Circle to land minimas
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
I believe that's about TAS increasing with the elevation of the airport.
But, here are the three pages of FAA TERPs criteria for your assessment:
http://tinyurl.com/celrhbp
These figures contradict everything I have ever understood or been taught about circling. Can anyone who understands this US system explain the varying altitudes?
But, here are the three pages of FAA TERPs criteria for your assessment:
http://tinyurl.com/celrhbp
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the drop, but that doesn't really answer the question - and the 'airport elevation' does not change!
The only (drop) bit (Section 6 - 260 I cannot follow is
"and the evaluation of the final segment delivering the aircraft to the circling area. Also see Vol. 1, chapter 3, paragraph 3.2.1b." whatever that means - that is the only factor I can see that might produce different numbers - but does not at all other airports we know of.
Is there anyone around who produces charts who can have a crack at this puzzle?
The only (drop) bit (Section 6 - 260 I cannot follow is
"and the evaluation of the final segment delivering the aircraft to the circling area. Also see Vol. 1, chapter 3, paragraph 3.2.1b." whatever that means - that is the only factor I can see that might produce different numbers - but does not at all other airports we know of.
Is there anyone around who produces charts who can have a crack at this puzzle?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
terpster,
The FAA madness continues.... Change 26
perhaps someday, they will make the entire 8260 digital, not photocopied, so it can be searched....
OT... years ago, I saw a draft 8260.52A, that was supposed to align .52 with ICAO...have you seen that around somewhere and who might be working on it, if anyone??
The FAA madness continues.... Change 26
perhaps someday, they will make the entire 8260 digital, not photocopied, so it can be searched....
OT... years ago, I saw a draft 8260.52A, that was supposed to align .52 with ICAO...have you seen that around somewhere and who might be working on it, if anyone??
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 14th May 2013 at 15:43.
BOAC,
It might have to do with
"5.4.4 OCA/H for visual manoeuvring (circling)
The OCA/H for visual manoeuvring (circling) shall provide the minimum obstacle clearance (MOC) over the highest obstacle in the visual manoeuvring (circling) area as specified in Table I-4-7-3 of Chapter 7. It shall also be:
a) above the lower limits (also specified in Table I-4-7-3); and
b) not less than the OCA/H calculated for the instrument approach procedure which leads to the circling manoeuvre. See Chapter 7, “ Visual manoeuvring (circling) area”."
With the different approaches they have different "OCA/H calculated for the instrument approach procedure which leads to the circling manoeuvre" because of the different splays due to the accuracy of each approach design final segments.
It might have to do with
"5.4.4 OCA/H for visual manoeuvring (circling)
The OCA/H for visual manoeuvring (circling) shall provide the minimum obstacle clearance (MOC) over the highest obstacle in the visual manoeuvring (circling) area as specified in Table I-4-7-3 of Chapter 7. It shall also be:
a) above the lower limits (also specified in Table I-4-7-3); and
b) not less than the OCA/H calculated for the instrument approach procedure which leads to the circling manoeuvre. See Chapter 7, “ Visual manoeuvring (circling) area”."
With the different approaches they have different "OCA/H calculated for the instrument approach procedure which leads to the circling manoeuvre" because of the different splays due to the accuracy of each approach design final segments.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Up North….
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know its a bit radical and out left field but hey why not just round up the highest to the next 100' i.e. 4800 and fly that? I am an old simple pilot and believe in the KISS principle …. Keep It Simple Stupid. You only have so many heartbeats don't use them up so fast.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Careful, OK - you'll get Slasher here PDQ with those sort of posts.....................
Back to the CTL - it is interesting that 2 of the 3 CMs breach EU-OPS minimum MDH for Cat C circling (600').
I think all we can assume is that someone might have been a bit too far into the Jack Daniels when the charts were drawn?
How will one distinguish the 'revised' (PANSOPS) CM from the 'old' (TERPS) CM on an FAA chart?
Back to the CTL - it is interesting that 2 of the 3 CMs breach EU-OPS minimum MDH for Cat C circling (600').
I think all we can assume is that someone might have been a bit too far into the Jack Daniels when the charts were drawn?
How will one distinguish the 'revised' (PANSOPS) CM from the 'old' (TERPS) CM on an FAA chart?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In flight you have to obey to the Captain
Harping back on this topic in the thread I would draw people's attention to the thread on the Bali B737 crash. It would seem the captain followed my earlier scenario of "keep going.......oops, wrong again."
What happened to F/O's having a self preservation button somewhere in the area of the TOGA button; or at least a loud voice?
Harping back on this topic in the thread I would draw people's attention to the thread on the Bali B737 crash. It would seem the captain followed my earlier scenario of "keep going.......oops, wrong again."
What happened to F/O's having a self preservation button somewhere in the area of the TOGA button; or at least a loud voice?
What happened to F/O's having a self preservation button somewhere in the area of the TOGA button; or at least a loud voice?
GF
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
FAA uses TERPs and only TERPs.
I don't assume that so please don't speak on my behalf.
Different speeds as it always has been.
Back to the CTL - it is interesting that 2 of the 3 CMs breach EU-OPS minimum MDH for Cat C circling (600').
I think all we can assume is that someone might have been a bit too far into the Jack Daniels when the charts were drawn?
