Virgin and DME arrivals
fixa24, I don't think you're going to get an answer! 225 'em.
DJ747, how about ringing up your fleet manager and ask him if AsA have been told about your company policy.
DJ747, how about ringing up your fleet manager and ask him if AsA have been told about your company policy.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs, my duty as a Line Pilot is to follow the SOP's and Procedures as outlined in our Operations Manuals. It is their train set, so I play with it as they would like us to. In fact as someone else mentioned earlier this makes my job easier, which is great. I too have seen the DME arrival screwed up too many times(HB RWY 30), so the current method VB wants us to employ (no cirling approaches, and DME arrivals with an effective minima of 1500 AGL suite me). I always call the Tower on Comm2 and get an actual update of the conditions if it looks questionable. I then decide if we need to conduct a runway aligned instrument appraoch, or will the DME arrival provide a "cloud break" above 1500 AGL to allow a "visual circuit". Simple really.
Yes I will call our Fleet Manager to confirm if ASA know, and I suspect that they do.
Yes I will call our Fleet Manager to confirm if ASA know, and I suspect that they do.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Straya
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has been VB policy for at least 4 years not to fly circling approaches unless there is no alternative. I think the only change to that policy in recent years has been the emphasis that there is always an alternative.
DME arrivals are to be used as a cloud break to enable a normal visual approach. IE 1500' circuit.
That all the relevant Class D controllers aren't aware of this fact shows a communications lapse somewhere between VB flight ops and Airservices personnel. This is probably not unusual knowing both of these organisations. It is to the credit of Pprune that we have somewhere other than the Twr frequency to discuss this.
Keep in mind, that unlike pilots from Jetstar or Sunstate, the VB pilots fly a fairly random roster, and one may not visit a particular tower in over a year. Particularly Mel based pilots in Central Qld and Bne pilots to Launceston. And when we do it may be a CAVOK day, obviating any discussion of practical application of the minima. Management is more than happy for us to fly a full approach in conditions that you probably wouldn't consider marginal, and check/trainers are particularly encouraging the use of RNAV approaches, which take a little more time/fuel sometimes but have unarguable safety benefits.
Blip you have a valid point about the higher circling mins perhaps predicating a higher Alt minima. I may throw that one at a checkie soon, but as we would fly a straight-in NPA of some sort in any case where diversion to an alternate is considered that would be a theoretical argument anyway.
DME arrivals are to be used as a cloud break to enable a normal visual approach. IE 1500' circuit.
That all the relevant Class D controllers aren't aware of this fact shows a communications lapse somewhere between VB flight ops and Airservices personnel. This is probably not unusual knowing both of these organisations. It is to the credit of Pprune that we have somewhere other than the Twr frequency to discuss this.
Keep in mind, that unlike pilots from Jetstar or Sunstate, the VB pilots fly a fairly random roster, and one may not visit a particular tower in over a year. Particularly Mel based pilots in Central Qld and Bne pilots to Launceston. And when we do it may be a CAVOK day, obviating any discussion of practical application of the minima. Management is more than happy for us to fly a full approach in conditions that you probably wouldn't consider marginal, and check/trainers are particularly encouraging the use of RNAV approaches, which take a little more time/fuel sometimes but have unarguable safety benefits.
Blip you have a valid point about the higher circling mins perhaps predicating a higher Alt minima. I may throw that one at a checkie soon, but as we would fly a straight-in NPA of some sort in any case where diversion to an alternate is considered that would be a theoretical argument anyway.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As stated there is no circling permitted for VB pilots unless there is no alternative.It's the pilot' s choice to conduct a DME ARR or opt for a runway aligned approach. A DME ARR below 1500AAE is permitted when its runway aligned & the gradient from the expected cloud break height will permit a 'stable' approach on final. I've knocked back ATC assigned DME ARRs when the ATIS suggests it isn't practical or there's a fair chance of a go-around. Would you want to be a B737 Pax circling at 800' or the like in rainy overcast condtions.
On the other hand I was recently told to go around in IMC on final for the VOR/DME app because a dash 8 wanted a DME ARR from the west & couldn't get in. Short story in this case the MK controller should've advised the dash to do the aligned app. This event banked up 2 RPT jets for 5 mins each.
On the other hand I was recently told to go around in IMC on final for the VOR/DME app because a dash 8 wanted a DME ARR from the west & couldn't get in. Short story in this case the MK controller should've advised the dash to do the aligned app. This event banked up 2 RPT jets for 5 mins each.
Thread Starter
On the other hand I was recently told to go around in IMC on final for the VOR/DME app because a dash 8 wanted a DME ARR from the west & couldn't get in. Short story in this case the MK controller should've advised the dash to do the aligned app. This event banked up 2 RPT jets for 5 mins each.
