Circling approach
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry guys, but the issue has somewhat gone astray: my question was just how do you perform (tecnique) the circling approach in your Company. This is because my Company wants to introduce landing flap configuration during the downwind leg. So my question is how many of you,if any out there, use the landing configuration during the downwind leg.
BD
BD
Guest
Posts: n/a
Black_Dawn - don't know the type you fly but what about the engine failure situation if you are taking landing (aka full) flap downwind?
To my mind this would be one definite reason against taking landing flap at this stage.
Nothing wrong with a circling approach if you have planned it well and are practised at it. As has been said previously, practice it in the sim first.
IMHO where a circling approach often starts to go "off the rails" at the beginning of the instrument approach. You have to ask yourself WHY you are circling? It means a) there is a significant wind blowing (otherwise you could do a straight in on the instrument approach) and b) the cloudbase/viz is relatively low (otherwise you could do a "normal" visual approach).
The wind situation means that you have to apply "unusual" wind corrections on the outbound part of the procedure and when you turn inbound your groundspeed is much higher than you are used to because a)you are probably flying the approach at higher IAS (due to config, etc.) and b) you have a tailwind!!
All this makes it all feel "unfamiliar" and then at the end of the instrument approach you then may have to fly a low level visual circuit.
Absolutely nothing wrong with all this so long as you know what you are doing!
------------------
To my mind this would be one definite reason against taking landing flap at this stage.
Nothing wrong with a circling approach if you have planned it well and are practised at it. As has been said previously, practice it in the sim first.
IMHO where a circling approach often starts to go "off the rails" at the beginning of the instrument approach. You have to ask yourself WHY you are circling? It means a) there is a significant wind blowing (otherwise you could do a straight in on the instrument approach) and b) the cloudbase/viz is relatively low (otherwise you could do a "normal" visual approach).
The wind situation means that you have to apply "unusual" wind corrections on the outbound part of the procedure and when you turn inbound your groundspeed is much higher than you are used to because a)you are probably flying the approach at higher IAS (due to config, etc.) and b) you have a tailwind!!
All this makes it all feel "unfamiliar" and then at the end of the instrument approach you then may have to fly a low level visual circuit.
Absolutely nothing wrong with all this so long as you know what you are doing!
------------------
Guest
Posts: n/a
Daytrader,
Bear in mind a higher Category with it's larger radii might also result in higher Circling Minimums.
Black_Dawn, I think Fireflybob makes some very good points. Also do you know how much power (fuel) it takes to fly level in a fully configured aircraft and how that would affect the approach climb performance. Maybe get your dispatch guys to run the numbers for you unless you guys use an OPC (onboard Performance Computer)then you can do it yourself.
I'm going to work tomorrow I'll put the numbers in the OPC and see what the results are. I'll let you know.
Bear in mind a higher Category with it's larger radii might also result in higher Circling Minimums.
Black_Dawn, I think Fireflybob makes some very good points. Also do you know how much power (fuel) it takes to fly level in a fully configured aircraft and how that would affect the approach climb performance. Maybe get your dispatch guys to run the numbers for you unless you guys use an OPC (onboard Performance Computer)then you can do it yourself.
I'm going to work tomorrow I'll put the numbers in the OPC and see what the results are. I'll let you know.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gspot
you're right about the approach climb gradient; about the fuel ,i don't think it's an issue: how many circling approaches do you make? quite an age the last one i did myself!My doubts came out when my chief said that using landing flaps on downwind, was now a common procedure in other european companies.I'm doubting about this.
So i'm asking.
BD
you're right about the approach climb gradient; about the fuel ,i don't think it's an issue: how many circling approaches do you make? quite an age the last one i did myself!My doubts came out when my chief said that using landing flaps on downwind, was now a common procedure in other european companies.I'm doubting about this.
So i'm asking.
BD
Guest
Posts: n/a
Circling approaches are certainly good sport in big aircraft. You both need to be well briefed about what you are going to do and how and you are going to fly the approach. Practice is certainly required which makes the latest change for LPC/OPC checks seem very strange, it is now only required once every 3 years in the sim. Anyone know if this is just us or does it apply to all JAA operators?. I know we don't so them very often but when you do it is demanding manoeuvre and I would like a crack at more often than every three years.
