Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Circling approach for the straight in runway

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Circling approach for the straight in runway

Old 28th Mar 2019, 17:54
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,391
Yes and another point that renders the original scenario moot for operators under EU-OPS. But still not a general prohibition under ICAO.
Is EU-OPS a thing anymore? Our manuals are EASA-IR...

99.9% of EASA Operators comply with CDFA approaches regulations, therefore You can't level off and wait for the Mapt whilst being levelled.
I fly for an EASA operator and we most definitely can level off and fly to the MAPt *on an instrument approach planning to circle-to-land*.
FullWings is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 19:47
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 650
Is EU-OPS a thing anymore? Our manuals are EASA-IR...
....or IR-OPS....?
oggers is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 19:51
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Earth
Posts: 57
PanOps: Visual Manouvering (circling)

4.1 GENERAL
Visual manoeuvring (circling) is the term used to describe the visual phase of flight after completing an instrument approach, to bring an aircraft into position for landing on a runway which is not suitably located for straight-in approach. [my bold]

4.6 VISUAL FLIGHT MANOEUVRE
A circling approach is a visual flight manoeuvre. Each circling situation is different because of variables such as runway layout, final approach track, wind velocity and meteorological conditions. Therefore, there can be no single procedure designed that will cater for conducting a circling approach in every situation. After initial visual contact, the basic assumption is that the runway environment (i.e. the runway threshold or approach lighting aids or other markings identifiable with the runway) should be kept in sight while at MDA/H for circling.

In the case of r/w 16 VOR/DME at OLBA, I would say that given the above that itís not Legal under ICAO. I still donít understand why anyone would want to do this anyway. You must be visual at MAP, or on a CDA by DA/DH. if not, you must commence a missed approach. Can you really do better than a straight in approach aligned with the r/w? In the particular example that has been proposed, the risk of an unstable approach would, I think, be highly likely during circling.
Small cog is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 20:00
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 100
Posts: 1,409
Originally Posted by FullWings View Post
Is EU-OPS a thing anymore? Our manuals are EASA-IR...

I fly for an EASA operator and we most definitely can level off and fly to the MAPt *on an instrument approach planning to circle-to-land*.
Ok, I'll try again. If You are flying a, let's say, VOR APP for runway 16 with circling 34, You will level off at the circling MDA and fly the circuit, we are all happy with that. What You can't do if You are flying a CDFA is level off somewhere above the VOR MDA, reach the MAPt and then dive down to land on runway 16 (aside from the fact that You will probably bust all kind of stabilisation gates). Having said that, You can't fly a VOR APP for runway 16 and then circle for... runway 16 ! There is no legal provision to back up such a decision. You can fly either the published IAP (VOR in our scenario) or fly a visual.
sonicbum is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 20:08
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 89
If the IAP leaves you so high and close you need to fly a 360 around the airport to land, isn't it a poorly designed approach to say the least?
Practically I can do stuff like this all day long in a 172 that can turn circles over the airport property, but a 121 jet flight??? In the USA this would likely be against the airline's opspec anyway.
island_airphoto is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 22:32
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: N5109.2W10.5
Posts: 611
If the IAP leaves you so high and close you need to fly a 360 around the airport to land, isn't it a poorly designed approach to say the least?
Depends on the terrain close by.

Attached Files
File Type: pdf
LTFE.pdf (76.6 KB, 7 views)

Last edited by Goldenrivett; 29th Mar 2019 at 09:10.
Goldenrivett is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2019, 22:54
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,391
Ok, I'll try again. If You are flying a, let's say, VOR APP for runway 16 with circling 34, You will level off at the circling MDA and fly the circuit, we are all happy with that. What You can't do if You are flying a CDFA is level off somewhere above the VOR MDA, reach the MAPt and then dive down to land on runway 16 (aside from the fact that You will probably bust all kind of stabilisation gates).
I donít think anyone is suggesting thatís a good idea, in fact I understand the original question was about whether it was possible to avoid that scenario by using alternate means.
Having said that, You can't fly a VOR APP for runway 16 and then circle for... runway 16 ! There is no legal provision to back up such a decision. You can fly either the published IAP (VOR in our scenario) or fly a visual.
Thatís the interesting bit: you can fly a circling approach off RW16 to RW14, 18, 26, 33, 04, etc. which may require extensive manoeuvring if there is a sector you canít circle in, or a circuit direction you need to follow. The main issue is staying within the prescribed area.

