Is JFK VOR 13 a circling approach
 

Some companies have restrictions on circling below a certain altitude such as 1500 feet. So one would think that this might apply to this particular approach but the circling minimums box for this approach says N/A.

Interesting question, probably technically not. However having done this approach frequently in close to minimums and with southerly crosswinds, it feels like one. There are similar approaches elsewhere, an offset Localizer, with lead in lights to final (or a circling to the opposite direction). I don´t fly to JFK as often as I used to, but it feels to me that is is being used less than it was. Can anyone comment on that?

Still used as much as ever and surely it is a VOR approach.

Foreign operators are banned from circling approaches in the US but the good old Canarsie for 13L/13R with good auld yanking and banking is deemed not a circling but a VOR app.

Circling approaches do not have defined tracks below MDA- The Carnasie approach does.

And the fact that the plate says VOR 31L/R says it's not a circling approach. If it was a circling approach, it would read VOR followed by a letter A, B, C, ... .

marker inbound is correct about the designations. if the runway itself is part of the approach heading, circling isn't the situation.

I wish someone would post the jepp for this online...my bag isn't handy.

Oh, we'll if your wife isn't handy then ask the girlfriend instead!! :ok::}:p

My current plate lists circling 640-1 for Cat A&B; 640-1 3/4 for Cat C; 640-2 for Cat D.

I think MarkerInbound may have transposed the one and the three, as the original question was regarding the VOR 13 approach. Looked at both, the VOR 31 approach is far simpler than that Canarsie approach. The latter (given what I know about the build up in that part of LI) is doubtless an approach designed to annoy the fewest number of wealthy people living on LI ... :p

JammedStab,

You answered it yourself. It is definitely not a circling approach as it uses the original runway direction at all times. Hence no circling minima. (Its just a visual segment)

My company are the same with much higher minimums for visual/circling but that is not the case here and we go there a lot. I wasn't aware that circling was banned for foreign carriers in US. Curious as the Carnarsie is much more challenging and foreign guys like us get it all the time. Having said that we banned US circling apps completely because of the ridiculous TERPS criteria. 2.3nm radius clearance for a large Boeing is practically unworkable.

- in case you missed it, "the times they are a'changing" (towards PAnsOps) as someone once said.

Anybody want to buy a used cowboy hat? :}

I reckon 8che's comments would have finished off 411A if he hadn't already gorn :)

nitpicker
 

thanks for having a sense of humor...too many have lost that in aviation!

Yeah, my bad. That's why it's easier to just say "the Carnarse" to the left.

And while it won't quite be PAN-OPS, the FAA is expanding circling mins. The 2.3 for CAT D will go to 3.6 at sea level with an extra .1 thrown in for ~ couple thousand feet above sea level.