Help with circling now
What a stupid attitude. So it weeds out a few - by killing them? If it's killing people, it needs changing.
If you have to do the circling to 18 at PUS, it's because the tailwind has exceeded 10 knots on 36. And this invariably means that at circuit height the wind is about 240 at 45 - which means you are flying at the very limits of the aircraft's performance at 2,3nm spacing. You have to work very hard to make the stabilization criteria (300' in the Circling 36 to 18 case at PUS my company have set) from the downwind altitude of 1100'. My last approach there required a constant 30 degree turn and we still got blown through the centreline. Fly to the limits and the safety margins are eroded.
Now although it's challenging, I have always got in without breaking any limits or triggering GPWS warnings, so I obviously pass the 411a selection test. But others haven't.
As for the TERPS limits, Korea is joining the civilized world by adopting PANSOPS. Both Incheon and Gimpo are now PANSOPS airports, but Pusan will never be. You just won't fit the circling approach in that valley at 4.6NM radius.
If you have to do the circling to 18 at PUS, it's because the tailwind has exceeded 10 knots on 36. And this invariably means that at circuit height the wind is about 240 at 45 - which means you are flying at the very limits of the aircraft's performance at 2,3nm spacing. You have to work very hard to make the stabilization criteria (300' in the Circling 36 to 18 case at PUS my company have set) from the downwind altitude of 1100'. My last approach there required a constant 30 degree turn and we still got blown through the centreline. Fly to the limits and the safety margins are eroded.
Now although it's challenging, I have always got in without breaking any limits or triggering GPWS warnings, so I obviously pass the 411a selection test. But others haven't.
As for the TERPS limits, Korea is joining the civilized world by adopting PANSOPS. Both Incheon and Gimpo are now PANSOPS airports, but Pusan will never be. You just won't fit the circling approach in that valley at 4.6NM radius.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite, DW - a stereo-typical stupid attitude - a 2.3nm pattern is impossible to fly even in Cat C in a strong tightening wind. I don't know the airfield, but could PANOPS not be adopted with a 'modified' radius between 2.3 and 4.6?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a stupid attitude. So it weeds out a few -
Type rating requirements for circling in a category D airplane mandate circling within two miles, otherwise a restriction is placed on ones license restricting circling to VFR conditions only.
Now, airlines can do as they like if they wish to restrict circling at certain airports, or ban it altogether for their crews, in the interests of 'safety'.
Indeed, many have.
Our particular ops require circling on a regular basis with our rather large heavy jet, otherwise flights would be rather severely restricted.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite, DW - a stereo-typical stupid attitude - a 2.3nm pattern is impossible to fly even in Cat C in a strong tightening wind.
No one is 'forcing' you to circle in your CAT C airplane, BOAC....if you are unable, due to weather or inability to actually follow the procedure, diversion, I would suggest, is your best alternative.
I generally find that many Europeans (and this includes those in the UK) tend to blame 'others' for their own particular shortcommings.
Harry Truman, long ago, said it best...'can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen'.
