High On Final?

[Dogma]

At Bodrum you get to see some stuff, not always good

Few days back at about midnight local time a Jet2 was attempting an approach onto RW 28. Steep GS, terrain, etc. They advised that they were high and wanted to orbit to the south of the localiser at about 15nm and descend onto the G/S during the 360. Try as I might, it seems a very bad idea at night, vs. going into the published hold and doing the procedure. What does the esteemed PPRRune Tech Log think?

[FlightDetent]

Because of the terrain, and thanks to AIS Turkey, a good chart provides enough information to make that a controlled and well-executed manoeuvre.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/853x1104/bez_n_zvu_15174d1c6a32f9d1efbd2d0b9ce07898db6ae892.png

Regardless of the above, both my post and the starter's one: I only did 2x 360 turns on final track to lose altitude, relatively early in the career. And then decided not to, for the years remaining.

[FlightDetent]

Wouldn't it be nice to see the different presentations of that profile by Jepp and Navtech .. anyone? Pretty please.

[sonicbum]

it seems a very bad idea at night, vs. going into the published hold and doing the procedure. What does the esteemed PPRRune Tech Log think?

It is a very bad idea indeed. I cannot think of a valid reason for a 360 to lose altitude in a commercial jet when You have published holdings and/or radar vectors for extra track miles.

[Vessbot]

It is a very bad idea indeed. I cannot think of a valid reason for a 360 to lose altitude in a commercial jet when You have published holdings and/or radar vectors for extra track miles.

What would be the difference between a 360 while on radar, and a radar vector?

[sonicbum]

What would be the difference between a 360 while on radar, and a radar vector?

Not much, as long as You don't turn the wrong side and bust an area with a higher MRVA especially with high terrain around. Seen it happening while conducting a line check, wasn't to nice to see.

[midnight cruiser]

Based on the approach plate and the terrain, it wouldn't seem advisable.

Jet2 seem quite keen on throwing in a 360 at a late stage - twice I've been behind them on a procedural arrival and they've given everyone a bit of a 'surprise' by doing it.

[Escape Path]

At 15nm from TDZ and South of the localiser is on the protected area of the holding pattern. I think it's safe. Am I missing something?

[wiggy]

Laterally yes but I think the trap I see is where do you leave 6000 for 5000 feet if you are orbiting at 15 D?

[Pugilistic Animus]

Don't smoke weed before finals so that you're not high on final :}

:ouch:

[Peter G-W]

Laterally yes but I think the trap I see is where do you leave 6000 for 5000 feet if you are orbiting at 15 D?

You don’t need to leave 6000 ft until intercepting the glidepath.

[wiggy]

Fair point, 6000 until 14.5 on the ILS D ... so do the 360 at 15D, max 185 knots, to the south and as I see it you are within the protected area..what am I missing (other than it would be nice to have arranged things not to need the orbit in the first place)

[richardthethird]

Surprised to hear they would do that, normally when following a Jet2 into somewhere they have the speed right back and tend to fly (overly) cautious approaches. If you hear an aircraft going around, you can put money on it being a Jet2. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, perhaps others are less inclined to throw something away that's not going well. Or perhaps Jet2 have stricter rules than others.

One thing is for certain, when the pressure is on (and Bodrum, at night, coming in a bit hot and high), you might do some things that you might not otherwise do if you were observing from the jump seat or posting on this forum! Certainly from my current position, I would most likely throw it away. Day VMC, perhaps different decision.

[BluSdUp]

So we have here a crew that is so rubbish that they can not plan to be at 6000 feet on speed, to drop gear and final flap to do a much nonstandard 3,9 degree GS.
All they have to do is do the standard turn as published.
But we give them the option at NIGHT to do a 360,,,,,, Nah.
I vote for FAIL.

Back in the sim Boys and or move right.
Its not a game , and its all been tried before!
Kiss Boys
Big Kiss from
Cpt B

[Dogma]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. The consensus seems to be that its a very bad idea, not least because its not an IFR Procedure and subject to screw-up over some unforgiving terrain. Perhaps Captain Jackie Mills might write up a relevant piece for Focus on Flight Safety for the UKFCC - I haven't read a decent article in that publication for years :{

[FlightDetent]

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. The consensus seems to be that its a very bad idea, not least because its not an IFR Procedure and subject to screw-up over some unforgiving terrain. I care to disagree. The replies are not thoughtful, and it is not a very bad idea. We also do not know what happened, where it happened, at what altitude it happened. Neither why you came here, nor what you came here for.

To start, "A 360 over unforgiving terrain" is the same as any other curved turn over unforgiving terrain or any straight leg over an unforgiving terrain, or any other trajectory over any terrain, or any other trajectory over no terrain at all. You can smash an aeroplane into near-atomic pieces impacting the water surface too (Gulf Air, Armavia). Which sort of terrain is forgiving, by the way? (rhetorical).

