Circling minima TERPS/EASA

[JPAirbus]

CIRC minima are published according to approach categories (A/B/C/D...) that relate to Vref.
Any aircraft is categorized as e.g. cat C. If you exceed the max speed for cat C on your actual approach (e.g. due to abnormal procedures) you have to use the higher cat D minimum in the FAAs world. Does that requirement (use the higher minimum) hold true in the EASA world?
I know EASA and FAA/TERPS CIRC minima are not based on the same obstacle free radii - hence my question.

[aterpster]

CIRC minima are published according to approach categories (A/B/C/D...) that relate to Vref.
Any aircraft is categorized as e.g. cat C. If you exceed the max speed for cat C on your actual approach (e.g. due to abnormal procedures) you have to use the higher cat D minimum in the FAAs world. Does that requirement (use the higher minimum) hold true in the EASA world?
I know EASA and FAA/TERPS CIRC minima are not based on the same obstacle free radii - hence my question.
EASA doesn't have instrument flight procedure (IFP) criteria. Member states use ICAO's PANS-OPs, as does most of the world. The FAA uses TERPs. TERPs circle to land criteria are in transition. If an FAA procedure as a "C" icon associated with CTL MDAs, it is new TERPs CTL criteria, which is quite similar to PANS-OPS, especially for Approach Categories C and D. If a TERPs procedure doesn't have the "C" icon, then the C and D areas are much smaller than in PANS-OPS. Also, the maximum speeds in PANS-OPS are higher than in TERPs.

[Airmann]

I always wondered that. If I'm flying a CAT C aircraft but you fly the approach at a speed that puts you in the CAT D category which minima do you use at airports with differing minima. What about a CAT D aircraft that is light?

[aterpster]

I always wondered that. If I'm flying a CAT C aircraft but you fly the approach at a speed that puts you in the CAT D category which minima do you use at airports with differing minima. What about a CAT D aircraft that is light?
You go into the higher category if your speed exceeds your certified category. But, you can't go the other way.

[VinRouge]

certainly would go into higher cat if non standard config.

all got very confusing with TERPS with respect to circling radii and the new limits vs old... very easy to get caught out.

allegedly, 9 times more risky than a precision approach. not sure how true but was quoted at a sim check recently.

[Airmann]

Have done countless flaps/slats jammed scenarios in the sim, and not once has anyone suggested using a higher minima. For that matter landing with flaps/slats jammed at close to fully retracted may well put the aircraft above max speed for CAT D even. But our company charts only have C or D on them because that's all we have in the fleet. I Don't know if a CAT E or more even exists?

[aterpster]

Have done countless flaps/slats jammed scenarios in the sim, and not once has anyone suggested using a higher minima. For that matter landing with flaps/slats jammed at close to fully retracted may well put the aircraft above max speed for CAT D even. But our company charts only have C or D on them because that's all we have in the fleet. I Don't know if a CAT E or more even exists?

That's an emergency, so you do what you have to do. In the U.S. the FAA publishes CAT E minimums at some airports. But, Jepp doesn't chart them.

[aterpster]

allegedly, 9 times more risky than a precision approach. not sure how true but was quoted at a sim check recently.

Don't know that statistic, but it makes sense to me.

[Pugilistic Animus]

I thought that every Airline basically banned circling these days

[FlyingStone]

If you have a failure that increases your approach speed and you are thinking whether you should increase your circling minima due to higher approach speed, you are asking yourself the wrong question.

The real question should be: is circling with some (I'm guessing) flight controls problem really the best option that I have available? Most of the time, the answer will be no.

[VinRouge]

If you have a failure that increases your approach speed and you are thinking whether you should increase your circling minima due to higher approach speed, you are asking yourself the wrong question.

The real question should be: is circling with some (I'm guessing) flight controls problem really the best option that I have available? Most of the time, the answer will be no.
I raise this issue with our SIM department every time. Unfortunately, I don't get to write the profile, but agree it's encouraging negative training. I guess their way to assess how you approach the situation.

