What should I understand from "clear for straight in app"?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Madrid
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What should I understand from "clear for straight in app"?
Hello everybody,
The question may be simple for many of you but I have seen a lot of confusion due to this clearance that sometimes ATC gives you. Even, I found some flight instructor bloggers saying things that are not fully correct.
Regarding doc8168, there are two types of approaches: straight-in app that the final track should be within 30 degrees from the runway track, and the circle-to-land (circling) that the final track converge with the RWY track more than 30 degrees.
ICAO also says that maximum track for commencing the app is 90 degrees for precision app and 120 for NPA's. So I understand there is no need to do a procedure turn if you are within these limits.
So going back to the question, what should I understand from "clear for straight in app"?
I understand that ATC clear you for the straight-in and not for the circling app, usually both are depicted in the same chart.
But some people understand that you are clear for the approach directly without executing any procedure turn.
I wonder what ATC understand when the give you that clearance?
The question may be simple for many of you but I have seen a lot of confusion due to this clearance that sometimes ATC gives you. Even, I found some flight instructor bloggers saying things that are not fully correct.
Regarding doc8168, there are two types of approaches: straight-in app that the final track should be within 30 degrees from the runway track, and the circle-to-land (circling) that the final track converge with the RWY track more than 30 degrees.
ICAO also says that maximum track for commencing the app is 90 degrees for precision app and 120 for NPA's. So I understand there is no need to do a procedure turn if you are within these limits.
So going back to the question, what should I understand from "clear for straight in app"?
I understand that ATC clear you for the straight-in and not for the circling app, usually both are depicted in the same chart.
But some people understand that you are clear for the approach directly without executing any procedure turn.
I wonder what ATC understand when the give you that clearance?
Over here the FAA Pilot/Controller Glossary says:
STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH IFR− An instrument approach wherein final approach is begun without first having executed a procedure turn, not necessarily completed with a straight-in landing or made to straight-in landing minimums.
Whether it means the same thing in Europe I don't know. Does EASA have a glossary?
STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH IFR− An instrument approach wherein final approach is begun without first having executed a procedure turn, not necessarily completed with a straight-in landing or made to straight-in landing minimums.
Whether it means the same thing in Europe I don't know. Does EASA have a glossary?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Madrid
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, I have seen the same definition in EASA glossary. It's a bit confusing if ATC and 8168 have different meaning for the same term, ICAO says straight-in app, not landing.
Some people tell me that you cannot execute the app if you are not within those 30 degrees.
Some people tell me that you cannot execute the app if you are not within those 30 degrees.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: At home
Age: 42
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Straight-in or circling app are terms used only for FINAL app. Before that you have INITIAL and INTERMEDIATE app or radar vectors. Straight-in app doesn't have anything with landing. After FINAL app you can execute landing or missed app.
On some airports you can have offset final app (Tokyo Haneda LDA 22 app or Nice 22) with 70 degrees difference between FINAL track and RWY track but you still perform straight-in app if you enter FINAL segment within +/-30.
And there are no different limits for different aircraft categories.
On some airports you can have offset final app (Tokyo Haneda LDA 22 app or Nice 22) with 70 degrees difference between FINAL track and RWY track but you still perform straight-in app if you enter FINAL segment within +/-30.
And there are no different limits for different aircraft categories.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cak and ALBATROSS
Thank you. What do you make out of what is quoted below?
‘a circling approach will be specified in those cases where terrain or
other constraints cause the final approach track alignment or descent gradient to fall outside the criteria for a straight-in approach’– ICAO Doc 8168 (PANS-OPS), Vol I,
Part I, Section 4, 1.2.3 – Types of approach.
The criteria qualifying a final approach as straight-in are provided in ICAO Doc 8168 (PANS-OPS), Vol II,Part I, Section 4, 5.2 – Alignment. This includes but is not restricted to an offset final approach track up to 5 degrees or the angle formed by the final approach track and the runway centre line not exceeding 30° for procedures restricted to Cat A and B aircraft and 15° for other aircraft categories.
In the light of PANS OPS above what you stated is erroneous and also unsafe. You should not be attempting straight in approach if the procedure final track is outside the criteria for straight in approach. Secondly if you are in IMC you have no option but be on final approach track of the procedure till visual and when visual you cannot be in a position to go straight in if final track of the procedure is 70 degrees off RW and you have no option but to circle to land. The second part of the PANS OPS clearly states that for CAT C it is within 15 degrees. What you track on finals is not the criteria but what is laid down as final track decides if straight in is permitted.
On some airports you can have offset final app (Tokyo Haneda LDA 22 app or Nice 22) with 70 degrees difference between FINAL track and RWY track but you still perform straight-in app if you enter FINAL segment within +/-30.
And there are no different limits for different aircraft categories.
And there are no different limits for different aircraft categories.
‘a circling approach will be specified in those cases where terrain or
other constraints cause the final approach track alignment or descent gradient to fall outside the criteria for a straight-in approach’– ICAO Doc 8168 (PANS-OPS), Vol I,
Part I, Section 4, 1.2.3 – Types of approach.