As long as you remain above it, preferably observing the procedural IFR MOCs, it is perfectly safe. Same for the "even during the night", IFR rules, what's the difference?

The second example would be: what's wrong with 360 turn from 11000' to 7000' while you are cleared to 6000 anyways by ATC who approves it? MRVA is 5600, and you are physically over the charted race-track / reversal loop / holding pattern in VMC?

Too many people came here to witness the hanging.

The CAVOK was so severe recently over there that the last week I challenged my colleague if we should ask for a visual, passing EVKUS (downwind fix LTFE 28R). He could see the apron lights so clearly, he fell for it and keyed the mike. From FL220 going to RHO. :)

[Capn Bloggs]

I care to disagree. The replies are not thoughtful, and it is not a very bad idea.
I care to disagree. Night, not on the approach and not in the Hold, and below the MSA. Madness.

[giggitygiggity]

I'm failing to see what the issue is. The platform altitude is 6000ft so they need to be at that and pretty stable by the time they descend (at 15NM), so if they need to lose height then they can do this to the south of the LOC quite safely.

If they do it in the 15NM localiser position (north, south, east OR west) at a sensible speed, they will stay above the Radar Minimum Altitude within 25NM of the BDR, which is easily achieved. The lowest Radar Minimum is 6000ft so can lose any height required down to this level safely. I don't really understand why the MSA is so high as I can't find any terrain within 25NM of the field above 4600ft, there is a hill going up to 6500ft outside 30NM, but this really can't affect them. Here is the LIDO Minimum Radar Chart which has kept the belly of the aircraft soil free for some time now.

MSA is Minimum Sector Altitude, each sector on this chart covers 500 square miles, which isn't much use apart from the day that you've completely lost the plot and need to climb to a safe altitude to out where you went wrong.

How do you guys accept descent clearances to the ILS whilst radar vectoring clearances in IMC? Just hope and prayer?

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1600x1188/ltfe_mrc_fe5b6b318b58cdcc9373f7fa7e8f3d01cc2ddb49.jpg

[Capn Bloggs]

Here is the LIDO Minimum Radar Chart
I hope the fact you've mentioned/shown this doesn't embolden others to start their own terrain avoidance procedures...

How do you guys accept descent clearances to the ILS whilst radar vectoring clearances in IMC? Just hope and prayer?
That's different: the ATC is actively controlling you. It's his job to keep you clear of terrain.

[A Squared]

I care to disagree. Night, not on the approach and not in the Hold, and below the MSA. Madness.

Okay, we'll set "night" aside for now, Unless I'm missing something, this was right in the hold, and I haven't seen anything which suggests they descended below the published holding altitude.

below the MSA. Madness.

You realize, don't you, that most instrument approaches take you below the MSA at some point, right?

Seems that everyone agrees that entering the hold, as published, descending to the published holding altitude and then re-intercepting the localizer and GS would be safe and legal, but if they did an "orbit" in the same spot at the same altitude, it would be dangerous lunacy. OK, help me out here, a "hold" is 2 standard rate (rate 1, whatever you prefer) turns of 180 degrees connected by 2 straight legs. An orbit is 2 standard rate 180 degree turns with no straight legs between them. How does the lack of straight legs change the maneuver from something safe and legal to something dangerous?

If they descended below 6000 ft while off the localizer in in their orbit, I'd agree that was bad, but I haven't seen anything which even hints that they did.

[A Squared]

. Try as I might, it seems a very bad idea at night, vs. going into the published hold and doing the procedure.

Can you explain what you think is meaningfully different between what they did, and "going into the published hold" ?

[A Squared]

Laterally yes but I think the trap I see is where do you leave 6000 for 5000 feet if you are orbiting at 15 D?


Seems from the plate that "Established on the localizer and inside of 16.1 IGML/16.6 BDR" or "established on the localizer and on the glideslope" would both be safe, acceptable answers to your question. Do you have an instrument rating?

[giggitygiggity]

I hope the fact you've mentioned/shown this doesn't embolden others to start their own terrain avoidance procedures...


That's different: the ATC is actively controlling you. It's his job to keep you clear of terrain.

Is it!

You request to do an orbit and you're under a RADAR service, ATC is monitoring you, you make a request and they either approve it or deny it. That aside, the chart shows the highest terrain so the numbers given seem sensible. There will not be a sector on that chart with a minimum altitude, not giving you the required terrain buffer (assuming no errors in the planning stage).

