How does your company describe circling approaches?

[Capn Bloggs]

Thanks aterpster. I thought it was quite small. I remember having a "discussion" with 411A about him staying inside that in his L1011 on a circle...

Even 2.7nm will be very tight...

[aterpster]

Capn Bloggs:

Thanks aterpster. I thought it was quite small. I remember having a "discussion" with 411A about him staying inside that in his L1011 on a circle...

Even 2.7nm will be very tight...

The L1011 would get at least 3.6 miles.

[cosmo kramer]

AirRabbit, there are no contradictions in anything I wrote. You are mixing interchangeably what I wrote about: 1) Circling approach and 2) Visual Approach. You mix "visual" with "visual meteorological conditions". Etc.

You say a visual approach is flown looking out the window. You’ve posted quotes from various sources that indicate that a “circle-to-land” is visually flown from the point in which you reach visual conditions until you land. You’ve also said that you cannot fly a circle-to-land if you have to look out the window. What does that mean?

1) A circling approach is flown in IMC. Runway should be kept in sight, to ensure that you don't leave the protected area.

2) A visual is flown in VMC or at least in conditions that makes is possible to fly the aircraft looking out the window. By flying I mean navigate AND aviate.

Of course a circling may be flown in VMC as well, although it would probably make more sense (economy) to fly a visual approach instead if conditions permit.

Speaking of circling the assumption is of course worst allowable weather conditions. Which are 2400 meter (1.5 miles) visibility and 600 feet cloud base (EU-OPS). Combined with rain, night and turbulence, those are not conditions that permit to aviate the aircraft with reference to outside view, during certain parts of the approach. Like now mentioned a numerous times as example, downwind, flying away from the airport.

You’ve said that on a “Visual approach, anywhere on the approach, the runway might not even be visible.” Is there anything that the pilot must be able to see to fly a “visual approach” or is it just “the ground.” If it is just the ground – is there no particular object on that ground that must be seen?

No, according to EU-OPS there are no particular objects that needs to be seen. I have given following as an example before of one type of Visual Approach that is legal according to EU-OPS:

Airport is covered in fog 800 meter (0.5 miles) visibility. Prior to the airport is a mountain that requires a longwinded approach, that would normally have you fly overhead the field, back outbound and then inbound for an ILS. With mountain clearly visible, you may ask for a visual approach, fly over the mountain and pick up the ILS directly on the other side for a straight in landing on the ILS in the fog.

OPS 1.435 Terminology
“Visual approach”. An approach when either part or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the approach is executed with visual reference to the terrain.

If we intend to fly ... a circle-to-land ... what is it that you expect ... to see when .. you are about to break off from the instrument approach ..? ... If it is the runway and you later lose sight of that runway (which you say may happen) ... now, what do you do? (Edited for brevity )

Yes according to ICAO and EU OPS it is the runway, and nothing else, except object associated with the runway. Like the approach lighting system (no MacDonalds).

I don't think I said that "it may happen", but in that case a go-around is required. If you have doubts about that at this stage in your career, I think really it is time to consider yourself lucky, hang up your spurs and cowboy hat, before something goes terrible wrong. Or wait... was that a condescending rhetorical question?

[cosmo kramer]

Capn Bloggs:
As for altitudes, it is obvious that 3" per hundred doesn't work: If you're circling at 500ft, you're not going to turn at 15" and if you have any hope of getting wings level by 500ft on final on a 3° slope.

My airline solved that quite cleverly. We have 3 "gates" for stabilized approach written into our procedures.

1)
First gate is the industry standard 1000 feet. However, it is defined as the aircraft has to be on correct flight path + all the usual standard established criteria.

For an ILS it means everything has to be completed (final configuration, checklist complete, aligned with the runway), because it's appropriate for the type of approach.

For a flying a visual approach, the aircraft has to be configured and checklist completed at 1000 feet according to the above, but doesn't have to be aligned with the runway, as long as it is on correct flight path.

2)
At 500 feet, a visual approach must additionally be aligned with the runway centerline.

Specifically for circling, landing flap and completion of landing checklist must be completed as well. Still we only have to be on correct flight path. Which at this point is doing the inbound turn.

3)
Last "gate", for circling only, is at 300 feet where it must be aligned with the centerline.

It doesn't mean that our established criteria for circling is 300 feet. The respective criteria for each previous gate has to be met as well.


