Airblue down near Islamabad

[411A]

The 'radius' is 2.3 nautics based on the end of each runway

The slight problem then remains, if the reported visibility is 2 miles, and you fly more than 2 miles from the intended landing runway, you may well lose sight of the runway, and thereby not be able to complete the circling approach, because, a circling approach is a visual maneuver, and the runway must be kept in sight at all times, under FAA rules.
No exceptions.
Further, we then can see just why some aircraft have crashed doing these circling approaches...simply because the pilot(s) simply did not follow the laid down procedure/applicable regulations.
During a check ride with an FAA inspector, once outside that two mile radius (equivelent to the minimum prevailing visibility)...you have failed that portion of said check, and are sent back for more training.

A simple concept to grasp...except for a small minority of folks.

Nothing especially wrong with Terps, it is the folks that do not understand the critiera, and how these critiera, are administered by FAA inspectors...and, should be followed by line pilots, during normal line operations, that are part of the problem.

PansOps?
A different kettle of fish, altogether.

[dvv]

So, 411A, what if the visibility is 3sm? Do we still have to circle within 2sm from the runway? Even if TERPS says we have about ½ nm more of leeway?

[BOAC]

You still haven't got this, have you? It is unbelievable (or actually not). In spite of all those 'years' aceing 'tight circuits', 'wowing' the F/Os and rubbishing everyone else you have NO idea what the '2 Statute miles' means, do you? Look it up - or ask a pilot.

Now, any 'FAA inspector' who failed ME for flying more than 2 STATUTE miles away from datum but inside 2.3 NAUTICAL MILES AND with the 'environment' in sight and an IFV of at least 2 SM would, I assure you, him or herself be 'failed' for talking out of their arse.

Here is another help for you regarding keeping the 'runway in sight':

FAR 91.175(e)(2) requires you to keep an identifiable part of the airport
in distinct view, except when banking temporarily blocks the view.

[411A]

Even with specials, the FAA would not reduce the circling protected airspace.

They would not, however, the FAA could very well (and do, routinely) issue Ops Specs that are more restrictive for certain operators, operating under 14CFR121.
Examples would be...no circling allowed, or not allowed to certain runways, even though circling is indicated on the Jeppesen approach chart...and not all operators use tailored charts but general issue, restriced by said Ops Specs.

FAR 91.175(e)(2)

These regulations do not apply specifically (in many respects) to 14CFR121 operators, and the operation of heavy jet aircraft.
Try again, BOAC.

Now, any 'FAA inspector' who failed ME for flying more than 2 STATUTE miles away from datum but inside 2.3 NAUTICAL MILES AND with the 'environment' in sight and an IFV of at least 2 SM would, I assure you, him or herself be 'failed' for talking out of their arse.

You would still not be issued the type rating.

So, 411A, what if the visibility is 3sm? Do we still have to circle within 2sm from the runway?

Negative, you circle to the indicated distance, because, with a heavy jet airplane, the minimum circling altitude is normally increased to allow circling at that increased distance....or, the altitude indicated within your airlines approved Ops Specs.

[flyawaybird]

PIA lack reports of air accidents since 62 years ago

This is regard to ICAO having power to enforce report of accidents from member airliners.

I once worked with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in early 80s. The following is contained in one of their documents.

The Establishment of ICAO after Second World included a commitment of signatories to abide by common mesures to ensure safety in International Air Transportation (IAT). The organization, however, has limited powers of enforcement. The International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) Program was initiated by the US to ensure that countries with services involving US meet ICAO Safety Oversight Standards.

This paper makes use of the IASA assessment procedure to examine factors that influence whether contries are conforming to ICAO Safety Standards.
This brings us back to PIA whether or not PIA conforms to these standards and if not what penalty would PIA given for not submitting accidents reports in 62 years of their air operation.

If so can IASA intervene, so that PIA can be forced to be transparent?

One can find out more in ICAO Standards Procedures in air safety.

[RetiredF4]

Circling

Forgive me to interrupt with my old brain,

my last circling approach happened some 15 years ago, everything mentioned feels familiar, except two things wich i remember different.

We only had to keep an identifiable part of the airport in sight during circling, not the runway itself. And i think TERPs is still the same.

The reported visibility to allow the beginning of a circling approach and to get a clearance for it was measured RVR. To fly the approach we used inflight visibility and airport environment in sight.

So i dont understand the discussion, that the measured RVR restricts the published circling area. By the way, when was the last time that RVR coresponded with inflight vis?


franzl

[BOAC]

dvv - make of that what you will. It appears (if I read that confusing reply correctly) that poor old 411A is not allowed to use the whole TERPS manouvering area whilst lesser mortals can go out to the full 2.3nm? Are the FAA afraid he will get lost that far out?

[dvv]

411A, what "indicated distance" are you talking about? Let's say, the field is at 192', the chart says "800-2" and the visibility is 3sm with the cloud deck at, say, 900' AGL. What do we do?

