Circling approach for the straight in runway

[Lantirn]

There was a big discussion several times with friends and colleagues about this scenario:

Hypothetical airport for the sake of conversation OLBA Beirut. Only the KAD VOR is operational and all the ILS’s of the airport are U/S. For the VOR DME 16 2400m vis is required.

Assuming that you are executing the straight in approach VOR DME 16. Due to bad visibility 4000m you don’t see at straight in minimums, so you go around. However at this visibility we know that approaching the runway at circling minimums, as you approach you will see the runway but you would be very high to land straight in. (Hence the old VDP)

So the question arises, is it legal to execute the VOR DME 16, maintain altitude at circling minimums and when visual with the runway, when above the airport at the circling minimums, maneuver the aircraft to position for right hand downwind 16 and land at 16?

Set aside the airmanship which is really obvious that you are taking a big risk doing a circling in these conditions...the conversation is only for the sake of the legality.
Talking about European regulations.

The variability of responses I have received by professionals is tremendous...

I strongly disagree since according to air ops when doing a circling approach you have to have in sight and “maintain”, “at all times” the runway or the runway environment “during the entire circling procedure”. For me this is a recipe for a CFIT

For me is black and white. Flying overhead to position for the downwind you lose the runway once you turn your tail so you are illegal.

Flying an approach, either circling, either straight in is a different cake than the published minimums in the plate. The obvious restriction is that you cannot fly a circling approach when you execute straight in minimums but the opposite is possible, however restrictions apply to remain visual with the runway.

To avoid further unnecessary conversations, “runway environment” is a very specific term, and it does not include known features around such as obstacles, hills, cities, houses, bridges or whatever, unless you are flying circling with prescribed tracks with well defined features.

Would love to listen to you guys

[sonicbum]

There was a big discussion several times with friends and colleagues about this scenario:

Hypothetical airport for the sake of conversation OLBA Beirut. Only the KAD VOR is operational and all the ILS’s of the airport are U/S. For the VOR DME 16 2400m vis is required.

Assuming that you are executing the straight in approach VOR DME 16. Due to bad visibility 4000m you don’t see at straight in minimums, so you go around. However at this visibility we know that approaching the runway at circling minimums, as you approach you will see the runway but you would be very high to land straight in. (Hence the old VDP)

So the question arises, is it legal to execute the VOR DME 16, maintain altitude at circling minimums and when visual with the runway, when above the airport at the circling minimums, maneuver the aircraft to position for right hand downwind 16 and land at 16?

Set aside the airmanship which is really obvious that you are taking a big risk doing a circling in these conditions...the conversation is only for the sake of the legality.
Talking about European regulations.

The variability of responses I have received by professionals is tremendous...

I strongly disagree since according to air ops when doing a circling approach you have to have in sight and “maintain”, “at all times” the runway or the runway environment “during the entire circling procedure”. For me this is a recipe for a CFIT

For me is black and white. Flying overhead to position for the downwind you lose the runway once you turn your tail so you are illegal.

Flying an approach, either circling, either straight in is a different cake than the published minimums in the plate. The obvious restriction is that you cannot fly a circling approach when you execute straight in minimums but the opposite is possible, however restrictions apply to remain visual with the runway.

To avoid further unnecessary conversations, “runway environment” is a very specific term, and it does not include known features around such as obstacles, hills, cities, houses, bridges or whatever, unless you are flying circling with prescribed tracks with well defined features.

Would love to listen to you guys




Hi,

don't have Beirut charts handy but that sounds really really messy. The main purpose of a circling approach is to allow You to land on a runway that has more than 30 degrees offset with the published final approach course, like opposite QFU and/or non opposite runways, for which a straight in IAP is not published. I would just tell to Your peers that the scenario You have described is potentially so unsafe that a deep discussion about legality is completely useless as there is not a single valid reason that would lead You to try and fly this kind of approach, and if You find one, the legal aspect would be the least of my concerns.

[B2N2]

When runway visible sidestep to the right ( upwind leg) and fly a visual pattern staying within the confines of the circling criteria.
And the landing runway may be briefly obstructed by airplane structures.

[sabenaboy]

Well, I'm not familiar with OLBA, but I looked at the charts.
The VOR DME 16 has straight in minima of 800 ft and circling minima of 1070 ft.The MAP is D3 KAD. There would be nothing wrong with maintaining 1070' until 3DME (= aprox. 1,2 NM before the RWY 16 threshold. ) At D3 KAD, whatever altitude you are at, you MUST start the missed approach.
The charts says that circling is only allowed W and N of AD and only to RWY 03/21, so executing a 'circle to land' to join right hand downwind for rwy 16 over the sea would be illegal.
BUT..., I would think that if, during the missed approach procedure you see the airport, and you request and obtain clearance to perform a visual approach (Don't call it 'circle to land') via right hand downwind over the sea, THAT would be legal.
Easa requires a 800 m RVR for visual approaches, and you must be able to keep visual separation from terrain. (It's not a legal requirement to have the rwy in sight at all times.)
So, yes, I would think it's LEGAL to perform a 'visual approach'. Would it be wise and safe to do it if you wouldn't have the rwy in sight at 800' during a straight in approach?
That's an other question? I wouldn't be trying it, but maybe, just maybe, somebody who is thoroughly familiar with the airport and the obstacles around it could do it safely.

[Lantirn]

Sabenaboy, well yes OLBA is not a good example. You are right. Disregard the limitations on the circling sectors, it’s my fault on the selection of the airport.
Assume there are no limits on the circling maneuver.

Main question is if you are legal to fly overhead for a circling assuming you haven’t reached the MAP yet. Asking for visual is another option, but the original question is by staying on the circling procedure. Nevertheless, airport environment is again required to continue.

B2N2, that’s tricky to master a CAT C jet in 4000m but I think it’s the only way to do it legally.

[aterpster]

Hi,

don't have Beirut charts handy but that sounds really really messy. The main purpose of a circling approach is to allow You to land on a runway that has more than 30 degrees offset with the published final approach course, like opposite QFU and/or non opposite runways, for which a straight in IAP is not published. I would just tell to Your peers that the scenario You have described is potentially so unsafe that a deep discussion about legality is completely useless as there is not a single valid reason that would lead You to try and fly this kind of approach, and if You find one, the legal aspect would be the least of my concerns.
What about this approach which has zero offset and no straight-in minimums?


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/588x1000/kmfr_rnav_b_39483194d58d6a38f715063174fa08c8b2e5d888.jpg

[oggers]

Main question is if you are legal to fly overhead for a circling assuming you haven’t reached the MAP yet. Asking for visual is another option, but the original question is by staying on the circling procedure. Nevertheless, airport environment is again required to continue.

There is no general prohibition against circling back.

For me is black and white. Flying overhead to position for the downwind you lose the runway once you turn your tail so you are illegal.

For me it is not black and white. I don't see why with 20 - 25° bank you cannot maintain line of sight to the runway environment. To my mind it is legal to circle back. It may not be wise. There is an example in this (https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1430.PDF) article at Fig 4.

[sabenaboy]

It is requirement to have the runway environment (features such as the runway threshold or approach lighting aids or other markings identifiable with the runway) in sight at all times. How else would you know where you are, when to turn and descend? It’s also important if you have to manoeuvre for a go around.


No, you are wrong. According to ICAO and EU ops, It is not a requirement to have the runway environment in sight at all times.

ICAO doc 4444 (http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/media/Publications/ICAO-Doc-4444-EN.pdf) says:
6.5.3.3 An IFR flight may be cleared to execute a visual approach provided the pilot can maintain visual reference to the terrain and:
a) the reported ceiling is at or above the approved initial approach level for the aircraft so cleared; or
b) the pilot reports at the initial approach level or at any time during the instrument approach procedure that the meteorological conditions are such that with
reasonable assurance a visual approach and landing can be completed.
EU OPS (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:254:0001:0238:EN:PDF) adopted this in OPS 1.435 by defining a visual approach as 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.

While the FAA has adopted an other definition, in most of the world, you can legally ask for and fly a visual approach without having the airport or runway in sight. You could ask for a visual approach (and get it) from 100 miles out, if you know that you will be able to visually find and navigate to the runway.
One example: If the pilot is familiar enough with the airport he could follow visually consecutive landmarks that he knows will bring the airplane on final in a position to land. Or, other example, During 'downwind' the runway might still be obscured by a ridge or hill, but the pilot can still position himself visually around the hill to final.