So if ATC ever tells you 'Radar Control', who is responsible for terrain clearance? You are. That is why they provide you these charts to cross-reference their clearance (except in Milan because... Italy). How an earth could you ever avoid weather at night whilst making an approach (even to Amsterdam) if you had no choice but to stay above Minimum Sector Altitude (read Sector, NOT Safe)?

Would you disagree that staying above the minimum radar altitudes in that chart would give you the required 1000ft terrain clearance?

Bearing in mind a rate 1 orbit at 180kts should give you a turn diameter of about 2NM, if you had request one in any position under 'Positive Radar Control' (meaning you've been positively identified by ATC), they will (should) not allow you to maneuverer in a manner that would compromise safety by encroaching on the 1000ft terrain margin. Therefore, radar minimum sectors are defined with this in mind. Whenever you're inside a given sector of the MRC, any instruction/approved request should give you the legally required terrain avoidance - subject to your cross check of the relevant chart (in this case, your minimum radar chart).

[A Squared]

Is it!

You request to do an orbit and you're under a RADAR service, ATC is monitoring you, you make a request and they either approve it or deny it. .... .....Whenever you're inside a given sector of the MRC, any instruction/approved request should give you the legally required terrain avoidance - subject to your cross check of the relevant chart (in this case, your minimum radar chart).

giggity, not saying you're wrong, I agree with what you've posted, but even if this wasn't under radar control, you's still be performing the orbit within the published hold, on the same side of the localizer as the published hold, and at or above the published holding altitude. Radar control is just an additional layer of safety.

[giggitygiggity]

giggity, not saying you're wrong, I agree with what you've posted, but even if this wasn't under radar control, you's still be performing the orbit within the published hold, on the same side of the localizer as the published hold, and at or above the published holding altitude. Radar control is just an additional layer of safety.

Sorry, I wasn't replying to your post, but to Bloggs if that makes it clearer. But I agree with you, that an orbit (in the location to the south of the LOC at ~15NM) is within the published hold so that makes it safe, although whilst safe, i'm not sure it's legally acceptable as the hold is published for procedural purposes only as this chart makes no reference to the MRA.

Seems from the plate that "Established on the localizer and inside of 16.1 IGML/16.6 BDR" or "established on the localizer and on the glideslope" would both be safe, acceptable answers to your question. Do you have an instrument rating?

I agree, with wiggy, that there is a little bit of a trap there as the plate is pretty messy to be quite frank. It could probably do with an expansion chart, though I'm not sure of the technical term - LIDO would call it "ILS 28 Initial". Note 1 also says that in accordance with the procedure you may descend down to 4800ft within 13.5 IMGL which I'm sure people will miss due to the wide 'zoom' shown.

[A Squared]

Sorry, I wasn't replying to your post, but to Bloggs if that makes it clearer.

Sure, I get that, you weren't disagreeing with me, and I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just making the point that your comments about Radar control are in addition to the fact the at the procedure gives you ample information to conduct the maneuver safely. As far as legal, maybe it comes down to differences in regulation, but the published hold is in Bold, which in my world means that it is part of the approach (vs a m/a holding fix) for purposes of course reversal in non-radar ops, so could be flown on the approach. (given ATC approval, which they had)

[A Squared]

I agree, with wiggy, that there is a little bit of a trap there as the plate is pretty messy to be quite frank. It could probably do with an expansion chart, though I'm not sure of the technical term - LIDO would call it "ILS 28 Initial". Note 1 also says that in accordance with the procedure you may descend down to 4800ft within 13.5 IMGL which I'm sure people will miss due to the wide 'zoom' shown.

I guess I'm not seeing the trap. I agree that the presentation is cluttered, but the altitude in the hold is pretty clearly 6000 ft, and I would assume that prior to even beginning the approach before the need for the orbit became evident, the crew would have reviewed those DME fixes and altitudes and had an understanding of what altitude they could be at what distance while inbound on the localizer. Anyway, we're discussing pretty fine points here, I think you and I are largely in agreement on the overall issue.

[midnight cruiser]

Giving it a bit more scrutiny, it may not be quite as bad as I thought. I guess they arrived on the okesa 1j arrival, so were already established on the final approach track, and were just high for the profile.

Quick fingers on the FMC would have put them round the race track (not the hold) and perfectly legitimately lost the height, but a 360 at tekbu would also seem to be within a protected area (SOPs permitting, which ours wouldn't). However, 6000' at tekbu is still slightly too high for the glide slope. If they did it at some point before tekbu then you're in uncharted territory at night with an 85 msa. I guess a 360 at the 16.6d BDR would be the limit, but you would need to be at 185kt.

I would be wary of having the b'jaysus scared out of me by triggering the egpws by losing height directly over a big hill, so if it were me, I would either have loaded the racetrack, or press on to the BDR for the ILS V big race track.