As I posted earlier, I donít think doing an extended circle in conditions that are not good enough to give you a reference at MDA off an NPA is something Iíd want to do, mostly because the chances of success are low and NPA/circling flight carries greater risk than most other types of approach. The technical question as to whether it is *allowable*, Iím not so sure. I donít see a prohibition of circling onto a runway, just because it happens to be somewhat aligned with your IAP. Some approaches are either not aligned with anything (see above charts) or dump you in a position where landing straight ahead is not feasible, even though the runway is right there...
FullWings is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 04:37
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Age: 51
Posts: 440
Originally Posted by sonicbum View Post
Ok, I'll try again. If You are flying a, let's say, VOR APP for runway 16 with circling 34, You will level off at the circling MDA and fly the circuit, we are all happy with that. What You can't do if You are flying a CDFA is level off somewhere above the VOR MDA, reach the MAPt and then dive down to land on runway 16 (aside from the fact that You will probably bust all kind of stabilisation gates). Having said that, You can't fly a VOR APP for runway 16 and then circle for... runway 16 ! There is no legal provision to back up such a decision. You can fly either the published IAP (VOR in our scenario) or fly a visual.
Been a while since I circled in the EU, but here in the USA it is legal. I flew into Aspen a lot, and the only runway we were allowed to land on was runway 15, and the only instrument approach was a LOC15 with only circling minimums (more than 400f/m). And yes, we used CDFA/DDA UNLESS planning to circle. At the MDA at the MAPT, you were way too high to make a straight in (1500 AAL?), but continue to half way down the rwy, make closed left traffic, and land on 15 no problem.
The circling approach does NOT mean you can't land on the same runway, it just means you can't make a straight in approach if you don't see the runway early on.
There might be a difference in the requirement of keeping the rwy environment in sight for the EU, but what you say is incorrect.
hans brinker is online now  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 06:54
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 111
Originally Posted by hans brinker View Post
(...)
The circling approach does NOT mean you can't land on the same runway, it just means you can't make a straight in approach if you don't see the runway early on.
There might be a difference in the requirement of keeping the rwy environment in sight for the EU, but what you say is incorrect.
So I need some clarification referring to the chart below: according to the minimums box "straight-in (is) not authorized" but let's say we are perfectly visual at MDA 1200 (1140) slightly earlier than MAPt, for example at 4 NM (at DME 9). Do I need to ask for a visual approach in order to continue straight-in for rwy23? Or any other options maybe?

poldek77 is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 08:47
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 100
Posts: 1,409
Originally Posted by hans brinker View Post
Been a while since I circled in the EU, but here in the USA it is legal. I flew into Aspen a lot, and the only runway we were allowed to land on was runway 15, and the only instrument approach was a LOC15 with only circling minimums (more than 400f/m). And yes, we used CDFA/DDA UNLESS planning to circle. At the MDA at the MAPT, you were way too high to make a straight in (1500 AAL?), but continue to half way down the rwy, make closed left traffic, and land on 15 no problem.
The circling approach does NOT mean you can't land on the same runway, it just means you can't make a straight in approach if you don't see the runway early on.
There might be a difference in the requirement of keeping the rwy environment in sight for the EU, but what you say is incorrect.
Hi Hans,

that's how the procedure is built, so this is accounted by the legislation. Worldwide, like many others here, I have seen VOR or NDB approaches with the landing runway placed 90ļ or so from the final approach track requiring a circle to land, sometimes with prescribed tracks due to terrain/noise. One example of this is Nice LFMN and the VOR approach RIVIERA for 04L/R. It is indeed the VOR APP followed by circling for the same runway, the latter being heavily offset.

Last edited by sonicbum; 29th Mar 2019 at 10:07.
sonicbum is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 09:07
  #51 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 41
Posts: 2,560
poldek77 Asking for a visual at any point and doing a straight in is a legal option. Given the profile, meeting your sinkrate and final descent angle criteria looks possible under the suggested conditions. Impossible to evaluate proximity to obstacles from the charts, that's what MK1 eyeballs are for.