At the risk of opening a real can of worms, how about go-arounds from circling approaches? ie. what go-around do you fly from various stages of the approach. The CAA advice for this has changed several times in the last few years but whatever the rules say it is something you need to have a long hard think about before you shoot the approach to avoid other a/c flying the same approach (CFU for example, no help from ATC there I suspect).
At the risk of opening a real can of worms, how about go-arounds from circling approaches? ie. what go-around do you fly from various stages of the approach. The CAA advice for this has changed several times in the last few years but whatever the rules say it is something you need to have a long hard think about before you shoot the approach to avoid other a/c flying the same approach (CFU for example, no help from ATC there I suspect).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cowboy, Amos? I think it is gone already but thanks for the suggestion.
I did the FAA check ride and the examiner was adamant that I could not descend until on final. Maybe they are not up with their own regs.
As it happens I do fly big airplanes and the FAA (and comanpy limit) restricts us to 1000 feet/3 miles for circling, which is always way above the Category D minima. I therefore can descend to remain clear of cloud and still maintain terrain clearance. But can I do it legally?
But I would still consider it makes more sense to remain visual during the approach rather than fly at the circling minima if this altitude keeps me at the cloud base and unable to see where I am going.
What happened to common sense?
I did the FAA check ride and the examiner was adamant that I could not descend until on final. Maybe they are not up with their own regs.
As it happens I do fly big airplanes and the FAA (and comanpy limit) restricts us to 1000 feet/3 miles for circling, which is always way above the Category D minima. I therefore can descend to remain clear of cloud and still maintain terrain clearance. But can I do it legally?
But I would still consider it makes more sense to remain visual during the approach rather than fly at the circling minima if this altitude keeps me at the cloud base and unable to see where I am going.
What happened to common sense?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Black_Dawn, in the company I fly for, no need for landing flaps during the downwind. The things we have is to have the wheels out abeam, a "final check", i.e. ld flaps when turning final, and this final segment is to be minimum 30" or .5 NM for Cat C aircraft. But, landing flap can also have the advantage of reducing the turn radius, therefore enabling you to be closer to the runway and not to lose it.
Anybody able to tell me where I can find an IFR tolerance list containing those applying to MDH/A for all approaches, could'nt find it in the Jepp, but probably didn't look well enough...
------------------
... cut my wings and I'll die ...
Anybody able to tell me where I can find an IFR tolerance list containing those applying to MDH/A for all approaches, could'nt find it in the Jepp, but probably didn't look well enough...
------------------
... cut my wings and I'll die ...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gspot, the descent from MDA could be a matter of interpretation. The Canadian AIP says..."and remain at the circling MDA until a normal landing is assured." We always took that to mean intercept the final approach at the MDA.
Daytrader, I once did an IR renewal in very gusty conditions. After adding the gust factor, the inspector insisted the new airspeed would change our category from B to C, thus the higher circling limits would apply.
Max Angle, in this country, anyway, it's less a can of worms than you may think. The Canadian AIP says:
The pilot may have to conduct a missed approach after starting visual manoeuvers.
There are no standard procedures in this situation. Thus, unless the pilot is familiar with the terrain, it is recommended that:
(a) a climb be initiated;
(b) the aircraft be turned toward the center of the aerodrome; and
(c) the aircraft be established, as closely as possible, in the missed approach procedure published for the instrument approach procedure just completed.
[This message has been edited by pigboat (edited 28 June 2001).]
Daytrader, I once did an IR renewal in very gusty conditions. After adding the gust factor, the inspector insisted the new airspeed would change our category from B to C, thus the higher circling limits would apply.
Max Angle, in this country, anyway, it's less a can of worms than you may think. The Canadian AIP says:
The pilot may have to conduct a missed approach after starting visual manoeuvers.
There are no standard procedures in this situation. Thus, unless the pilot is familiar with the terrain, it is recommended that:
(a) a climb be initiated;
(b) the aircraft be turned toward the center of the aerodrome; and
(c) the aircraft be established, as closely as possible, in the missed approach procedure published for the instrument approach procedure just completed.
[This message has been edited by pigboat (edited 28 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
A few observations...
(a) re - electing to operate to the requirements for a higher category - there ought not to be any concern with this as categorisation is min speed dependent and operating to more restrictive standards should be viewed favourably by company lawyers, the Regulator, and the judge in the enquiry/action after the mishap ...
