only the faintest hint of a horizon line. As the clock ticked to ~45 seconds, the pilot banked the airplane left, using approximately 30 degrees of bank, and held it for a turn of approximately 90 degrees, and rolled out wings level … he again punched the clock. When the clock reached ~15 seconds, he banked left to approximately 30 degrees, and turned through approximately 50 – 60 degrees of turn. When he rolled wings level the first few cross-bars of approach lighting and the strobes were visible at about 10 o’clock (ahead and slightly left). Needless to say, he completed the approach, and landed successfully on the landing runway. After stopping the inspector asked him if he maintained an identifiable portion of the airport/runway throughout the maneuver. He responded, “Of course not – once you pass the approach end, you have to fly based on timing until you can reverse course and again visually acquire the airport/runway environment. The NSP evaluator said, “OK. That is what I saw as well, and that is not in compliance with regulations. Therefore, this simulator will not be qualified for the circle-to-land maneuver unless you can show me a successful approach and circle-to-land maneuver where all the regulatory requirements are met.” The company representative wanted to know why – and was asked, in turn, if he, as a pilot in the airplane, would do this same procedure in an airplane? He said, “Of course not. It would be too dangerous without being able to know specifically where you are and you wouldn’t know that without knowing specifically where you were in relation to the airport.” The evaluator essentially told him that his answer was correct and he completed the unsatisfactory circle-to-land description for the simulator’s evaluation report. Apparently, later, the evaluator and the company’s training staff held a somewhat lengthy discussion as to how this procedure was developed and why it was desired to incorporate it into the simulator training. The long/short of the whole discussion was apparently that this was the easiest, most simple, least expensive way to perform the task and thereby have the circle-to-land maneuver included in their operating specifications.

As I have said, there are no simulators qualified by the FAA, anywhere in the world, that are authorized a circle-to-land task by the FAA unless that specific simulator has been evaluated and found to be satisfactory in completing a circle-to-land task where the pilot flying has been able to continuously keep an identifiable portion of the airport/runway in sight throughout the maneuver. It’s a simple concept and one that is entrenched in the FAA’s regulatory structure, including simulator training program approvals.

I apologize if all this sounds a bit “too dramatic.” The good thing in this story, is that the person fighting so hard to get this method approved in the simulator, recognized the fallacy of attempting the same method in an airplane on a dark and overcast night. I am hoping that by making the noise I’m making, there may be others who just might see the potential folly of using timing in lieu of visual contact when dealing with real metal, holding real people, flying in the real world.

[cosmo kramer]

Originally posted by AirRabbit:
Hi Screwballs - I'd be happy to describe how a circle-to-land maneuver should be conducted ... ... but, ... you're describing a theoretical, not a real, airport. As you would certainly recognize, having the information available on (a) plate is crucial to the performance of any such instrument approach - ...While the information you provided is relatively .... , a picture is worth 10,000 words. (edited for brevity)
...and that has now been provided to you, yet you still dodge the the answer. That fact can only make one wonder if your are who what you claim to be...

Instead you provided another meaningless anecdote about simulators. A device developed to practice abnormal situation and procedures, for a specific aircraft type. It's in many respects very unrealistic. As another example during landing flare and touchdown.

Learning how to do a circling approach, is something which is done in a real aircraft, like learning how to flare or how to fly level looking at the nose of the aircraft and horizon. I.e. during basic pilots training, and for circling, instrument Rating training.

In EU we are allowed to train, aircraft type specific, procedural aspects of a circling in simulators, but the assumption is that the pilot undertaking such training, through his basic flight training, is capable of executing such maneuver in the first place. Knowledge about basic stick and rudder skills, hand eye co-ordination etc, must be obtained prior to entering the simulator in the first place.

Further experience in doing such a maneuver is obtained in the real aircraft, either during dedicated training (line training) or practiced during line operations (first officers learning from experienced captains).

If people has to learn how to fly a circling in a simulator, something is wrong in the MacAmerican system.

[deadcut]

Cosmo, what is with your undying hate of "Macdonalds"?
Is there a reason why you talk about it in every post?

[RVF750]

It'll only be realistic enough once the SIM manufacturers fit a wider arc of visual and a far better weather engine than they do now. FSX has far surpassed anything I've used in real life, providing the add-ons are installed.