The criteria qualifying a final approach as straight-in are provided in ICAO Doc 8168 (PANS-OPS), Vol II,Part I, Section 4, 5.2 – Alignment. This includes but is not restricted to an offset final approach track up to 5 degrees or the angle formed by the final approach track and the runway centre line not exceeding 30° for procedures restricted to Cat A and B aircraft and 15° for other aircraft categories.
In the light of PANS OPS above what you stated is erroneous and also unsafe. You should not be attempting straight in approach if the procedure final track is outside the criteria for straight in approach. Secondly if you are in IMC you have no option but be on final approach track of the procedure till visual and when visual you cannot be in a position to go straight in if final track of the procedure is 70 degrees off RW and you have no option but to circle to land. The second part of the PANS OPS clearly states that for CAT C it is within 15 degrees. What you track on finals is not the criteria but what is laid down as final track decides if straight in is permitted.
Last edited by vilas; 9th Nov 2016 at 13:19.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MarkerInbound is correct. "Cleared straight-in approach" means "do not carry out a procedure turn".
"Straight-in landing" is what you do at the end of the approach if the final course is within 30º (cat a, b) of the runway you are going to land on, and "circle-to-land" is what you do if the final course is not so aligned.
"Straight-in landing" is what you do at the end of the approach if the final course is within 30º (cat a, b) of the runway you are going to land on, and "circle-to-land" is what you do if the final course is not so aligned.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: FL390
Age: 38
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I notice there is some confusion?
A procedure can be categorized as circling or straight in if the criteria are met.
But what you will fly especially in a procedure categorized as "circling", is another aspect.
You can go execute a NPA categorized as "circling" with no straight in minima and still when visual reposition the aircraft for landing without circling the airport in any way. However one has to consider VDP.
Many old NDB procedures are "circling" procedures and have nothing to do with the approach track, but with terrain, obstacles and the navaid. Many of them are flown with a long final.
Now if the only way is to fly almost the threshold and circle, of course it's legal. But it's the final choice.
A procedure can be categorized as circling or straight in if the criteria are met.
But what you will fly especially in a procedure categorized as "circling", is another aspect.
You can go execute a NPA categorized as "circling" with no straight in minima and still when visual reposition the aircraft for landing without circling the airport in any way. However one has to consider VDP.
Many old NDB procedures are "circling" procedures and have nothing to do with the approach track, but with terrain, obstacles and the navaid. Many of them are flown with a long final.
Now if the only way is to fly almost the threshold and circle, of course it's legal. But it's the final choice.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can you position for straight in approach when it is outside the criteria unless you are visual all along and abandon the NPA and ask for visual approach well before the minima? There will be some issue like terrain clearance if the final track is off set by 30 or forty degrees. You cannot position from anywhere to land straight in. It is a mockery of the PANS OPS procedure.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: FL390
Age: 38
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course you will be visual to land at MDA.
If on an IFR approach at MDA you have the required reference you continue visually, meaning repositioning the aircraft as required to land, but you are still on the IFR procedure, just proceeding visually. You dont have to ask for this, it is assumed that passing the MDA you have the required reference. If you don't have, the missed approach is flown.
Visual approach is another thing (no need to comply with published missed approach procedure) and you have to ask for it because you fly as you like to reach the final.
Sometimes you are in a circling procedure, being in an offset final approach track and when you are visual you reposition to reach the real final to land. It could be at 3 miles, let's say, depending on the approach, and no actual circling flown at all (meaning the circling pattern) You have to reposition otherwise stabilized criteria will not be met in terms of bank at low altitude, it will be dangerous just to continue on the published final approach track. You don't ask for visual for this. You are cleared for the approach. You ask for visual to make a big shortcut, visually, but not in this case.
But what I was saying is that there are a lot of procedures, NDB, categorized as circling, but without offset from the runway track.
If on an IFR approach at MDA you have the required reference you continue visually, meaning repositioning the aircraft as required to land, but you are still on the IFR procedure, just proceeding visually. You dont have to ask for this, it is assumed that passing the MDA you have the required reference. If you don't have, the missed approach is flown.
Visual approach is another thing (no need to comply with published missed approach procedure) and you have to ask for it because you fly as you like to reach the final.
Sometimes you are in a circling procedure, being in an offset final approach track and when you are visual you reposition to reach the real final to land. It could be at 3 miles, let's say, depending on the approach, and no actual circling flown at all (meaning the circling pattern) You have to reposition otherwise stabilized criteria will not be met in terms of bank at low altitude, it will be dangerous just to continue on the published final approach track. You don't ask for visual for this. You are cleared for the approach. You ask for visual to make a big shortcut, visually, but not in this case.
But what I was saying is that there are a lot of procedures, NDB, categorized as circling, but without offset from the runway track.
I've only come across the phrase 'straight in approach' during my military flying career. It was invariably used to highlight that the aircraft would be positioned (either via ATC or self-positioning) to a long/short final position (on the Rwy centreline) where the aircraft would be configured prior to landing.
If the aircraft was not being positioned for a 'straight in approach' then it would invariably join for a visual circuit to land. This visual join may well be initiated from an Initial Point which is effectively on the runway centreline, but at a speed/height where a 'straight in approach' could not be flown.