There is never any requirement which says that one MUST operate at the most critical limit - it may be a useful option, but not a prescription. Thus, to descend to the published minimum, for example by day in visual contact after a cloud break, if the circuit can be flown at a higher, more "normal" height, seems a little silly from a risk management viewpoint. This would be philosophically similar to conducting all turning operations at the limit load factor.
(b) if you elect to operate to a higher category, then it has to be all or nothing - while you get the benefit of an increased radius for circling protection there comes a downside with the attendent larger protected area - you also probably pick up some additional hard bits and this leads to the typically associated higher circling minimum altitude.
(c) be VERY, VERY wary about descending below the published minimum until on the normal approach path UNLESS you know VERY ACCURATELY what and where the obstructions are. It is very illustrative to check with the local procedures designers as to how they establish the minimum.
Unless someone actually goes out and does a survey of critical obstructions, and this is done in some cases by individual operators seeking either an alternative or just a better documented procedure, one ought to be very careful and cautious about the accuracy of the obstacle data used in routine procedure design.
The flight inspection test of the procedure (presuming that is, in fact, done) will pick up any gross errors but won't necessarily cover the brave chap stooging around at some significant height below the published minimum. It is all well and good to bandy intentions and expectations embodied in PANS-OPS or similar diagrams. However, at the end of the day, the operator or pilot who wants to predicate his actual height on the specific flightpath needs to be very sure of the specific obstacle profile.
(d) the question of a missed approach initiated from a circling approach is always contentious.
The simplest philosophy says that one turns toward the field and then tries to pick up the letdown published missed approach. This is often not so simple a matter.
I suggest that a better management procedure is that an operator, choosing to conduct (or permit) circling approaches at a specific aerodrome with other than benign surrounding terrain, ought to conduct an escape analysis similar to that which should be done for the takeoff case. After all, the two are much the same sort of thing, both from the point of problems and desired outcome.
(a) re - electing to operate to the requirements for a higher category - there ought not to be any concern with this as categorisation is min speed dependent and operating to more restrictive standards should be viewed favourably by company lawyers, the Regulator, and the judge in the enquiry/action after the mishap ...
There is never any requirement which says that one MUST operate at the most critical limit - it may be a useful option, but not a prescription. Thus, to descend to the published minimum, for example by day in visual contact after a cloud break, if the circuit can be flown at a higher, more "normal" height, seems a little silly from a risk management viewpoint. This would be philosophically similar to conducting all turning operations at the limit load factor.
(b) if you elect to operate to a higher category, then it has to be all or nothing - while you get the benefit of an increased radius for circling protection there comes a downside with the attendent larger protected area - you also probably pick up some additional hard bits and this leads to the typically associated higher circling minimum altitude.
(c) be VERY, VERY wary about descending below the published minimum until on the normal approach path UNLESS you know VERY ACCURATELY what and where the obstructions are. It is very illustrative to check with the local procedures designers as to how they establish the minimum.
Unless someone actually goes out and does a survey of critical obstructions, and this is done in some cases by individual operators seeking either an alternative or just a better documented procedure, one ought to be very careful and cautious about the accuracy of the obstacle data used in routine procedure design.
The flight inspection test of the procedure (presuming that is, in fact, done) will pick up any gross errors but won't necessarily cover the brave chap stooging around at some significant height below the published minimum. It is all well and good to bandy intentions and expectations embodied in PANS-OPS or similar diagrams. However, at the end of the day, the operator or pilot who wants to predicate his actual height on the specific flightpath needs to be very sure of the specific obstacle profile.
(d) the question of a missed approach initiated from a circling approach is always contentious.
The simplest philosophy says that one turns toward the field and then tries to pick up the letdown published missed approach. This is often not so simple a matter.