To really get that last bit you need over the shoulder visuals and proper nasty weather....


I think Cosmo just hates fast food and associated American Culture....his choice I guess.

[cosmo kramer]

I like a good burger! :)

Besides from AirRabbit's condescending tone that we all needed to consult a flight instructor (thereafter posting the quote below!!), what set me off is his proposed alternative, to navigate according to the nearest MacDonald.

I will make one recommendation (presuming, of course, you won't like it nor act on it - so I'm probably wasting my typing skills, but ...) and that is you not jump down the throat of your colleagues before you know who they are, what they do, how well they do it, and whether your criticizing them will make them or you look bad.

I have no problem with American culture in general either. Great country and lots of fantastic achievements. However, Americans tend to be extremely self-centered, especially in online discussions. US is one of 190-odd countries in the world. FAA regulations are a local deviation to ICAO rules in one of those 190 countries. Hence, when communicating in an international forum, it might be more relevant to discuss ICAO rules, and specifically emphasize when mentioning local deviations.

[aterpster]

cosmo:


However, Americans tend to be extremely self-centered, especially in online discussions.


Brits aren't of course.

[OK465]

The example offered, LTAT, just begs for a good old bankrupt American RNP approach to 3L/3R, particularly for the NG.

You could even name the FAF, 'MCDON' or 'BURKG' and keep everyone happy.

(with 'WENDY' and 'JABOX' IFs of course)

[cosmo kramer]

Good, I am able to admit mistakes and hereby offer my apologies to my American colleagues for generalizing. :)

[AirRabbit]

It'll only be realistic enough once the SIM manufacturers fit a wider arc of visual and a far better weather engine than they do now. FSX has far surpassed anything I've used in real life, providing the add-ons are installed.

As I indicated in an earlier post … the simulator manufacturers have developed and are building visual systems just as you suggest:

As everyone knows simulators come in a whole litany of visual capabilities … some have VERY restricted visual systems (from having them only directly in front of each pilot – with no cross-cockpit visual capability) all the way to a continuous 220 degree horizontal (essentially visual capability from wing-tip to wing-tip) by 60 degree vertical field of view (mostly with 25 degrees “up” and 35 degrees “down” – and, of course, there are some variations) all of which is optically correct for both pilots.

Additionally, VERY realistic programming for weather conditions are also available - winds, gusting winds, turbulence, rain on the windscreen, lightning flashes, wet runways, standing water on runways, the whole package is available.

[Screwballs]

Cosmokramer has provided every detail you require and yet you still refuse to tell us how you would fly it. You said you would. Please, in your own time, when you're feeling comfortable, go ahead...

[flyboyike]

I get the feeling that AirRabbit has never actually flown anything, let alone flown a circling approach.

[AirRabbit]

Screwballs …

I wouldn’t have a clue as to what was posted by Mr. Kramer. He and I have pretty much agreed to disagree, and, as I indicated to him (along with one other participant here), I no longer can see his posts.

A better answer to your request is on the way … but will have to wait until I have the “down” time to do so. :ok:

[Screwballs]

In fact I'll edit my post to be more specific; AirRabbit, I don't think you are who you claim to be.

[AirRabbit]

:confused: ... you wouldn't be the first to think that ... but ... you'd be just as wrong as those who went before you ... keep yer shirt on ...

[RAT 5]

Just a thought: there are some on here who consider a circling to be a visual manoeuvre. Correct, in that you must keep the airfield and/or runway environment in sight at all times. Considering a CAT C a/c with a minimum vis of 2400m, it is not VMC conditions. Below 3000' agl you are clear of cloud in sight of the service, but the vis is too low. I would suggest that if it is not a manoeuvre conducted in VMC conditions, and in an unfamiliar environment at low level, perhaps at night in rain, then a more structured procedure is best adopted rather than a suck it and see let's give it a shot type approach. Mk.1 eyeball may not be sufficient; and it's a bit late to find out as you turn onto finals scratching and searching for that illusive runway.
Just a thought.

[cosmo kramer]

I would suggest that if it is not a manoeuvre conducted in VMC conditions, and in an unfamiliar environment at low level, perhaps at night in rain, then a more structured procedure is best adopted rather than a suck it and see let's give it a shot type approach.
Spot on.

