visual circling off an instrument approach
It's like everything in aviation in Australia, open to personal interpretation.
What about descending not below LSALT until within 30nm and visual (yet in another section you can descend any time below LSALT in VMC??)
What about requiring an alternate if you don't have a 'firm' forecast, yet in another section you can depart provided you receive a firm forecast 30 mins after departure and have fuel to return to your departure point for up to 60 mins?
What about being cleared to descend to say 5000 feet, then being cleared for an instrument approach, then being chipped by ATC for descending below 5000? Even though they cleared you for an instrument approach? (very prevalent in Darwin)
I could go on and on and on.
IMO and from a practical perspective as I have stated earlier, you would be pretty dopey after conducting a runway approach by day, breaking visual, but not being able to land due to a myriad of reasons, and not circling if you can do so safely with the obstacle clearance requirements satisfied.
What Australia clearly needs is a set of clearly defined regulations. Remember it's not what you say, but how it is perceived that counts!
What about descending not below LSALT until within 30nm and visual (yet in another section you can descend any time below LSALT in VMC??)
What about requiring an alternate if you don't have a 'firm' forecast, yet in another section you can depart provided you receive a firm forecast 30 mins after departure and have fuel to return to your departure point for up to 60 mins?
What about being cleared to descend to say 5000 feet, then being cleared for an instrument approach, then being chipped by ATC for descending below 5000? Even though they cleared you for an instrument approach? (very prevalent in Darwin)
I could go on and on and on.
IMO and from a practical perspective as I have stated earlier, you would be pretty dopey after conducting a runway approach by day, breaking visual, but not being able to land due to a myriad of reasons, and not circling if you can do so safely with the obstacle clearance requirements satisfied.
What Australia clearly needs is a set of clearly defined regulations. Remember it's not what you say, but how it is perceived that counts!
"Good question to the original poster - shame so many "professional pilots" take this many pages to argue a very straight forward and everyday procedure."
Hi Rob.
I called CASA about this directly and spoke with more than 1 person. The official position given to me was that you're wrong. So I think its a bit unfair take a shot at people who disagree with your interpretation as not being professional or competent.
I agree with the GG. The rules are ****, so looking down on anyone for having a different interpretation of them just makes you an idiot.
Hi Rob.
I called CASA about this directly and spoke with more than 1 person. The official position given to me was that you're wrong. So I think its a bit unfair take a shot at people who disagree with your interpretation as not being professional or competent.
I agree with the GG. The rules are ****, so looking down on anyone for having a different interpretation of them just makes you an idiot.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The cloud
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Das uber solat and gg...
As previously stated by others, we too have talked to our FOI's with feedback to the contrary. If the authority can't get a consensus view what hope do the rest of us have. The remark you quoted above in context is a clear dig at the fact that if you require 6 argued pages off a rumour network to define your ops then it clearly isn't "professional" is it...
I gave the option to those who interpret this differently, that perhaps a better path to travel, would be talk to your CP and do as your SOP's state. These to can be a more stringet and safer set of techniques again such as I quoted from our ops manual.
At the end of the day if you hit the cumulus granitus and survive you better have stronger point than a verbal from Casa, a personal interpretation, or evidence from a rumour network... If your company manual says in black and white initiate from circling mda then do it. If not get the CP to type something up so you have a clear black and white copy of instructions given to you to satisfy your operations requirements.
Bring it up at your next safety meeting and ensure your operating to company standards. Because even if I took your interpretation I am still illegal as our SOP's are very clear in indicating what they want. Shouldn't be any need to invent something if it is black and white... As many have told me "if in doubt... Check the book"... And they weren't referring to the regs! (even though I as others are interperating the regs the same as my sop example)
Hope this helps
cheers
Rob
As previously stated by others, we too have talked to our FOI's with feedback to the contrary. If the authority can't get a consensus view what hope do the rest of us have. The remark you quoted above in context is a clear dig at the fact that if you require 6 argued pages off a rumour network to define your ops then it clearly isn't "professional" is it...
I gave the option to those who interpret this differently, that perhaps a better path to travel, would be talk to your CP and do as your SOP's state. These to can be a more stringet and safer set of techniques again such as I quoted from our ops manual.
At the end of the day if you hit the cumulus granitus and survive you better have stronger point than a verbal from Casa, a personal interpretation, or evidence from a rumour network... If your company manual says in black and white initiate from circling mda then do it. If not get the CP to type something up so you have a clear black and white copy of instructions given to you to satisfy your operations requirements.
Bring it up at your next safety meeting and ensure your operating to company standards. Because even if I took your interpretation I am still illegal as our SOP's are very clear in indicating what they want. Shouldn't be any need to invent something if it is black and white... As many have told me "if in doubt... Check the book"... And they weren't referring to the regs! (even though I as others are interperating the regs the same as my sop example)
Hope this helps
cheers
Rob
Last edited by Xcel; 16th Dec 2010 at 03:41.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anyone throughout this thread disagrees that circling below the circling MDA at night is wrong. Therefore, the arguments relate to day flight.