How will one distinguish the 'revised' (PANSOPS) CM from the 'old' (TERPS) CM on an FAA chart?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots should be aware that there are significant differences in obstacle clearance criteria between procedures designed in accordance with ICAO PANS-OPS and US TERPS. This is especially true in respect of Circling Approaches where the assumed radius of turn and minimum obstacle clearance are markedly different
From May 2, 2013, the FAA started publishing new instrument approach plates that include an enlarged segment of airspace to protect aircraft during circling approaches. The new airspace also offers pilots additional obstacle clearance while considering their MSL altitude above the MDA, which affects true airspeed. The boundaries of protected airspace for circling approaches are defined by arcs drawn from the threshold of each runway at an airport. The larger the aircraft, the larger the arc. Previous versions of the FAA’s terminal instrument procedures (Terps) used a radius of 1.7 nm from the end of the runway for a Category C aircraft such as a Hawker 800. Under the new criteria that radius will increase by 65 percent, to 2.7 nm. Chart providers U.S. Terminal Procedures and Jeppesen both plan to use new chart symbology to identify the updated approaches. The government plates will show an inverse “C” in a black box in the approach minimums area of the plate, while Jeppesen will use a “C” inside a black diamond. Charts without the new designation will continue to be guided by the old, smaller-radii criteria.
Jepp Charts:
edit: Govt Charts
Circling Approach - difference between ICAO PANS-OPS and US TERPS
From May 2, 2013, the FAA started publishing new instrument approach plates that include an enlarged segment of airspace to protect aircraft during circling approaches. The new airspace also offers pilots additional obstacle clearance while considering their MSL altitude above the MDA, which affects true airspeed. The boundaries of protected airspace for circling approaches are defined by arcs drawn from the threshold of each runway at an airport. The larger the aircraft, the larger the arc. Previous versions of the FAA’s terminal instrument procedures (Terps) used a radius of 1.7 nm from the end of the runway for a Category C aircraft such as a Hawker 800. Under the new criteria that radius will increase by 65 percent, to 2.7 nm. Chart providers U.S. Terminal Procedures and Jeppesen both plan to use new chart symbology to identify the updated approaches. The government plates will show an inverse “C” in a black box in the approach minimums area of the plate, while Jeppesen will use a “C” inside a black diamond. Charts without the new designation will continue to be guided by the old, smaller-radii criteria.
Jepp Charts:
edit: Govt Charts
Circling Approach - difference between ICAO PANS-OPS and US TERPS
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 17th May 2013 at 15:46.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The government plates will show an inverse “C” in a black box in the approach minimums area of the plate,". Thanks FPOBN
The TERPS/PANSOPS thing has been done to death here so many times it really does not need doing again! I was hoping our 'charters' here might be able to offer an explanation for the 3 different circling minima, but it appears they are flummoxed too.
Let's try a really simple question for someone:
Is it safe at Lewiston to fly the VOR 08 to circle at 4660' which is 120' lower than the safe circling from an LNAV approach to 08 and lower than the circle from the 26 approach - and why? I thought circling areas were fixed in geometry on airfield/runway characteristics so should not change, (barring approach minima issues, but here both less than 4660'). Presumably the circling area must change, but why?
The TERPS/PANSOPS thing has been done to death here so many times it really does not need doing again! I was hoping our 'charters' here might be able to offer an explanation for the 3 different circling minima, but it appears they are flummoxed too.
Let's try a really simple question for someone:
Is it safe at Lewiston to fly the VOR 08 to circle at 4660' which is 120' lower than the safe circling from an LNAV approach to 08 and lower than the circle from the 26 approach - and why? I thought circling areas were fixed in geometry on airfield/runway characteristics so should not change, (barring approach minima issues, but here both less than 4660'). Presumably the circling area must change, but why?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The geometry is not fixed, it varies with altitude and aircraft CAT...
CAT A and CAT B are close, so they can have one circling MDA, while CAT C is much larger, and CAT D even larger differences in radii....
edit:
Here is the proposed change to the charts on the CAT Radius.
RNP charts dont have to deal with this!
CAT A and CAT B are close, so they can have one circling MDA, while CAT C is much larger, and CAT D even larger differences in radii....
edit:
Here is the proposed change to the charts on the CAT Radius.
RNP charts dont have to deal with this!
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 17th May 2013 at 16:14.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The geometry is not fixed, it varies with altitude and aircraft CAT...
I'll try it more simply - can circling area geometry vary for the same airport and same aircraft cat - and how?
EDIT:
RNP charts dont have to deal with this!
EDIT 2: Shouldn't the Cat C and D be 3 and 4nm?
Last edited by BOAC; 17th May 2013 at 16:20.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are going around in circles here! Original question - how can you have 3 different CMs for the same airfield, same a/c Cat?
Q1- can circling area geometry vary for the same airport and same aircraft cat - and how?
a) I assume you take the obstacles within the altitude adjusted radius and add 300'?
b) If this pushes the CM into the next altitude band, you redo it at the new radius and iterate if required?
There we are - 1 CM surely?
Q2 - RNP/CTL?
Original question - how can you have 3 different CMs for the same airfield, same a/c Cat? Q1- can circling area geometry vary for the same airport and same aircraft cat - and how?
a) I assume you take the obstacles within the altitude adjusted radius and add 300'?
b) If this pushes the CM into the next altitude band, you redo it at the new radius and iterate if required?
There we are - 1 CM surely?
Q2 - RNP/CTL?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: engineer at large
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EDIT 2: Shouldn't the Cat C and D be 3 and 4nm?
RNP are coded procedures, there is no circling...you are on it or not.
I dont know why there are the differences at Lewiston, and I really dont want to get into laying out the circling diagram...but I will leave you with this figure 2 to ponder, consider the different variables, (and really be concerned about how many mistakes can be found on charts or in the navdatabase)
Last edited by FlightPathOBN; 17th May 2013 at 18:57.