And how convenient for you AirRabbit, one moment you are able to see what I post (and reply) and the next moment your are not. So far all you offered is hot air (and plenty of it too). :{

[Screwballs]

My shirt is on. Thanks for the concern. How would you fly the circling approach as provided for by Cosmo Kramer?

However, given all these issues, if you desire that I describe how a specific circle-to-land should be flown, I can still do that for you, IF the information that is typically available on an approach plate is available for that description.

Will you, or will you not do as you said you would? Yes or no?

[flyboyike]

... you wouldn't be the first to think that ... but ... you'd be just as wrong as those who went before you ...


That's interesting...so, why is it that so many people have historically thought you were a faker?

[flarepilot]

our airline only allows circling in basic vfr/vmc conditions...and in this way the FAA doesn't make a big deal about circling on sim rides .

circling approaches and the old contact approach lead to many crashes. so, we dont do em.

[AirRabbit]

My shirt is on. Thanks for the concern. How would you fly the circling approach as provided for by Cosmo Kramer?
Will you, or will you not do as you said you would? Yes or no?
I've told you - a couple of times now - that I have no clue what that guy you keep referencing has or has not posted. I can't see posts from anyone with that name. I don't know what I need to do to convince you of that ... but, be that as it may, I'll ask you to keep your temperature down below the price of gold and I’ll do what I told you I’d do … but the fact is that some of us actually have a paying job to do. Besides, you’re beginning to sound like this issue is THE most important thing in your life … but, then again, maybe it is … and, how was it you decided on the moniker you’ve chosen to use?

[aviatorhi]

I just use the TLAR system, in conjunction with the KISS principle, and I'm rather shocked that so many of you have gotten into habits of timing and other such nonsense in a primarily visual maneuver.

[Desert185]

We have 113 posts on how to do a circling approach. How many of you do not have the 1000/3 limitation on your ticket, and how many of you without the limitation work for a company who allows circling approaches, and how many of you have actually made a circling approach within the last year...in the airplane?

[Capn Bloggs]

How many of you do not have the 1000/3 limitation on your ticket
What's this? You either have an instrument rating or you don't. :confused:

[aterpster]

Capn Bloggs:


What's this? You either have an instrument rating or you don't.


It's a type rating restriction that the FAA started requiring sometime after I took my last rating ride in 1986.


If you don't demonstrate to proficiency CTL during the rating ride then your type rating states (words to this effect) "Circle to land NA on A330" or such.


The carriers that are members of the "1,000 and 3" club don't want to train for something their crews are not going to use.

[Capn Bloggs]

Rojer. Bit like an "automatic only" driver's licence. ;)

[AirRabbit]

Actually, in the US, the issuance of an ATP conveys the same authorization as an “instrument rating” – but, of course, there can be restrictions issued as well, like "Circle to land NA on A330" (just as aterpster indicated) or “Circle to land limited to VFR” which would be a limitation that is much broader in its application.

... and Desert185 … an excellent point, sir!!
We have 113 posts on how to do a circling approach. How many of you do not have the 1000/3 limitation on your ticket, and how many of you without the limitation work for a company who allows circling approaches, and how many of you have actually made a circling approach within the last year...in the airplane?

It is apparent that there is a growing concern about what kind of approaches should be able to be flown pretty much whenever, where ever someone wants. With the establishment of “airports” at locations to “better serve” the local residents of a particular area, and wanting to keep the cost to those residents to a minimum, a location is found that is cheap and more easily developed into something on which a landing strip can be constructed. Then someone has to come in and design an approach procedure that can accommodate airplanes … and it doesn’t take long before someone tries to bring in bigger airplanes, which brings more business into that location … and so on and so on. The destiny of such actions is that sometime in the future there is likely to be an attempt to get B747s or A380s into what was originally constructed as a fishing camp in some mountainous valley in central Alaska. :O

[flyboyike]

Rabbit, you've driven way wayward. Nobody is talking about shoving A380s into Dutch Harbor. Stay on topic, will ya?

[JeroenC]

Actually, sensible post from AirRabbit. I do see the trend in my outfit (no widebodies though).

Edit: or did I miss the sarcasm?

[aviatorhi]

We have 113 posts on how to do a circling approach. How many of you do not have the 1000/3 limitation on your ticket, and how many of you without the limitation work for a company who allows circling approaches, and how many of you have actually made a circling approach within the last year...in the airplane?