One could also argue that it is a little dodgy to knowingly use the S-I MDA to get visual when the pilot knows they will have to circle to use the other runway.
However, there is nothing to stop the pilot from now circling, once becoming visual using the S-I MDA if they can no longer achieve a landing on the intended runway. As long as they meet the visual circling criteria (viz, obstacle clearance, distance dimensions etc.) there is now nothing that requires them to climb back up to the circling MDA. At night - yes, during the day - no. The missed approach criteria and circling requirements in the Jepps/AIPs all back this up.
The circling MDA is designed to keep the pilot safe when they cannot see the ground i.e. at night or in cloud. If they are visual at day there is no longer a requirement to maintain this height.
Based on the arguments of those that believe a missed approach must be conducted if a landing cannot be achieved using the S-I MDA, despite being visual, they must also subscribe to the following actions:
What if you became visual off the S-I MDA, everything was looking good but then an aircraft pulls out in front of you on the runway? The S-I MDA was 400ft, the circling MDA 600ft. Are you saying you must now conduct the full missed approach and climb back in to cloud? Why not now circle to land again at 500ft, assuming this meets all of the circling criteria?
If you say on one hand that you can circle after this go-around, but must conduct a missed approach if too high off the runway aligned approach, you are contradicting yourself.
Why can we not get clarification from our beloved friends at a certain authority? A large percentage of them have either: no experience in dealing with such real life situations (flight instruction or military flying is a totally different kettle of fish - you are rarely subjected to such considerations); or are the rejects of the industry that could never get anywhere in their flying careers. If you don't believe me have a look at the situational awareness video that was put out late last year - the VFR fellow who with 500 hours decided to fly into cloud to get above it all, then decend back in to it over terrain really sums it all up.
Sorry about the slight thread drift at the end.
One could also argue that it is a little dodgy to knowingly use the S-I MDA to get visual when the pilot knows they will have to circle to use the other runway.
However, there is nothing to stop the pilot from now circling, once becoming visual using the S-I MDA if they can no longer achieve a landing on the intended runway. As long as they meet the visual circling criteria (viz, obstacle clearance, distance dimensions etc.) there is now nothing that requires them to climb back up to the circling MDA. At night - yes, during the day - no. The missed approach criteria and circling requirements in the Jepps/AIPs all back this up.
The circling MDA is designed to keep the pilot safe when they cannot see the ground i.e. at night or in cloud. If they are visual at day there is no longer a requirement to maintain this height.
Based on the arguments of those that believe a missed approach must be conducted if a landing cannot be achieved using the S-I MDA, despite being visual, they must also subscribe to the following actions:
What if you became visual off the S-I MDA, everything was looking good but then an aircraft pulls out in front of you on the runway? The S-I MDA was 400ft, the circling MDA 600ft. Are you saying you must now conduct the full missed approach and climb back in to cloud? Why not now circle to land again at 500ft, assuming this meets all of the circling criteria?
If you say on one hand that you can circle after this go-around, but must conduct a missed approach if too high off the runway aligned approach, you are contradicting yourself.
Why can we not get clarification from our beloved friends at a certain authority? A large percentage of them have either: no experience in dealing with such real life situations (flight instruction or military flying is a totally different kettle of fish - you are rarely subjected to such considerations); or are the rejects of the industry that could never get anywhere in their flying careers. If you don't believe me have a look at the situational awareness video that was put out late last year - the VFR fellow who with 500 hours decided to fly into cloud to get above it all, then decend back in to it over terrain really sums it all up.
Sorry about the slight thread drift at the end.
Last edited by VH-FTS; 17th Dec 2010 at 01:20.
I don't think anyone throughout this thread believes that circling below the circling MDA at night is wrong
For example the fact that yes we can depart a strip at t/o minima with down to 0ft cieling and 550m. Fly 30 mins with no forecast and without obtaining it be forced to turn back to point of departure. Yes there other "options" but taken in context how is this illegal?
If we take any rule outside of it's intention they all seem silly. For example the fact that yes we can depart a strip at t/o minima with down to 0ft cieling and 550m. Fly 30 mins with no forecast and without obtaining it be forced to turn back to point of departure.
To depart with a 0ft cloud base and 500m vis, you need to make sure that you can climb to the enroute LSALT on one engine, and land at a suitable aerodrome within 60 mins of single engine flight time. This is my consideration in these situations.
Having said that, I for one would use the the lowest minima for the most accurate instrument approach as my takeoff minima. What if you had an engine fire? Or worse! I want to know if something happens, I can get back in!
As for the rest of this discussion, it's academic. Practically you'd avoid getting back in the soup unless it was imperative for the safety of the flight.
Do military not fly IMC? Surely high performance single seat in radar trail with bingo fuel adds many more considerations, not less.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking from experience, mate?
I'm sure they were good pilots, heck I'm sure their stick and rudder skills were probably better than mine. However, how many have flown a PA31, Metro, B200 or Islander in anger (commercial ops) apart from the right seat grilling the pilot during a check? At some stage the thought pops in to their head "maybe, just maybe I am a god of aviation", which then allows them to interpret the regs as they see fit and expect us mere mortals to follow them.