[Capn Bloggs]

So if ATC ever tells you 'Radar Control', who is responsible for terrain clearance? You are.
I knew somebody would rip into me for that. Pull ya head in, Giggity. I never said I pass all responsibility for terrain clearance to ATC when they are radar-vectoring me. We also don't have access to radar terrain charts. Given the gung-ho attitude of some here "she'll be right, no hills around here that I can see", that's probably a good idea.

How an earth could you ever avoid weather at night whilst making an approach (even to Amsterdam) if you had no choice but to stay above Minimum Sector Altitude (read Sector, NOT Safe)?
Unless you're on radar vectors or a STAR, you ain't going below the MSA with me unless you're at the IAF. Weather in the way? Hold or go to your alternate!

If you're doing you own thing though, as it appears here, John Wayneing an orbit below the 25nm MSA because you're high and in the area of the holding pattern is not on. You're either in the Hold or your not.

Can't see the relevance of "500sqm"...

[Dogma]

Is it!

You request to do an orbit and you're under a RADAR service, ATC is monitoring you, you make a request and they either approve it or deny it. That aside, the chart shows the highest terrain so the numbers given seem sensible. There will not be a sector on that chart with a minimum altitude, not giving you the required terrain buffer (assuming no errors in the planning stage).

So if ATC ever tells you 'Radar Control', who is responsible for terrain clearance? You are. That is why they provide you these charts to cross-reference their clearance (except in Milan because... Italy). How an earth could you ever avoid weather at night whilst making an approach (even to Amsterdam) if you had no choice but to stay above Minimum Sector Altitude (read Sector, NOT Safe)?

Would you disagree that staying above the minimum radar altitudes in that chart would give you the required 1000ft terrain clearance?

Bearing in mind a rate 1 orbit at 180kts should give you a turn diameter of about 2NM, if you had request one in any position under 'Positive Radar Control' (meaning you've been positively identified by ATC), they will (should) not allow you to maneuverer in a manner that would compromise safety by encroaching on the 1000ft terrain margin. Therefore, radar minimum sectors are defined with this in mind. Whenever you're inside a given sector of the MRC, any instruction/approved request should give you the legally required terrain avoidance - subject to your cross check of the relevant chart (in this case, your minimum radar chart).

ATC Monitoring You :D Its the Wild East out there, they'd not be of any benefit to flight safety. An orbit at night is lacking in control, disorientating and bad idea before a 3 Degree never mind a 3.9 Degree over high terrain

[A Squared]

An orbit at night is lacking in control, disorientating and bad idea


OK, how is 2 consecutive, 180 degree, rate 1 turns any more "lacking in control" and "disorienting" than 2, 180 degree, rate 1 turns connected with straight legs? Does the airplane get less stable somewhere around the 190th degree of turn?

[A Squared]

If you're doing you own thing though, as it appears here, John Wayneing an orbit below the 25nm MSA because you're high and in the area of the holding pattern is not on.

Still waiting for someone to explain how a 360 degree turn within the published racetrack, at or above the published racetrack altitude is more dangerous than flying the published racetrack.

[BluSdUp]

As I some times ask my Fo on my 31 second debrief before we go home : "Are we going to do that stunt if tomorrow is a linecheck!?"

" No Sir"
"Good Lad , Class dismissed"

Now for the hypothetical error made:
Firstly, was the 360 done at 185kts, not likely.
Secondly, was wind and drift taken into consideration, very unlikely.
Third: Should I, if I loose the plot of my descend planning, invent something. when a safe shuttle in the hold is right in front of me?
Now back for more coffee.

Safe Regards
Cpt B

[Time Traveller]

Ha ha bluey. I must use that one!

I think most manuals make for a provision for a 360, but ours is not below msa, not within 10 miles, and only in vmc. I've never used it and I don't like it because I find it disorientating, and it's easy to underestimate how much height is being lost and how fast, or to not keep it turning - and head off into God knows where or what. You'd also have to be ultra careful that you're not busting safe altitudes.

[A Squared]

Now for the hypothetical error made:
Firstly, was the 360 done at 185kts, not likely.

You have exactly zero basis for making that assertion,.

Secondly, was wind and drift taken into consideration, very unlikely.

What procedures do you use for wind and drift during the turning portions of a racetrack?

The terrain clearance area for racetracks and holds is designed with the assumption of some wind drift. The wind drift in a 360 turn is exactly the same as the wind drift in 2 180 turns of the same rate.

[VinRouge]

I knew somebody would rip into me for that. Pull ya head in, Giggity. I never said I pass all responsibility for terrain clearance to ATC when they are radar-vectoring me. We also don't have access to radar terrain charts. Given the gung-ho attitude of some here "she'll be right, no hills around here that I can see", that's probably a good idea.


