Circle to land minimas

[Valmont]

Hi,

Yesterday, i had a discussion with a captain and we would not agree on the circle to land minimas.

He was convinced that the circle to land minimas were linked to the runway we would land on. i.e. we were shooting the ILS 06 circle to land 24 and he pulled out the VOR 24 app plate to read the circle to land minimas.
And his point was that next to the circle to land minimas for each approach, it's written: Circling height based on rwy XX threshold elev of XXXX ft.
For example, for the ILS 06 circling minimas: based on rwy 06 threshold elev of XXX. Remplace ILS 06 and rwy 06 by VOR 24/rwy 24.

But it makes no sense to me, the circling minimas are linked to the approach we are shooting initially. So i'd read the minimums straight out of the original approach plate (i.e. ILS 06 in this case).

At the end, it didn't make any difference since the circling minimas
were exactly the same. (which i do understand why)


I looked up on the Jepp Away Manual and i couldn't find anything, does anyone have references to help me figure it out ?

Thanks

[BOAC]

Circling minima are not runway specific. Just occasionally they can be sector specific but it is very rare. Both PANSOPS and TERPS CMs are derived from an area constructed AROUND THE RUNWAYS and since while circling you effectively fly through the 'R06' area and the 'R24 area' and any other runway area................he is wildly wrong However, as you say, since the CM for 06 and 24 will be exactly the same, why not just say "Yes Captain" and use the value printed?

[galaxy flyer]

This is pretty basic....he's a Captain?

GF

[Valmont]

galaxy flyer, he's even a TRI and TRE. Flew for major airlines all kind of a/c from DC8 to 747 and has been an A330 SFI for a couple years for Airbus. Even flew the pope.. he got kind of a big ego.

I'm tired of the "Yes captain" sentence with this dude, just wanted to make a point.. I'd really like some reference

[aterpster]

Most countries expect you to use the circling minimums specified for the approach you are using, but a few countries in fact refer you to a different IAP chart for circling minimums. Unless a chart makes that reference, though, it would be a technical violation to use the minimums from a different chart. But, there is no practical impact.

[Natstrackalpha]

I'm tired of the "Yes captain" sentence with this dude, just wanted to make a point.. I'd really like some reference

Notwithstanding CRM - talk about change rosta or change job.

[Valmont]

Exactly what i just did. Called the chief pilot, problem solved.

[Rick777]

In the US you use the minimums published for the approach you are flying. This is pretty basic. It was even a question asked when I interviewed with the US major airline that I retired from. I don't know how the pope does it though.

[Check Airman]

The CA was wrong. Circling minima apply for all runways unless otherwise noted. I suppose some states vary, as shown on this thread.

The Jepp chart ref states that the circling MDH is based on the airport elevation, not the runway elevation. That's further proof that the circling minima wasn't developed with a specific runway in mind.

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

[BOAC]

even if he's a training CA. He IS human right

- Hmm - I have known the 'odd' exception to that rule

[BOAC]

Valmont - if you are still around - which chart producer are you using?

[roulishollandais]

Even flew thepope..hegot kind of a big ego.

I'm tired of the "Yes captain" sentence with this dude, just wanted to make a point..

In flight you have to obey to the Captain

[RAT 5]

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@Łk. 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."

[aterpster]

Check Airman:

The Jepp chart ref states that the circling MDH is based on the airport elevation, not the runway elevation. That's further proof that the circling minima wasn't developed with a specific runway in mind.

You might want to reconsider that:

[BOAC]

You might want to reconsider that:

- we have. Circling minima cannot be lower than the minima for the approach flown. Since this is referenced to threshold elevation, that is what cm will be based on where the VOR minima is higher than the 'basic' circling minima.

Verdict - red herring! Not applicable to the OP's OQ.

[aterpster]

BOAC:

I was responding to Check Airman's post, not the OP.

[de facto]

Circle to land minimas

one minimum, two minima

[BOAC]

.......and I was responding to yours, and I suspect Check Airman probably knows what I posted anyway - and he WAS responding to the OP. The point I was making is that your 'example' does not disprove the point that CA and Jepp state. It is obvious that the cm is NOT 1660' at MRY, (based on whatever) but HAS to be published as that based on TE because of the 'rules' - it is 'artificial'. There is nothing to stop you circling at 900 QNH off a visual on 28L.

[BOAC]

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

[OK465]

I suspect that since they've also got an ILS to 01, as well as an NDB to 01 in addition to the LNAV or WAAS 01 procedure, there would just be no sensible reason to circle from a 19 WAAS procedure to get into 01.

edit: The only approach to 19 is the WAAS/LPV however, so if you're not WAAS equipped, the only other way into 19 is to circle.

Above my pay grade however and only offered as a comment on said Captain's aviation savvy. I wonder which missed approach he would chose to fly?

It is odd though and maybe it's the only example like that...