They don't have any dash 8's from the west..................................
I find DH8's are very flexible (except the -400's), and will quite often do a DME arrival even though VOR's are on the ATIS.
And as you'd be aware, ATC nominate an approach, advise the WX, and it's up to the PIC if they want to nominate an alternate approach.
I do not have a problem with this at all... That was the whole point with bringing this up.I am happy to send every single VOZ jet for a RNAV or rwy VOR every day. no probs whatsoever. If that's what they want....
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus out of interest what aircraft type do you fly, and what rank?
Centaurus,
The reality is, that increasing automation in modern aircraft means decreasing skill levels in manual manipulation of aircraft. At times, rew have trouble doing a visual approach on a CAVOK day without an ILS- Not ideal perhaps, but this is how the training and reliance on computers seasons people. If we fly from ILS to ILS on 15 hour sectors, or now use GPSNPA approaches, it is difficult to be practiced at something that is rarely needed.
Operators in Australia (mining contracts) are still regularly doing circling approaches at night into strips with no app. lighting or slope guidance in medium jets. Understand that it is fairly demanding at times. Even in this situation, there are now straight in NPA's available at most strips.
The reality is, that increasing automation in modern aircraft means decreasing skill levels in manual manipulation of aircraft. At times, rew have trouble doing a visual approach on a CAVOK day without an ILS- Not ideal perhaps, but this is how the training and reliance on computers seasons people. If we fly from ILS to ILS on 15 hour sectors, or now use GPSNPA approaches, it is difficult to be practiced at something that is rarely needed.
Operators in Australia (mining contracts) are still regularly doing circling approaches at night into strips with no app. lighting or slope guidance in medium jets. Understand that it is fairly demanding at times. Even in this situation, there are now straight in NPA's available at most strips.
Last edited by illusion; 24th Mar 2007 at 18:36.
Bottums Up
They are perfectly safe manoeuvres if you stick to the basic rule of not descending below the MDA until established on final.
Depending upon the definition of stabilised, of course.
Capt. Claret
You make a common mistake re descent on a circling approach. The descent may be commenced once you intercept the appropriate path. That path can be curved. Say you are working on a 3 deg app, then calculate your track distance to the threshold, give yourself your 300'/mile and bingo you have the point at which to start your descent. There is no legal requirement for you to be on final. It is of course your responsibility to maintain appropriate terrain clearance, which, as you are visual should not be a problem. If it is, get the hell out of Dodge.
I am with Centaurus. There is nothing inherently dangerous in a properly executed circling approach. Stay within the prescribed circling area, keep the runway or associated reference markers/points in sight at ALL times, keep within the prescribed speed and appropriate configuration, maintain the prescribed height until established on the appropriate profile, and keep your f
head out of the cockpit.
The problem is more as Illusion has pointed out, that recency and training are what's most likely to bring someone undone. But that is an entirely different issue. If companies are not prepared to keep their crews competent in in the manouevre, that's OK. But they must wear the fact and prohibit their use. But please, please, please, do not say "I can't do it, so it must be unsafe and no one should do it"
HKG Phooey: I challenge you to publish detail of ANY circling approach that came to grief under the following conditions:
aircraft serviceable
within the prescribed circling area
within the prescribed visibility at all times
with the runway and or associated markings in sight at ALL times
at the prescribed height until established on PATH
stabilised at the appropriate speeds and configuration
Go Arounds are easy. Try it some time.
Maui
You make a common mistake re descent on a circling approach. The descent may be commenced once you intercept the appropriate path. That path can be curved. Say you are working on a 3 deg app, then calculate your track distance to the threshold, give yourself your 300'/mile and bingo you have the point at which to start your descent. There is no legal requirement for you to be on final. It is of course your responsibility to maintain appropriate terrain clearance, which, as you are visual should not be a problem. If it is, get the hell out of Dodge.
I am with Centaurus. There is nothing inherently dangerous in a properly executed circling approach. Stay within the prescribed circling area, keep the runway or associated reference markers/points in sight at ALL times, keep within the prescribed speed and appropriate configuration, maintain the prescribed height until established on the appropriate profile, and keep your f
head out of the cockpit.The problem is more as Illusion has pointed out, that recency and training are what's most likely to bring someone undone. But that is an entirely different issue. If companies are not prepared to keep their crews competent in in the manouevre, that's OK. But they must wear the fact and prohibit their use. But please, please, please, do not say "I can't do it, so it must be unsafe and no one should do it"
HKG Phooey: I challenge you to publish detail of ANY circling approach that came to grief under the following conditions:
aircraft serviceable
within the prescribed circling area
within the prescribed visibility at all times
with the runway and or associated markings in sight at ALL times
at the prescribed height until established on PATH
stabilised at the appropriate speeds and configuration
Go Arounds are easy. Try it some time.