Unless you're on radar vectors or a STAR, you ain't going below the MSA with me unless you're at the IAF. Weather in the way? Hold or go to your alternate!

If you're doing you own thing though, as it appears here, John Wayneing an orbit below the 25nm MSA because you're high and in the area of the holding pattern is not on. You're either in the Hold or your not.

Can't see the relevance of "500sqm"...

Can someone please direct me to the PANS OPS specification which permits me to swing in a 360 orbit on an instrument approach procedure (get in everyone elses way) and just generally be a bit gash, in front of the rest of the flying community?

Nope? Must be just something they have in the Jet2 OM then.

[FlightDetent]

Still waiting for someone to explain how a 360 degree turn within the published racetrack, at or above the published racetrack altitude is more dangerous than flying the published racetrack. If you find him, please ask on my behalf, what's illegal about 4x 90 degree turn above MRVA authorized by ATC. Forgot to add, they'd be all in the same direction, and pretty consecutive too. :}

[A Squared]

Can someone please direct me to the PANS OPS specification which permits me to swing in a 360 orbit on an instrument approach procedure

I can't quote chapter and verse, but presumably the published racetrack is permitted, otherwise, what would be the point of publishing an illegal procedure, right? So what would be the difference if you did a 360 in the same spot and at the same altitude you are authorized to do a 180, then a straight bit, then another 180?




(get in everyone elses way) and just generally be a bit gash, in front of the rest of the flying community?

Umm, according to the OP, they requested the maneuver from ATC, If that was getting in anyone else's way, ATC wouldn't have approved it. How is doing a 360 any more in anyone's way, and any more being a gash, than getting ATC approval for flying the charted racetrack in the same location?

You folks are really starting to grasp at straws in your search for some justification to castigate this crew.

Seriously, I'm expecting at any moment for one of you to claim that they turned you into a newt.

[A Squared]

If you find him, please ask on my behalf, what's illegal about 4x 90 degree turn above MRVA authorized by ATC. Forgot to add, they'd be all in the same direction, and pretty consecutive too. :}

Will do. Search has been fruitless to date. Will keep you advised.

[FlightDetent]

I think most manuals make for a provision for a 360, but ours is not below msa, not within 10 miles, and only in vmc. I've never used it and I don't like it because I find it disorientating, and it's easy to underestimate how much height is being lost and how fast, or to not keep it turning - and head off into God knows where or what. You'd also have to be ultra careful that you're not busting safe altitudes. The thought of "why the need for such sentence" is rather chilling. It means somebody probably tried, and the company should be lucky not learn from the news.

Fully agree with your description. The (pretty common) types I flew would as per FCTM go L/G down, mid-flaps and half spoilers at 180 knots to recover excessive altitude. Gives you between -1800, -2400 fpm in a straight line. If still too high (by 2000 ft above the platform, approaching the FAP - i.e. unrecoverable - let's imagine), the unfortunate decision to do a 360 would have you complete the full circle at 4000 below the target altitude. The obstacle clearance on the intermediate segment is 500 ft. Useless trick, that gets you nowhere but in trouble.

The 360 is not the problem. The height loss through the turn and the position where executed could be, if ignorant of the underlying safe altitude limits. I said before my first picture: the chart provides enough information to execute a 360 in an organized and well-controlled manner. Exactly that. Adding now: execute both safely and legally, definitely at least the first of the two. Fair enough, on the other side of the ring: The terrain, high temps, wind aloft, and GS angle ALSO provide for a mine-field battleground, where a stupid 360 would turn into an Air Crash Investigators episode faster than one can say "Sink-Rate".

Still bit perplexed why the need to hang Jet2 fellow crewmen or libel the whole company based on no evidence what they did if anything at all?!
There will most likely be some, once we'd dig for it. Only then we could see which of the two scenarios fits the reality closer. And open the shooting range.

[Capn Bloggs]

Another aspect of this wiffodill is that I bet it wasn't done using the FMS. CFITs have reduced markedly because of GPWS and database approaches. In this case, where the crew or ATC has already ballsed-up the arrival, they are setting themselves up for an even bigger ballsup doing orbits to get down to the glideslope. And no, gittyiigtitiy, I don't have magenta skin and I'm quite happy to fly around in HDG and VS; just not in this scenario.

[FlightDetent]

CB, you comment as if the 360 actually took place, and not in an appropriate manner. Do you have any leads in that regard?

I found nothing here:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ls1247
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ls657
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ls123
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ls215
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ls1415
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ls983
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ls519

@giggity please check lingo. Radar Service (Contact) means very differently from Radar Vectors. I fell under the impression you may have interchanged the two recently? The difference between those - in this particular discussion - is essential.