We have Cat E published and if I'm ever above 163 Kt in final approach config, that's what I use.

Also worth noting the other speed limits for the various segments of the approach apply too as part of terps procedure design, it's not just about finals.

The limits are there. It's published you can move up the category but not down. Will try to find the official reference (may be terps/pans ops specific though )

[LeadSled]

Have done countless flaps/slats jammed scenarios in the sim, and not once has anyone suggested using a higher minima. For that matter landing with flaps/slats jammed at close to fully retracted may well put the aircraft above max speed for CAT D even. But our company charts only have C or D on them because that's all we have in the fleet. I Don't know if a CAT E or more even exists?
Airman,
There are no Cat E civil aircraft, and I have never seen a published E minima.
Interestingly, the EGLL control zone size was established all those years ago in the anticipation of civil Cat E being developed, to cover a Cat E circling. It is about time it was re-sized to reflect the real wold of the last 40+ or more years.
Amazingly, the initial zone proposed for the new Sydney (AU) West airport is more or less the same size, ie: to cover a maneuver that will never be flown by an aircraft that does not and will not ever exist .
But one can never be "too safe", can one, no matter what destruction of existing GA traffic and existing airfields results.
Tootle pip!!

[tescoapp]

Its the need/want to go outside the protected area for the various cats.

CAT C is radius 2.7
CAT D is 3.6
CAT E is 4.5

With a MDA below 1000ft.

I have been challenged about staying in the 2.7 which makes getting the stabilisation gate shall we say interesting. Some SOP's have a partial stabilisation gate at 1000 for circling and 500ft for complete. Others they don't even mention it.
in theory the vis minima is 2NM for CAT C and 2.5 NM for cat D I have never tried a sim approach in viz that low but I really can't see me being able to keep the runway in sight and be stable. And 500ft would be challenging wings level etc etc. And that's with no specials

Flap 0 and Vref of 170knts and bank of 30 degrees your not going to make the turn to finals with 3.7km viz and field in sight. 6.5KM viz of cat E you might have a chance. Stabilised borderline. Terps cat E is 3.2 km viz.

Most CAT C circling approaches I have seen and been tested on never seem to stay inside the protected area if you do them the way the TRE wants them, in fact most are bordering outside the CAT E protected area.

These are just thoughts on what I have seen on circling approaches over the years. I could get the plane in but it would be using "cowboy" skills which thankfully are extremely not current these days, and the safety officer would quite rightly be sending me to the CP for a right roasting. Those cowboy skills are not trained for in modern CAT operations it would be a 10 deg AoB constant aspect, roll the wings level at 200ft and land.

A circling approach at min viz and minimas for me is a last ditch get it on the ground in real life, no more escape options left. In the sim its good for training and making you think in contrived situations.

Real life I have had to operate into single ended IFR approach runways and done Circling approaches for real in a CAT B machine but without modern stabilised approach SOP's I would say all of them would have been categorised as unstable, runway centre line and bank angle over 5 deg not obtained by 500ft. . My current C machine I wouldn't even attempt it unless we were going to crash otherwise.

[aterpster]

I thought that every Airline basically banned circling these days
Can only speak to the U.S. A Part 121 operator has the option to use circle-to-land minimums (CTL). But, they have to have a CTL training program, both in ground school and the simulator. Most operators opt out.

If they opt out they can still CTL with reported ceiling and visibility of not less than 1,000 and 3.

[aterpster]

There are no Cat E civil aircraft, and I have never seen a published E minima.


The FAA publishes CAT E where the military has a requirement. Jeppesen does not include them on their charts.

[VinRouge]

CAT C is radius 2.7
CAT D is 3.6
CAT E is 4.5

With a MDA below 1000ft.