I hold 3 FAA type ratings and none of them have the restriction (727, 737, SD3).

One of the companies I currently fly at allows circling approaches. At that company I have made multiple circling approaches in actual IFR conditions within the last year.

That being said, what exactly was your point? That the "average" pilot these days goes from a 2 mile runway with an ILS to a another 2 mile runway with an ILS and doesn't actually require any situational awareness since ATC and George will handle it all for him? Because I could see that being a very real thing.

[flyboyike]

Situational awareness? For the kind of money they pay?

[cosmo kramer]

The destiny of such actions is that sometime in the future there is likely to be an attempt to get B747s or A380s into what was originally constructed as a fishing camp in some mountainous valley in central Alaska.
Already happening... Not 380s going into Alaska (when will you realize there is a world outside the borders of your own country?), but airliners going into small airfields that originally wasn't planned for such operation. This in a broader sense than just circle to land. You Americans may be surprised to learn we in Europe operate to airports where you are committed to land, should an engine failure occur during approach (with special approval from the authorities of course, special training required etc. to mitigate the risk). You don't want it "to look about right". You want to be absolutely certain that it IS right!

Hence, when the regulating authorities approve of it, and your airline tells you to go there, you don't what to use TLAR as a method:

Major Kong Rides the Bomb - YouTube (http://youtu.be/wcW_Ygs6hm0)

[aviatorhi]

About right is close enough to be effective, if you just keep polishing the cannon ball you're never going to accomplish anything.

[AirRabbit]

Actually, sensible post from AirRabbit. I do see the trend in my outfit (no widebodies though).
Thanks JeroenC … this trend isn’t terribly obvious – or it wouldn’t be continued. However, my opinion is that such trends do, indeed, exist, and, in my opinion, there are a few issues that “bubble up to the surface” that have more sinister consequences than this type of “cheat sheet attempts” to assist training or passing tests where airplanes are involved. The really sinister part is that it’s not like what students in school used to call “cheat sheets” – where the answers to the chemistry exam were written on the inside of someone’s shirt cuff or on the underside of a baseball cap brim. This would be more like those students actually practicing the mixing of reasonably dangerous chemicals, but use chemically modified versions that produce a vastly lessened effect, even though they have been told that mixing these chemicals are critical with respect to rate of mixture or the sequence of mixture. If they get sloppy or hurried, or don’t follow the precise requirements of mixing, the result is still well within the margins of what they believe to be acceptable – and if the instructor hasn’t seen or didn’t witness the short cuts or the ratios or any other aspect that was not within the prescribed boundaries, it might appear to that instructor that all the students did what they were required to do – and met all the established requirements. Sounds good … sounds reasonable. However, if those students developed habits of a mixing philosophy that, in the classroom, allowed what appeared to be safe and innocuous results, but could likely result in massive explosions if those mandatory specific rates and sequences are not followed, the “what” and the “when” and the “how” that the students learned through practice could easily cause severe injury, or worse, when they get to the “real world” and use “real chemicals.” I don’t think that this analogy is overly dramatic when one considers the fact that pilots control expensive machines, and are responsible for the lives of numerous persons who are on board. Of course, as the airplane gets larger, carries more passengers, the more important the training and the more impact will result if that training suffers in a similar way.

No, I’m not saying that we are on the verge of seeing massive airplane accidents, but I am saying that we’ve likely come close in the past – on several occasions … and as the daily flight numbers continues to grow and the “old head” pilots finally reach the required retirement age – the younger, every eager, lesser experienced pilots, who will be more and more dependent on what they learn in training will become more and more the norm in airline cockpits. You do the math. IF such short cuts are appearing – if such incomplete or mostly accurate training continues – it’s only a matter of time.

