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 29th Mar 2019, 18:40
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 100
Posts: 1,408
Originally Posted by hans brinker View Post
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.
What I wrote was

Originally Posted by sonicbum View Post
Having said that, You can't fly a VOR APP for runway 16 and then circle for... runway 16 !
I should have written Having said that, You can't fly a straight in VOR APP for runway 16 and then circle for... runway 16 !
sonicbum is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 19:45
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Age: 51
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by sonicbum View Post
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).


You are confusing things imho. Most plates for straight in approaches will have circling minimums published as well as straight in minimums. If the angle/steepness are too big there will only be circling minimums, if terrain/regulations forbid circling there will only be straight in minimums.
Off course you cannot circle to land if you fly the straight in approach to straight in minimums, but you can circle if you fly the approach to circling minimums, and you are not in anyway restricted by a general rule from circling back to the straight in runway.

In your example with the following weather:
visibility 3km
no clouds
wind 160/11
The VOR 16 has the following minima:
Straight in 1000'AFE
Circling 1200"AFE
MAPT for both is the VOR on the field.

On the straight in you will need at least 5km visibility (3Mi) to see the runway in time to make an approach and landing using normal stabilized approach criteria, so you will not be able to successfully land straight in, and you cannot accept circling for RWY34 due to the wind. You can however accept the VOR16 circle to land 16. You fly the approach to circling minimums, will see the runway before the missed approach point, circle around, within the protected area to RWY 16 and land RWY16. As long as you are approved for circling, and ATC clears you this is perfectly legal.

Last edited by hans brinker; 29th Mar 2019 at 19:58.
hans brinker is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 19:49
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 649
Smallcog

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 it’s behind you?
All the runway is not directly behind you though. The threshold will be just behind the wing. You would have to have a particulalry restricted view from the cockpit to not have line of sight to the runway environment when banked at 25į

The diagram and the text I posted from Tranport Canada AIM make it clear that circling back to the staright-in runway is an ICAO compliant procedure. If TC agreed with your subjective interpretation then they would be contradicting the very example they have explicitly provided. Also the article I linked to from IFR Refresher by the former chair of the ALPA TERPs committee with a diagram (see below) of exactly the manoeuvre in question is unambiguous. Meanwhile there is no specific prohibition anywhere in the regs against circling back to the straight-in runway. It would be the easiest thing in the world to include if that was indeed the intention of the regulators. In the face of the explicit references I have provided I do not think second guessing the regulators with tenuous interpretations of the likelihood of being able to keep the runway environment in sight during the turn really stand up.


Last edited by oggers; 29th Mar 2019 at 20:07.
oggers is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 19:54
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Age: 51
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by sonicbum View Post
What I wrote was



I should have written Having said that, You can't fly a straight in VOR APP for runway 16 and then circle for... runway 16 !

Just finished writing a complete essay, didn't see this post, yes I agree with that completely if you mean to straight in minimums.
hans brinker is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2019, 20:54
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Earth
Posts: 57
Meanwhile there is no specific prohibition anywhere in the regs against circling back to the straight-in runway. It would be the easiest thing in the world to include if that was indeed the intention of the regulators. In the face of the explicit references I have provided I do not think second guessing the regulators with tenuous interpretations of the likelihood of being able to keep the runway environment in sight during the turn really stand up.
oggers,

Perhaps then you can help me with understanding the reason for a circling approach given by TC? To paraphrase (I can’t copy and paste the extract); they are intended for when a straight in approach is not suitable. That’s also what ICAO PanOps 8168 has to say for the reason of having a circling approach. No ‘tenuous interpretations’ needed of that surely?
Small cog is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2019, 08:56
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 649
Small cog;
Perhaps then you can help me with understanding the reason for a circling approach given by TC? To paraphrase (I canít copy and paste the extract); they are intended for when a straight in approach is not suitable. Thatís also what ICAO PanOps 8168 has to say for the reason of having a circling approach. No Ďtenuous interpretationsí needed of that surely?
Already been covered in the thread It is also in the linked article. It is when a the final approach is very steep or not aligned with the runway and it is in precisely those circumstances when the best or only option may be to circle back to what would otherwise be the 'straight-in' runway, because eg the reciprocal is downwind, as many contributors have understood or even experienced.
oggers is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2019, 14:38
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 100
Posts: 1,408
Originally Posted by hans brinker View Post
You are confusing things imho. Most plates for straight in approaches will have circling minimums published as well as straight in minimums. If the angle/steepness are too big there will only be circling minimums, if terrain/regulations forbid circling there will only be straight in minimums.

Off course you cannot circle to land if you fly the straight in approach to straight in minimums, but you can circle if you fly the approach to circling minimums, and you are not in anyway restricted by a general rule from circling back to the straight in runway.


In your example with the following weather:

visibility 3km

no clouds

wind 160/11

The VOR 16 has the following minima:

Straight in 1000'AFE

Circling 1200"AFE

MAPT for both is the VOR on the field.