Don't confuse a visual approach during an IFR flight with a standard visual circuit in VFR!
For EU ops a minimum RVR of 800 m is required.

[sabenaboy]

Main question is if you are legal to fly overhead for a circling assuming you haven’t reached the MAP yet. Asking for visual is another option, but the original question is by staying on the circling procedure. Nevertheless, airport environment is again required to continue.


I would think it is legal to do so. I don't consider not being able to see the runway behind you while turning onto downwind as 'losing visual reference'.

[sonicbum]

What about this approach which has zero offset and no straight-in minimums?


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/588x1000/kmfr_rnav_b_39483194d58d6a38f715063174fa08c8b2e5d888.jpg

That's because of the descent gradient. It's a TERPS thing, don't have the figures handy, but if the descent gradient is more than (400 ?) ft per NM You have only circling minimums. I don't fly a lot in TERPS land so have a look.

[sonicbum]

As for scraping around low level in poor visibility over the sea without seurface features to aid you to getting where you want to go ... that’s just unprofessional and asking for trouble.

Exactly... OP forget about asking the legality of turning a straight in into a circling or a visual approach because of weather, it's just a way to understand if You can legally try the EGPWS.

[sabenaboy]

Latirn
if you have had an approach and cannot get the required visual reference at DA/DH for r/w 16 (1.1nm from the threshold), then I think you are unlikely to achieve anything by trying to circle (or visual approach either). There circling procedures that specify that the circling starts at or after passing the r/w threshold. However, those I have flown also require that visual contact with specific landmarks be maintained while turning ‘downwind’ and up until r/w threshold becomes visible again.

Sabenaboy
Your not familiar with OLBA are you? Steep rising ground to the east and south that you don’t want to take liberties with. The OP posed the question that what if the r/w wasn’t seen until starting the go around; vis must be bad eh? Aside the no-no of thinking “it’s a good idea to stop the missed approach and position visually down wind”, just how far will your turn downwind take you from the airfield? If the OP has failed to see the r/w at 788 ft & 1.1 nm, what chance have YOU got by flying a visual circuit. And how would you plan you position your aircraft for base/final? You don’t want to be flying through the c/l at OLBA.

The circling approach is perhaps the most challenging manoeuvre the pilot is asked to fly. Some airlines have even prohibited their crews from flying them. They need to be well planned and brief, not a last minute decision. In the case in question, the usual procedure would be for the right hand seat pilot fly and maintain visual contact. Is your RHS pilot up to speed on flying circling approaches/ visual circuits in poor visibility?

As for scraping around low level in poor visibility over the sea without seurface features to aid you to getting where you want to go ... that’s just unprofessional and asking for trouble.
Small cog
The OP poster did not ask if it was wise to fly the scenario he was describing, he was asking about legality:
So the question arises, is it legal to execute the VOR DME 16, maintain altitude at circling minimums and when visual with the runway, when above the airport at the circling minimums, maneuver the aircraft to position for right hand downwind 16 and land at 16?

Set aside the airmanship which is really obvious that you are taking a big risk doing a circling in these conditions...the conversation is only for the sake of the legality.
Talking about European regulations.
And I had already said:
Well, I'm not familiar with OLBA, but I looked at the charts.
...
...
It's not a legal requirement to have the rwy in sight at all times
...
...
Easa requires a 800 m RVR for visual approaches, and you must be able to keep visual separation from terrain. (It's not a legal requirement to have the rwy in sight at all times.)
So, yes, I would think it's LEGAL to perform a 'visual approach'. Would it be wise and safe to do it if you wouldn't have the rwy in sight at 800' during a straight in approach?
That's an other question? I wouldn't be trying it, but maybe, just maybe, somebody who is thoroughly familiar with the airport and the obstacles around it could do it safely.
So, I think it's pretty obvious that the OP and myself are well aware of the risks involved in circling or visual approaches in low vis conditions. We are talking about legality here, not airmanship. Why do you find it necessary to start lecturing us about that?
I just reacted to you correcting me for saying that it's not a legal requirement to have the rwy in sight at all times during a visual approach in EASA rules.
I provided proof of what I claimed and you were wrong about that.

[sabenaboy]

Thank you for this fine example of preaching to the choir...

[custardpsc]

Not sure if I have missed the point here but I see that in the OLBA example, the viz required for circle to land off VOR DME 16 is 4800m ( and the 1070ft minima you mention) . So, no. , not legal IFR in your declared conditions of 4000m viz. (assuming cat C/D aircraft)

[Iron Eagle]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1125x1840/5d2ca12f_c9e9_45f4_93b9_3c230eef27ff_ecee449a0ec430e2c0a2186 e867dfb71f23d4746.jpeg
lets agree that circling approach is a continuation of an instrument approach and visual circuits are Visual flights off the instruments and its rules ... whenever IFR pilots like to do visual circuits they should cancel their IFR and declare VMC then if the airports minimums is within VFR limits then he can carry the visual approach either coming overhead to join downwind leg or adjust to join downwind leg and so on ...
for your scenario at OLBA VOR approach MDA is less than circling minima so which is better to fly 800’ or 1100’ ???

[oggers]

Not sure if I have missed the point here but I see that in the OLBA example

The OP said this:

Sabenaboy, well yes OLBA is not a good example. You are right. Disregard the limitations on the circling sectors, it’s my fault on the selection of the airport.
Assume there are no limits on the circling maneuver. Main question is if you are legal to fly overhead for a circling assuming you haven’t reached the MAP yet

If you read the from the beginning it is clear that he is talking about the general case even though he picked OLBA and came up with a scenario with a vis where you could not even proceed beyond the FAF let alone the MAP.

[custardpsc]

The OP said this:



If you read the from the beginning it is clear that he is talking about the general case even though he picked OLBA and came up with a scenario with a vis where you could not even proceed beyond the FAF let alone the MAP.

Thanks, I did read from the beginning. The OLBA example was held to be bad as the suggested circle to land was not authorised in the circling restrictions. But, my point was, circle to land viz exist for a reason, and in the example given the circle to land viz precluded a circle to land. To answer the general case, one would need to compare the circle to land viz with the actual viz. If we are considering a case where they are equal or not limiting then the answer comes down to the points made, eg obtaining an amended clearance to break off from the missed approach. But, circling minima are higher in general than approach minima for obvious reasons, so its likely that in the general case of a marginal approach viz circling wouldn't be an option.

[oggers]

...yes the vis in the scenario was below circling minima as you rightly point out. However, the whole question is moot based on that vis because you are not permitted to continue beyond the FAF anyway with visibility below the minima. Not much point debating what is legit at the MAP when it's not even legal to fly past the FAF. The bottom line is you either have the circling minimums or you don't. But the OP posited that it is illegal to circle, not because of the vis or other restriction at OLBA, but simply because: "Flying overhead to position for the downwind you lose the runway once you turn your tail so you are illegal." I think if that were the case TERPs/PANSOPS would spell it out.

[Lantirn]

First of all thanks for your participation in this discussion.

What about this approach which has zero offset and no straight-in minimums?

I dont fly TERPS but in PANS OPS when a procedure doesnt satisfy for a straight in minimums, they publish circling minimums usually due to offset, steep angles, or protruding obstacles nearby. This doesnt mean that you cant fly a straight in approach, but: Always respecting circling minimums.

There is no general prohibition against circling back.



For me it is not black and white. I don't see why with 20 - 25° bank you cannot maintain line of sight to the runway environment. To my mind it is legal to circle back. It may not be wise. There is an example in this (https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1430.PDF) article at Fig 4.

Very nice input. Althought TERPS thats something that i was searching for. Also there are some other maneuvers to make you stay with the runway is sight at all times but it would require to offset in the beginning, then parallel the landing runway and then make a turn when passing the opposite threshold to join downwind.

According to ICAO and EU ops, It is not a requirement to have the runway environment in sight at all times.

Don't confuse a visual approach during an IFR flight with a standard visual circuit in VFR!
For EU ops a minimum RVR of 800 m is required.

