Circling approach
Guest
Posts: n/a
JT---
Not any time in Europe they won't. The Luddite group steadfastly refuse to use GPS for approaches, straight in or circling. They want "their own" system with "their own" agency running the show.
Still, that's quite OK. For those of us on the western side of the great divide, GPS works just fine, thank you very much.
Not any time in Europe they won't. The Luddite group steadfastly refuse to use GPS for approaches, straight in or circling. They want "their own" system with "their own" agency running the show.
Still, that's quite OK. For those of us on the western side of the great divide, GPS works just fine, thank you very much.
Guest
Posts: n/a
4Dogs
Ouch !! touche mon ami, a truly valid point, but I do recognise the fear factor 
To achieve that to which you so succintly observe, I guess in the end it comes down to resources. As you would be well aware the ad hoc nature of corporate and charter ops usually involves sometimes once off only visits to some really odd places that may be quite routine to others. Other than seek local knowledge and if you have the time, set it up in a simulator, which in Oz is majorly difficult if not impossible, you usually have to make a time driven go no go call on available resources. I suspect the decision I would make today would be different to that I would have made a decade ago. Advancing age seems to bring an increasing level of wussdom
I guess what I am rambling on about here was brought home to me in relation to the recent Gulfstream accident in Aspen, whilst not necessarily the scenario under discussion here, has the Human Factors similarities of which we speak.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">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.</font>
To achieve that to which you so succintly observe, I guess in the end it comes down to resources. As you would be well aware the ad hoc nature of corporate and charter ops usually involves sometimes once off only visits to some really odd places that may be quite routine to others. Other than seek local knowledge and if you have the time, set it up in a simulator, which in Oz is majorly difficult if not impossible, you usually have to make a time driven go no go call on available resources. I suspect the decision I would make today would be different to that I would have made a decade ago. Advancing age seems to bring an increasing level of wussdom
I guess what I am rambling on about here was brought home to me in relation to the recent Gulfstream accident in Aspen, whilst not necessarily the scenario under discussion here, has the Human Factors similarities of which we speak.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I just wanted to remind folks that the NTSB, following an airliner's serious incident doing the straight-in VOR to Hartford, Connecticut's (BDL "Windsor Locks") runway 15, partly blamed the FAA's terrain charting for the near-disaster. The jet's landing gear (and an engine?) went through some tree limbs and they barely made it from the hill to the runway. The FAA's charting criteria apparently was not conservative, and the approach was redesigned, was it not?
How much are you going to trust the FAA's circling criteria for an HAA, knowing that even a straight-in non-precision approach might not allow enough height over the terrain at the MDA?
How much are you going to trust the FAA's circling criteria for an HAA, knowing that even a straight-in non-precision approach might not allow enough height over the terrain at the MDA?