On the straight in you will need at least 5km visibility (3Mi) to see the runway in time to make an approach and landing using normal stabilized approach criteria, so you will not be able to successfully land straight in, and you cannot accept circling for RWY34 due to the wind. You can however accept the VOR16 circle to land 16. You fly the approach to circling minimums, will see the runway before the missed approach point, circle around, within the protected area to RWY 16 and land RWY16. As long as you are approved for circling, and ATC clears you this is perfectly legal.

DOC 8168 defition of circling :


Visual manoeuvring (circling) is the term used to describe the phase of flight after an instrument approach has been completed. It brings the aircraft into position for landing on a runway which is not suitably located for straight-in approach, i.e. one where the criteria for alignment or descent gradient cannot be met.


In our scenario this is not true. The above, for me, is more than enough to consider Your example of circling for runway 16 not legal at all, as there is a perfectly working IAP for that runway with a more than suitable alignment/descent gradient. Since we are discussing legality, this is what, IMHO, any safety investigation would bring up should there be an event out of this kind of approach.
sonicbum is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2019, 15:43
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Earth
Posts: 57
Sonicbum

Just as I posted a while ago, and I agree with you.
Small cog is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2019, 16:36
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Age: 51
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by sonicbum View Post
DOC 8168 defition of circling :


Visual manoeuvring (circling) is the term used to describe the phase of flight after an instrument approach has been completed. It brings the aircraft into position for landing on a runway which is not suitably located for straight-in approach, i.e. one where the criteria for alignment or descent gradient cannot be met.


In our scenario this is not true. The above, for me, is more than enough to consider Your example of circling for runway 16 not legal at all, as there is a perfectly working IAP for that runway with a more than suitable alignment/descent gradient. Since we are discussing legality, this is what, IMHO, any safety investigation would bring up should there be an event out of this kind of approach.
Edit: I can totally see your interpretation based on the your definition, but what I found for ICAO 8168 is (unless I am looking at an old version):
A circling approach is an extension of an instrument approach procedure which provides for visual circling of the aerodrome prior to landing. (ICAO Doc 8168: Procedures for Air Navigation Services - Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS) Vol I - Flight Procedures)
What you quoted is JAROPS (I think):
A circling approach is the visual phase of an instrument approach to bring an aircraft into position for landing on a runway which is not suitably located for a straight-in approach. (JAR-OPS 1.435 (a) (1))

Also, at various times I have been trained and authorized by FAA (can't remember RLD (Dutch "JAA" times TBH) examiners that this is an approved way of flying a circling approach.

I think we will not be able to change each others mind, so I will leave this with a link to an article written by the former ALPA TERPS chairman (I think he is qualified to (at least for the USA) make the call if this is legal):

" Figure 4. For a circling approach where the electronic final is aligned with the runway, fly down the runway at MDA until it’s about to disappear under the nose, then enter the close-in circle-to-land maneuver.





Circling to land straight-in Figure 4 (page 12) is the method I recommend for handling a situation like the MFR IAP, where you aren’t comfortable landing straight-in. The first reaction of both pilots and controllers is to “do a 360 on final” rather than what I’ve illustrated. A 360-degree turn on final is fine on a clear VFR day. That’s not the type of day with which this article is concerned, however. I’m assuming night or day with precip, bumps, gusty winds, etc. When you really need to circle at MFR, Figure 4 is the way to do it. Fly down the runway at MDA until it’s about to disappear under the nose, then enter the close-in circle-to-land maneuver."


https://skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1430.PDF

Last edited by hans brinker; 30th Mar 2019 at 17:30. Reason: adding text
hans brinker is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2019, 10:30
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 100
Posts: 1,408
Originally Posted by hans brinker View Post
I think we will not be able to change each others mind, so I will leave this with a link to an article written by the former ALPA TERPS chairman (I think he is qualified to (at least for the USA) make the call if this is legal):

" Figure 4. For a circling approach where the electronic final is aligned with the runway, fly down the runway at MDA until it’s about to disappear under the nose, then enter the close-in circle-to-land maneuver.





Circling to land straight-in Figure 4 (page 12) is the method I recommend for handling a situation like the MFR IAP, where you aren’t comfortable landing straight-in. The first reaction of both pilots and controllers is to “do a 360 on final” rather than what I’ve illustrated. A 360-degree turn on final is fine on a clear VFR day. That’s not the type of day with which this article is concerned, however. I’m assuming night or day with precip, bumps, gusty winds, etc. When you really need to circle at MFR, Figure 4 is the way to do it. Fly down the runway at MDA until it’s about to disappear under the nose, then enter the close-in circle-to-land maneuver."


https://skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1430.PDF
Thanks for the interesting link. When the author mentions "where you aren’t comfortable landing straight-in" I believe it probably refers to the vertical profile that might be too steep, don't think it has anything to do with marginal weather for a straight in approach, but that's just my opinion of course.
sonicbum is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2019, 15:54
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,221
Another consideration at an airport such as Medford: Fly the ILS with a tailwind and circle-to-land to Runway 32.