Sabena boy, well said about the visual approach. Although that was a new chapter popping in the thread, it wasnt my intention to merge also a visual approach for the sake of conversation because when ATC grants a visual approach you can fly as you want.

I would think it is legal to do so. I don't consider not being able to see the runway behind you while turning onto downwind as 'losing visual reference'.

I think this is the cone of confusion for the law. If losing visual reference due to "airplane structures" is permissible, and for how long. Losing the runway for a second due to wings roll movement could be acceptable but could be different than losing the runway below when overflying the runway for many seconds untill turning downwind.


Lantirn
if you have had an approach and cannot get the required visual reference at DA/DH for r/w 16 (1.1nm from the threshold), then I think you are unlikely to achieve anything by trying to circle (or visual approach either). There circling procedures that specify that the circling starts at or after passing the r/w threshold. However, those I have flown also require that visual contact with specific landmarks be maintained while turning ‘downwind’ and up until r/w threshold becomes visible again.

Of course you can achieve and you can see it with mathematics. The straight in minimums calculating for the VDP require more than 4000m in many NPA's. (disregard the approach lights for simplicity). Although you are legal to start the approach, you can expect that unless the lighting system is very long and powerfull, you will see nothing there. Approaching from above at circling minimums (1000ft minimums = 328m < 4000m visibility), although higher, at some point you will see the runway but you will be too high to land, so you will have to plan for a circling approach. And this is the basis of this thread.


Sabenaboy
Your not familiar with OLBA are you? Steep rising ground to the east and south that you don’t want to take liberties with. The OP posed the question that what if the r/w wasn’t seen until starting the go around; vis must be bad eh? Aside the no-no of thinking “it’s a good idea to stop the missed approach and position visually down wind”, just how far will your turn downwind take you from the airfield? If the OP has failed to see the r/w at 788 ft & 1.1 nm, what chance have YOU got by flying a visual circuit. And how would you plan you position your aircraft for base/final? You don’t want to be flying through the c/l at OLBA.

The circling approach is perhaps the most challenging manoeuvre the pilot is asked to fly. Some airlines have even prohibited their crews from flying them. They need to be well planned and brief, not a last minute decision. In the case in question, the usual procedure would be for the right hand seat pilot fly and maintain visual contact. Is your RHS pilot up to speed on flying circling approaches/ visual circuits in poor visibility?

As for scraping around low level in poor visibility over the sea without surface features to aid you to getting where you want to go ... that’s just unprofessional and asking for trouble.


The conversation was for the sake of legality. I didnt say that i would change plan over the minimums and execute another type of approach.
I said that after a missed approach on the straight in, you comeback for a circling approach and briefed.
This was to discuss the legality of this type of circling and not the quality of the decision making, its obvious that its a very very risky approach.

Exactly... OP forget about asking the legality of turning a straight in into a circling or a visual approach because of weather, it's just a way to understand if You can legally try the EGPWS.
​​​​​​
Sonicbum,
As i wrote in my opening post, you will find out that I agree with this. I dont think its legal since the beggining. But thats what we are discussing here, to let others justify and get something. What i believe is that you are not allowed and if i was 100% sure i wouldnt be discussing here.
I say again, the amount of responses i get by professionals outside vary alot...and thats scary guys.

Small cog
The OP poster did not ask if it was wise to fly the scenario he was describing, he was asking about legality:

And I had already said:
So, I think it's pretty obvious that the OP and myself are well aware of the risks involved in circling or visual approaches in low vis conditions. We are talking about legality here, not airmanship. Why do you find it necessary to start lecturing us about that?
I just reacted to you correcting me for saying that it's not a legal requirement to have the rwy in sight at all times during a visual approach in EASA rules.
I provided proof of what I claimed and you were wrong about that.

Sabenaboy, well said again regarding my legal-bound focus.


No. Having been cleared to fly the procedure, unless otherwise cleared, if not visual by the MAP, you are required to fly the missed approach procedure so as to ensure terrain clearance.


Small cog I agree with you when flying OLBA. But I already mentioned OLBA was a bad example by me. There is no point in finding out another approach plate, they are dozen out there.
1)Assume you are cleared for a circling approach same runway.
2)Assume MAP is over the runway.
3)Disregard all circling sector prohibitions limitations


Not sure if I have missed the point here but I see that in the OLBA example, the viz required for circle to land off VOR DME 16 is 4800m ( and the 1070ft minima you mention) . So, no. , not legal IFR in your declared conditions of 4000m viz. (assuming cat C/D aircraft)

Really? My minimums for this plate on circling are 2.4V. Lido provider. Strange.

But, circling minima are higher in general than approach minima for obvious reasons, so its likely that in the general case of a marginal approach viz circling wouldn't be an option.

Well, look in this post above for further explanation why you would benefit with visual cues.

[Lantirn]

Lantirn,

Is then your question “is it permissible to make a visual approach to a r/w if you see it when the vis is below the instrument approach minima?”

If so, NO. A visual approach to a r/w for which there is an approach in force (ie working) is not permitted when the required approach minima are below that required for the instrument procedure. The 800 metres does not apply in such cases either.

Back in the 1970s/80s it used to happen often when transometers were under shallow layer of fog. Pilots would call “visual” and continue to land. Rules tightened to prevent such occurrences decades ago.

Hi small cog,

No, I am not referring to any visual approach, neither to any bust of approach ban minima. Disregard OLBA.

Achieving the visual reference above the runway at an NPA (behind any MAP point, at circling minima altitude, when coming planned for circling approach) and position/maneuver to land to any runway, is not a visual approach. It’s just the visual maneuver part of the circling approach. It’s an IFR procedure with a visual maneuvering that remains a strictly IFR procedure. Visual approach is a different story with other visual references required which I don’t question at.

The question is:

Are you allowed to execute a circling approach for the straight in runway? More specifically, are you allowed to lose contact with the runway environment (due to aircraft movement-and not due to external weather conditions) when maneuvering for the downwind?

Some say yes, some say no. That’s the discussion.

[sonicbum]

Some say yes, some say no. That’s the discussion.

EU Ops Definitions:
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.

The flight maneuvers should be conducted within the circling area, and in such a way that a visual contact with the runway, or the runway environment, is maintained at all times.

To me it is pretty clear Your example is not allowed.

[oggers]

EU Ops Definitions:
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.

The flight maneuvers should be conducted within the circling area, and in such a way that a visual contact with the runway, or the runway environment, is maintained at all times.

To me it is pretty clear Your example is not allowed.

So tell me why this guy is wrong:

Circling to land straight-in Figure 4 [Fig 4 shows circling 180° to the D/W before landing on the stright-in runway as per the OP] is the method I recommend for handling a situation like the MFR IAP, where you aren’t comfortable landing straight-in. The first reaction of both pilots and controllers is to “do a 360 on final” rather than what I’ve illustrated. A 360 degree turn on final is fine on a clear VFR day. That’s not the type of day with which this article is concerned,however. I’m assuming night or day with precip, bumps, gusty winds,etc. When you really need to circle at MFR, Figure 4 is the way to do it. Fly down the runway at MDA until it’s about to disappear under the nose,then enter the close-in circle-to-land maneuver.

Wally Roberts is a retired airline captain, former chairman of the ALPA TERPs Committee, and an active CFII in San Clemente, CA

[FlightDetent]

are you allowed to lose contact with the runway environment (due to aircraft movement-and not due to external weather conditions) when maneuvering for the downwind? My understanding (and training) within JAA -> EUOPS -> EASA IR is a clear no for the circle to land. That one needs to be "eyes on the airfield" at all times.

For a visual approach (approach procedure segment of IFR flight, to correct Iron Eagle above), OTOH it is perfectly legal. Navigate by visual means, understand the implications on (reduction of) ATC service provided and enjoy at own peril. VOR let-downs in CFU are a nice example.

The references for both have been already provided in the posts above, I guess.

[FlightDetent]

So tell me why this guy is wrong: He could be, against the EASA rules. Which BTW prescribe an immediate G/A upon reaching what the US calls DDA.

Though I would say, by your description of FIG 4, that the manoeuvre is NOT in disagreement. If you overfly the runway and bank for downwind, just by looking down you could be able to see the inside of the airport fence still.

---
Sorry to muddy the waters a bit more even: the does the "runway environment" in circle-to-land EASA frame, have a definition? I seem to remember it actually does, and "inside airport fence" I just wrote above does not suffice.

