Airblue down near Islamabad

[Gulfcapt]

Dvv, I think I understand your point. So long as you are within the TERPS obstacle protection zone, meet the flight vis required for the approach and maintain visual contact with the runway, you would be "legit" to circle...

[Captain-Crunch]

First of all, while a good post with good points, the heading "Pope" guy is wrong afaik. 737, 747, 727, BAe146, Bizjets, (Collins, Sperry, King etc) and dozens of GA aircraft with HSI's, took the shortest distance to the preset heading bug and turned towards it when heading select was engaged. Airbus is the only one I ever flew that would do a 270 degree turn the wrong direction since it remembered which way you initially turned the knob on the last approach. Crazy.

My memory, back when we did circles, was that it was up to the PIC to remain within the terps or pan-ops obstacle protection "cloud" and maintain visual with the threshold. Since say, the vis is reported in Statue miles, and there's no Statue Mile Display in the aircraft, the obvious question becomes, how do you measure it?

Even if you had an ILS DME readout on the landing runway 12 that you cranked in just to get the raw number to the threshold, just to make the calc easy, that readout is in Nautical Miles. So:

2sm = ~1.7nm . Right?

So by 411A's description, you couldn't see 1.8 clicks on the meter on the downwind to base or it was a bust; is that right?

Now part 91 and supplemental, as another poster mentioned, maybe for a time had a loophole out of this tight circuit, whereby the crew could go to 2.2 nm (terps) or 5.x nm (just shy of pan-ops protection) if the pilot's vis was better than reported, however, the flight crew took responsibility for visual separation with terrain, IIRC.

So here's my bitch: Why are op specs and some visability still reported in statue miles? Are we in a car here?

Why the hell are we still using a primitive 1970's Green Screen FMS with awkward command-line interface instead of GUI (graphical user interface) which every kid with a mobile phone has?

Just so Honeywell can have a monopoly and keep employing FMS programers whome no two program the Byzantine crap software the same at any two airports in the world?

Talk about no standardization! There is no standardization between FMS waypoint programers. None!

For a while, the crap would work O.K. and you'd start getting used to it's idiosyncrasies. Then you'd fly up to NRT and on the SID, even though the primary flt plan showed it going to the VOR first, and then turning onto course, the Airbus would cut the freaking corner early sending ATC into orbit.

No one could fix it for years, so you just had to be ready to:

disconnect: reconnect
disconnect: reconnect
disconnect: reconnect
disconnect: reconnect
disconnect: reconnect, all night long.

Turb on apprch? Thrust Latch, here comes another acrobatic tail slide!

ding ding ding ding ding ding......

Who the hell designed this freaking mad computer in place of an airplane? The only way not to get killed was to hand fly it all the time. But then the Glass-Generation F/O's would cry: that damn "hand job" Capt is overloading me!!!!!!! I can't talk on the mike and turn the heading knob at the same time!!!!

If you ask me, the arguments I've read on this thread, that the Captain was an experienced 747 Capt mean absolutely nothing. On the airbus you are no longer really a pilot (if you always fly at the highest level of automation as they wanted you to); you are now an FSS: Flight System Supervisor.

Why do Circle to Lands a poster asked? So you don't run off the runway with a twenty knot tailwind, that's why. If you'll turn off and just quit phucking with all that electric jet chit, and all that performance chit, and just use raw data, and have two guy's heads looking out the window, this sort of silly accident might not happen. (That is, if it is indeed, a CFIT accident, as it appears to be.)

That's what I think anyway.

CC

[411A]

So by 411A's description, you couldn't see 1.8 clicks on the meter on the downwind to base or it was a bust; is that right?

Yes, with the vast majority of FAA inspectors.
However, a few might allow you to go to 2.0 DME (thus insuring remaining within the 2.3 mile radius), if they were in a good mood and the other maneuvers were up to snuff, accuracy-wise, however, the runway must never be out of sight.
The circling maneuver is supposed to be completed (for a type check) in an all engines operating configuration (3 or 4 engine airplane), however, some inspectors would fail an engine during (or just prior) to the circling maneuver, just to make you work a littler harder.

I have no idea what the twin engine guys do, as I don't fly a twin.