In my case minimum EU OPS circling altitude is 600 feet and not 500. So to do a calculation if 3 sec pr 100 feet pr. MDH would be possible:

3 x 6 = 18 secs at 160 knots (82 m/s) = ca. 1500 meter = ca. 0.8 nm downwind = ca. 0.8 nm final.

So we have the inbound turn to descent 300 feet and roll out at 300 feet at 0.8 nm inbound or on approx. 3.5 deg final descent angle.

That said, it is theory. I can't think of any fields in our structure with 600 feet minima. The lowest I can find during a quick search is 730 feet AGL. Mostly, our problem is that the circling height is in the area of 1000-1200 feet, which makes it difficult to stay within 3000 meter of the airport. The most ridiculous example is an MDH of 2200 feet but still with 2400 meter visibility required and that with additionally a field elevation of almost 3500 feet. Common sense required.

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

It all depends on how sacrosanct your stabilised approach criteria is. If you need to be stabilised at 500ft AGL on final, you must turn base abeam that point (ie 1.6nm/2900m/40sec at 140GS). It is impossible to remain within circling visibility criteria from the threshold (we need to keep the runway environment in sight; not withstanding metallic obstacles to vision!) while still complying with the turn point.

OK, I’m sure that I’ll get hammered for going on and on – well, I’m used to it by now – but if anyone feels the need to post their objections … fire away:

Capn Bloggs, generally I agree with your statement that … “it depends on how sacrosanct your stabilized approach criteria is…” HOWEVER … I’m sure you would agree that there is no requirement to fly a “squared” traffic pattern (with a downwind, base, and final approach legs) as part of a circle-to-land maneuver. In fact, the pilot is free to maneuver the airplane over virtually any ground track as long as the airplane stays within the circling area and the pilot is cognizant of the referenced obstacles (respecting their location and height) and complies with all the regulatory requirements applicable to the task. Again, while the requirement used to say essentially what is currently said in many other regulatory agencies, but today, in the US at least, the requirement is (and I quote) “…the pilot may not exceed visibility criteria or descend below the appropriate circling altitude until in a position to make a descent to a normal landing.” That does not say that the airplane has to be physically “on” or “above” the final approach path before leaving the MDA – BUT, the requirement DOES say that a “normal rate of descent” is required. Of course, there is no way that I believe having a wide-body airplane wallowing around “down in the weeds” on a circle-to-land authorization is anything close to being a wise decision. I think, as an industry, we were pushing the limits of this particular clearance when we were flying DC-9s and old generation B-737s and B-727s. I think that once we got into the size of a B-757 we had passed into the very gray area of circle-to-land maneuvering – of course that is a highly personal observation – and I understand that various regulatory authorities tend to continue to approve these kinds of approaches for anything with wings. Also, typically, the circle-to-land maneuver is initially taught and evaluated in a simulator. As everyone knows simulators come in a whole litany of visual capabilities … some have VERY restricted visual systems (from having them only directly in front of each pilot – with no cross-cockpit visual capability) all the way to a continuous 220 degree horizontal (essentially visual capability from wing-tip to wing-tip) by 60 degree vertical field of view (mostly with 25 degrees “up” and 35 degrees “down” – and, of course, there are some variations) all of which is optically correct for both pilots.

There have been operators who have simulators with the more restricted fields of view but who also want to train crews on circle-to-land, and result to exerting a lot of pressure on their respective approving authority … and sometimes this approval is granted. But, in the US at least, each simulator is evaluated and qualified for specific usage by the National Simulator Program staff – a part of FAA's Flight Standards Service. As a part of these evaluations and subsequent qualification, no simulator will be qualified for the circle-to-land task UNLESS the evaluation of that specific simulator has included the evaluation of a successful circle-to-land maneuver, while complying with the regulatory requirement - again, which used to say what is said on some other regulatory environments, but in the US, it clearly states that “an identifiable portion of the airport remains continually in sight throughout the maneuver (except for airplane geometry issues)" and it presumes that the airplane is at it's maximum weight and the maneuver will not be flown unless the minimum visibility authorized for such an approach is reported. Then, as part of the official paper work accompanying the qualification, the specific airport and specific runway combinations evaluated for this task will be clearly indicated for that specific simulator. This is particularly accomplished to ensure that the circle-to-land function may be properly and appropriately conducted in that specific simulator – ensuring that the regulatory requirement that “Whenever an identifiable part of the airport is not distinctly visible to the pilot during a circling maneuver at or above MDA, unless the inability to see an identifiable part of the airport results only from a normal bank of the aircraft during the circling approach … the pilot must execute a missed approach ... and doing precisely that will be completely in compliance with the rules. With the qualification including this specific information, applicable to this specific simulator, the airline or training facility is free to seek approval from the regulator for other operating limitations and requirements, including circle-to-land procedures. But I will also point out that there have been some very “red” faces on some FAA inspectors and some airline or training provider management personnel after it became apparent that the training or checking was not conducted in compliance with these rules.