Worth pointing out that those limits only apply to old style TERPS plates. the newer ones (inverse bold C) have differing circling radii, as do pans ops plates. I think it varies with MDA/H too. Which is why i really don't like flying them operationally. Why procedures designers didn't stick with a standardized radius across al types of plate I won't know; at the bare minimum (no pun intended) Circling minima should include the circling radius you can go out to.

We use CAT E, however, has to be a heavyweight clean wing approach (no slat or flap) to require this.

I also have operationally used CAT E minima to prevent the cowboy style approach talked about above; by reverting to cat E minima, you have far more space to manoevre (as long as you have the visibility and cloudbase to do this of course)

[sheppey]

I thought that every Airline basically banned circling these days
That is a too wide a generalisation. Funny how circling approaches for many decades were considered normal and perfectly safe if flown by competent pilots. . Yet nowadays that GPS approaches are all the rage, circling approaches suddenly become (shudder) dangerous.

Depending of course on the destination terrain characteristics, circling approaches are not in themselves categorised as dangerous (providing any published No Circling area is respected). It is the questionable competency of the pilots flying them that gives people the yips; particularly those that are totally dependent on the automatic pilot as a crutch to lean on.

[aterpster]

Worth pointing out that those limits only apply to old style TERPS plates. the newer ones (inverse bold C) have differing circling radii, as do pans ops plates. I think it varies with MDA/H too. Which is why i really don't like flying them operationally. Why procedures designers didn't stick with a standardized radius across al types of plate I won't know; at the bare minimum (no pun intended) Circling minima should include the circling radius you can go out to.



Old and new TERPS CTL:

[tescoapp]

Just to double check, have I got the current panops radius correct for MDA below 1000ft?

If not what are they?

I remember those because they all add up to 9 and go up by 1 for each cat increase making them easy to remember.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Thank you Aterpster and Sheppy for the additional information

[Capn Bloggs]

Just to double check, have I got the current panops radius correct for MDA below 1000ft?
I believe not.

Australia uses PANS-OPS and our AIP says:
Note 3. The circling area is determined by drawing an arc centred on the threshold of each usable runway and joining these arcs by tangents.
The radii are1.68NM for Category A, 2.66NM for Category B, 4.20NM for Category C, 5.28NM for Category D and 6.94NM for Category E.

Even moving TERPS Cat C out to 2.7nm is still stretching the friendship for the reasons Tescoapp describes; 1.7nm in a jet was just ludicrous and it is a wonder it lasted so long.

[tescoapp]

Found this which I have printed out for my reference pack in my flight bag.

https://www.avsourcemanuals.com/media/files/Protected%20airspace%20for%20circling%20approaches%20Terps%2 0vs%20Pans-Ops.pdf

4..2NM is doable but I still reckon your into cowboy territory if you are doing it in the min VIZ.

Anyway not something I have to worry about these days thankfully. If a circling approach anywhere near mins was the only option my CP would have zero issues with diverting. Must admit its years since I have to know this stuff on a daily operational, so I apologise not being up to date with the current limits

[tescoapp]

Another point I have wondered about is what the EGPWS is going to be saying while your doing one at mins.

[Airmann]

I have found that a lot of times the required visibility for a circling approach is much less than the maximum circling radius. Never made sense to me.

[aterpster]

Even moving TERPS Cat C out to 2.7nm is still stretching the friendship for the reasons Tescoapp describes; 1.7nm in a jet was just ludicrous and it is a wonder it lasted so long.
The battle to get new CTL criteria was almost lost; it was certainly delayed by the reactionaries. Some biz jet operators elect CAT D if they are going to do a significant circuit around the airport.

[aterpster]

Just to double check, have I got the current panops radius correct for MDA below 1000ft?

If not what are they?

I remember those because they all add up to 9 and go up by 1 for each cat increase making them easy to remember.

This is the table for 1,000 feet:

[tescoapp]

thanks for the table.

I was just thinking when was the last time I did one, it was my last type rating 3 years ago.