[sabenaboy]

Really? My minimums for this plate on circling are 2.4V. Lido provider. Strange.
Yep, indeed, Lido shows 2400 m as visibility requirement!
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/525x871/olba_vor_16_f2495511d51c8f0b542be0a95bf33028e694e57e.jpg
The question is:
Are you allowed to execute a circling approach for the straight in runway? More specifically, are you allowed to lose contact with the runway environment (due to aircraft movement-and not due to external weather conditions) when maneuvering for the downwind?
Some say yes, some say no. That’s the discussion.
The flight maneuvers should be conducted within the circling area, and in such a way that a visual contact with the runway, or the runway environment, is maintained at all times.
To me it is pretty clear Your example is not allowed.
And I would think that it's ok if you don't see the rwy temporarily by airframe obstruction.
I would think that it is ok to temporarily have the rwy sight obstructed by the airframe while joining downwind as long as you stay within the circling visual manoeuvring area. The rule was ment to indicate that it's not ok to loose sight of the rwy due to reducing visibility or entering clouds. Would you want a high wing aircraft to go around if the wing hides the runway temporarily when turning to base leg? Or a low winged aircraft that loses sight of the rwy when he banks away from the center line to join downwind for the opposite rwy? In your interpration that would oblige the pilot to abandon the circling!

Take a look at the LGIR VOR 27.
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/505x754/lgir_87600f1ce8442c2d71d81e09f554a6b5db17df40.jpg
I think it would be perfectly LEGAL to maintain 1140 to IRA 1.5DME (Too high for straight in) continue overhead and then turn right to join downwind for rwy 27. I think that would be legal and not more dangerous then circle to land for rwy 09.

[FullWings]

It’s an interesting question, which I had to re-read in order to see exactly what it was getting at.

In my airline, generically I’d have two options:

a) fly the NPA using a CDA to MDA then continue for a straight-in or GA,
b) fly the NPA to circling minima then “circle”, as long as I had achieved visual reference before the MAP.

You could make the argument that due to the weather, the runway was not suitable for a straight-in and as long as you had sight of the runway environment, which you should do as you’re over the airfield, then that satisfies the regulations, especially if you offset dead-side a little.

The actual conditions vs. minima makes a big difference as well. If you have visual conditions you can always “revert” to VFR and fly circuits but you’re constrained to the circling area if not.

Overall, I think there is enough to make a decent defence over the legality of such a manoeuvre but if it’s that marginal that you can’t see the airfield off the instrument approach, personally I’d go somewhere else...

[Lantirn]

Ok let’s assume it’s legal.

Its a very good reason to forget everything we know about legislation and eventually disregard all the minimums. Why?

Because everytime, we could just fly overhead and if we could “see the runway”, we could maneuver the airplane and land. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

[FullWings]

Because everytime, we could just fly overhead and if we could “see the runway”, we could maneuver the airplane and land. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
Only if the wx vs. minima permitted it and it was allowed by charts/ATC/operator, etc. Also, you’d have to maintain whatever reference was required, which if the conditions were poor might not happen. It would also reduce the flow rate while you were enjoying yourself in the circuit... ;)

P.S. That’s effectively what you do with a “breakcloud” procedure.

P.P.S. I’m not saying it’s a good idea in all circumstances but that wasn’t the original question?

[FlightDetent]

Lantirn, let's ask what is a circle-to-land. A manoeuvre executed at the MDA inside the protected area to bring an aeroplane to land. As long as we are talking what's legal, there is no mention to which runway or what type of trajectory is allowed. Thus as long as you maintain the runway or its (immediate) environment in sight, you're authorised (all other boxes assuming ticked, no matter how unlikely).

Admittedly some of the examples above are solved by a simple straight in landing anyway, so debating too deep is pointless.
Line-of sight obstructed by airframe parts does not sound as a show stopper. Leaving the airport behind in turn - I think that would be one.

Yet circle to lands are intended to get you to a non-straight-in runway in a low cloud overcast conditions. In good weather when the 3 deg CDFA is for some reason obstructed, ask for and declare a visual (still IFR proceudure) and get away from the runway in-sight restriction. Sorted.

[FlightDetent]

Because everytime , we could just fly overhead and if we could “see the runway”, we could maneuver the airplane and land. While observing the minima to get there - yes.


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/576x825/snippet1_6cb6d0b1f7449f4f1ea25457a08010ac526d445a.png

[FlightDetent]

Case study "inspired by real events". Cloud layer bottom approx. 1200 AFE, inside 6 miles top of cover around 1800'.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/633x731/snippet2_1486de01255c4fdbdf8f3b62a6e6c25633b2b755.png



https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/715x448/snippet3_0a79ae0e0e68fd921caf1adae0bdb1f9413c51e6.png

(the MDA shaded area is symbolic, should be a bit higher to intersect the profile by 6 NM.)

[FullWings]

Or something like this, which I had to do not that long ago due to the VOR being out and a NAV UNABLE RNP of all things...


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/657x1022/ndb_tapa_c8ef3b224cbcd752bb53123049dee670be75ad5c.jpg
Effectively a breakcloud procedure...

[oggers]

Could be, against EASA rules. Which BTW prescribe an immediate G/A upon reaching what the US calls DDA.

Yes and another point that renders the original scenario moot for operators under EU-OPS. But still not a general prohibition under ICAO.

Sorry to muddy the waters a bit more even: the does the "runway environment" in circle-to-land EASA frame, have a definition? I seem to remember it actually does, and "inside airport fence" I just wrote above does not suffice.

According to PANSOPSThe runway environment includes features such as the runway threshold or approach lighting aids or other markings identifiable with the runway.

Also, back in the day when my source documents were JSP318 and The Flight Planning Doc there was another phrase, words to the effect 'or for a circling approach any other feature that positively fixes the aircraft's position relative to the runway'. I think if ICAO did not want a pilot to circle back to the straight-in runway they would simply say as much.


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/618x919/jabara_a49d5d3444ce6d7614849f37a676957b7dcf2eaa.png

Circling approaches such as this tell me that the FAA at least think you can maintain the runway environment in sight whilst putting your tail to the runway.

[FlightDetent]

Thanks for digging the runway environment. You may have a point with that plate, but tail-to-runway still allows sight of the threshold in case of a left/right break, does it not?

[sonicbum]

So tell me why this guy is wrong:

Because A) if the landing runway has an useable IAP You either fly it or fly a visual approach, not a circle to land and B) 99.9% of EASA Operators comply with CDFA approaches regulations, therefore You can't level off and wait for the Mapt whilst being levelled.

[FullWings]

Yes and another point that renders the original scenario moot for operators under EU-OPS. But still not a general prohibition under ICAO.Is EU-OPS a thing anymore? Our manuals are EASA-IR...

99.9% of EASA Operators comply with CDFA approaches regulations, therefore You can't level off and wait for the Mapt whilst being levelled.I fly for an EASA operator and we most definitely can level off and fly to the MAPt *on an instrument approach planning to circle-to-land*.

[oggers]

Is EU-OPS a thing anymore? Our manuals are EASA-IR...

....or IR-OPS....?

[sonicbum]

Is EU-OPS a thing anymore? Our manuals are EASA-IR...

I fly for an EASA operator and we most definitely can level off and fly to the MAPt *on an instrument approach planning to circle-to-land*.

Ok, I'll try again. If You are flying a, let's say, VOR APP for runway 16 with circling 34, You will level off at the circling MDA and fly the circuit, we are all happy with that. What You can't do if You are flying a CDFA is level off somewhere above the VOR MDA, reach the MAPt and then dive down to land on runway 16 (aside from the fact that You will probably bust all kind of stabilisation gates). Having said that, You can't fly a VOR APP for runway 16 and then circle for... runway 16 ! There is no legal provision to back up such a decision. You can fly either the published IAP (VOR in our scenario) or fly a visual.

[island_airphoto]

If the IAP leaves you so high and close you need to fly a 360 around the airport to land, isn't it a poorly designed approach to say the least?
Practically I can do stuff like this all day long in a 172 that can turn circles over the airport property, but a 121 jet flight??? In the USA this would likely be against the airline's opspec anyway.