I suggest that a better management procedure is that an operator, choosing to conduct (or permit) circling approaches at a specific aerodrome with other than benign surrounding terrain, ought to conduct an escape analysis similar to that which should be done for the takeoff case. After all, the two are much the same sort of thing, both from the point of problems and desired outcome.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Black Dawn:
when i was with Asiana Airlines Nov 96-Mar 98, they had us gear down flaps 25 in the B737-400/500 on the circle before abeam the runway. i think on base, we went full flaps.
so many airlines and so many proceedures i get them confused sometimes.
i do honestly think that if you check four different airlines you will find 10 different ways to do the circle.
and we did quite a few into Pohang, Taegu, Kwangju and Cheju. before going there, all the circles i did was in a sim. there it was expected often.
all other questions aside, if the chief pilot wants me to circle at flaps 25, i will if i want to work there.
on one training flight to Pohang with good weather, on the downwind to base corner i started descending to shorten my circuit and as we were surrounded by mountains on the south and east while circling to land west, we ended up getting a good scenic turn amoungst the mountains. the training captain started yelling!! "Look!! the mountains!!!" as he was pointing in front on my face. i said, "Yeah, they're beautiful aren't they?"
we never lost sight of the runway nor the mountains and landed safely.
i passed the training.
though i admit that when i re-applied there last year they said no. it may have been also because i was very vocal about all the things i thought they were doing poorly.
so i have learned to say, "yes sir. thank you very muchee!" to the man with the pen in his hand, and then fly it the way it should be when he is gone.
but don't listen to me, i are just a peelot!
when i was with Asiana Airlines Nov 96-Mar 98, they had us gear down flaps 25 in the B737-400/500 on the circle before abeam the runway. i think on base, we went full flaps.
so many airlines and so many proceedures i get them confused sometimes.
i do honestly think that if you check four different airlines you will find 10 different ways to do the circle.
and we did quite a few into Pohang, Taegu, Kwangju and Cheju. before going there, all the circles i did was in a sim. there it was expected often.
all other questions aside, if the chief pilot wants me to circle at flaps 25, i will if i want to work there.
on one training flight to Pohang with good weather, on the downwind to base corner i started descending to shorten my circuit and as we were surrounded by mountains on the south and east while circling to land west, we ended up getting a good scenic turn amoungst the mountains. the training captain started yelling!! "Look!! the mountains!!!" as he was pointing in front on my face. i said, "Yeah, they're beautiful aren't they?"
we never lost sight of the runway nor the mountains and landed safely.
i passed the training.
though i admit that when i re-applied there last year they said no. it may have been also because i was very vocal about all the things i thought they were doing poorly.
so i have learned to say, "yes sir. thank you very muchee!" to the man with the pen in his hand, and then fly it the way it should be when he is gone.
but don't listen to me, i are just a peelot!
Guest
Posts: n/a
My Boeing 737 manual (not a company designed one, but the manufacturer's FTM), states flap 15 and gear down for the circling approach but as the aircraft turns on to base leg take landing flap and reduce to speed to Vref plus additives. Different config if one engine inop.
The real discussion should centre on circling approaches at night and at the circling visibility limit, which could be as low as 2.4 kms.
Obviously the circling MDA is there to protect you from terrain/obstacles. On a black night you will not see the controlling obstacle, but never fear, it has been worked out for you. It could even be near base leg.
Therefore on an inky night, you are committed for safety reasons to sticking to the circling MDA until on final with runway and or VASIS in view.
If a relatively high circling MDA means that on base you would have to descend in order to ensure a stabilized approach - then stiff cheddar, you should not be carrying out a circling approach in the first place. Same thing with downwind descent.
The designers of the chart MDA couldn't care less about your problems with a stable three degree descent from the circling MDA. That is your problem, not the chart designer.
Daytime circling is another story because one assumes you can see where you are going and descend as required providing you maintain legal safe visibility (runway in sight)and minimum legal obstacle clearance.
But night is the real killer on circling approaches. You can see the runway (I hope) but it is too black around you to see that unlit deadly hilltop, with its 100ft high trees, situated somewhere in your circling area - You know it is there somewhere, but its real black outside your windscreen so you cannot see a thing except the lit runway. Certainly the chart will not necessarily display the position of the controlling obstacle. Hence the danger.
Therefore you are only safe to descend below the chart MDA when you are established on final, within the circling distance limit for your category, and runway in sight. If that puts you too high to complete a stable approach, then that is your problem.
Regardless of all the FAA/JAA/ Afghanistan CAA rules in the world, the plain fact is that at night you have no choice (if you want to live) except to stay at the charted MDA until on final.
[This message has been edited by Centaurus (edited 28 June 2001).]
The real discussion should centre on circling approaches at night and at the circling visibility limit, which could be as low as 2.4 kms.
Obviously the circling MDA is there to protect you from terrain/obstacles. On a black night you will not see the controlling obstacle, but never fear, it has been worked out for you. It could even be near base leg.