It is my contention that this particular practice is part of the developing of a “cheat sheet” approach to operations – almost all of which have been developed almost exclusively to allow, or at least assist, pilots in passing check rides and showing satisfactory progress during training. Unfortunately, when a pilot demonstrates his/her ability to perform any task for an FAA Inspector OR for a Company Check Airman, and is passed on that check, that pilot invariably feels supremely confident in performing that same set of procedures during normal line operations. However, if the simulator task was dependent upon starting a stop watch when passing the approach end of the landing runway, continuing to fly for some designated number of seconds toward a black void, using only the flight instruments for reference (i.e. NOT maintaining visual contact with the airport), then turn a prescribed number of degrees for some other specified number of seconds on that stop watch, and then again turn to the runway heading, anticipating the airplane to be aligned with that landing runway … and now that identical procedure is performed in an airplane, THAT is absolute folly, if for NO other reason than it is performed in direct opposition to the regulatory requirements – in the US at least – and may lead to the ultimate penalty for doing so. And it is for THAT reason that members of the FAA’s National Simulator Program staff will not qualify a simulator for circle-to-land UNLESS it can be accomplished completely in accordance with the regulations.

If, in accordance with company procedures, the pilot must have the airplane stabilized on final approach, on or approaching the glide slope (visual or electronic) while still at an altitude no lower than circling minimums (and a good share of the approach plates I’ve seen that authorize “Circle” show that to be somewhere between 400 and 500 feet AGL for Category C airplanes – and of course there are exceptions on both sides of that range) then that pilot is going to have to allow for the course intercept, final flap configuration, final airspeed and final descent rate adjustments PRIOR to initiating a descent – which, with little doubt would increase the difficulty of completing the task successfully. However, on most of the approach charts with which I am familiar, the circling MDA is equal to or almost equal to, the altitude that should be cross-referenced at the MM if flying a precision approach to that same runway, ON the glide slope. Those charts show the location of the MM to be at a point on the final approach course at a distance from the runway threshold of between 0.9 and 1.2 NM – meaning that the altitude flown during the circle-to-land would intersect the ILS glide slope at a point inside of, and therefore closer to the runway, than the visibility limit, which is usually between 1.5 and 1.6 NM. Also, since those distances are to the runway threshold, should there be an approach lighting system installed for that particular runway, or other identifiable airport structures, lights, etc., the final visual alignment should present even less of a challenge. However, let me quickly say that a circle-to-land is, in my opinion, a VERY challenging task under the best of conditions, and I am NOT attempting to “make lite” of the knowledge and proficiency requirements involved. But, if the pilot has maintained an identifiable portion of the airport throughout the circle, regardless of the ground path flown, and is of the opinion that he/she may begin a “normal rate of descent to the landing runway” prior to fully aligning with the final approach course, he/she is permitted to depart that MDA altitude while finally aligning with the landing runway. These requirements are not cavalierly chosen nor intended to be indiscriminately flown – but they do not allow continuing with the procedure when an identifiable portion of the landing airport cannot be continually maintained.

It is my understanding that as long as a company chooses to do so, they may set specifically designed minimum criteria for a circle-to-land maneuver, and as long as they do not violate any regulatory requirement (including the requirements posted on the approach plate) and can obtain appropriate authorization from their assigned regulatory authority, they may do just that. Again, my reason for jumping into this thread is to offer an observation that, in my experience, is becoming all too frequent … the development of a procedure that works – or generally works – in a simulated environment – but leaves out one or two or more very specific requirements that are more than likely to appear in the real world. I call these “sometimes-they-work” solutions “cheat sheet” approaches to getting through training and/or passing tests … and unfortunately, I am beginning to see this occur with much greater frequency … and it’s something that I think any professional pilot should be aware of and avoid at all costs.

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by cosmo Kramer

I think really it is time to consider yourself lucky, hang up your spurs and cowboy hat, before something goes terrible wrong. Or wait... was that a condescending rhetorical question?