[Goldenrivett]

If the IAP leaves you so high and close you need to fly a 360 around the airport to land, isn't it a poorly designed approach to say the least?

Depends on the terrain close by.

[FullWings]

Ok, I'll try again. If You are flying a, let's say, VOR APP for runway 16 with circling 34, You will level off at the circling MDA and fly the circuit, we are all happy with that. What You can't do if You are flying a CDFA is level off somewhere above the VOR MDA, reach the MAPt and then dive down to land on runway 16 (aside from the fact that You will probably bust all kind of stabilisation gates).
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that’s a good idea, in fact I understand the original question was about whether it was possible to avoid that scenario by using alternate means.
Having said that, You can't fly a VOR APP for runway 16 and then circle for... runway 16 ! There is no legal provision to back up such a decision. You can fly either the published IAP (VOR in our scenario) or fly a visual.
That’s the interesting bit: you can fly a circling approach off RW16 to RW14, 18, 26, 33, 04, etc. which may require extensive manoeuvring if there is a sector you can’t circle in, or a circuit direction you need to follow. The main issue is staying within the prescribed area.

As I posted earlier, I don’t think doing an extended circle in conditions that are not good enough to give you a reference at MDA off an NPA is something I’d want to do, mostly because the chances of success are low and NPA/circling flight carries greater risk than most other types of approach. The technical question as to whether it is *allowable*, I’m not so sure. I don’t see a prohibition of circling onto a runway, just because it happens to be somewhat aligned with your IAP. Some approaches are either not aligned with anything (see above charts) or dump you in a position where landing straight ahead is not feasible, even though the runway is right there...

[hans brinker]

Ok, I'll try again. If You are flying a, let's say, VOR APP for runway 16 with circling 34, You will level off at the circling MDA and fly the circuit, we are all happy with that. What You can't do if You are flying a CDFA is level off somewhere above the VOR MDA, reach the MAPt and then dive down to land on runway 16 (aside from the fact that You will probably bust all kind of stabilisation gates). Having said that, You can't fly a VOR APP for runway 16 and then circle for... runway 16 ! There is no legal provision to back up such a decision. You can fly either the published IAP (VOR in our scenario) or fly a visual.

Been a while since I circled in the EU, but here in the USA it is legal. I flew into Aspen a lot, and the only runway we were allowed to land on was runway 15, and the only instrument approach was a LOC15 with only circling minimums (more than 400f/m). And yes, we used CDFA/DDA UNLESS planning to circle. At the MDA at the MAPT, you were way too high to make a straight in (1500 AAL?), but continue to half way down the rwy, make closed left traffic, and land on 15 no problem.
The circling approach does NOT mean you can't land on the same runway, it just means you can't make a straight in approach if you don't see the runway early on.
There might be a difference in the requirement of keeping the rwy environment in sight for the EU, but what you say is incorrect.

[poldek77]

(...)
The circling approach does NOT mean you can't land on the same runway, it just means you can't make a straight in approach if you don't see the runway early on.
There might be a difference in the requirement of keeping the rwy environment in sight for the EU, but what you say is incorrect.

So I need some clarification referring to the chart below: according to the minimums box "straight-in (is) not authorized" but let's say we are perfectly visual at MDA 1200 (1140) slightly earlier than MAPt, for example at 4 NM (at DME 9). Do I need to ask for a visual approach in order to continue straight-in for rwy23? Or any other options maybe?

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1560x2000/ltaf_vordme3_circling_7ac952a2fa7917d19761438a1b8916a92a2ead d8.jpg

[sonicbum]

Been a while since I circled in the EU, but here in the USA it is legal. I flew into Aspen a lot, and the only runway we were allowed to land on was runway 15, and the only instrument approach was a LOC15 with only circling minimums (more than 400f/m). And yes, we used CDFA/DDA UNLESS planning to circle. At the MDA at the MAPT, you were way too high to make a straight in (1500 AAL?), but continue to half way down the rwy, make closed left traffic, and land on 15 no problem.
The circling approach does NOT mean you can't land on the same runway, it just means you can't make a straight in approach if you don't see the runway early on.
There might be a difference in the requirement of keeping the rwy environment in sight for the EU, but what you say is incorrect.

Hi Hans,

that's how the procedure is built, so this is accounted by the legislation. Worldwide, like many others here, I have seen VOR or NDB approaches with the landing runway placed 90º or so from the final approach track requiring a circle to land, sometimes with prescribed tracks due to terrain/noise. One example of this is Nice LFMN and the VOR approach RIVIERA for 04L/R. It is indeed the VOR APP followed by circling for the same runway, the latter being heavily offset.

[FlightDetent]

poldek77 Asking for a visual at any point and doing a straight in is a legal option. Given the profile, meeting your sinkrate and final descent angle criteria looks possible under the suggested conditions. Impossible to evaluate proximity to obstacles from the charts, that's what MK1 eyeballs are for.

The amount of refute from the chief pilot depends on his MK1 them other round organs 😬, but if you could keep things neat... and briefed!

The danger in doing things outside the box is if you screw up, the PM has no previous knowledge or guidelines to evaluate how far off the planned trajectory is the situation unfolding, and how critical the deviation is.

For anything non standard, the basic foundation is to set the out-of-bounds lines first and empower the colleague for making the right calls should the situation require. The chances of PF self-correcting are not high enough due to various HF.

[oggers]

Hi Hans,

that's how the procedure is built, so this is accounted by the legislation. Worldwide, like many others here, I have seen VOR or NDB approaches with the landing runway placed 90º or so from the final approach track requiring a circle to land, sometimes with prescribed tracks due to terrain.

We are talking the general case here which the OP has been at pains to reiterate, not some specific restriction on the individual plate such as 'Circling Not Authorised South and East' or procedures with prescribed tracks. In general, the plate does not specify the pattern you will fly during the circling manoeuvre, the generic legality of which is the one and only question posed by the OP. You say:
You can't fly a VOR APP for runway 16 and then circle for... runway 16 ! There is no legal provision to back up such a decision.

The TC AIM says:An air traffic controller may specify manoeuvring in a certain direction or area due to traffic considerations; however, the selection of the procedure required to remain within the protected area and to accomplish a safe landing rests with the pilot.
They give this example:

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/309x241/circling_example_bf41e863ea212426a0aa5f9bf40e7a75392089c1.pn g
They are a member state. Their recommended practice is therefore ICAO compliant. Why then do you think that TC and ICAO have allowed the publication of a recommended manoeuvre for which you maintain "there is no legal provision"?

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/594x225/circ_3_5a550e02bacf48a4481186ba778ab8af63cb2f29.png
...or at what point do you think - as we move to the precise manoeuvre recommended by B2N2 early in the thread - the difference between C, D, and E makes the manoeuvre illegal?

[FullWings]

I suppose you could sum it up as: what do you need to respect?

* Minima (depending on the approach)
* Circling area (if wx does does not allow visual)
* ATC instructions
* Charted exceptions

If you’re good with all of these, then I can’t see a legal argument as to why not. Nothing is being busted...

[oggers]

Oggers

In your post earlier you proved diagrams to make a point. PanOps contains similar diagrams, but they relate to the case of VISUAL MANOEUVRING USING PRESCRIBED TRACK. That is not an option in the case put by the OP.
The diagram I provided (along with the example I edited) was from the "examples of various circling approach situations" as provided in the TC AIM. The whole point is they are NOT prescribed tracks which is made abundantly clear if you read the extract from the AIM I also provided, namely: "the selection of the procedure required to remain within the protected area and to accomplish a safe landing rests with the pilot". :ok:

[hans brinker]

So I need some clarification referring to the chart below: according to the minimums box "straight-in (is) not authorized" but let's say we are perfectly visual at MDA 1200 (1140) slightly earlier than MAPt, for example at 4 NM (at DME 9). Do I need to ask for a visual approach in order to continue straight-in for rwy23? Or any other options maybe?



That is a great question and I don't know if I have the right (legally correct) answer. If we saw the rwy early, we would call: "rwy in sight" and would get cleared for the visual and land straight in, or when sighting the rwy clse to the mapt, and too high for the straight in, would call: "rwy in sight, starting left circle to land". AFAIK you can land straight in provided you see the rwy early enough to get on a normal profile for a stabilized approach without having to request a visual (CMIIAW), and there could be a requirement to advise ATC.