[aguadalte]

www.kwauk.com/Files/Circling_Approach.ppt

[mm43]

aguadalte;

Looks like the link is incorrect. The following should work -

Circling Approach

mm43

[411A]

dvv...

Quote:
Let's say, the field is at 192', the chart says "800-2" and the visibility is 3sm with the cloud deck at, say, 900' AGL. What do we do?

What do your individual ops specs say?
You have these, yes or no?

If your ops specs say to use charted minimums, you would be expected to...
circle no lower than 992msl and to not diviate more than two miles from the intended landing runway.
Note: if however, the ceiling was a good deal higher than the charted minimum, extending beyond two miles from the airport, is allowed....but not greater than three, whilst maintaining visual terrain clearance, and the landing runway clearly in sight.
If, upon reaching circling minimums, you lost sight of the intended landing runway at any time, you would be expected to fly a missed approach procedure, with the first turn toward the airport, then follow the charted missed approach procedure..

Some air carriers, unable to accept this, will therefore be issued Ops Specs that mandate higher than charted minimums, thereby allowing a greater level of safety.

The USFAA is very distinct about this, contrary to what others (without any FAA training), might suspect.
IE: the devil is in the details.
Terps is highly restrictive whilst circling, with good reason.

[PJ2]

For those wishing the ICAO Document 8168 - Aircraft Operations, (PANS-OPS), the link is here.

PJ2

[dvv]

411A, I'm a bit lost in all these words. So let's try one more time. Here's the piece of the chart I'm talking about:



For the sake of this discussion, the ops says to use charted minimums. The ceiling, like I said, is at 900' AGL, the visibility is 3SM. So exactly what numbers should we stick to for our category D aircraft? A FAR/AIM reference in support of your reasoning will be greatly appreciated.

[protectthehornet]

ok, for once I'm not going to just blame the airbus.

circling to land in real ''weather'' can be dangerous. as most people know, in the USA we (at major airlines) have all but given them up...although we do allow circling in basic vfr conditions (1000' and 3 statue miles).

to go back to basics, all runways served by jet airliners should have ILS or equivilent to all runways so no circling would be required.

I am very sorry to hear about this crash. a great tragedy.

could water ingestion in the engines have caused a problem which took the crew's attention away from navigating/flying the circle????

[p51guy]

Having circled to land my last 6 years of flying because of the airport we flew in to I can't imagine being distracted by anything to fly so far out of the protected area for a circle to land approach. The CVR and FDR will explain what they were doing during that long period of not following proper procedures. Even an engine failure would be secondary to terrain avoidance. They were 7 miles from the airport when they crashed circling?

[411A]

So exactly what numbers should we stick to for our category D aircraft?

800-2, no lower than 800aal, until in a position to begin a normal descent for landing, and...no more than two miles from the runway (threshold) of intending landing, during the circling maneuver.
This is precisely what the FAA inspector expects to see during a type check in the category D airplane, or simulator.

It's all in the FAA Inspectors Handbook.
Call in at an FAA Flight Standards District Office if you would like to see for yourself.

[fireflybob]

Can't comment on the FAA rules but in the UK there was always a requirement for an IN FLIGHT VISIBILITY for circling AND also a minimum reported vis/RVR for the runway on which one intended to land.

For Cat C the IFV requirment was 3700 metres and (typically) 600 metres RVR (or greater if no approach lights etc) minimum rvr for the landing runway.

So for the FAA minimum is the 2 statute miles the minimum IFV for the circle but the 2.3 miles the protected area for circling?

In the company I fly for we circle on a regular basis but have structured procedures for doing so and are well trained for all the options and how to carry out a missed approach if visual reference is lost. Circling is perfectly safe so long as you obey the rules.

[Gulfcapt]

Prayers to the family members of the deceased. No amount of fact or rumor will lessen their grief.

Correct me if I'm wrong (as if I really need to write that...) but the 2.3nm TERPS number being bantered about is an obstacle clearance zone, not an approach vis. The minimums Dvv posted in #215 show 2sm for Cat D mins. Circling at 2sm obviously is within the obstacle clearance protection provided for by TERPS. A circle conducted at 3sm from the runway would be outside this protection and it would fall upon the crew to see and avoid obstacles.

Here in the USA, circling approaches are checked in the sim at airports the FAA has determined meet the requirement of maintaining visual contact with the airport; KJFK, KMEM and KPDX seem to be the normal ones. It is made clear during training that we may not begin the circle until we are within the TERPS obstacle clearance zone, even if we have the airport in sight sooner.

7 miles - statue or nautical - seems awful far from the airport for a circling approach...

[411A]

It is made clear during training that we may not begin the circle until we are within the TERPS obstacle clearance zone, even if we have the airport in sight sooner.

Absolutely correct, and consistant with FAA procedures.

[dvv]

Gulfcapt, no question about 2sm being within the TERPS boundaries and 3sm being without ones. The question is - is circling at, say, 2nm from that 16L in #215 legit when the visibility is 3sm?