And we are then left with multiple ways of skinning the cat rather than clarification...
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, how many have flown a PA31, Metro, B200 or Islander in anger (commercial ops)
Thread Starter
Hi guys,
Just for a bit of clarification the reason i originally posted this was we had an issues where an aircraft ahead of us conducted an instrument approach (RNAV from memory) down to it's straight in minima - by the time they got there the wind had changed and was favouring the reciprical runway - they circled and landed... no dramas
We then followed them round for the same initial approach. It was a two crew operation and the captain i had on the flight decended to the circling minima was not visual and conducted the missed approach. I was/am fairly new to IFR flying and wasn't 100% on the rules so this seemed like a fair plan, we eventually got visual on an approach to the recipricol runway.
I had overheard in the past IFR instructors talking about this issue and they also both had differing views as to whether you had to climb back to the circliing minima to circle by day.
Thanks again for the discussion
Just for a bit of clarification the reason i originally posted this was we had an issues where an aircraft ahead of us conducted an instrument approach (RNAV from memory) down to it's straight in minima - by the time they got there the wind had changed and was favouring the reciprical runway - they circled and landed... no dramas
We then followed them round for the same initial approach. It was a two crew operation and the captain i had on the flight decended to the circling minima was not visual and conducted the missed approach. I was/am fairly new to IFR flying and wasn't 100% on the rules so this seemed like a fair plan, we eventually got visual on an approach to the recipricol runway.
I had overheard in the past IFR instructors talking about this issue and they also both had differing views as to whether you had to climb back to the circliing minima to circle by day.
Thanks again for the discussion
In an above 5700kg I would conduct the missed approach too.
It's not a nice place circling in low vis in something like a Metro with poor visibility out of the slits called windows even in CAVOK conditions. Coupled with the multi crew thing, it can become a very high work load situation very quickly
In a light twin I would not hesitate.
It's not a nice place circling in low vis in something like a Metro with poor visibility out of the slits called windows even in CAVOK conditions. Coupled with the multi crew thing, it can become a very high work load situation very quickly
In a light twin I would not hesitate.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Dog House
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6 pages of debate and conjecture???
Circling at either the circling minima or at a height required for obstacle clearance CAN and in MOST cases will be a very high workload and high risk flight segment.
Check the following link - http://flightsafety.org/files/cfit_check.pdf
Pre approach planning is vital with a clear mentally rehearsed plan essential. The "should I" or "shouldn’t I circle" questions is usually a trigger to "NOT" circle – despite being compliant with the required circling criteria. Be careful fellas – there are plenty of "low viz, low altitude" circling manoeuvres that have ended in tragedy!!
Circling at either the circling minima or at a height required for obstacle clearance CAN and in MOST cases will be a very high workload and high risk flight segment.
Check the following link - http://flightsafety.org/files/cfit_check.pdf
Pre approach planning is vital with a clear mentally rehearsed plan essential. The "should I" or "shouldn’t I circle" questions is usually a trigger to "NOT" circle – despite being compliant with the required circling criteria. Be careful fellas – there are plenty of "low viz, low altitude" circling manoeuvres that have ended in tragedy!!
Circling at either the circling minima or at a height required for obstacle clearance CAN and in MOST cases will be a very high workload and high risk flight segment.
Now that we have SI Apps (RNAV) on all runways, the time has come for circling to be reduced; that doesn't mean it's dangerous or very high workload, particularly if the vis is good. At 100kt, turning on a sixpence, if you think they're dangerous you shouldn't be in the cockpit.
CASAs recommended answer is in CAAPs.
CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches Dated OCT2004 page 11
3.5 IF I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE WIND IS CAN I DESCEND TO THE STRAIGHT-IN MDA? Yes, but you need to consider the possibility that you might need to circle and it may be advisable to limit descent to the circling MDA. In most cases the landing MDA is lower than the circling MDA, and if descent is continued to the lower altitude a circling approach may not be possible. Pilots should not commit to a straight in landing unless they can be satisfied that wind conditions are suitable.
CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches Dated OCT2004 page 11
3.5 IF I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE WIND IS CAN I DESCEND TO THE STRAIGHT-IN MDA? Yes, but you need to consider the possibility that you might need to circle and it may be advisable to limit descent to the circling MDA. In most cases the landing MDA is lower than the circling MDA, and if descent is continued to the lower altitude a circling approach may not be possible. Pilots should not commit to a straight in landing unless they can be satisfied that wind conditions are suitable.
Well there we go, you can circle at the straight in minima as we have all been telling the nay sayers for all this time.
The key here is to use your command judgement, sometimes it is acceptable, other times it may not be.
Like everything in aviation, you can't put it in a box and tie a ribbon around it. You need to use your experience and good decision making, using all available information to reach the desired outcome safely.
The key here is to use your command judgement, sometimes it is acceptable, other times it may not be.
Like everything in aviation, you can't put it in a box and tie a ribbon around it. You need to use your experience and good decision making, using all available information to reach the desired outcome safely.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You need to use your experience