Therefore on an inky night, you are committed for safety reasons to sticking to the circling MDA until on final with runway and or VASIS in view.
If a relatively high circling MDA means that on base you would have to descend in order to ensure a stabilized approach - then stiff cheddar, you should not be carrying out a circling approach in the first place. Same thing with downwind descent.
The designers of the chart MDA couldn't care less about your problems with a stable three degree descent from the circling MDA. That is your problem, not the chart designer.
Daytime circling is another story because one assumes you can see where you are going and descend as required providing you maintain legal safe visibility (runway in sight)and minimum legal obstacle clearance.
But night is the real killer on circling approaches. You can see the runway (I hope) but it is too black around you to see that unlit deadly hilltop, with its 100ft high trees, situated somewhere in your circling area - You know it is there somewhere, but its real black outside your windscreen so you cannot see a thing except the lit runway. Certainly the chart will not necessarily display the position of the controlling obstacle. Hence the danger.
Therefore you are only safe to descend below the chart MDA when you are established on final, within the circling distance limit for your category, and runway in sight. If that puts you too high to complete a stable approach, then that is your problem.
Regardless of all the FAA/JAA/ Afghanistan CAA rules in the world, the plain fact is that at night you have no choice (if you want to live) except to stay at the charted MDA until on final.
[This message has been edited by Centaurus (edited 28 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
A standard circling profile can't always be flown. For example when circling to Rwy 17 at UIO (elev 9213) due to rising terrain the final can be no more than 2 miles; final landing configuration and checklist must be completed, and descent started on base leg!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Centaurus,
You said - "If a relatively high circling MDA means that on base you would have to descend in order to ensure a stabilized approach - then stiff cheddar, you should not be carrying out a circling approach in the first place. Same thing with downwind descent."
Just curious if this is a company restriction or a personal limit you impose on yourself? As someone who is just about to begin their Instrument Rating I find this a valuable discussion.
As we all know, Jepp Australia Terminal para 3.11.3 says -
"...descent below the MDA may only occur when the pilot:
(a)...within circling area...
(b)...maintains specified vis...
(c)...maintains visual contact...
(c) by night or day, while complying with a,b and c, (at an altitude not less than MDA), intercepts a position on the downwind, base or final leg of the landing traffic pattern, and from this position can complete a continuous descent to the landing threshold, ... and maintains an obstacle clearance along the flight path not less than the minimum for the aircraft performance category until the aircraft is aligned with the landing runway."
I realise that it is impossible to see an unlit obstacle at night in crappy weather, but would the quoted spot heights suffice for this? i.e. spot height + 300'.
Any input on this would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
TL
------------------
"Tears, crying, wish you'd never learnt to fly. Should have taken that job at the Council."
You said - "If a relatively high circling MDA means that on base you would have to descend in order to ensure a stabilized approach - then stiff cheddar, you should not be carrying out a circling approach in the first place. Same thing with downwind descent."
Just curious if this is a company restriction or a personal limit you impose on yourself? As someone who is just about to begin their Instrument Rating I find this a valuable discussion.
As we all know, Jepp Australia Terminal para 3.11.3 says -
"...descent below the MDA may only occur when the pilot:
(a)...within circling area...
(b)...maintains specified vis...
(c)...maintains visual contact...
(c) by night or day, while complying with a,b and c, (at an altitude not less than MDA), intercepts a position on the downwind, base or final leg of the landing traffic pattern, and from this position can complete a continuous descent to the landing threshold, ... and maintains an obstacle clearance along the flight path not less than the minimum for the aircraft performance category until the aircraft is aligned with the landing runway."
I realise that it is impossible to see an unlit obstacle at night in crappy weather, but would the quoted spot heights suffice for this? i.e. spot height + 300'.
Any input on this would be greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
TL
------------------
"Tears, crying, wish you'd never learnt to fly. Should have taken that job at the Council."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Transition Layer,
Herein lies a few of the problems
(a) the spot heights are
(i) not without an error dependent on the accuracy of the source data used
(ii) usually are for ground level (at least in this neck of the woods) - you were going to have a stab at tree height etc. ? What about cultural development not shown ? The only way to get around this either is to use fairly recent OPMs and make local enquiries of public authorities or get out on shank's pony and have a look from the ground with a theodolite over the shoulder. The latter often has to be done with nasty aerodromes .... If access is difficult, I have even resorted to flying the local area in simulated OEI climbs to check the base data.