[Capn Bloggs]

FD, yes, OK, whatever. Even if they "thought" about doing it they're very norty boys!! := :eek: :ok:

[Uplinker]

The difference between a 360 turn, (or two consecutive 180’s or four consecutive 90’s), and a hold of course is that with a hold you get an outbound one minute straight leg to adjust your tracking (3 x inbound drift) to allow for crosswind, placing you in the right position to roll out correctly on the inbound track. This will help you make sure you are where you think you are.

A manual 360 rate one turn does not give you this opportunity for tracking compensation, so the risk is that you might drift over to the non-holding side?

Having said that, if you press ‘Immediate exit’ on the FMGC having just flown over the fix, the Airbus FBW FCOM says it will exit the hold when next overflying the fix, and the diagram shows what looks like a 360 turn. So presumably it compensates for wind drift when doing this - by adjusting bank angle? If flying a 360 using heading mode, I guess this compensation would not occur?

I have flown this approach into Bodrum quite a few times and you had to watch very carefully where ATC vectored you.

[BluSdUp]

Now , my good Man , You are starting to scare me. That is if You are in the left seat in anything with more then one seat, in IMC!?
.
Your first quote of me was brilliant : I say, hypothetical error made
: And yes , it is likely it was made at high speed to loose altitude, we dont know. IF it was over 185kts busted protected area , most likely.

How do I adjust TRACK in a rasetrack: Depends, Seneca , Time Twist Turn Track,( Talk?) QDM QDR.
Magenta line AC. Check it is CORRECT and LNAV.

Kind Regards
Old and Hairy
Cåpt B

[Escape Path]

The thought of "why the need for such sentence" is rather chilling. It means somebody probably tried, and the company should be lucky not learn from the news.
The 360 is not the problem. The height loss through the turn and the position where executed could be, if ignorant of the underlying safe altitude limits. I said before my first picture: the chart provides enough information to execute a 360 in an organized and well-controlled manner. Exactly that. Adding now: execute both safely and legally, definitely at least the first of the two. Fair enough, on the other side of the ring: The terrain, high temps, wind aloft, and GS angle ALSO provide for a mine-field battleground, where a stupid 360 would turn into an Air Crash Investigators episode faster than one can say "Sink-Rate".

Couldn't agree more.

Yes, going to the hold would be safer (by doing something published) but I agree with FD, if done properly, taking care of the conditions that affect the manoeuvre (speed limit, safe altitude to descend, not going over to the non-holding side, doing it on the correct distance markers), I can't see anything unsafe with the 360.

I will agree with BSU in that speed is a doubt considering they were high. They would need to have the limit in check otherwise they'd surely miss the protected area.

[Chesty Morgan]

Are all you naysayers just assuming the heading bug was wanged around without due regard to the wind or position?

Perhaps a small amount of credit might be given for a bit or airmanship and the 360 was completed to ensure they stayed within the protected hold area by adjusting the heading and, therefore, the rate of turn accordingly.

Either way way you’d have to actually know how and what rather than just pontificating from a position which lacks actual knowledge of the event.

[A Squared]

Either way way you’d have to actually know how and what rather than just pontificating from a position which lacks actual knowledge of the event.

Exactly. Like assuming that they did exceed the published holding speed, despite there being no evidence that they did.

[blind pew]

That's different: the ATC is actively controlling you. It's his job to keep you clear of terrain.
hope I'm never down the back with you going into Rio or for that matter anywhere else they have a terrain problem or even montpellier.
Two hull loses in Rio and a mid air at montpellier..

[Capn Bloggs]

Bind Pew, read the thread, and in particular post 30.

What accidents are you referring to?

[FlightDetent]

Exactly. Like assuming that they did exceed the published holding speed, despite there being no evidence that they did. AS you'll enjoy this - come check the chart with me. 185 kt is the restriction for race-track reversal procedure. The holding pattern published over the same position has no speed restrictions at all: so max IAS 280 knots in turbulent conditions is perfectly fine. Allowance for wind mandatory, indeed. :D

Besides, FR24 has no record of any such 360 taking place. The links I posted above show the history of all J2 city pairs that go to Bodrum/Milas, the only exciting thing to see is that one lucky flight did land on 10.

[Capn Bloggs]

185 kt is the restriction for race-track reversal procedure
What reversal?