Cosmo – I WILL say that you certainly are no “shrinking violet.” And, at least some of what you say does make some sense, at times. But to keep both of us on a track that might be seen as mutually beneficial, I’m going to select the same option with you as I did with another person I used to banter with – that being IGNORE. Have a great career!

[flyboyike]

You keep making this about you, Rabbit. That's not really helpful to us whippersnappers.

[cosmo kramer]

It is my contention that this particular practice is part of the developing of a “cheat sheet” approach to operations

Cheat sheet? A good pilot should be able to do simple arithmetics without difficulty. Starting a stopwatch, is basic dead reckoning, something taught in PPL lesson no. 1.
Distance = time x speed plus 3 x altitude thrown in. That is where 3 sec pr. 100 feet altitude comes in. It's no cheat sheet... it's predicting where your aircraft will be in a certain timeframe. Basic piloting skills.

However, if the simulator task was dependent upon starting a stop watch when passing the approach end of the landing runway, continuing to fly for some designated number of seconds toward a black void, using only the flight instruments for reference...

Who is talking about simulator?? And as for dark void, there is a world outside neon-MacDonalds-lit-bankrupt USA....

...(i.e. NOT maintaining visual contact with the airport),...

Now you fantasy is carrying you away. It was specifically said throughout the discussion, that the runway (not airport, for the 10th time) has to be kept in sight, that includes in number 3 window and includes that the PM may be assigned such task.

...then turn a prescribed number of degrees for some other specified number of seconds on that stop watch, and then again turn to the runway heading, anticipating the airplane to be aligned with that landing runway

Again your fantasy. Provide one quote from previous in the thread.

Have a great career!

Well you did run out of arguments a long time ago...

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by cosmo Kramer

Well you did run out of arguments a long time ago...

Nope. Just a lack of willingness to continue pointing out the fallacies of some who think they know it all, those who claim to have been there and done all that, and those who insist that flying a commercial jet during a circle-to-land on the basis of a stop watch is an appropriate thing to do. I'd bet you light a match to see your way to the door of the dynamite storage room too. So ... no thanks ... you're on your own.
Sheesh.

[Capn Bloggs]

Airrabbit, getting a bit dramatic there...

Where I come from, square circuits are never done (I always have a chuckle when I see a FCTM with a square circuit diagram akin to a Cesspit POH), descents onto final from MDA are commenced when you hit the nominal 3° slope after turning at 40" (+/- ½" per knot) and you roll out at 500ft AGL, 1.5-odd nm from the threshold. Just like a normal circuit/traffic pattern. With Vis of 5000m (ie low level VMC) Simple.

As for config, we have the Landing checklist completed before the base turn point. Nothing to do apart from fly around the turn and land.

Call it a cheat sheet procedure if you like; it works in the SIM and in real life.

Edit: Sorry Cosmo, I didn't see your last post above Air Rabbit's. Rolling out at 300ft in a jet is dodgy; ironic, isn't it that on a gin-clear day the stabilised approach criteria is 500ft, when the weather is cr@p, it's only 300ft? BTW, 3.5° is 4 whites on the PAPI. "Go Around!"

[cosmo kramer]

As I see I am not on your ignore list anyway, I am curios to hear your "method" (the one that you have been keeping secret through out the thread). Looking forward to an enlightening response!!

I will provide you with the example plates requested.

Conditions:
Wind: 030/20
Visibility: 2400m (1.5 statute miles)
Rain
Overcast 800 feet
Night

There are no approach lights for runway 03R, it does however, has a 3 deg PAPI.

I'll provide you a satellite section of google maps as well for reference. As you can see, not a lot of MacDonalds to aim for (no Burger King, Wendy's or Jack in the Box either).

You are on the ILS 21L, GPWS has just called out "1000", we are flying... Good luck!

[cosmo kramer]

Rolling out at 300ft in a jet is dodgy; ironic, isn't it that on a gin-clear day the stabilised approach criteria is 500ft, when the weather is cr@p, it's only 300ft? BTW, 3.5° is 4 whites on the PAPI. "Go Around!"

Well, I still have to be stabilized in 500 feet (on speed, engines spooled, configured, checklist completed on correct lateral and vertical path). Only thing that is allowed to be an open "item" until 300 feet is wings level. Ironic? Yes I agree. Dodgy, no. But extra vigilance is definitely required.

