What should I understand from "clear for straight in app"?

[ALBATROS]

Hello everybody,

The question may be simple for many of you but I have seen a lot of confusion due to this clearance that sometimes ATC gives you. Even, I found some flight instructor bloggers saying things that are not fully correct.

Regarding doc8168, there are two types of approaches: straight-in app that the final track should be within 30 degrees from the runway track, and the circle-to-land (circling) that the final track converge with the RWY track more than 30 degrees.

ICAO also says that maximum track for commencing the app is 90 degrees for precision app and 120 for NPA's. So I understand there is no need to do a procedure turn if you are within these limits.

So going back to the question, what should I understand from "clear for straight in app"?

I understand that ATC clear you for the straight-in and not for the circling app, usually both are depicted in the same chart.
But some people understand that you are clear for the approach directly without executing any procedure turn.

I wonder what ATC understand when the give you that clearance?

[MarkerInbound]

Over here the FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary says:

STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH IFR− An instrument approach wherein final approach is begun without first having executed a procedure turn, not necessarily completed with a straight-in landing or made to straight-in landing minimums.

Whether it means the same thing in Europe I don't know. Does EASA have a glossary?

[ALBATROS]

Thanks, I have seen the same definition in EASA glossary. It's a bit confusing if ATC and 8168 have different meaning for the same term, ICAO says straight-in app, not landing.




Some people tell me that you cannot execute the app if you are not within those 30 degrees.

[vilas]

I think for CAT C aircraft it is 15 degrees for straight in approach.

[Cak]

Straight-in or circling app are terms used only for FINAL app. Before that you have INITIAL and INTERMEDIATE app or radar vectors. Straight-in app doesn't have anything with landing. After FINAL app you can execute landing or missed app.

On some airports you can have offset final app (Tokyo Haneda LDA 22 app or Nice 22) with 70 degrees difference between FINAL track and RWY track but you still perform straight-in app if you enter FINAL segment within +/-30.

And there are no different limits for different aircraft categories.

[vilas]

Cak and ALBATROSS
On some airports you can have offset final app (Tokyo Haneda LDA 22 app or Nice 22) with 70 degrees difference between FINAL track and RWY track but you still perform straight-in app if you enter FINAL segment within +/-30.
And there are no different limits for different aircraft categories.Thank you. What do you make out of what is quoted below?
‘a circling approach will be specified in those cases where terrain or
other constraints cause the final approach track alignment or descent gradient to fall outside the criteria for a straight-in approach’– ICAO Doc 8168 (PANS-OPS), Vol I,

Part I, Section 4, 1.2.3 – Types of approach.
The criteria qualifying a final approach as straight-in are provided in ICAO Doc 8168 (PANS-OPS), Vol II,Part I, Section 4, 5.2 – Alignment. This includes but is not restricted to an offset final approach track up to 5 degrees or the angle formed by the final approach track and the runway centre line not exceeding 30° for procedures restricted to Cat A and B aircraft and 15° for other aircraft categories.
In the light of PANS OPS above what you stated is erroneous and also unsafe. You should not be attempting straight in approach if the procedure final track is outside the criteria for straight in approach. Secondly if you are in IMC you have no option but be on final approach track of the procedure till visual and when visual you cannot be in a position to go straight in if final track of the procedure is 70 degrees off RW and you have no option but to circle to land. The second part of the PANS OPS clearly states that for CAT C it is within 15 degrees. What you track on finals is not the criteria but what is laid down as final track decides if straight in is permitted.

[oggers]

MarkerInbound is correct. "Cleared straight-in approach" means "do not carry out a procedure turn".

"Straight-in landing" is what you do at the end of the approach if the final course is within 30º (cat a, b) of the runway you are going to land on, and "circle-to-land" is what you do if the final course is not so aligned.

[Lantirn]

I notice there is some confusion?

A procedure can be categorized as circling or straight in if the criteria are met.

But what you will fly especially in a procedure categorized as "circling", is another aspect.

You can go execute a NPA categorized as "circling" with no straight in minima and still when visual reposition the aircraft for landing without circling the airport in any way. However one has to consider VDP.

Many old NDB procedures are "circling" procedures and have nothing to do with the approach track, but with terrain, obstacles and the navaid. Many of them are flown with a long final.

Now if the only way is to fly almost the threshold and circle, of course it's legal. But it's the final choice.

[vilas]

How can you position for straight in approach when it is outside the criteria unless you are visual all along and abandon the NPA and ask for visual approach well before the minima? There will be some issue like terrain clearance if the final track is off set by 30 or forty degrees. You cannot position from anywhere to land straight in. It is a mockery of the PANS OPS procedure.