Why are op specs and some visability still reported in statue miles?

Because, that is the way it is done in the USA. However, as I fly outside the USA most of the time, I prefer meters (metres)

[ironbutt57]

It may be that there was some weather avoidance going on at the time

[dvv]

Well, I've searched in the FAA document with a very telling name of

AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT
AND AIRCRAFT TYPE RATING
Practical Test Standards
for
AIRPLANE

It's the document that the Inspectors Handbook (which is a part of FAA Order 8900.1 Flight Standards Information Management System now) refers to. There's nothing there that requires that circling approaches should be performed at the circling visibility minimum values, only that it should be determined that the applicant "In simulated or actual instrument conditions to MDA, accomplishes the circling approach selected by the examiner", and, of course, the examiner might choose to "simulate" the conditions all the way down to the minimums. Otherwise, apart from the obvious requirements to stay in visual contact with the runway and not to bust the TERPS limits, the objective is to determine that the applicant (amongst other things irrelevant to this discussion):

[…]
8. Performs the procedure without excessive maneuvering and
without exceeding the normal operating limits of the airplane
(the angle of bank should not exceed 30°).
9. Maintains the desired altitude within −0, +100 feet, heading/
track within ±5°, the airspeed/V-speed within ±5 knots, but
not less than the airspeed as specified in the POH or the
AFM.
[…]

BTW, 30° bank at 150kts gives you the radius of about ⅔nm, which technically allows for flying downwind as close as 1⅓nm from the runway centerline (adjust for deviations from the standard conditions and wind).

[411A]

accomplishes the circling approach selected by the examiner", and, of course, the examiner might choose to "simulate" the conditions all the way down to the minimums.

You can expect this, in a jet transport airplane.

[dvv]

Which doesn't mean that every real life circling approach happens with the weather at the minimums.

[PopeSweetJesus]

First of all, while a good post with good points,

Thanks 'Crunch Guy'

the heading "Pope" guy is wrong afaik. 737, 747, 727, BAe146, Bizjets, (Collins, Sperry, King etc) and dozens of GA aircraft with HSI's, took the shortest distance to the preset heading bug and turned towards it when heading select was engaged. Airbus is the only one I ever flew that would do a 270 degree turn the wrong direction since it remembered which way you initially turned the knob on the last approach. Crazy

.

I guess we could play what a/c have you flown back and forth, as I flown some of the same ones you've mentioned, but I think my overall point remains the same-you have to understand what your current plane will do in a given situation whether or not it's what you're used to or whether you agree with the philosophy or not. I've flown some airplanes that will do what the 727 does, but I've flown more that will do what the Bus does and not all were Airbus. Both setups have presented me with 'gotchas' from time to time in a certain situations, which is why I feel you just have to know what your plane's gonna do, think ahead and deal with it. There are no standards for such things, and likely never will be so it is what it is.

The only way not to get killed was to hand fly it all the time. But then the Glass-Generation F/O's would cry: that damn "hand job" Capt is overloading me!!!!!!! I can't talk on the mike and turn the heading knob at the same time!!!!

Quite accurate as I've been there as well, but I've also seen quite a few older gen Capt's who act the same way when you hand fly glass airplanes. Also it's not just glass airplanes. You could make the same type of comments about some older planes like the 727's with the old SP-50 autopilots. There are a lot of situations where using them is far more work than just flying the airplane yourself, but most airlines training programs encourage using the 'automation' anyway and you'll find guys who'll freak out when you don't. It's more than just the glass generation F/O's, it's the training styles that have affected all in one way or another over the last 20+ years or so.

[Centaurus]

but most airlines training programs encourage using the 'automation' anyway and you'll find guys who'll freak out when you don't.

Dead right about that. To take it to a ridiculous degree, at least one Australian regional airline flying turbo-props employs cadet pilots as second in command with a total of 250 hours and "strongly recommends" (for that read do as you are told) they use the autopilot as much as possible even to flying CAVOK circuits on autopilot as long as they disconnect the autopilot by 100 feet. These are the airline captains of the future brought up on a diet of fear of hand flying.

[411A]

Which doesn't mean that every real life circling approach happens with the weather at the minimums.