(b) the spot heights nominated may not be the only significant concerns in the area
(c) sometimes there is a drafting screwup. An operator with which I have an association recently found a letdown chart in which the critical obstruction was located under one of the navaid boxes - ie not shown on the plate
None of this is difficult, although it can be a right pain, but none of it is amenable to pilot decision-making on the run. Conservatism is most appropriate, especially at night, or in low visibility by day.
People may choose to view Centaurus' views as unnecessarily conservative .. but I will continue to be more comfortable in the cabin with that sort of attitude up front ...
You pays your money ... you takes your chances ...
[This message has been edited by john_tullamarine (edited 29 June 2001).]
Herein lies a few of the problems
(a) the spot heights are
(i) not without an error dependent on the accuracy of the source data used
(ii) usually are for ground level (at least in this neck of the woods) - you were going to have a stab at tree height etc. ? What about cultural development not shown ? The only way to get around this either is to use fairly recent OPMs and make local enquiries of public authorities or get out on shank's pony and have a look from the ground with a theodolite over the shoulder. The latter often has to be done with nasty aerodromes .... If access is difficult, I have even resorted to flying the local area in simulated OEI climbs to check the base data.
(b) the spot heights nominated may not be the only significant concerns in the area
(c) sometimes there is a drafting screwup. An operator with which I have an association recently found a letdown chart in which the critical obstruction was located under one of the navaid boxes - ie not shown on the plate
None of this is difficult, although it can be a right pain, but none of it is amenable to pilot decision-making on the run. Conservatism is most appropriate, especially at night, or in low visibility by day.
People may choose to view Centaurus' views as unnecessarily conservative .. but I will continue to be more comfortable in the cabin with that sort of attitude up front ...
You pays your money ... you takes your chances ...
[This message has been edited by john_tullamarine (edited 29 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
John T,
Thanks for clearing that up mate. Actually, just after I posted I read the small note above that Jepp reference I posted which says similar things about spot heights. (para 3.11.2)
From what I can gather, maintaining MDA until on final is the most sensible option, despite what the references might say. Like many things, it seems to come down to the interpretation and decision making of the PIC.
And like you say, nothing at all wrong with being conservative up front!
Thanks again.
TL
------------------
"Tears, crying, wish you'd never learnt to fly. Should have taken that job at the Council."
Thanks for clearing that up mate. Actually, just after I posted I read the small note above that Jepp reference I posted which says similar things about spot heights. (para 3.11.2)
From what I can gather, maintaining MDA until on final is the most sensible option, despite what the references might say. Like many things, it seems to come down to the interpretation and decision making of the PIC.
And like you say, nothing at all wrong with being conservative up front!
Thanks again.
TL
------------------
"Tears, crying, wish you'd never learnt to fly. Should have taken that job at the Council."
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm with Centaurus and john_t.
They are one black snake. Terrain or no.
In the serious corporate world, they are just not on. No precision approach no go, at least in IMC or at night.
So what if they are approved, unless you are seriously current, up to speed and regularly shoot the particular approach, it IMHO, for all intents and purposes does not exist. Especially single pilot ops.
Airline ops with currency and disciplined SOPS are another thing, but still require a very high level of awareness.
They are no mere intelectual exercise in execution.
Pucker factor 10.
They are one black snake. Terrain or no.
In the serious corporate world, they are just not on. No precision approach no go, at least in IMC or at night.
So what if they are approved, unless you are seriously current, up to speed and regularly shoot the particular approach, it IMHO, for all intents and purposes does not exist. Especially single pilot ops.
Airline ops with currency and disciplined SOPS are another thing, but still require a very high level of awareness.
They are no mere intelectual exercise in execution.
Pucker factor 10.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Folks,
Very interesting discussion, particularly the latter twist.
Yes, if one has the luxury of avoiding circling approaches, take the option.
However, maintaining MDA until established on finals is often creating a greater potential risk than it may be intended to avoid. For PANS-OPS players, the protected airspace is fairly large and you may well be able to use the airspace to your advantage in achieving a reasonable finals profile from MDA - provided you have and maintain adequate visibility. For TERPS players, the protected airspace is ridiculously small (compare Cat C PANS-OPS at 4.2nm with CAT C TERPS at 1.7nm!!) and rolling out on high final (or was that high high high final) may well invite the unstabilised death dive that seems to cause more accidents then flying into the ground while descending around base.