Maui
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tie Pay
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Circling approaches increase the chance of CFIT when compared to straight in NPA's which in turn increase the chance of CFIT when compared to conducting precision approaches. Statisitcally speaking, the increase is not negligable which is why so many governing bodies and airlines no longer allow pilots to circle in jet aircraft. Australia will catch on eventually.
Centaurus has earned the right to contribute more than most of us here and represents the old school stick and rudder approach to airline flying. The demand for airline crew in the developing world combined with the current worsening pilot shortage and the almost exclusive employment of automated glass aircraft will render the old school obsolete.
Centaurus has earned the right to contribute more than most of us here and represents the old school stick and rudder approach to airline flying. The demand for airline crew in the developing world combined with the current worsening pilot shortage and the almost exclusive employment of automated glass aircraft will render the old school obsolete.
Dynasty Trash Hauler
If you stay within the rules the chance of a CFIT is zero. If you step outside the rules the chance of a CFIT is a lot higher. Ergo, stay inside the rules.
I am well aware that some carriers have decided to ban circling approaches, some conditionally. More power to them. It's their train set and if they want to place restrictions on their crews that is entirely within their perogative. As for some regulators banning such approaches, are you REALLY sure. Seems to me that Jepps haven't caught up with that.
I extend to you the challenge , that I did to HKG Phooey.
Come on fellahs. Quit the categoric statements and give us some hard irrefutable facts rather than dubious opinion.
Maui
If you stay within the rules the chance of a CFIT is zero. If you step outside the rules the chance of a CFIT is a lot higher. Ergo, stay inside the rules.
I am well aware that some carriers have decided to ban circling approaches, some conditionally. More power to them. It's their train set and if they want to place restrictions on their crews that is entirely within their perogative. As for some regulators banning such approaches, are you REALLY sure. Seems to me that Jepps haven't caught up with that.
I extend to you the challenge , that I did to HKG Phooey.
Come on fellahs. Quit the categoric statements and give us some hard irrefutable facts rather than dubious opinion.
Maui
Last edited by maui; 25th Mar 2007 at 15:37.
Bottums Up
maui
You have the wrong end of the stick, my friend. I'm not making a common mistake re descent on a circling approach because I didn't adovcate remaining at MDA until established on final, I quoted some one who did advocate it - Centaurus.
The point of my post, was to point out that if one stayed at the MDA of 1400' on final, say 3nm, at a place like Cairns, one couldn't complete a stabilised approach.
IMHO, short of practice for proficiency, I can't see the point of a DME arrival followed by circling in a jet or high performance turbo-prop, IF a RWY approach is available. In most cases a RWY approach will have a more favourable MDA, and a RWY approach greatly lessens the chance of barreling into the ground because one got distracted at the wrong time whilst performing the circling manoeuvre and ended up with an unrecoverable sink rate, or similar. I'm not saying they shouldn't be flown if necessary, just, why fly it in bad wx if there's a better approach available?
You have the wrong end of the stick, my friend. I'm not making a common mistake re descent on a circling approach because I didn't adovcate remaining at MDA until established on final, I quoted some one who did advocate it - Centaurus.
The point of my post, was to point out that if one stayed at the MDA of 1400' on final, say 3nm, at a place like Cairns, one couldn't complete a stabilised approach.
IMHO, short of practice for proficiency, I can't see the point of a DME arrival followed by circling in a jet or high performance turbo-prop, IF a RWY approach is available. In most cases a RWY approach will have a more favourable MDA, and a RWY approach greatly lessens the chance of barreling into the ground because one got distracted at the wrong time whilst performing the circling manoeuvre and ended up with an unrecoverable sink rate, or similar. I'm not saying they shouldn't be flown if necessary, just, why fly it in bad wx if there's a better approach available?
I have no argument with that. I do have an argument with the "ban circling approaches cos they are dangerous, brigade"
I stand corrected on your position re descent point. It has been several days and time zones since I read the posts.
M
I stand corrected on your position re descent point. It has been several days and time zones since I read the posts.
M
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see the point of a DME arrival followed by circling in a jet or high performance turbo-prop
Priorities basically state that "first to use the airspace wins", except that "this can be varied should significant economic benefit to a number of other aircraft occur" In every busy traffic sequence, there is at least one aircraft that is the key to it being a good day or a bad day. This is normally the one that has to fly an approach against the normal traffic flow. Solution sometimes is to take that one out and put it to the end of the sequence.
In regard to flying the DME arrival to the minima and circling, one day the gods will be unkind and all the gee whizz bits will not be available. It is then the PIC (and the SLF) will be thankful that they are proficient at hand flying in the circuit.
I have seen A320's fly DME arrival to minima with circling for the runway. Is it a better aircraft than the B73's in these situations