I’ll throw out one example for your consideration. Do you recall the ABX DC-8 crash in Narrows, Virginia in December of 1996? It was a post-maintenance flight check with very experienced flight crewmembers on board. One of the tasks they were conducting was a recovery from an approach to stall. You can read the report for yourself, but the crew on board had been trained, most recently in a simulator – and presumably some likely had performed the task in a training airplane at some time in their career. But the long and short of the accident was that as the airplane entered the stall, the flight crew attempted to recover by simply adding power while maintaining the pitch attitude (or increasing it slightly) to avoid a loss of altitude during the recovery. Unfortunately, the procedures used in any airplane training, very likely never took the airplane into the actual stall – in fact the instructors were very likely to have carefully ensured that recovery was initiated just when entering into the approach to stall area. In the simulator, it didn’t matter, because the understanding had been ingrained into these crew members – and they practiced it in the simulator, over and over – that if the power was simply added, the airplane would fly right out of the stall – regardless of the pitch attitude – and that was what they did – over and over and over – all the way through 16,000 feet! Each time they attempted to add power, they only generated compressor stalls on at least 2 of the engines. They reduced the power to allow the engines to recover, and then added power again, while maintaining (perhaps even increasing) the pitch attitude. The experienced captain and the former chief pilot for that airplane, along with a very senior flight engineer – all well trained and experienced – but they didn’t recover the airplane – and, while I’m not trying fix the blame on those men, in any way, because while they didn’t recover, they didn’t because they were incorrectly trained, and they didn’t know it.

In the operation of any airplane, learning something that “usually” works, but it is required to be performed in a specific way, or in a specific sequence, or at a specific time … if the basic understanding of why “it” works and an understanding of when, where, and how, the controls should be inserted or power is to be added or reduced, isn’t understood completely by the crew members … the likelihood of favorable outcomes on a continuing basis is being reduced … day by day by day.

[AirRabbit]

I hold 3 FAA type ratings and none of them have the restriction (727, 737, SD3).

One of the companies I currently fly at allows circling approaches. At that company I have made multiple circling approaches in actual IFR conditions within the last year.



You are absolutely correct – I also have several type ratings and none include a circle-to-land restriction. And I think I understand the relative use of the CTL (and the less-often-used clearance for the “contact approach”), and have flown my fair share of both of those tasks – none of which, by the way, were the highlight of my day for that day – other than I made it home or to the hotel in one piece. I also completely understand the occasional necessity for such clearances, and if these approaches are flown the way they were intended, and if the pilots flying them don’t deviate from the intent of the clearances or compromise the altitudes, distances, speeds, etc., they are safe –no compromise … but with every small deviation a pilot may make (intentionally or not) the safety factor is compromised substantially. Additionally, what I think is absolute “nuts” (that’s a technical term) is attempting to do this with any 2-aisle airplane. While anyone who flies the heavy metal knows just how maneuverable they are – they also know what kind of inertia builds up and how hard it is to make immediate adjustments. Taking one of those airplanes down into the weeds to wallow around looking for the runway is … well, I don’t think the moderators here would allow the language I had considered… but I think you get my meaning.

[Desert185]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert185
We have 113 posts on how to do a circling approach. How many of you do not have the 1000/3 limitation on your ticket, and how many of you without the limitation work for a company who allows circling approaches, and how many of you have actually made a circling approach within the last year...in the airplane?

Reply:

I hold 3 FAA type ratings and none of them have the restriction (727, 737, SD3).

One of the companies I currently fly at allows circling approaches. At that company I have made multiple circling approaches in actual IFR conditions within the last year.

That being said, what exactly was your point? That the "average" pilot these days goes from a 2 mile runway with an ILS to a another 2 mile runway with an ILS and doesn't actually require any situational awareness since ATC and George will handle it all for him? Because I could see that being a very real thing.


The point is that we're in the minority, and now, with over 120 posts, circling is being discussed in a manner that would cause one to think that it is a common occurrence, when in reality it is a fairly rare event, and rapidly becoming a lost art with the airline types.

Its also one thing to explain one's views on how to safely perform a circling maneuver, but another thing to actually do it.

Over 120 posts and we may be the only two, type-rated, current and qualified (Cat D, in my case) to do them. I guess I just find that odd.

[latetonite]

Anything in the art of flying that can not be confined to an SOP, will eventually disappear. Sad, but true.

[WhyByFlier]

Is your post meant to be an eyesight test?

[AirRabbit]

I never have been a fan of the KMEM LOC 27, circle to land 18R by offsetting just to the north of the Fedex ramp to demonstrate sim circling fidelity and crew prowess. Sim instructors had to scramble when Stapleton shut down. Who’s going to circle at Memphis anyway…unless 3 out of 4 runways are closed?