[JPAirbus]

Gentlemen, back to my original question:
I believe the FAA requires you to use higher minima on a circling approach if you exceed the max speed of your aircraft category.
I have no knowledge of any rule in EASAs world that requires you to use higher minima when exceeding e.g. category C approach speed limits.
It´s a pure technical question. Any CIRC at minimums might be very challenging or undoable - agreed. Question is which minima do I have to use (legally) on a CIRC approach with e.g. a category C aircraft when I exceed C speed limits?

[JPAirbus]

Gentlemen,
back to my original question:
As far as I know the FAA requires me to observe the higher minima once I have to use higher approach speeds.
Is there a requirement to do so under EASA rules? Or might I use category C CIRC minima flying a category C aircraft even if I exceed the max speed?
Pure technical question. I am aware that I might bust the circling area by doing so.

[tescoapp]

If you look at the at the table above it gives two requirements cat of aircraft and speed. So if you increase your speed above the aircraft cat the most restrictive wins.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
How about a "common sense" analysis, if you are flying a Cat. C MDA, at Cat. D speeds/radiius, you are greatly increasing the probability that you will fly smack into something ---- is this smart.
The Doc. 8136 current edition calculations (aka PANS/OPS) do not really have much fat in them, the TERPs even less.
A very good friend of mine sits on the ICAO Obstacle Clearance Panel, she is tempted to give up flying (as a pax) when she sees discussions like this among alleged pilots.
Tootle pip!!

[aterpster]

Folks,
How about a "common sense" analysis, if you are flying a Cat. C MDA, at Cat. D speeds/radiius, you are greatly increasing the probability that you will fly smack into something ---- is this smart.
The Doc. 8136 current edition calculations (aka PANS/OPS) do not really have much fat in them, the TERPs even less.
A very good friend of mine sits on the ICAO Obstacle Clearance Panel, she is tempted to give up flying (as a pax) when she sees discussions like this among alleged pilots.
Tootle pip!!
PANS-OPS and TERPS are not for pilots. The AIM covers the issue:

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/442x1000/aim_ctl_s_86d8aa85f387dc90d043638d2646dae5930f297e.jpg

[m39462]

PANS-OPS and TERPS are not for pilots. The AIM covers the issue:


PANS-OPS volume 2 is not for pilots, but volume 1 is for everyone:
Volume I - Flight Procedures describes operational procedures recommended for the guidance of flight operations personnel and flight crew.

To return to the original question, I too can't find anything in vol. 1 that matches the FAA directive to use a higher category, nor can I find it in EASA documents. In fact, in the absence of that kind of instruction a strict reading could lead you to conclude it is prohibited, because 1) EASA Air OPS says to remain in your circling area Such manoeuvres should be conducted to enable the aeroplane: (ii)to remain within the circling area and in such way that visual contact with the runwayof intended landing or runway environment is maintained at all times. , 2) the circling area is determined by the aircraft approach category, 3) that category is assigned by the manufacturer or operator based on the approach speed Vat, and 4) the category definitions have minimum speeds so if your Vat is 138 knots you cannot choose to be CAT D.
Not that I would worry, the likelihood of breaking a PANS-OPS speed limit is considerably less than a TERPS one. As everyone here probably knows, TERPS assumes that the same 1.3 Vso threshold speed used to categorise the aircraft is also the manoeuvring airspeed, but PANS-OPS allows for a considerably higher speed while circling. So, a nominally CAT C aircraft that needs to circle above 140 knots during a TERPS approach must choose a higher category, but PANS-OPS CAT C is good to go up to 180 knots.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
A bit of common sense and basic maths leads to the same conclusion as the FAA AIM statement ---- it ain't that hard.
As I have already said, the idea is to not fly smack into something, and flying an aeroplane should always be treated as a very practical proposition, not some arcane discussion about words and punctuation.

RULE (1): Fly the aeroplane.
RULE (2): Censored in the age of equality, inclusion and diversity.
RULE (3): There ain't no RULE (3), see RULE (1).