The amount of refute from the chief pilot depends on his MK1 them other round organs 😬, but if you could keep things neat... and briefed!

The danger in doing things outside the box is if you screw up, the PM has no previous knowledge or guidelines to evaluate how far off the planned trajectory is the situation unfolding, and how critical the deviation is.

For anything non standard, the basic foundation is to set the out-of-bounds lines first and empower the colleague for making the right calls should the situation require. The chances of PF self-correcting are not high enough due to various HF.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 10:55
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 650
Originally Posted by sonicbum View Post
Hi Hans,

that's how the procedure is built, so this is accounted by the legislation. Worldwide, like many others here, I have seen VOR or NDB approaches with the landing runway placed 90ļ or so from the final approach track requiring a circle to land, sometimes with prescribed tracks due to terrain.
We are talking the general case here which the OP has been at pains to reiterate, not some specific restriction on the individual plate such as 'Circling Not Authorised South and East' or procedures with prescribed tracks. In general, the plate does not specify the pattern you will fly during the circling manoeuvre, the generic legality of which is the one and only question posed by the OP. You say:
You can't fly a VOR APP for runway 16 and then circle for... runway 16 ! There is no legal provision to back up such a decision.
The TC AIM says:
An air traffic controller may specify manoeuvring in a certain direction or area due to traffic considerations; however, the selection of the procedure required to remain within the protected area and to accomplish a safe landing rests with the pilot.
They give this example:


They are a member state. Their recommended practice is therefore ICAO compliant. Why then do you think that TC and ICAO have allowed the publication of a recommended manoeuvre for which you maintain "there is no legal provision"?


...or at what point do you think - as we move to the precise manoeuvre recommended by B2N2 early in the thread - the difference between C, D, and E makes the manoeuvre illegal?
oggers is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 11:54
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,391
I suppose you could sum it up as: what do you need to respect?

* Minima (depending on the approach)
* Circling area (if wx does does not allow visual)
* ATC instructions
* Charted exceptions

If youíre good with all of these, then I canít see a legal argument as to why not. Nothing is being busted...
FullWings is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 12:27
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Earth
Posts: 57
Oggers

In your post earlier you proved diagrams to make a point. PanOps contains similar diagrams, but they relate to the case of VISUAL MANOEUVRING USING PRESCRIBED TRACK. That is not an option in the case put by the OP.
Small cog is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 13:10
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 650
Originally Posted by Small cog View Post
Oggers

In your post earlier you proved diagrams to make a point. PanOps contains similar diagrams, but they relate to the case of VISUAL MANOEUVRING USING PRESCRIBED TRACK. That is not an option in the case put by the OP.

The diagram I provided (along with the example I edited) was from the "examples of various circling approach situations" as provided in the TC AIM. The whole point is they are NOT prescribed tracks which is made abundantly clear if you read the extract from the AIM I also provided, namely: "the selection of the procedure required to remain within the protected area and to accomplish a safe landing rests with the pilot".

Last edited by oggers; 29th Mar 2019 at 14:09. Reason: spelling
oggers is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 14:43
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Earth
Posts: 57
oggers

With respect, if you read the TC AIM narrative, you will see that it states that the basic procedure is to keep the runway in sight. How do you do that when itís behind you?
Small cog is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 15:54
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Age: 51
Posts: 440
Originally Posted by poldek77 View Post
So I need some clarification referring to the chart below: according to the minimums box "straight-in (is) not authorized" but let's say we are perfectly visual at MDA 1200 (1140) slightly earlier than MAPt, for example at 4 NM (at DME 9). Do I need to ask for a visual approach in order to continue straight-in for rwy23? Or any other options maybe?
That is a great question and I don't know if I have the right (legally correct) answer. If we saw the rwy early, we would call: "rwy in sight" and would get cleared for the visual and land straight in, or when sighting the rwy clse to the mapt, and too high for the straight in, would call: "rwy in sight, starting left circle to land". AFAIK you can land straight in provided you see the rwy early enough to get on a normal profile for a stabilized approach without having to request a visual (CMIIAW), and there could be a requirement to advise ATC.
hans brinker is online now  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 16:01
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Age: 51
Posts: 440
Originally Posted by sonicbum View Post