Yes, there are some difficulties in getting adequate data for procedure design but PANS-OPS does include factors for many of the issues that JT raises. We should generally remember that aircraft operate into these places by day and as part of their normal circuit operations will invariably identify obstacle issues and, more variably, report problems to the procedure designers. Thus, even if a procedure is not flight tested, you are not totally committing to the unknown.
Furthermore, ICAO requires route and aerodrome qualification for scheduled operations - specifically so that you are not taking a sh*tload of passengers on a voyage of discovery during a circling approach at night. Charter operators face a more difficult problem, but not an insurmountable problem if one is prepared to invest the time and resources.
So, how do I manage the risk of descending at the appropriate point on the cicrling flight path? I work out where I should be at my OCH on finals (for me +400ft) and then I work back up and around the base turn to plan some gates (let's say +800ft mid base and +1200ft commencing the turn). If I commence the base turn abeam my finals roll-out point, then I should be about 1.2nm past abeam the threshold. Note that under TERPS that is as far as I can afford to go before turning!! Now I look at the circling minima and work out what I have to do to intercept that flight path.
As much as I hate them, it is the planning, practice and pucker factor that drives the discipline to get them right. But there is a big difference between respect and fear - find a way to get rid of the latter in favour of the former. And until we have straight-in approaches everywhere, circling is still going to exist and will still need to be approached professionally.
------------------
Stay Alive,
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by 4dogs (edited 29 June 2001).]
Very interesting discussion, particularly the latter twist.
Yes, if one has the luxury of avoiding circling approaches, take the option.
However, maintaining MDA until established on finals is often creating a greater potential risk than it may be intended to avoid. For PANS-OPS players, the protected airspace is fairly large and you may well be able to use the airspace to your advantage in achieving a reasonable finals profile from MDA - provided you have and maintain adequate visibility. For TERPS players, the protected airspace is ridiculously small (compare Cat C PANS-OPS at 4.2nm with CAT C TERPS at 1.7nm!!) and rolling out on high final (or was that high high high final) may well invite the unstabilised death dive that seems to cause more accidents then flying into the ground while descending around base.
Yes, there are some difficulties in getting adequate data for procedure design but PANS-OPS does include factors for many of the issues that JT raises. We should generally remember that aircraft operate into these places by day and as part of their normal circuit operations will invariably identify obstacle issues and, more variably, report problems to the procedure designers. Thus, even if a procedure is not flight tested, you are not totally committing to the unknown.
Furthermore, ICAO requires route and aerodrome qualification for scheduled operations - specifically so that you are not taking a sh*tload of passengers on a voyage of discovery during a circling approach at night. Charter operators face a more difficult problem, but not an insurmountable problem if one is prepared to invest the time and resources.
So, how do I manage the risk of descending at the appropriate point on the cicrling flight path? I work out where I should be at my OCH on finals (for me +400ft) and then I work back up and around the base turn to plan some gates (let's say +800ft mid base and +1200ft commencing the turn). If I commence the base turn abeam my finals roll-out point, then I should be about 1.2nm past abeam the threshold. Note that under TERPS that is as far as I can afford to go before turning!! Now I look at the circling minima and work out what I have to do to intercept that flight path.
As much as I hate them, it is the planning, practice and pucker factor that drives the discipline to get them right. But there is a big difference between respect and fear - find a way to get rid of the latter in favour of the former. And until we have straight-in approaches everywhere, circling is still going to exist and will still need to be approached professionally.
------------------
Stay Alive,
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by 4dogs (edited 29 June 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
The circling approach at UIO (Quito, Ecuador)
requires 8 km visibility, so in fact it becomes a visual approach with an MDA of 10,500' (elev 9213) and I don't believe it's authorized at night, although the Jeppesen chart doesn't say that. The airport is listed as "Special Airport Qualification."
In any case, it's a 2 mile final for Rwy 17!
requires 8 km visibility, so in fact it becomes a visual approach with an MDA of 10,500' (elev 9213) and I don't believe it's authorized at night, although the Jeppesen chart doesn't say that. The airport is listed as "Special Airport Qualification."
In any case, it's a 2 mile final for Rwy 17!