PAPI indication alone is not a reason for go around. Especially 4 whites, which would steadily correct toward 2 white. As long as sink rate doesn't exceed 1000 fpm and aim point stays fixed on the windscreen (PAPI to be disregard below 200 feet anyway according to my OM-A, following the other active thread about it for another official reference).

At a certain airport we fly to, where we often fly visuals, the PAPI is so weak, that during daytime you won't see it until the last 500 feet. And if you follow it, it will take you in too high, so my assumption is that it is additionally calibrated wrong. I usually brief that I will fly 2.5 to 3 deg degs visual path, as recommended by Boeing, and to disregard the PAPI when it becomes visible. It often shows 4 reds, and I don't go around for that either.

So I think it is a matter to be conscious about such indications and plan and brief for them in advance. If it would be a surprise, and cause for wonder, why I see 4 white or red, for sure I will go around too.

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

Airrabbit, getting a bit dramatic there...

Where I come from, square circuits are never done (I always have a chuckle when I see a FCTM with a square circuit diagram akin to a Cesspit POH), descents onto final from MDA are commenced when you hit the nominal 3° slope after turning at 40" (+/- ½" per knot) and you roll out at 500ft AGL, 1.5-odd nm from the threshold. Just like a normal circuit/traffic pattern. With Vis of 5000m (ie low level VMC) Simple.

As for config, we have the Landing checklist completed before the base turn point. Nothing to do apart from fly around the turn and land.

Call it a cheat sheet procedure if you like; it works in the SIM and in real life.

Well, Capn, I’ve never been accused of being “born to be mild.” And I completely agree with the “square circuits” issue, but not as much as I agree with your description of descending from MDA. The “cheat sheet” issue that I was referencing – and there have been several – would be something, for example, that is worked out to get someone through the check and/or to look good on a training record. It can consist of, and I’ve seen several consisting of, almost anything. The glaring similarity is that, for most pilots, their initial observation of what is being done makes little if any sense. And the one that motivated the FAA’s National Simulator Program (NSP) staff to change their evaluation and qualification standards for the circle-to-land task, was when the simulator evaluator attempted to fly an ILS approach to Rwy 27R at one of the airport models this simulator sponsor had included in the simulator, followed by a circle to land on Rwy 9L, but he was unable to do so because visual contact with the airport/runway was lost.

Here’s how the FAA’s NSP staff described how they reached the decision that was verified all the way up the chain and resulted in the current NSP policy, reflecting FAA regulations. When that evaluator announced the unsuccessful result, one of the company’s pilots insisted on re-flying the approach. That was agreed to, and he did just that. After flying the ILS to Rwy 27R, when he reached MDA he leveled off and turned right (about 30 degrees of heading change) and punched the clock. At ~45 seconds, he turned back to the approximate heading he had held during the instrument approach … the landing runway was clearly visible out the left hand window… however just as the airplane was passing the approach end of the landing runway, on the proper speed and at the MDA, he reached down again and punched the clock, announced the he was going to “maintain runway heading for ~45 seconds.” Of course, it was only ~4 or ~5 seconds until there was nothing visible in the simulator’s visual system, either left or right, except for the typical scattering of generic surface environment lights and only the faintest hint of a horizon line. As the clock ticked to ~45 seconds, the pilot banked the airplane left, using approximately 30 degrees of bank, and held it for a turn of approximately 90 degrees, and rolled out wings level … he again punched the clock. When the clock reached ~15 seconds, he banked left to approximately 30 degrees, and turned through approximately 50 – 60 degrees of turn. When he rolled wings level the first few cross-bars of approach lighting and the strobes were visible at about 10 o’clock (ahead and slightly left). Needless to say, he completed the approach, and landed successfully on the landing runway. After stopping the inspector asked him if he maintained an identifiable portion of the airport/runway throughout the maneuver. He responded, “Of course not – once you pass the approach end, you have to fly based on timing until you can reverse course and again visually acquire the airport/runway environment. The NSP evaluator said, “OK. That is what I saw as well, and that is not in compliance with regulations. Therefore, this simulator will not be qualified for the circle-to-land maneuver unless you can show me a successful approach and circle-to-land maneuver where all the regulatory requirements are met.” The company representative wanted to know why – and was asked, in turn, if he, as a pilot in the airplane, would do this same procedure in an airplane? He said, “Of course not. It would be too dangerous without being able to know specifically where you are and you wouldn’t know that without knowing specifically where you were in relation to the airport.” The evaluator essentially told him that his answer was correct and he completed the unsatisfactory circle-to-land description for the simulator’s evaluation report. Apparently, later, the evaluator and the company’s training staff held a somewhat lengthy discussion as to how this procedure was developed and why it was desired to incorporate it into the simulator training. The long/short of the whole discussion was apparently that this was the easiest, most simple, least expensive way to perform the task and thereby have the circle-to-land maneuver included in their operating specifications.