Every instrument rated pilot should have a basic understanding of how instrument procedures are constructed (otherwise, why would Jep. bother putting it in the WW Text) so you understand just how vital it is to stick to the procedures and tolerances, non-conformance can ruin your whole day. The tolerances are minimal and based on you flying as accurately as you can!!!

Even with Australia's generally benign weather, we are not short of examples of pilots who have done otherwise, and we have had to pick up the pieces, including of the bodies of the passengers.
Tootle pip!!

[m39462]

Indeed, Sled, that is good and sensible advice and may be codified by authorities that adopt PANS-OPS. Australia for example, whose AIP refers more than once to the circling area for the category of aircraft or a higher category where the limitations of the higher category are complied with. However, inasmuch as JPAirbus was not asking for advice but was asking what EASA documents had to say on this topic, I have to conclude they did not also make this eminently reasonable clarification.

[LeadSled]

Indeed, Sled, that is good and sensible advice and may be codified by authorities that adopt PANS-OPS. Australia for example, whose AIP refers more than once to the circling area for the category of aircraft or a higher category where the limitations of the higher category are complied with. However, inasmuch as JPAirbus was not asking for advice but was asking what EASA documents had to say on this topic, I have to conclude they did not also make this eminently reasonable clarification.
m39462,
Agreed, but more than one here suggested that it was OK to fly the higher speed at the lower cat. minima, UNLESS the RULES mandated otherwise.
Aeroplanes, and cumulus granatis don't know about "rules", EASA or otherwise, and in this day and age of the "Children of the Magenta Line", far too many believe that all the answers can be found in a book of legislation.
Indeed, the modern Australian regulatory practice is to try and identify in the greatest and minutest detail every action a pilot should take, frame a rules around it, and making it a criminal offense to make a mistake, or encounter a situation not covered by "the rools". The result is a rule book for bureaucratic micro-management so big that nobody knows everything that is there, and all to often there are contradictions that are never even sorted out in the all to prevalent legal proceedings.
And the resulting air safety outcomes are rather ordinary.
Tootle pip!!

[FlightDetent]

CIRC minima are published according to approach categories (A/B/C/D...) that relate to Vref.
Any aircraft is categorized as e.g. cat C. If you exceed the max speed for cat C on your actual approach (e.g. due to abnormal procedures) you have to use the higher cat D minimum in the FAAs world. Does that requirement (use the higher minimum) hold true in the EASA world? I know EASA and FAA/TERPS CIRC minima are not based on the same obstacle free radii - hence my question.

Flying a higher speed than the protected areas cater for means getting out of them, right? Do we really need a law / regulation to say so? Either you fly slow enough and stay protected inside, or go ride a high-speed excavator outside the manoeuvring areas.

Maybe the FAA needed to go vocal in order to keep the alertness high because TERPS radii leave absolutely no margin for error on the larger planes.

[aterpster]

Maybe the FAA needed to go vocal in order to keep the alertness high because TERPS radii leave absolutely no margin for error on the larger planes.
True enough with "old" TERPS CTL criteria. Not true, especially for CAT C and D, with "new" TERPS CTL criteria.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/800x517/terps_old_and_new_ctl_6509ed2a07cfcc2545391db6a9661a60d045dd 1c.jpg

[m39462]

Either you fly slow enough and stay protected inside, or go ride a high-speed excavator outside the manoeuvring areas.
Or, stay inside by exceeding the assumed bank angle?

The original question being about regulations, when circling fast do the rules permit staying inside by, say, banking at 24 degrees instead of 20?
I would say by FAA rules no, if above category airspeed you must use higher category minima.
But by EASA rules yes, you are required only to maintain visual contact, at or above MDA, and stay in the protected area. How you do it is your business, within the bounds of responsible airmanship.

Of course I expect some readers to have strong opinions how far this kind of action could be taken and remain "responsible" ...