[FlightDetent]

CB: thanks for correcting. For the RACE-TRACK.
------
Unconnected to the above correction of terminology, the last chart missing that a pilot would have:https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.gmforum.com-vbulletin/1389x980/bez_n_zvu_ebe60ac08991cd1ee7b840d42de60ca2c70ba961.png

[Dogma]

AS you'll enjoy this - come check the chart with me. 185 kt is the restriction for race-track reversal procedure. The holding pattern published over the same position has no speed restrictions at all: so max IAS 280 knots in turbulent conditions is perfectly fine. Allowance for wind mandatory, indeed. :D

Besides, FR24 has no record of any such 360 taking place. The links I posted above show the history of all J2 city pairs that go to Bodrum/Milas, the only exciting thing to see is that one lucky flight did land on 10.

A Commercial Pilot quoting FR24 as some definitive proof of an event :oh:

It happened, its not an IFR procedure, its not acceptable. I may proceed with CHIRP to get the issue brought into the minds of all Pilots. The CAA and UKFSC continues to provide zero leadership. Thanks to the more professional contributors

[midnight cruiser]

. holding pattern published over the same position has no speed restrictions at all: so max IAS 280 knots I do hope you're being facetious with that comment. ICAO max holding speed that level is 230kts, and my chart for bodrum also shows max 230kts for that hold. And a 360 at 230kts would only remain in the protected area if it was done between 12.3 and 14d BDR, otherwise it's max 185kts max out to 16.6d to be within the race track, (and no protection at all beyond that).

All academic discussion of course. No aspersions cast!

[FlightDetent]

Dogma, please do. Especially if it happened on the final approach stage, as you may have suggested by the title of the thread.

Also please read my sentence again. Saying there's no record of a flight with an orbit on that public, open data, website - which I certainly did, is very different from what you label me with. Show a pair, give us the date. You had the resolve to name the airline.

If it happened on a shortened base, under vectors above MRVA 5600' it is perfectly fine,
If it happened on the intermediate segment, over the published RACETRACK and NATKU HP(160°L MHA 6000') under severe CAVOK of the last month - different people different tastes, but still fine. (you never said unsafe, that's well observed!)

midnight cruiser: Comment noted, PANS-OPS VOL I table I-6-1-1 reviewed for the second time, which is where the number comes from, i.a.w. the "3" index note. Irrelevant to the thread, though I went un-necessarily far for that point.

About the distance limits: I think we may not be seeing the same HLDG in our respective paperwork. Cheers.

I'd still love to see Jepp / Navtech for that approach. Curious how the vertical profile and MNM altitudes are presented.

[Goldenrivett]

I'd still love to see Jepp / Navtech for that approach.

See http://vau.aero/navdb/chart/LTFE.pdf page 21,

[Paulm1949]

If you’ve been left high, it would be good airmanship to ask for some extra track miles in order to lose the height. All about anticipation too. Failing this enter the hold - at least you are at a known position.

[16024]

If you’ve been left high, it would be good airmanship to ask for some extra track miles in order to lose the height. All about anticipation too. Failing this enter the hold - at least you are at a known position.

Yes, but this thread is mostly about whether it is safe, or appropriate, to do a continuous turn within the protected area of said hold.
How often have you been told to hold at the IAF and then, almost immediately "Hold is cancelled, continue the turn onto a heading of..."
What's the difference?

[wiggy]

Indeed, I’ll merely offer a general example sometimes heard at somewhere known to be protective of it’s holding airspace “ON reaching XXX, do one orbit, then leave XXX on a heading of”..

(oh, a belated answer to a question somebody asked: yes, ever since 1978...got my first examiners ticket in ‘ 86)

[poldek77]

The (pretty common) types I flew would as per FCTM go L/G down, mid-flaps and half spoilers at 180 knots to recover excessive altitude. Gives you between -1800, -2400 fpm in a straight line. If still too high (by 2000 ft above the platform, approaching the FAP - i.e. unrecoverable - let's imagine), the unfortunate decision to do a 360 would have you complete the full circle at 4000 below the target altitude. The obstacle clearance on the intermediate segment is 500 ft. Useless trick, that gets you nowhere but in trouble.


Sorry but I wouldn't like the idea of diving in such a mountainous area at 2000 ft/min or more for a glide slope which is already pretty steep, being busy with speed and configuration change... And I suppose that while orbiting you are still able to stop your descent at the desired altitude. ;)

[FlightDetent]

Give it one more read including the post I was replying to. I think you'll find we're in a perfect agreement, ​​cześć.

[172_driver]

I have seen a lot of armchair experts on here before but I think this one takes the cookie.

We know absolutely nothing about what went on in the kitchen (cockpit). In contrast to a steep spiral at 230 kts, thrust idle, flaps 5, speed brake out night IMC (as some may imagine).. it could just as well have been smooth sailing at 180 kts, flaps 5, vertical speed at 1000 fpm draging it in with thrust on a moon bright night in obstacle protected airspace.

