Lanzarote ACE - VOR Rwy 21
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you are visual (with obstacles of course as well) at circling MDA surely you can continue visually 'straight in' - ie treat it as a 'cloud break'
Join Date: Aug 1998
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was down there on Friday, and had a good long talk about this too...
Ceiling was giving BKN025 (not much use when the circling minima is 2450')
We flew down the ILS03 (as it happened we were visual), descended to 1500'aal and then flew a left hand circuit and landed 21. Early configuration, no GPWS of any sort, and ROD of about 900fpm commenced well after we turned base worked out just grand!
The 2500' crossing height at the FAF on the "VOR 21" place just about puts you on a 3.7 slope to the runway.
If the ceiling happened to be below 2500', I'm not sure how you could land 21 if the tailwind on 03 was outside limits as the circling minima of 03 is also 2450' (cat C).....
Ceiling was giving BKN025 (not much use when the circling minima is 2450')
We flew down the ILS03 (as it happened we were visual), descended to 1500'aal and then flew a left hand circuit and landed 21. Early configuration, no GPWS of any sort, and ROD of about 900fpm commenced well after we turned base worked out just grand!
The 2500' crossing height at the FAF on the "VOR 21" place just about puts you on a 3.7 slope to the runway.
If the ceiling happened to be below 2500', I'm not sure how you could land 21 if the tailwind on 03 was outside limits as the circling minima of 03 is also 2450' (cat C).....
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You flew the ILS down to 1,000ft below the circling minima with the intention of completing a visual approach.
The question is would this be legal had it be broken at 2,400? As long as you're complying with your company ops minima for a visual approach then why not?
Strange situation....
The question is would this be legal had it be broken at 2,400? As long as you're complying with your company ops minima for a visual approach then why not?
Strange situation....
Join Date: Aug 1998
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two scenarios:
1. Ceiling below circling minima. Perform ILS with intention to circle at those minima, and go-around.
OR
2. Ceiling below circling minima. Perform ILS for 03, however tailwind then makes landing impossible on 03. At this stage, you are in daylight VMC conditions below circling minima and you make a visual circuit to land 21.
Both legit?
As I said, by the time we got there, the BKN025 was nowhere to be seen so it wasn't an issue.
1. Ceiling below circling minima. Perform ILS with intention to circle at those minima, and go-around.
OR
2. Ceiling below circling minima. Perform ILS for 03, however tailwind then makes landing impossible on 03. At this stage, you are in daylight VMC conditions below circling minima and you make a visual circuit to land 21.
Both legit?
As I said, by the time we got there, the BKN025 was nowhere to be seen so it wasn't an issue.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Essentially, the approach doesn't meet the technical requirements to be considered a 'straight in' approach. Therefore even though you are basically aligned with the runway you can not use 'straight in' minima.
You are technically performing a circling approach (even though only a tiny correction is made in order to be fully aligned with the runway centreline). Therefore you need to use circling minima rather than 'straight in' minima.
The problem is the highly confusing wording that Jeppesen have chosen to use.
If you look carefully you can see that the statement 'Not Authorised' is written in the minima section of the plate. What they are trying to say is that there are no straight in minima authorised.
My company use LIDO charts which in this particular instance are much clearer. Instead of saying 'Straight in approach Not Authorised' they simply state: RW21 - Use Circling Minima.
You are technically performing a circling approach (even though only a tiny correction is made in order to be fully aligned with the runway centreline). Therefore you need to use circling minima rather than 'straight in' minima.
The problem is the highly confusing wording that Jeppesen have chosen to use.
If you look carefully you can see that the statement 'Not Authorised' is written in the minima section of the plate. What they are trying to say is that there are no straight in minima authorised.
My company use LIDO charts which in this particular instance are much clearer. Instead of saying 'Straight in approach Not Authorised' they simply state: RW21 - Use Circling Minima.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm..
If you compare the straight-in minima on the old plate they are the same as for a CAT A circling minima (1640'). This is removed on the new plate and the CAT A minimum is increased to 1750'. The vertical profile does continue to descend but only just beyond about 4.5D which could be close to 1750 (the profile box gives an altitude of 1830 at 5D). Then it indicates a Missed approach climb at 1.5D.
I would interpret this plate to mean the following:
You can follow the profile to the relevant MDA for your category of aircraft. If visual then, you may continue descent.
If not visual, you may fly level until becoming visual or reaching the MAP (whichever comes first).
If visual at MAP you will be too high to land so you may opt to circle to land visually.
Or is that completely wrong?
If you compare the straight-in minima on the old plate they are the same as for a CAT A circling minima (1640'). This is removed on the new plate and the CAT A minimum is increased to 1750'. The vertical profile does continue to descend but only just beyond about 4.5D which could be close to 1750 (the profile box gives an altitude of 1830 at 5D). Then it indicates a Missed approach climb at 1.5D.
I would interpret this plate to mean the following:
You can follow the profile to the relevant MDA for your category of aircraft. If visual then, you may continue descent.
If not visual, you may fly level until becoming visual or reaching the MAP (whichever comes first).
If visual at MAP you will be too high to land so you may opt to circle to land visually.
Or is that completely wrong?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re eye's post - I agree with your analysis of how to fly it.
I do think, however, that Jepp certainly have really confused the issue with regard to the vertical profile, which 'suggests' a continued descent past the 2500' point when the minima are only a squidge under that (talking the CAT C/D chart). I would have thought a more horizontal profile from the 2500' point to G/A - MAP would have been far clearer. Maybe LIDO is better? It would certainly cause me a 'double take' on a briefing. Is there no option now under PansOps to call this 'Circling' or 'CloudBreak' rather than 'VOR'?
I do think, however, that Jepp certainly have really confused the issue with regard to the vertical profile, which 'suggests' a continued descent past the 2500' point when the minima are only a squidge under that (talking the CAT C/D chart). I would have thought a more horizontal profile from the 2500' point to G/A - MAP would have been far clearer. Maybe LIDO is better? It would certainly cause me a 'double take' on a briefing. Is there no option now under PansOps to call this 'Circling' or 'CloudBreak' rather than 'VOR'?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Playing Golf!
Age: 46
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lido have chosen to omit the not authorised remark that Jeppesen has included.
Instead just to use the circling minima, also worthy of note the Lido plate has just been re-issued today, the Jeppesen is still dated 24th Sept 2010.
I think the wording on the Jeppesen could be adjusted to not muddy the water so much!
PT6A
Instead just to use the circling minima, also worthy of note the Lido plate has just been re-issued today, the Jeppesen is still dated 24th Sept 2010.
I think the wording on the Jeppesen could be adjusted to not muddy the water so much!
PT6A
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Spain
Age: 56
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly plenty of problems with the 21 approach today, low cloud over the San Bartolome area has seen 15 planes divert FUE so far. I presume they are now full as others are heading for LPA/TFS.
regards
Keith
Lanzarote
regards
Keith
Lanzarote