737/A320/RJ class aircraft certainly do operate into less than cosmo..politan airfields, even in the US, where some days/nights the only way in to a particular runway is to circle, like LTAT.

I instructed circling at published circling minima in the B727 aircraft (not sim) for over 10 years. We taught and always used geometry and wind adjusted timing as the basic template for circling; any other useful references were ‘gravy’.

More importantly we taught the proper missed approach procedure from each and any point in the approach and circling maneuver, so that one could circle safely at circling minima to the opposite end of a single runway with nil additional visual references and worst case would be a missed.

Of course, you probably recognize that one of the primary reasons that KMEM ILS27 or LOC27, with a circle to land on 18R is used as a simulator task for Circle-to-Land, is that KMEM is likely well established in various simulator manufacturer’s visual data base libraries (and any data base in such a library makes it available at little or no cost to a purchaser) AND, not insignificantly, the conduct of this combination of “approach-and-circle” can be accomplished without violating ANY of the FAA’s operational requirements, (which means that it is likely that no international regulation would be violated either) even if the visual system has an extremely limited visual display system. While that is perfectly acceptable – as far as it goes – on it’s own, with no additional instruction, it does nothing to verify and entrench into the minds of first-time airline pilots what becomes necessary to perform an approach and circle operation similar to the one you described as … “one could circle safely at circling minima to the opposite end of a single runway.”

So … I have just a couple of curiosity questions, OK465 … but first and foremost, you deserve serious kudos for emphasizing the importance of executing a missed approach from “each and any” point during the instrument approach and the following circle maneuver.

My first question has to do with the fact that when you were teaching circling approaches you described “geometry and wind adjusted timing” as being the “basic template” … but that a circling approach could be accomplished with “nil additional visual references.” To me, this implies that there were at least some visual references that were at least somewhat important. Was there something, or some things (plural), that you thought was(were) “primary” visual reference(s) … and what specific kinds of things did you include as “additional references?

Second, if my copy of the List of Airports by ICAO code is up-to-date and accurate, the example airport you referenced (LTAT) is Erhaç Airport in Malatya, Turkey. I’m just curious as to why you chose such an airport – as I am sure that there isn’t necessarily a huge portion of the participants here who even know that this airport exists, let alone would consider it a likely candidate for a “representative airport” for participation in this discussion.

[AirRabbit]

The only thing we had at CSM was the lady who sunbathed nude just west of the downwind. Sometimes though she was at the store or inside baking cookies.
Obviously, the reason I asked, as you probably picked up if you read my earlier posts on this thread, is that I am firmly of the opinion that the “circle-to-land” is strictly a visually based task … and since I AM married, I’ll side-step the sunbather issue – regardless of the degree of relevance … or importance … and I use that 2nd word ... tongue-in-cheek. However, ahem, once the pilot makes visual contact with the runway (and that is the RUNWAY, sunbathers notwithstanding) or the airport (and if it’s just the airport, that pilot would have to know exactly where on that airport whatever it is that the pilot is able to see is located and where the runway is located in reference to that object) and, significantly, if the pilot doesn’t see the runway and/or the airport (with the same caveat, i.e., knowing where the runway is in reference to whatever is seen) the entire time he/she is flying via visual references, it’s time to initiate that missed approach that you ensured your guys were capable of performing. There are (or at least were) some here who advocated flying by reference to the flight instruments and timing via a stop-watch. There was one comment that it would not be possible to see anything visually in some circumstances (night, rain, fog, etc.) so the pilot needed to “navigate” rather than “aviate.” In fact, this person even indicated that, of course, visual contact with airport/runway would necessarily be lost (and doing so was apparently of little or no importance to this person) due to it’s “disappearing behind the F/E panel and all those circuit breakers.” I was apparently unsuccessful in convincing this person that it was imperative to maintain visual contact with something on the airport or the runway in order to continue to circle – but he was adamant that all was perfectly safe and legal even if the circuit breaker panel didn’t allow visual contact until the pilot reversed course.

I didn't choose LTAT, it was discussed earlier. It certainly appears very representative of an airport that the only way to get in to one end of the runway with wx and winds and terrain as factors requires a circle. Substitute Butte, Montana for a similar setup then. ILS, RNAVs & LOC to 15 only with some VOR A/B circles, no approach to 33.
OK – sorry – I just couldn’t imagine using an obscure airport as a reference for a discussion where all kinds of experience and locations are represented.