[Lantirn]

Of course you will be visual to land at MDA.

If on an IFR approach at MDA you have the required reference you continue visually, meaning repositioning the aircraft as required to land, but you are still on the IFR procedure, just proceeding visually. You dont have to ask for this, it is assumed that passing the MDA you have the required reference. If you don't have, the missed approach is flown.

Visual approach is another thing (no need to comply with published missed approach procedure) and you have to ask for it because you fly as you like to reach the final.

Sometimes you are in a circling procedure, being in an offset final approach track and when you are visual you reposition to reach the real final to land. It could be at 3 miles, let's say, depending on the approach, and no actual circling flown at all (meaning the circling pattern) You have to reposition otherwise stabilized criteria will not be met in terms of bank at low altitude, it will be dangerous just to continue on the published final approach track. You don't ask for visual for this. You are cleared for the approach. You ask for visual to make a big shortcut, visually, but not in this case.

But what I was saying is that there are a lot of procedures, NDB, categorized as circling, but without offset from the runway track.

[H Peacock]

I've only come across the phrase 'straight in approach' during my military flying career. It was invariably used to highlight that the aircraft would be positioned (either via ATC or self-positioning) to a long/short final position (on the Rwy centreline) where the aircraft would be configured prior to landing.

If the aircraft was not being positioned for a 'straight in approach' then it would invariably join for a visual circuit to land. This visual join may well be initiated from an Initial Point which is effectively on the runway centreline, but at a speed/height where a 'straight in approach' could not be flown.

[aterpster]

Peacock:

I've only come across the phrase 'straight in approach' during my military flying career. It was invariably used to highlight that the aircraft would be positioned (either via ATC or self-positioning) to a long/short final position (on the Rwy centreline) where the aircraft would be configured prior to landing.

The phrase is used in the U.S. all the time.

[vilas]

Lantirn
The confusion is about approaches that have displaced LOC/ILS from RW centre line with a curved visual segment. Like the ILS at old Hong Kong airport or Canarsie approach at JFK. This is not circle to land approach but straight in approach with curved segment. Circling approach is when you fly a circuit to reposition. When the approach is defined as circling you cannot reposition to land straight in because you may have the landing RW in opposite direction.

[Lantirn]

Circling approach is when you fly a circuit to reposition. When the approach is defined as circling you cannot reposition to land straight in because you may have the landing RW in opposite direction.

May be, but may be not. This is not de facto. You don't have to circle in every case if there are circling minimums. This is what I am trying to say, look the approach below, last page 33, circling NDB procedure.

http://www.aeolus.gr/pdfs/LGTS_JEP.pdf

You don't have to circle, you go straight in, even if minimums are circling minimums (categorized as circling) due to obstacles and navaid. This is what I try to explain. There are a thousand approaches of them

Circling minimums do not mandate a circling approach.

[oggers]

The phrase is used in the U.S. all the time.

...and just to be clear, it is also used in the UK not only for VFR flights but also for IFR. Perhaps not 'all the time', but it is in CAP 413 and the context is the same as stateside ie 'cleared the procedure without doing the course reversal'.

[Goldenrivett]

Hi Lantirn,
look the approach below, last page 33, circling NDB procedure.
You don't have to circle, you go straight in,

Please explain how you interpret "STRAIGHT-IN LANDING - NOT AUTHORIZED"
and being 2,500 ft at 3.9nm for a straight in is a stabilised approach.

[Lantirn]

Criteria are not met for a straight in minimums. Whenever Jepp plates have only circling minima, the straight in column displays this warning.

Correcting: You are right. It's not possible. You have to circle. But I have seen other examples, I'll show if I find one.

[vilas]

Lantirn
You have misunderstood the circling requirement. I am reproducing what I stated before:
a circling approach will be specified in those cases where terrain or
other constraints cause the final approach track alignment or descent gradient to fall outside the criteria for a straight-in approach’– ICAO Doc 8168 (PANS-OPS), Vol I,
The approach you quote requires circling because of the descent gradient although the runway is straight ahead. Normally the circling approaches are designed to land on the opposite RW due to inability to design Instrument approach for the landing RW.

[peekay4]

Yes there are two major criteria required for a straight-in approach to be published:

The final approach course must be within 30 degrees of the runway alignment
A "normal" rate of descent can be maintained

(Without waivers the max descent gradient for a straight-in approach is typically 400' per NM or 3.77 degrees).