If the aircraft was not being positioned for a 'straight in approach' then it would invariably join for a visual circuit to land. This visual join may well be initiated from an Initial Point which is effectively on the runway centreline, but at a speed/height where a 'straight in approach' could not be flown.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peacock:
The phrase is used in the U.S. all the time.
I've only come across the phrase 'straight in approach' during my military flying career. It was invariably used to highlight that the aircraft would be positioned (either via ATC or self-positioning) to a long/short final position (on the Rwy centreline) where the aircraft would be configured prior to landing.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lantirn
The confusion is about approaches that have displaced LOC/ILS from RW centre line with a curved visual segment. Like the ILS at old Hong Kong airport or Canarsie approach at JFK. This is not circle to land approach but straight in approach with curved segment. Circling approach is when you fly a circuit to reposition. When the approach is defined as circling you cannot reposition to land straight in because you may have the landing RW in opposite direction.
The confusion is about approaches that have displaced LOC/ILS from RW centre line with a curved visual segment. Like the ILS at old Hong Kong airport or Canarsie approach at JFK. This is not circle to land approach but straight in approach with curved segment. Circling approach is when you fly a circuit to reposition. When the approach is defined as circling you cannot reposition to land straight in because you may have the landing RW in opposite direction.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: FL390
Age: 38
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.aeolus.gr/pdfs/LGTS_JEP.pdf
You don't have to circle, you go straight in, even if minimums are circling minimums (categorized as circling) due to obstacles and navaid. This is what I try to explain. There are a thousand approaches of them
Circling minimums do not mandate a circling approach.
Last edited by Lantirn; 10th Nov 2016 at 06:24.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The phrase is used in the U.S. all the time.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: N5109.2W10.5
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Lantirn,
Please explain how you interpret "STRAIGHT-IN LANDING - NOT AUTHORIZED"
and being 2,500 ft at 3.9nm for a straight in is a stabilised approach.
look the approach below, last page 33, circling NDB procedure.
You don't have to circle, you go straight in,
You don't have to circle, you go straight in,
and being 2,500 ft at 3.9nm for a straight in is a stabilised approach.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: FL390
Age: 38
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Criteria are not met for a straight in minimums. Whenever Jepp plates have only circling minima, the straight in column displays this warning.
Correcting: You are right. It's not possible. You have to circle. But I have seen other examples, I'll show if I find one.
Correcting: You are right. It's not possible. You have to circle. But I have seen other examples, I'll show if I find one.
Last edited by Lantirn; 10th Nov 2016 at 12:32.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lantirn
You have misunderstood the circling requirement. I am reproducing what I stated before:
The approach you quote requires circling because of the descent gradient although the runway is straight ahead. Normally the circling approaches are designed to land on the opposite RW due to inability to design Instrument approach for the landing RW.
You have misunderstood the circling requirement. I am reproducing what I stated before:
a circling approach will be specified in those cases where terrain or
other constraints cause the final approach track alignment or descent gradient to fall outside the criteria for a straight-in approach’– ICAO Doc 8168 (PANS-OPS), Vol I,
other constraints cause the final approach track alignment or descent gradient to fall outside the criteria for a straight-in approach’– ICAO Doc 8168 (PANS-OPS), Vol I,
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes there are two major criteria required for a straight-in approach to be published:
So for circle-only approaches like the one at LGTS -- where the final course is aligned with a runway -- it's almost "by definition" that a normal 3-degree stabilized approach would not be possible. That's the reason the approach is circle-only.
But Lantirn is correct that an actual circling procedure is not required to be flown in all cases.
E.g., barring other factors it would be legal for a private pilot shooting the same approach on a little Cessna to fly the steep 6-degree descent from the FAF and then land without circling.
- The final approach course must be within 30 degrees of the runway alignment
- A "normal" rate of descent can be maintained
So for circle-only approaches like the one at LGTS -- where the final course is aligned with a runway -- it's almost "by definition" that a normal 3-degree stabilized approach would not be possible. That's the reason the approach is circle-only.
But Lantirn is correct that an actual circling procedure is not required to be flown in all cases.
E.g., barring other factors it would be legal for a private pilot shooting the same approach on a little Cessna to fly the steep 6-degree descent from the FAF and then land without circling.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: FL390
Age: 38
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I ve realised is that maybe I had this assumption because of my flight school, CATB aircraft, so no big deal to fly approaches like this one with a small twin.
I didnt noticed those years the gradient requirement, or I forgot.
Thank you for your inputs
But, look here
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fssim/charts/LGSR.pdf
Approach plate 13-2, circling VOR/DME (sorry about the various links, its what I find in google)
Neither the gradient is excessive, neither the offset is excessive.
Would you circle?
I didnt noticed those years the gradient requirement, or I forgot.
Thank you for your inputs
But, look here
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fssim/charts/LGSR.pdf
Approach plate 13-2, circling VOR/DME (sorry about the various links, its what I find in google)
Neither the gradient is excessive, neither the offset is excessive.
Would you circle?