But, at your suggestion, I did take a look at the Butte airport – and, of course, you’re right. It looks to be a “sporty” kind of airport. According to what I see, Butte has 2 runways – one that’s 5100ft X 75ft and the other that’s 9001ft X 150ft. I would presume that there is not a lot of commercial traffic on the 75ft wide runway, meaning that it’s probably Rwy 15/33 that gets most of the traffic. I see one(1) ILS and one(1) LOC/DME to Rwy 15, as well as a VOR or GPS-B to the same runway. But it looks like there is a VOR or GPS-A approach to the airport (a lot more aligned with the smaller runway - Rwy30) than with the larger runway (Rwy33) and because the inbound course for this “instrument approach” is 272 degrees, flying that approach requires a circle-to-land, which is the only chart- minimums listed on that chart. I can’t imagine passing up an ILS or LOC approach if you wanted to land on Rwy15, so I can’t imagine flying the VOR or GPS-B to the airport and circling to land on Rwy15 … so it probably is used by the larger category airplanes to circle to Rwy33 and for the smaller airplane to circle to Rwy30. With the visibility required for the Cat C or Cat D airplanes being 3 miles and an MDA of a bit more than 3000 feet AGL (almost from the final approach fix, FAF) the airport/runway (Rwy33) should be able to be seen within a short time of departing the FAF inbound, at an angle of about 60 degrees or so to the right of the nose.

I’ve never been there (obviously) and don’t think I’m going to make plans to go anytime soon. I also suspect the weather can be nasty at times and probably quite turbulent with windy conditions. All of which likely tightens the “butox” muscles on final approach for almost anyone – and likely even more if the sun is down. And I continue to say that larger airplanes have little (if NO) business in getting down in the weeds, or in this case, down in the snow drifts, wandering around looking for the landing runway. I used a technical term earlier – and it still applies. That would be just “NUTS!”

[flyboyike]

So much philosophy, so little time.

[OK465]

With the visibility required for the Cat C or Cat D airplanes being 3 miles and an MDA of a bit more than 3000 feet AGL (almost from the final approach fix, FAF) the airport/runway (Rwy33) should be able to be seen within a short time of departing the FAF inbound, at an angle of about 60 degrees or so to the right of the nose.

Your referring to the VOR/DME A here, CAT C/D. You better look at that again.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1313/00588VDGA.PDF

Even if you descend from the 9000' FAF to the rather high MDA of 8540' in 0.4 NM, that puts you at 2995' above the threshold 3.0 NM from the runway. Sure you can see it with 3 mile viz, but that's nearly a 10 degree FPA down to the runway. You aren't going to make it on that pass with a leisurely 60 degree right turn in. In fact you probably can't get in to 33 from this approach without turning your back at some point to the runway.

The preferable IAP to get into 33, in fact all the way down to an even lower 1300' OVC with 3 miles viz and winds, for example 330 at 30 in blowing snow is to fly the LOC to 15 to the lower 6800' MDA and circle southwest for a left turn into 33....using wind adjusted headings (geometry) and wind adjusted timing (stopwatch).

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1313/00588LD15.PDF

Miss safely if things don't go your way....or divert early if you're not approved for it or if you calmly assess even trying it to be 'nuts'. I'm not pushing doing something beyonds one's capability or authority.

But gaining unrestricted circling qualification on the LOC 27 circle to land 18R at MEM certainly neither prepares nor realistically qualifies you for this brand of circling approach, and doesn't distinguish between the two.

[AirRabbit]

Even if you descend from the 9000' FAF to the rather high MDA of 8540' in 0.4 NM, that puts you at 2995' above the threshold 3.0 NM from the runway. Sure you can see it with 3 mile viz, but that's nearly a 10 degree FPA down to the runway. You aren't going to make it on that pass with a leisurely 60 degree right turn in. In fact you probably can't get in to 33 from this approach without turning your back at some point to the runway.

The preferable IAP to get into 33, in fact all the way down to an even lower 1300' OVC with 3 miles viz and winds, for example 330 at 30 in blowing snow is to fly the LOC to 15 to the lower 6800' MDA and circle southwest for a left turn into 33....using wind adjusted headings (geometry) and wind adjusted timing (stopwatch).