[hans brinker]

Hi Hans,

that's how the procedure is built, so this is accounted by the legislation. Worldwide, like many others here, I have seen VOR or NDB approaches with the landing runway placed 90º or so from the final approach track requiring a circle to land, sometimes with prescribed tracks due to terrain/noise. One example of this is Nice LFMN and the VOR approach RIVIERA for 04L/R. It is indeed the VOR APP followed by circling for the same runway, the latter being heavily offset.


I used was based in NCE for half year, and flew into for around 6 years, so I have done that approach maybe a hundred times. The issue I had with your post was that you said if assigned a circling approach for rwy16 you cannot circle to 16 but only to all the other rwy-s at that airport. An approach is designated "circling" either because there is more than 30 degrees between the final approach course or because the descent from the MDA at the MAPT to the touchdown zone is more than 400 F/M. Once the rwy environment is in sight, you proceed within the circling distance, in visual contact to the intended rwy for landing. This can be any, including the one the appch leads into. An example of the top of my head was Bilbao VOR10 (not longer published). Visibility required was +/- 1.5km, minimums for both straight in and circling based on our GA climb grad 1500' or so. You would see the rwy about a mile out at 1400'AGL, circle to the left and land rwy 10, much better than the downwind for 30 or 28. Yes, you need ATC clearance, but totally legal. You are right that you can't make the straight in from the MDA at the MAPT without busting stabilized approach criteria, but that is why we circle, and what rwy you circle to is between you and the controller..

Ok, I'll try again. If You are flying a, let's say, VOR APP for runway 16 with circling 34, You will level off at the circling MDA and fly the circuit, we are all happy with that. What You can't do if You are flying a CDFA is level off somewhere above the VOR MDA, reach the MAPt and then dive down to land on runway 16 (aside from the fact that You will probably bust all kind of stabilisation gates). Having said that, You can't fly a VOR APP for runway 16 and then circle for... runway 16 ! There is no legal provision to back up such a decision. You can fly either the published IAP (VOR in our scenario) or fly a visual.

[hans brinker]

As far as the requirement to keep the rwy environment in sight while flying away from the rwy, I think it relates more to cloud and visibility/obstacles between you and the rwy than part of the airplane blocking your view momentarily. When you check your speed/configuration/gear, you cannot see the rwy either.

[sonicbum]

I used was based in NCE for half year, and flew into for around 6 years, so I have done that approach maybe a hundred times. The issue I had with your post was that you said if assigned a circling approach for rwy16 you cannot circle to 16 but only to all the other rwy-s at that airport. An approach is designated "circling" either because there is more than 30 degrees between the final approach course or because the descent from the MDA at the MAPT to the touchdown zone is more than 400 F/M. Once the rwy environment is in sight, you proceed within the circling distance, in visual contact to the intended rwy for landing. This can be any, including the one the appch leads into. An example of the top of my head was Bilbao VOR10 (not longer published). Visibility required was +/- 1.5km, minimums for both straight in and circling based on our GA climb grad 1500' or so. You would see the rwy about a mile out at 1400'AGL, circle to the left and land rwy 10, much better than the downwind for 30 or 28. Yes, you need ATC clearance, but totally legal. You are right that you can't make the straight in from the MDA at the MAPT without busting stabilized approach criteria, but that is why we circle, and what rwy you circle to is between you and the controller..

I have used the example of Nice because the VOR RIVIERA is not a straight in approach and therefore You must circle to land. If You are flying a straight in approach for a specific runway, like the scenario of VOR 16 in Beirut and if You wish to land on runway 16, You have two options : land out of the VOR approach of fly the visual approach. In my interpretation of the regulations there is no provision to allow You to circle to land for a runway after having flown the associated straight in approach, it is just pure nonsense (in my opinion from a legal point of view).

[sonicbum]

The issue I had with your post was that you said if assigned a circling approach for rwy16 you cannot circle to 16 but only to all the other rwy-s at that airport.

What I wrote was

Having said that, You can't fly a VOR APP for runway 16 and then circle for... runway 16 !

I should have written Having said that, You can't fly a straight in VOR APP for runway 16 and then circle for... runway 16 !

[hans brinker]

I have used the example of Nice because the VOR RIVIERA is not a straight in approach and therefore You must circle to land. If You are flying a straight in approach for a specific runway, like the scenario of VOR 16 in Beirut and if You wish to land on runway 16, You have two options : land out of the VOR approach of fly the visual approach. In my interpretation of the regulations there is no provision to allow You to circle to land for a runway after having flown the associated straight in approach, it is just pure nonsense (in my opinion from a legal point of view).



You are confusing things imho. Most plates for straight in approaches will have circling minimums published as well as straight in minimums. If the angle/steepness are too big there will only be circling minimums, if terrain/regulations forbid circling there will only be straight in minimums.
Off course you cannot circle to land if you fly the straight in approach to straight in minimums, but you can circle if you fly the approach to circling minimums, and you are not in anyway restricted by a general rule from circling back to the straight in runway.

In your example with the following weather:
visibility 3km
no clouds
wind 160/11
The VOR 16 has the following minima:
Straight in 1000'AFE
Circling 1200"AFE
MAPT for both is the VOR on the field.

On the straight in you will need at least 5km visibility (3Mi) to see the runway in time to make an approach and landing using normal stabilized approach criteria, so you will not be able to successfully land straight in, and you cannot accept circling for RWY34 due to the wind. You can however accept the VOR16 circle to land 16. You fly the approach to circling minimums, will see the runway before the missed approach point, circle around, within the protected area to RWY 16 and land RWY16. As long as you are approved for circling, and ATC clears you this is perfectly legal.

[oggers]

Smallcog

With respect, if you read the TC AIM narrative, you will see that it states that the basic procedure is to keep the runway in sight. How do you do that when it’s behind you?

All the runway is not directly behind you though. The threshold will be just behind the wing. You would have to have a particulalry restricted view from the cockpit to not have line of sight to the runway environment when banked at 25°

The diagram and the text I posted from Tranport Canada AIM make it clear that circling back to the staright-in runway is an ICAO compliant procedure. If TC agreed with your subjective interpretation then they would be contradicting the very example they have explicitly provided. Also the article I linked to from IFR Refresher by the former chair of the ALPA TERPs committee with a diagram (see below) of exactly the manoeuvre in question is unambiguous. Meanwhile there is no specific prohibition anywhere in the regs against circling back to the straight-in runway. It would be the easiest thing in the world to include if that was indeed the intention of the regulators. In the face of the explicit references I have provided I do not think second guessing the regulators with tenuous interpretations of the likelihood of being able to keep the runway environment in sight during the turn really stand up.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/348x445/circ_4_0017d88584dd4d822c5d0953a8b14d67f9157ac2.png

[hans brinker]

What I wrote was



I should have written Having said that, You can't fly a straight in VOR APP for runway 16 and then circle for... runway 16 !


Just finished writing a complete essay, didn't see this post, yes I agree with that completely if you mean to straight in minimums.

[oggers]

Small cog;Perhaps then you can help me with understanding the reason for a circling approach given by TC? To paraphrase (I can’t copy and paste the extract); they are intended for when a straight in approach is not suitable. That’s also what ICAO PanOps 8168 has to say for the reason of having a circling approach. No ‘tenuous interpretations’ needed of that surely?

Already been covered in the thread It is also in the linked article. It is when a the final approach is very steep or not aligned with the runway and it is in precisely those circumstances when the best or only option may be to circle back to what would otherwise be the 'straight-in' runway, because eg the reciprocal is downwind, as many contributors have understood or even experienced.

[sonicbum]

You are confusing things imho. Most plates for straight in approaches will have circling minimums published as well as straight in minimums. If the angle/steepness are too big there will only be circling minimums, if terrain/regulations forbid circling there will only be straight in minimums.

Off course you cannot circle to land if you fly the straight in approach to straight in minimums, but you can circle if you fly the approach to circling minimums, and you are not in anyway restricted by a general rule from circling back to the straight in runway.


In your example with the following weather:

visibility 3km

no clouds

wind 160/11

The VOR 16 has the following minima:

Straight in 1000'AFE

Circling 1200"AFE

MAPT for both is the VOR on the field.


