Circle to land minimas

[BOAC]

"I wonder which missed approach he would chose to fly?" - yes, that would be interesting, but of course - he is a TRE/I...............

[aterpster]

BOAC:

So why is there no CM for the 19 plate? 8240 would not seem unreasonable.

Current FAA policy is to not publish CTL minima on an approach with vertical guidance and only a DA. I would like to see "with precision minimums only" because that has more clarity, but LPV does not yet have the ICAO stamp of approval to be classified as precision.

[OK465]

Actually the strange thing here is that there is NOT an LNAV line of minima on the 19 procedure? Then the Captain could have his opposite direction circling mins...which might even be higher like KMRY.

Have you ever seen any other RNAV (GPS) with only an LPV line of minima?

[galaxy flyer]

Speaking of the miss, ask said TRI what would happen in the FMS when he pressed TOGA circling around to the opposite runway.

GF

[Valmont]

I had to fly one other rotation with this dude, you would'nt believe what he did to me today... I think the think the CP wont like what i'll have to say.

BOAC, we're using Jepp.

With the Yellowstone example, i would'nt try a RWY 19 approach circle to land 01 as it doesn't seem to be an option looking at the plate.

GF, he'll tell me that he'd rejoin the initial MA procedure, we already talked about it.

Aterpster, BOAC got a point. Thanks for giving examples though, we got a good discussion going on .

[bubbers44]

Circle to land minimums are on the approach plate you are using. Sometimes it says which way you have to circle but that is all you care about. Do not ever look at other approach charts, use the approach you are doing because it is all there. Keep it simple because that is why you only need one approach chart.

[16024]

I would'nt try a RWY 19 approach circle to land 01

And neither would I!
I'm not familiar with that field, but looking at the terrain I think circling off the 19 approach could lead to a world of pain.
There's probably a good reason a circling approach isn't published, and the trainer of the OP needs to think very carefully before going off piste.

[BOAC]

Thanks Valmont - I have never seen that 'comment' on a Jepp plate. Can you tell me which which approach please?

What is this issue with circling off 19? If there were minima published (and it would probably be 8240 - but missing as Aterp explained) there should be no 'terrain' issue at all. This shows a basic misunderstanding of what a circling area is.

Aterp - how far away is recognition of LPV in ICAO? As OK says, why no LNAV for 19? Mind you, we may not have seen all the plates?

[aterpster]

BOAC:

What is this issue with circling off 19? If there were minima published (and it would probably be 8240 - but missing as Aterp explained) there should be no 'terrain' issue at all. This shows a basic misunderstanding of what a circling area is.

There is no issue with publishing CTL on the LPV 19. The issue is FAA policy. They used to publish CTL on an IAP with precision-only minimums, or Decision Altitude only, if you will. They changed the policy some three or four years ago. There apparently is an obstacle or obstacles that interfere with a 3-degree gradient LNAV path and a 3-degree VNAV path. LPV uses far different containment areas; basically ILS criteria with their "troughs."

How far away is recognition of LPV in ICAO? As OK says, why no LNAV for 19? Mind you, we may not have seen all the plates?

No idea about ICAO on this.

As to LNAV it may have worked with a steeper descent gradient but that would require a second IAP (Y and Z), which the FAA presumably didn't want to do at this location. Or some obstacle to the left or right of the ILS/LPV lateral areas caused LNAV too steep to meet criteria. Can't tell without the FAA work records.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by aterp

There is no issue with publishing CTL on the LPV 19

- we have moved on from that - you explained why earlier. The issue is about flying a CTL off 19 - see posts #26 and #28 where I assume posters are concerned about the 'terrain' which indicates a possible lack of understanding of the principle behind CTL areas under both TERPS and PANSOPS.

[roulishollandais]

Legitime autority of the Captain still exists

Originally Posted by RAT 5 #13

I wouldn't crucify the guy though, even if he's a training CA. He IS human right...?

What's the difference between God & a Training Captain? God doesn't think he's a training captain.

In flight you have to obey to the Captain

Ouch! What happened to CRM, advocacy and CREW concept? I hope your tongue was firmly in your cheek.

"we're about the crash captain." "No we're not; keep going." "We're about to crash captain." "No we're not; keep.........oh f@ £k. Wrong again."

Was it not a DC-10 crashing in MAD where the last words from the Captain when he cancelled the GPWS were, "shut up gringo."

OPS 1.090 Autorité du commandant de bord
L'exploitant prend toutes les mesures raisonnables nécessaires afin de s'assurer que toutes les personnes transportées à bord de l'avion obéissent à tous les ordres licites
donnés par lecommandant de bord dans le but d'assurer la sécurité de l'avion et des personnes ou des biens qui s'y trouvent.

[aterpster]

BOAC:

- we have moved on from that - you explained why earlier. The issue is about flying a CTL off 19 - see posts #26 and #28 where I assume posters are concerned about the 'terrain' which indicates a possible lack of understanding of the principle behind CTL areas under both TERPS and PANSOPS.

Under FAR 97, no one can circle to land off the LPV 19 IAP. The can request clearance from ATC for a contact approach if their ops specs permit contact approaches, or they can request a visual approach if the weather conditions are sufficient for a visual approach. In either case the pilot would assume sole responsibility for terrain clearance. Or, if the weather is sufficient, they can cancel IFR and do whatever they feel is safe to land on other than Runway 19.

[BOAC]

I take it you have not read #26 and #28. I'll say again - we understand " no one can circle to land off the LPV 19 IAP"...........

[FlightPathOBN]

OT...from that plate, circle to land CAT D into WYS !?!?

With RNP procedures, I have never put circling on a plate, anywhere in the world...

[OK465]

To further muddy the water.....

As to LNAV it may have worked with a steeper descent gradient but that would require a second IAP (Y and Z), which the FAA presumably didn't want to do at this location. Or some obstacle to the left or right of the ILS/LPV lateral areas caused LNAV too steep to meet criteria.

Here's an example of a runway (KRIL 26) with separate plates for an LNAV procedure (with CTL) and the separate WAAS LPV. Of note, the descent gradient for the LPV (3.60) is steeper than the gradient for the LNAV (3.58).

No one size fits all in them thar hills....

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1305/06741RW26.PDF

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1305/06741RX26.PDF

(Once again, the LPV to WYS 19 is the ONLY IAP to 19, no LNAV. I think this is probably somewhat unique to find a runway ONLY served by an LPV line of minima, nothing else. I'm also wondering then why 19 couldn't be served with an LP line of minima with CTL which might have to be higher than 8240 as a result of the LP approach mins possibly being higher than 8240 on that end?...once again creating a problem for said Captain)

[felixthecat]

No need to overcomplicate things …ILS 06 Circle 24 …. Use the circling minima on ILS 06 plate and incase of missed approach turn shortest distance towards the missed approach for the instrument landing runway…in this case ILS 06 missed approach.

[aterpster]

BOAC:

I take it you have not read #26 and #28. I'll say again - we understand " no one can circle to land off the LPV 19 IAP"...........

Who are you addressing?

[aterpster]

FltPath:

With RNP procedures, I have never put circling on a plate, anywhere in the world...

That implies you have a choice. You don't.

[BOAC]

Who are you addressing?

- er, you?

[aterpster]

BOAC:

You got me confused. I thought I was being responsive. Then again, I'm an old guy.