Hi Hans,

that's how the procedure is built, so this is accounted by the legislation. Worldwide, like many others here, I have seen VOR or NDB approaches with the landing runway placed 90ļ or so from the final approach track requiring a circle to land, sometimes with prescribed tracks due to terrain/noise. One example of this is Nice LFMN and the VOR approach RIVIERA for 04L/R. It is indeed the VOR APP followed by circling for the same runway, the latter being heavily offset.
I used was based in NCE for half year, and flew into for around 6 years, so I have done that approach maybe a hundred times. The issue I had with your post was that you said if assigned a circling approach for rwy16 you cannot circle to 16 but only to all the other rwy-s at that airport. An approach is designated "circling" either because there is more than 30 degrees between the final approach course or because the descent from the MDA at the MAPT to the touchdown zone is more than 400 F/M. Once the rwy environment is in sight, you proceed within the circling distance, in visual contact to the intended rwy for landing. This can be any, including the one the appch leads into. An example of the top of my head was Bilbao VOR10 (not longer published). Visibility required was +/- 1.5km, minimums for both straight in and circling based on our GA climb grad 1500' or so. You would see the rwy about a mile out at 1400'AGL, circle to the left and land rwy 10, much better than the downwind for 30 or 28. Yes, you need ATC clearance, but totally legal. You are right that you can't make the straight in from the MDA at the MAPT without busting stabilized approach criteria, but that is why we circle, and what rwy you circle to is between you and the controller..

Originally Posted by sonicbum View Post
Ok, I'll try again. If You are flying a, let's say, VOR APP for runway 16 with circling 34, You will level off at the circling MDA and fly the circuit, we are all happy with that. What You can't do if You are flying a CDFA is level off somewhere above the VOR MDA, reach the MAPt and then dive down to land on runway 16 (aside from the fact that You will probably bust all kind of stabilisation gates). Having said that, You can't fly a VOR APP for runway 16 and then circle for... runway 16 ! There is no legal provision to back up such a decision. You can fly either the published IAP (VOR in our scenario) or fly a visual.

Last edited by hans brinker; 29th Mar 2019 at 16:28.
hans brinker is online now  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 16:04
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Age: 51
Posts: 440
As far as the requirement to keep the rwy environment in sight while flying away from the rwy, I think it relates more to cloud and visibility/obstacles between you and the rwy than part of the airplane blocking your view momentarily. When you check your speed/configuration/gear, you cannot see the rwy either.
hans brinker is online now  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 18:30
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 100
Posts: 1,409
Originally Posted by hans brinker View Post
I used was based in NCE for half year, and flew into for around 6 years, so I have done that approach maybe a hundred times. The issue I had with your post was that you said if assigned a circling approach for rwy16 you cannot circle to 16 but only to all the other rwy-s at that airport. An approach is designated "circling" either because there is more than 30 degrees between the final approach course or because the descent from the MDA at the MAPT to the touchdown zone is more than 400 F/M. Once the rwy environment is in sight, you proceed within the circling distance, in visual contact to the intended rwy for landing. This can be any, including the one the appch leads into. An example of the top of my head was Bilbao VOR10 (not longer published). Visibility required was +/- 1.5km, minimums for both straight in and circling based on our GA climb grad 1500' or so. You would see the rwy about a mile out at 1400'AGL, circle to the left and land rwy 10, much better than the downwind for 30 or 28. Yes, you need ATC clearance, but totally legal. You are right that you can't make the straight in from the MDA at the MAPT without busting stabilized approach criteria, but that is why we circle, and what rwy you circle to is between you and the controller..
I have used the example of Nice because the VOR RIVIERA is not a straight in approach and therefore You must circle to land. If You are flying a straight in approach for a specific runway, like the scenario of VOR 16 in Beirut and if You wish to land on runway 16, You have two options : land out of the VOR approach of fly the visual approach. In my interpretation of the regulations there is no provision to allow You to circle to land for a runway after having flown the associated straight in approach, it is just pure nonsense (in my opinion from a legal point of view).
sonicbum is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.