Miss safely if things don't go your way....or divert early if you're not approved for it or if you calmly assess even trying it to be 'nuts'. I'm not pushing doing something beyonds one's capability or authority.

But gaining unrestricted circling qualification on the LOC 27 circle to land 18R at MEM certainly neither prepares nor realistically qualifies you for this brand of circling approach, and doesn't distinguish between the two.

All VERY well said. And I certainly wouldn’t attempt to fly directly from the 9000 foot or the 8540 foot altitudes directly to the runway, even turning through that 60 degrees. That would, just as you point out, leave you “a bit high.” But the flight crew could certainly follow a ground path well to the left of a direct course (i.e., turn left at the FAF) presuming the pilot flying – which would likely make that the RHS pilot – could retain the airport/runway in sight continuously (eliminating the awkwardness of describing a visual maneuver that relies on flying "essentially blind" until the time runs out) displacing that overflown ground track to the southwest – which would increase the flying distance to the airport/runway. Certainly it shouldn’t be terribly unusual to expect a descent rate that is higher than that achieved on a 2.8 – 3.0 degree glide slope in solid IFR conditions. For example (and I’m not implying that it’s the same thing at all, but…) during a “normal” VFR traffic pattern – what is considered to be a normal rate of descent from the downwind leg to final approach? Of course it depends to a large degree on how far from the runway the ground path of the downwind leg is flown. As I recall, descent rates between 800 and 1200 fpm were not prohibited in any of the aircraft I’ve flown in descending from downwind, around the final turn and lining up on final. Of course, I would think it entirely appropriate that the company has a maximum descent rate in such circumstances. On the other hand, if the pilot was really intent on flying the approach to the opposite end of that particular runway and circling to land, essentially the same kind of wider displaced arc from the runway is likely to provide more than adequate visual references throughout the maneuver while allowing a much further ground distance to be covered, making the descent from circling MDA a lot more comfortable on the end of the maneuver – and since this time the circle would be on the “same side” of the airport, but approaching from the other end of the runway – it would be the LHS pilot doing the flying and the looking.

ALSO – while it may surprise you to learn – I completely agree with your position on the simulator circle-to-land at MEM27 CTL 18R. What it is … is legal … and to me, “legal” doesn’t necessarily provide what is needed. Unfortunately, I could probably provide a similar list of where simulator exposure doesn’t provide all that a lot of folks believes such exposure does provide (recall my post on the ABX crash). But that’s a whole different issue – well, different in that it affects other understandings and pilot practice beyond, and other than, the circle to land issues. In such cases, substantial additional training is absolutely necessary, in my view – of course, I’m not in charge. However, some of the more modern simulator visual systems DO, in fact, have very realistic visual systems that provide out-the-window displays that provide horizontal fields of view that exceed 220 degrees horizontally and 60 degrees vertically. In all but a very few cases, this kind of display capability is well within expectations of cockpit visibility from one airplane wing-tip around to the opposite wing-tip. Some simulator manufacturers have even experimented with horizontal adjustments that would allow “shifting” the projector mounting plates and the reflective screens (mylar or mirror) to either the left or right, to provide the pilot on THAT side of the airplane even further “over the shoulder” visual capabilities. With such a shift in the mechanics, the computer generation continues to position the visual scene directly in front of the airplane directly in front of the simulator cab as well. At this time I don’t know where those efforts stand – naturally, a manufacturer isn’t going to fully develop something that won’t sell … and if the airlines and training centers don’t want it (because the regulator does not – at least at this time – require it) it is very unlikely that manufacturers will continue to develop and refine something that will sit on their back shelf.

Thanks for a refreshingly frank exchange - I admire the way you participate here.

[aterpster]

OK465:

But gaining unrestricted circling qualification on the LOC 27 circle to land 18R at MEM certainly neither prepares nor realistically qualifies you for this brand of circling approach, and doesn't distinguish between the two.Amen to that.

Using your Butte example, the CAT C/D CTL HAA and visibility are greater than 1,000 and 3 so a Part 121 operator could take a 777 in there on a charter and do what you propose. The fact the PIC is not qualified to CTL doesn't matter because the greater than 1,000-3 gives him a pass on CTL qualifications.

And, Butte is "old TERPS" for CTL, so lots of luck in all respects.