As for reporting it... CHIRPing whatever that entails... give me a break. Disconnect and enjoy the fun of flying.

[giggitygiggity]

I knew somebody would rip into me for that. Pull ya head in, Giggity. I never said I pass all responsibility for terrain clearance to ATC when they are radar-vectoring me. We also don't have access to radar terrain charts. Given the gung-ho attitude of some here "she'll be right, no hills around here that I can see", that's probably a good idea.

I don't understand then why you'd ever accept radar vector below MSA without the appropriate Radar Minimum Charts? If ATC clear you on a vector below MSA, how could you cross check the acceptability of that clearance without referencing it to a chart (SRA's excluded)? Surely, in that case you would have entirely absolved yourself of any terrain responsibility and be deferring straight to the last line of defence, the GPWS.

Unless you're on radar vectors or a STAR, you ain't going below the MSA with me unless you're at the IAF. Weather in the way? Hold or go to your alternate!

If you're doing you own thing though, as it appears here, John Wayneing an orbit below the 25nm MSA because you're high and in the area of the holding pattern is not on. You're either in the Hold or your not.

Can't see the relevance of "500sqm"...

They're obviously not in the hold. They could ask for extended vectors, would that be your preferred option? It may be more or less efficient than doing an orbit but achieves the same thing. ATC won't (shouldn't - that's why you cross-refrence your radar vectoring clearances from the chart just in case) clear them to a level below MRVA based on their current position/future position. You can request an orbit, a turn, 10 more miles, or a loop if you like, ATC will either approve it or deny it. If they approve it, then surely it is a vector which you should treat the same way you ever treat a radar vector, cross-refrence it's validity against your charts, which i've shown are available (that's not to say the guy in OPs post had them). If these charts are not available in your part of the world, then I am with you, where you operate, you shouldn't ever descend below MSA unless flying procedurally.

The relevance was that 500sqm is a very large area, there will be many times that weather might appear inside one of these 25NM/90deg arcs. In that case, i'd assume most pilots would request a deviation to one side or another after first checking whether it was safe (terrain wise) and then passing that request onto ATC. ATC will either approve or deny that request based on the terrain, airspace, traffic etc. Using Flight Detents RNAV STAR 28 chart, if there was stationary weather at ETPAL i'd genuinely like to know what you'd do? Would your only option be to request direct to the hold and stay 8300ft till you get there, then descent to 6000ft in the hold and fly the approach after a couple of laps of the hold (assuming there was no other compatible procedure, for whatever reason)? I don't mean to be obtuse but I can see this as the only solution, at which point ATC will tell you to stay at 8300ft and wait a further 20 minutes so the other aircraft can pass underneath you.

In reality, every time I've flown this approach - although it's been a while - it was via that RNAV transition and ATC just issue speeds for spacing. We've simply planned to fly the thing conservatively and don't end up with this dilemma.

[Escape Path]

Sorry but I wouldn't like the idea of diving in such a mountainous area at 2000 ft/min or more for a glide slope which is already pretty steep, being busy with speed and configuration change... And I suppose that while orbiting you are still able to stop your descent at the desired altitude. ;)

I had forgotten about the steep G/S! I initially agreed with "intercept from above" as another option to what is being proposed/talked about in here. However, intercepting from above (in my type at least) is sort of a last resort, the altitude difference can't be too much or you risk not intercepting at all, and this is for a 3 degree G/S. The extra degree certainly reduces the altitude margin to be able to perform that particular manoeuvre successfully. Maybe too little margin and perhaps an even greater risk of creating a scenario for an unstable approach. The higher up you can correct your mistakes, certainly the better. Darting (I'd consider darting going down a G/S with altitude to spare at 180ish kts) down like that is certainly reducing margins for correcting mistakes. And it reduces even more by every foot you continue to go down.

We know absolutely nothing about what went on in the kitchen (cockpit). In contrast to a steep spiral at 230 kts, thrust idle, flaps 5, speed brake out night IMC (as some may imagine).. it could just as well have been smooth sailing at 180 kts, flaps 5, vertical speed at 1000 fpm draging it in with thrust on a moon bright night in obstacle protected airspace.

Agreed. It certainly could be just a case of not too much altitude to be lost, enough to lose it on a 360 in a controlled (i.e. speed and rate of descent) manner.

Disconnect and enjoy the fun of flying.

Certainly. I think enough evidence has been provided to hint at the possibility of a safe manoeuvre if done with all important things considered.

[Chesty Morgan]

Unless you're on radar vectors or a STAR, you ain't going below the MSA with me unless you're at the IAF. Weather in the way? Hold or go to your alternate!

You know you've got windows for a reason...?

[Capn Bloggs]

It's your turn, alright...