On the straight in you will need at least 5km visibility (3Mi) to see the runway in time to make an approach and landing using normal stabilized approach criteria, so you will not be able to successfully land straight in, and you cannot accept circling for RWY34 due to the wind. You can however accept the VOR16 circle to land 16. You fly the approach to circling minimums, will see the runway before the missed approach point, circle around, within the protected area to RWY 16 and land RWY16. As long as you are approved for circling, and ATC clears you this is perfectly legal.


DOC 8168 defition of circling :


Visual manoeuvring (circling) is the term used to describe the phase of flight after an instrument approach has been completed. It brings the aircraft into position for landing on a runway which is not suitably located for straight-in approach, i.e. one where the criteria for alignment or descent gradient cannot be met.


In our scenario this is not true. The above, for me, is more than enough to consider Your example of circling for runway 16 not legal at all, as there is a perfectly working IAP for that runway with a more than suitable alignment/descent gradient. Since we are discussing legality, this is what, IMHO, any safety investigation would bring up should there be an event out of this kind of approach.

[hans brinker]

DOC 8168 defition of circling :


Visual manoeuvring (circling) is the term used to describe the phase of flight after an instrument approach has been completed. It brings the aircraft into position for landing on a runway which is not suitably located for straight-in approach, i.e. one where the criteria for alignment or descent gradient cannot be met.


In our scenario this is not true. The above, for me, is more than enough to consider Your example of circling for runway 16 not legal at all, as there is a perfectly working IAP for that runway with a more than suitable alignment/descent gradient. Since we are discussing legality, this is what, IMHO, any safety investigation would bring up should there be an event out of this kind of approach.

Edit: I can totally see your interpretation based on the your definition, but what I found for ICAO 8168 is (unless I am looking at an old version):
A circling approach is an extension of an instrument approach procedure which provides for visual circling of the aerodrome prior to landing. (ICAO Doc 8168: Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS) Vol I - Flight Procedures)
What you quoted is JAROPS (I think):
A circling approach is 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. (JAR-OPS 1.435 (a) (1))

Also, at various times I have been trained and authorized by FAA (can't remember RLD (Dutch "JAA" times TBH) examiners that this is an approved way of flying a circling approach.

I think we will not be able to change each others mind, so I will leave this with a link to an article written by the former ALPA TERPS chairman (I think he is qualified to (at least for the USA) make the call if this is legal):

" Figure 4. For a circling approach where the electronic final is aligned with the runway, fly down the runway at MDA until it’s about to disappear under the nose, then enter the close-in circle-to-land maneuver.


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/348x445/circ_4_0017d88584dd4d822c5d0953a8b14d67f9157ac2_705777051574 1b998dd1f95600bbd39b1ebfb5fd.png


Circling to land straight-in Figure 4 (page 12) is the method I recommend for handling a situation like the MFR IAP, where you aren’t comfortable landing straight-in. The first reaction of both pilots and controllers is to “do a 360 on final” rather than what I’ve illustrated. A 360-degree turn on final is fine on a clear VFR day. That’s not the type of day with which this article is concerned, however. I’m assuming night or day with precip, bumps, gusty winds, etc. When you really need to circle at MFR, Figure 4 is the way to do it. Fly down the runway at MDA until it’s about to disappear under the nose, then enter the close-in circle-to-land maneuver."


https://skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1430.PDF

[sonicbum]

I think we will not be able to change each others mind, so I will leave this with a link to an article written by the former ALPA TERPS chairman (I think he is qualified to (at least for the USA) make the call if this is legal):

" Figure 4. For a circling approach where the electronic final is aligned with the runway, fly down the runway at MDA until it’s about to disappear under the nose, then enter the close-in circle-to-land maneuver.


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/348x445/circ_4_0017d88584dd4d822c5d0953a8b14d67f9157ac2_705777051574 1b998dd1f95600bbd39b1ebfb5fd.png


Circling to land straight-in Figure 4 (page 12) is the method I recommend for handling a situation like the MFR IAP, where you aren’t comfortable landing straight-in. The first reaction of both pilots and controllers is to “do a 360 on final” rather than what I’ve illustrated. A 360-degree turn on final is fine on a clear VFR day. That’s not the type of day with which this article is concerned, however. I’m assuming night or day with precip, bumps, gusty winds, etc. When you really need to circle at MFR, Figure 4 is the way to do it. Fly down the runway at MDA until it’s about to disappear under the nose, then enter the close-in circle-to-land maneuver."


https://skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1430.PDF

Thanks for the interesting link. When the author mentions "where you aren’t comfortable landing straight-in" I believe it probably refers to the vertical profile that might be too steep, don't think it has anything to do with marginal weather for a straight in approach, but that's just my opinion of course.

[aterpster]

Another consideration at an airport such as Medford: Fly the ILS with a tailwind and circle-to-land to Runway 32.

Gets CAT D 1,260 feet lower and negates the need for a steep descent over high terrain: And, the ILS 14 has the new TERPs larger circling airspace, unlike the RNAV-D.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1010x1341/mfr_31017ce8804c0fad84fefad69b4894a7701350fe.jpg

[oggers]

When the author mentions "where you aren’t comfortable landing straight-in" I believe it probably refers to the vertical profile that might be too steep, don't think it has anything to do with marginal weather for a straight in approach, but that's just my opinion of course.

The whole point of this thread is the legality of the manoeuvre itself. You either have the weather minimums or you don't, that is not in question.

There are IAPs where you have to circle back if the wind favours what would otherwise be the straight-in runway, due to the approach profile being too steep. Aspen was mentioned, here is another one:
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/591x889/pakp_c918dd8ca0ef3197c8070ac7d15a7b7b663c7f82.png
If you were not permitted to land on 02 from this approach there would simply be a note stating it was Not Authorised. But you are permitted to land on 02. This procedure has been approved. The manoeuvre is legal.

[TOGA Tap]

The question was:


No. Having been cleared to fly the procedure, unless otherwise cleared, if not visual by the MAP, you are required to fly the missed approach procedure so as to ensure terrain clearance.


Exactly. You can not proceed past the MAP if you are not visual with the runway.

[sonicbum]

The whole point of this thread is the legality of the manoeuvre itself. You either have the weather minimums or you don't, that is not in question.

There are IAPs where you have to circle back if the wind favours what would otherwise be the straight-in runway, due to the approach profile being too steep. Aspen was mentioned, here is another one:
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/591x889/pakp_c918dd8ca0ef3197c8070ac7d15a7b7b663c7f82.png
If you were not permitted to land on 02 from this approach there would simply be a note stating it was Not Authorised. But you are permitted to land on 02. This procedure has been approved. The manoeuvre is legal.

this is irrelevant with respect to the OP’s question. Again, the above procedure is not a straight in approach and has logically only circling minimum. You can’t fly a straight in approach (in terms of offset and grandient) for runway XX and then circle for that same runway, it does not make any sense.

[aterpster]

this is irrelevant with respect to the OP’s question. Again, the above procedure is not a straight in approach and has logically only circling minimum. You can’t fly a straight in approach (in terms of offset and grandient) for runway XX and then circle for that same runway, it does not make any sense.
Why not? If the runway is in sight and you are too high, what is your plan?

[sabenaboy]

You can't fly a straight in approach (in terms of offset and grandient) for runway XX and then circle for that same runway, it does not make any sense.


In my opinion, it DOES make sense! Look again at the VOR 27 app in LGIR. At straight in minima of 1100 ft a plane on a 3.3° descent path would still be more than 5000 m from the runway. Let's assume a visibility of 3500 m. In most companies the pilot would need to make a go around at that point if he intended to make a straight in landing, because he wouldn't be visual with the runway. At the circling minima of 1140 feet at 1.5 DME he would have the runway in sight. So, if a pilot planned to maintain 1140 ft to 1.5 DME and planned to fly a (right hand pattern over the sea) circling approach like in the drawing posted by oggers (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/619853-circling-approach-straight-runway-4.html#post10433717), there would be nothing illegal about that. (Unless you keep insisting that a temporary visual obstruction from the airframe itself, would oblige the pilote to execute a missed approach. :ugh: ) (And ... I do believe that a competent, well prepared crew and familiar with LGIR can do it in a perfectly safe way if planned and briefed adequately! But... remember we're not discussing the wisdom of such a manoeuvre, but only the legality of it.)