As I have said, there are no simulators qualified by the FAA, anywhere in the world, that are authorized a circle-to-land task by the FAA unless that specific simulator has been evaluated and found to be satisfactory in completing a circle-to-land task where the pilot flying has been able to continuously keep an identifiable portion of the airport/runway in sight throughout the maneuver. It’s a simple concept and one that is entrenched in the FAA’s regulatory structure, including simulator training program approvals.

I apologize if all this sounds a bit “too dramatic.” The good thing in this story, is that the person fighting so hard to get this method approved in the simulator, recognized the fallacy of attempting the same method in an airplane on a dark and overcast night. I am hoping that by making the noise I’m making, there may be others who just might see the potential folly of using timing in lieu of visual contact when dealing with real metal, holding real people, flying in the real world.

[cosmo kramer]

Originally posted by AirRabbit:
Hi Screwballs - I'd be happy to describe how a circle-to-land maneuver should be conducted ... ... but, ... you're describing a theoretical, not a real, airport. As you would certainly recognize, having the information available on (a) plate is crucial to the performance of any such instrument approach - ...While the information you provided is relatively .... , a picture is worth 10,000 words. (edited for brevity)

...and that has now been provided to you, yet you still dodge the the answer. That fact can only make one wonder if your are who what you claim to be...

Instead you provided another meaningless anecdote about simulators. A device developed to practice abnormal situation and procedures, for a specific aircraft type. It's in many respects very unrealistic. As another example during landing flare and touchdown.

Learning how to do a circling approach, is something which is done in a real aircraft, like learning how to flare or how to fly level looking at the nose of the aircraft and horizon. I.e. during basic pilots training, and for circling, instrument Rating training.

In EU we are allowed to train, aircraft type specific, procedural aspects of a circling in simulators, but the assumption is that the pilot undertaking such training, through his basic flight training, is capable of executing such maneuver in the first place. Knowledge about basic stick and rudder skills, hand eye co-ordination etc, must be obtained prior to entering the simulator in the first place.

Further experience in doing such a maneuver is obtained in the real aircraft, either during dedicated training (line training) or practiced during line operations (first officers learning from experienced captains).

If people has to learn how to fly a circling in a simulator, something is wrong in the MacAmerican system.

[deadcut]

Cosmo, what is with your undying hate of "Macdonalds"?
Is there a reason why you talk about it in every post?

[RVF750]

It'll only be realistic enough once the SIM manufacturers fit a wider arc of visual and a far better weather engine than they do now. FSX has far surpassed anything I've used in real life, providing the add-ons are installed.


To really get that last bit you need over the shoulder visuals and proper nasty weather....


I think Cosmo just hates fast food and associated American Culture....his choice I guess.

[cosmo kramer]

I like a good burger!

Besides from AirRabbit's condescending tone that we all needed to consult a flight instructor (thereafter posting the quote below!!), what set me off is his proposed alternative, to navigate according to the nearest MacDonald.

I will make one recommendation (presuming, of course, you won't like it nor act on it - so I'm probably wasting my typing skills, but ...) and that is you not jump down the throat of your colleagues before you know who they are, what they do, how well they do it, and whether your criticizing them will make them or you look bad.

I have no problem with American culture in general either. Great country and lots of fantastic achievements. However, Americans tend to be extremely self-centered, especially in online discussions. US is one of 190-odd countries in the world. FAA regulations are a local deviation to ICAO rules in one of those 190 countries. Hence, when communicating in an international forum, it might be more relevant to discuss ICAO rules, and specifically emphasize when mentioning local deviations.

[aterpster]

cosmo:

However, Americans tend to be extremely self-centered, especially in online discussions.

Brits aren't of course.

[OK465]

The example offered, LTAT, just begs for a good old bankrupt American RNP approach to 3L/3R, particularly for the NG.

You could even name the FAF, 'MCDON' or 'BURKG' and keep everyone happy.

(with 'WENDY' and 'JABOX' IFs of course)

[cosmo kramer]

Good, I am able to admit mistakes and hereby offer my apologies to my American colleagues for generalizing.