Seems entirely reasonable to me.

...they use the autopilot as much as possible even to flying CAVOK circuits on autopilot as long as they disconnect the autopilot by 100 feet. These are the airline captains of the future brought up on a diet of fear of hand flying.

Definitely a step in the wrong direction, from my perspective.

[fromSIN]

Black Box Recovered

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Crashed Air Blue flight's black box found: report

[Meekal]

According to a credible person (one of our highly decorated fighter pilot's -- now retired) the Airblue aircraft was in GA mode when it disappeared into mist and cloud.

[aterpster]

RetiredF4:

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.

RVR controls only for a runway, it does not a substitute for prevailing visibility. So, under U.S. rules, commercial ops cannot begin a CTL unless the prevailing visibility is not less than the visibility minimum shown on the chart for your category of CTL. Typically, that would be 2 s.m. for Appch Cat D. Now, if the prevailing visibility is indeed 2 s.m. (or greater) but RVR is being reported for the runway to which you intend to circle, you have a problem. (RVR is not reported in the U.S. greater than 6,000.)

BTW, RVR in the U.S. is not visibility, it represents the "sighting conditions" (FAA's term, not mine) you can expect to have upon touchdown in the TDZ.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by meekal

the Airblue aircraft was in GA mode when it disappeared into mist and cloud.

- I think we would probably have assumed that without any black boxes!

Aterpster - under PansOps you could finish up with an IFV of, say 6k, but an RVR of 1000m in shallow fog and still be 'legal' to circle. PansOps min RVR for a visual approach being typically 800m

[aterpster]

dvv:

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.

Reported ceiling has no legality as whether you can circle. But, 900-3 would mean the surface area (I presume you are operating in surface airspace at the time) means the surface area is not VFR. So, you cannot request a visual, thus you must remain within 2.3 nautical miles of any portion of any runway, which is available and legal for CTL and landing.

(contact approaches don't apply to this discussion )

[Gulfcapt]

Capt. Crunch, concur on your rant (and I mean rant in a good way). A future of cockpits filled with FSS is more than a little concerning.

Circling maneuvers are always checked in the sim at minimums, no if-ands-or-buts. On occasion, when I've been lucky enough to draw an evil checkairman, I've circled on one engine. Not a big deal in a Gulfstream cause its overpowered at most landing weights.

Automation SOP's that encourage use of the highest level of automation are shallow at best. I like Continental's as it emphasizes that their pilots must be proficient in all levels of automation. It really pisses me off when I go to the schoolhouse and hear the phrase "Captain Honeywell." Sparky is always relegated to the first officer position when I'm aboard.

Automation can make a weak pilot look average and a strong pilot look ordinary.

Also concur with Pope...the SP-50 autopilot wasn't exactly a labor-saving device. We had them in the Gulfstream II; lotsa fun having the autopilot and the FD doing two different things!

[aterpster]

411A:

Absolutely correct (not departing the electronic guidance until within the circling maneuvering area), and consistant with FAA procedures.

I don't know what FAA procedures you're speaking of, but in the U.S. remaining within the circling maneuvering area is a matter of regulation. That applies anywhere around the runways of the airport.

[aterpster]

ironbutt57:

It may be that there was some weather avoidance going on at the time.

Circle to land and weather avoidance mix like oil and water. But, indeed, that may have been the case with this accident.

[aterpster]

411A:

Because, that is the way it is done in the USA. However, as I fly outside the USA most of the time, I prefer meters (metres)

Outside the U.S. I find 5+ n.m. for circling protection to be far preferable to the FAA's 2.3 n.m. Since your Part 121 operations are outside the U.S. most of the time, do your agust FAA inspectors and handlers test you on knowing when an airport is 2.3 for cicling and when it's 5+ ("+" is because PANS-OPS, unlike TERPs, wisely increase the limit with airport elevation).

If the feds (and the airline trainers) don't train and check to those significant international differences, then they are not doing their job.

And, what if the Jepp chart for ABC Airport in Country Z doesn't proclaim either TERPS or PANS-OPS on the lower left margin of the chart?

[aguadalte]

link

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

Circling Approach

mm43

Thanks mm43.