If it's not forbidden, it's not illegal!

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/819x745/lgir_circuit_5146a9a5d273401ef2d95dc95af1c8801f195d2a.jpg

[sonicbum]

In my opinion, it DOES make sense! Look again at the VOR 27 app in LGIR. At straight in minima of 1100 ft a plane on a 3.3° descent path would still be more than 5000 m from the runway. Let's assume a visibility of 3500 m. In most companies the pilot would need to make a go around at that point if he intended to make a straight in landing, because he wouldn't be visual with the runway. At the circling minima of 1140 feet at 1.5 DME he would have the runway in sight. So, if a pilot planned to maintain 1140 ft to 1.5 DME and planned to fly a (right hand pattern over the sea) circling approach like in the drawing posted by oggers (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/619853-circling-approach-straight-runway-4.html#post10433717), there would be nothing illegal about that. (Unless you keep insisting that a temporary visual obstruction from the airframe itself, would oblige the pilote to execute a missed approach. :ugh: ) (And ... I do believe that a competent, well prepared crew and familiar with LGIR can do it in a perfectly safe way if planned and briefed adequately! But... remember we're not discussing the wisdom of such a manoeuvre, but only the legality of it.)

If it's not forbidden, it's not illegal!

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/819x745/lgir_circuit_5146a9a5d273401ef2d95dc95af1c8801f195d2a.jpg

I give You credits for the explanation but to be honest I don't think anybody would get away with it should an event occur in such circumstances. I can't prove You black on white that it is not legal, but I would not want to discover it under a safety investigation conducted by some Authority, therefore, before some readers decide to try it out and avoid an unnecessary diversion to their operator, I would really try to bring it to the attention of some regulators and come up with a clear cut explanation.

[sonicbum]

Why not? If the runway is in sight and you are too high, what is your plan?

On a straight in approach if the runway is insight and I am too high it is because something went wrong in my NPA, so it is a go around and we give it another try.
On a side note, I know we are only discussing "legal aspects" but guys nobody will shoot You for not being able to land out of a straight in approach in marginal weather and having to divert. On the opposite side, if somebody ends up trying to be smart by doing something he has never tried before or has never heard of, then things could go differently.

[sabenaboy]

I give You credits for the explanation but to be honest I don't think anybody would get away with it should an event occur in such circumstances. I can't prove You black on white that it is not legal, but I would not want to discover it under a safety investigation conducted by some Authority, therefore, before some readers decide to try it out and avoid an unnecessary diversion to their operator, I would really try to bring it to the attention of some regulators and come up with a clear cut explanation.

Sonicbum, if you were familiar with Heraklion, you would most probably agree that circling back to rwy 27 is not more dangerous than a standard circling pattern to rwy 09. There's the city and port with large ships and cranes just east of rwy 09. (And a displaced threshold on rwy 09 because of it.) On rwy 27 you come in over the sea, and as long as you stay on the center line of the rwy or north of it, there's nothing but water. (apart from an island 6NM north of the airport rising to 883 ft) The circle back to land on 27 is just as safe (even safer!) than a standard circle to land to rwy 09. A competent, well trained and prepared crew should be able to do it. Probably my operator wouldn't blame me if I diverted to Chania or Athens, but I sure would like to bring my passengers to their intended destination if there's a safe and legal way to bring them there.

On the opposite side, if somebody ends up trying to be smart by doing something he has never tried before or has never heard of, then things could go differently.
It all depends on the experience, decision making and many other airmanship factors.

But, we're not talking about the legality anymore and that was the main question.
My personal final conclusion: It's not illegal, therefore it's legal. whether it's a good idea depends on many other considerations that have nothing to do with the legal aspect! (But in Heraklion it sure is less risky than circling to 09) This was my last contribution to this thread. (Unless anybody would start making incredibly stupid remarks ! :} )

[hans brinker]

On a straight in approach if the runway is insight and I am too high it is because something went wrong in my NPA, so it is a go around and we give it another try.
On a side note, I know we are only discussing "legal aspects" but guys nobody will shoot You for not being able to land out of a straight in approach in marginal weather and having to divert. On the opposite side, if somebody ends up trying to be smart by doing something he has never tried before or has never heard of, then things could go differently.

Not keeping my promise to stay out of the discussion very well....

Two things I need to point out:
You keep saying straight in approach, but it is a circling approach, even if it is associated with a specific rwy (so no you wouldn't be too high if you are at circling minimum and close to the rwy.
This is not some crazy newn thingy, like I already posted, the guy representing 60.000 airline pilots in the USA says this is okay, and it is trained too, it's apparently in the Canadian AIM.

There's no way the pilot would get in trouble if he followed this procedure correct if something were to happen. Maybe if it would go wrong often enough the authorization would be removed, but guess what, many more aircraft have crashed dipping below minimum or
​​diving down get the straight in, than by circling back.

[avionimc]

FWIW:

FAA H-8083-16B: Approaches whose final approach segment is more than 30 degrees different from the landing runway alignment are always designated as circling approaches.
. E.g.: When the landing is to be made on a runway that is not
aligned with the approach being flown, the controller may
issue a circling approach clearance, such as “…cleared
for VOR Runway 17 approach, circle to land Runway 23.”



EASA: A circling approach is 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. (JAR-OPS 1.435 (a) (1))

JEPPESEN: CIRCLING APPROACH / CIRCLE-TO-LAND MANEUVER — An extension of an instrument approach procedure which provides for visual circling of the aerodrome prior to landing.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1067x1831/lgir_vor27_1e2da65f5d909c16e7955b8c247bdd4b632aa990.png
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1351/legend_visual_flight_track_f63cdf5a260b05340865fb69f93434a75 2193ed5.jpg

[FullWings]

I think we’re reading the definitions kind of backwards. OK, runways more than 30degs offset (15degs for GPS) from the instrument FAT are designated as circling approaches but that is to stop you going down to the (normally) more permissive PA/NPA minima for the IA runway and trying to manoeuvre at the last minute onto the landing one at too low an altitude. It’s not, IMO, to stop you doing a circling approach to a non-offset runway.

There is nothing that I can think of (visual references, charted notes and ATC excepted) that stops you circling onto *any* runway off *any* approach as long as you stay within the circling area and respect the circling minima. That is the whole point of the area in the first place, yes?

To sum up generically: you can use circling minima to make an approach from any direction to any runway but you can only use IA minima for a non-offset approach. Simples!

[hans brinker]

I think we’re reading the definitions kind of backwards. OK, runways more than 30degs offset (15degs for GPS) from the instrument FAT are designated as circling approaches but that is to stop you going down to the (normally) more permissive PA/NPA minima for the IA runway and trying to manoeuvre at the last minute onto the landing one at too low an altitude. It’s not, IMO, to stop you doing a circling approach to a non-offset runway.

There is nothing that I can think of (visual references, charted notes and ATC excepted) that stops you circling onto *any* runway off *any* approach as long as you stay within the circling area and respect the circling minima. That is the whole point of the area in the first place, yes?

To sum up generically: you can use circling minima to make an approach from any direction to any runway but you can only use IA minima for a non-offset approach. Simples!


Yup, couldn't agree more.

[sonicbum]

Gents the “pro-circling” explanations are definitely very well exposed and I am in no position to prove You wrong. I will try to dig for more information from official sources, as it is quite an interesting topic.
Cheers.

[aterpster]

FWIW:

FAA H-8083-16B: Approaches whose final approach segment is more than 30 degrees different from the landing runway alignment are always designated as circling approaches.
.E.g.: When the landing is to be made on a runway that is not
aligned with the approach being flown, the controller may
issue a circling approach clearance, such as “…cleared
for VOR Runway 17 approach, circle to land Runway 23.”

In the U.S., this would only be at an airport with an operating control tower. If there is not an operating control tower, center or approach control cannot dictate how you circle or what runway you are to use.

[Chidiebere]

Loking through the APCH chart, the VOR DME 16 has a straight in minima of 800ft and circling minima of 1070ft.
First check your company Ops Spec to see if there is a special approval for certain approaches.
Having said that, i will advice the crew descend to 1070ft, if the have visual of the RWY, the request for Contact approach from ATC.

Make sure everything you do is within legality.


Chidiebere