So for circle-only approaches like the one at LGTS -- where the final course is aligned with a runway -- it's almost "by definition" that a normal 3-degree stabilized approach would not be possible. That's the reason the approach is circle-only.

But Lantirn is correct that an actual circling procedure is not required to be flown in all cases.

E.g., barring other factors it would be legal for a private pilot shooting the same approach on a little Cessna to fly the steep 6-degree descent from the FAF and then land without circling.

[Lantirn]

What I ve realised is that maybe I had this assumption because of my flight school, CATB aircraft, so no big deal to fly approaches like this one with a small twin.

I didnt noticed those years the gradient requirement, or I forgot.

Thank you for your inputs

But, look here

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fssim/charts/LGSR.pdf

Approach plate 13-2, circling VOR/DME (sorry about the various links, its what I find in google)

Neither the gradient is excessive, neither the offset is excessive.

Would you circle?

[peekay4]

But, look here

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fssim/charts/LGSR.pdf

Approach plate 13-2, circling VOR/DME (sorry about the various links, its what I find in google)

Neither the gradient is excessive, neither the offset is excessive.

I could be wrong but on that VOR/DME procedure it looks like the final approach track doesn't intersect the runway centerline until past the runway threshold.

For an offset straight-in approach you'd ideally want the final approach track to intersect the extended runway centerline at a reasonable distance prior the threshold -- or at least be within a certain margin -- so the aircraft can be in a position to make the landing.

[vilas]

Regulatory requirements and aircraft procedures are there with some purpose which may not be visible to normal pilot unless he goes out of the way to find out. That is why one should just follow what is required and refrain from creating personal interpretations and options because it can be unsafe.

[oggers]

The FAA AIM says:

The fact that a straight−in minimum is not published does not preclude pilots from landing straight−in if they have the active runway in sight and have sufficient time to make a normal approach for landing. Under such conditions and when ATC has cleared them for landing on that runway, pilots are not expected to circle even though only circling minimums are published. If they desire to circle, they should advise ATC.

So Lantirn is correct about that. However, the original question was:

What should I understand from "clear for straight in app"?

The answer is as per the first reply: do not carry out the procedure turn.

[Goldenrivett]

Hi Lantirn,
Neither the gradient is excessive, neither the offset is excessive.
Would you circle?

In the case of LGSR VOR DME I would land "straight ahead" RWY 34 (Straight-in-Landing is not prohibited).

The VOR is physically to the East of the runway and the ideal approach would be from the West side of the extended centreline (not permitted due to terrain). Since the approach doesn't meet the requirements below, then only circle to land minima are published.


"6. Circling Approaches (General)
6.1 When is a circling approach published?
6.1.1 A circling MDA will normally be shown for a straight-in approach procedure to permit circling to other runways. However, where any of the requirements for a runway approach cannot be met, only a circling approach is published. These requirements are:
 Final approach course is not within the alignment criteria;
 Final approach gradient is too steep;
 Obstacles above the VSS (see Section 8.2.4); and
 Runway is not surveyed to the required standard."

[Lantirn]

Yep!

Look my post no8

Repeating my post:
Many old NDB procedures are "circling" procedures and have nothing to do with the approach track, but with terrain, obstacles and the navaid. Many of them are flown with a long final.


This is what I was talking about. By the way nice talk.

Vilas

Regulatory requirements and aircraft procedures are there with some purpose which may not be visible to normal pilot unless he goes out of the way to find out. That is why one should just follow what is required and refrain from creating personal interpretations and options because it can be unsafe.


I don't see any unsafe deviation in this example. By the way this procedure is flown always straight in even in IMC.

[ALBATROS]

Thank you everybody for all the contributions. Now I’ve downloaded the VOL 2 of 8168 and I have the check it carefully. Like Oggers said my first question was solved at the beginning but I think it’s confusing to have two different meaning for the same expression “straight-in app”.


Anyway,

In the case of LGSR VOR DME I would land "straight ahead" RWY 34 (Straight-in-Landing is not prohibited).


Like Peekay4 said the track intercepts the runway after the threshold so you have to move the aircraft visually to align with the runway, that it's why it's circle-to-land and not straight in app (because doesn't meet the requirements). Like VOR's in Nice are circle-to-land (according to my FMS and my charts) and you have to follow the VPT (prescribed track to align with the runway) or like Mostar (LQMO - VOR 34). There is any definition for "straight-in landing"?.

And if you compare the charts for LGSR and LGTS with the VOR in LQMO, the Greeks don't said that the app is for a specific runway and the VOR in Mostar say that it's for runway 34, why this?