Gets CAT D 1,260 feet lower and negates the need for a steep descent over high terrain: And, the ILS 14 has the new TERPs larger circling airspace, unlike the RNAV-D.

aterpster is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2019, 11:28
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 649
Originally Posted by sonicbum View Post
When the author mentions "where you arenít comfortable landing straight-in" I believe it probably refers to the vertical profile that might be too steep, don't think it has anything to do with marginal weather for a straight in approach, but that's just my opinion of course.
The whole point of this thread is the legality of the manoeuvre itself. You either have the weather minimums or you don't, that is not in question.

There are IAPs where you have to circle back if the wind favours what would otherwise be the straight-in runway, due to the approach profile being too steep. Aspen was mentioned, here is another one:

If you were not permitted to land on 02 from this approach there would simply be a note stating it was Not Authorised. But you are permitted to land on 02. This procedure has been approved. The manoeuvre is legal.
oggers is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2019, 12:42
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: EASA land
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by Small cog View Post
The question was:


No. Having been cleared to fly the procedure, unless otherwise cleared, if not visual by the MAP, you are required to fly the missed approach procedure so as to ensure terrain clearance.
Exactly. You can not proceed past the MAP if you are not visual with the runway.
TOGA Tap is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2019, 12:55
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 100
Posts: 1,408
Originally Posted by oggers View Post
The whole point of this thread is the legality of the manoeuvre itself. You either have the weather minimums or you don't, that is not in question.

There are IAPs where you have to circle back if the wind favours what would otherwise be the straight-in runway, due to the approach profile being too steep. Aspen was mentioned, here is another one:

If you were not permitted to land on 02 from this approach there would simply be a note stating it was Not Authorised. But you are permitted to land on 02. This procedure has been approved. The manoeuvre is legal.
this is irrelevant with respect to the OPís question. Again, the above procedure is not a straight in approach and has logically only circling minimum. You canít fly a straight in approach (in terms of offset and grandient) for runway XX and then circle for that same runway, it does not make any sense.
sonicbum is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2019, 15:05
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,221
Originally Posted by sonicbum View Post


this is irrelevant with respect to the OPís question. Again, the above procedure is not a straight in approach and has logically only circling minimum. You canít fly a straight in approach (in terms of offset and grandient) for runway XX and then circle for that same runway, it does not make any sense.
Why not? If the runway is in sight and you are too high, what is your plan?

aterpster is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2019, 15:43
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by sonicbum View Post
You can't fly a straight in approach (in terms of offset and grandient) for runway XX and then circle for that same runway, it does not make any sense.
In my opinion, it DOES make sense! Look again at the VOR 27 app in LGIR. At straight in minima of 1100 ft a plane on a 3.3į descent path would still be more than 5000 m from the runway. Let's assume a visibility of 3500 m. In most companies the pilot would need to make a go around at that point if he intended to make a straight in landing, because he wouldn't be visual with the runway. At the circling minima of 1140 feet at 1.5 DME he would have the runway in sight. So, if a pilot planned to maintain 1140 ft to 1.5 DME and planned to fly a (right hand pattern over the sea) circling approach like in the drawing posted by oggers, there would be nothing illegal about that. (Unless you keep insisting that a temporary visual obstruction from the airframe itself, would oblige the pilote to execute a missed approach. ) (And ... I do believe that a competent, well prepared crew and familiar with LGIR can do it in a perfectly safe way if planned and briefed adequately! But... remember we're not discussing the wisdom of such a manoeuvre, but only the legality of it.)

If it's not forbidden, it's not illegal!

sabenaboy is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2019, 17:44
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 100
Posts: 1,408
Originally Posted by sabenaboy View Post
In my opinion, it DOES make sense! Look again at the VOR 27 app in LGIR. At straight in minima of 1100 ft a plane on a 3.3į descent path would still be more than 5000 m from the runway. Let's assume a visibility of 3500 m. In most companies the pilot would need to make a go around at that point if he intended to make a straight in landing, because he wouldn't be visual with the runway. At the circling minima of 1140 feet at 1.5 DME he would have the runway in sight. So, if a pilot planned to maintain 1140 ft to 1.5 DME and planned to fly a (right hand pattern over the sea) circling approach like in the drawing posted by oggers, there would be nothing illegal about that. (Unless you keep insisting that a temporary visual obstruction from the airframe itself, would oblige the pilote to execute a missed approach. ) (And ... I do believe that a competent, well prepared crew and familiar with LGIR can do it in a perfectly safe way if planned and briefed adequately! But... remember we're not discussing the wisdom of such a manoeuvre, but only the legality of it.)

If it's not forbidden, it's not illegal!

I give You credits for the explanation but to be honest I don't think anybody would get away with it should an event occur in such circumstances. I can't prove You black on white that it is not legal, but I would not want to discover it under a safety investigation conducted by some Authority, therefore, before some readers decide to try it out and avoid an unnecessary diversion to their operator, I would really try to bring it to the attention of some regulators and come up with a clear cut explanation.


sonicbum is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2019, 17:49
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 100
Posts: 1,408
Originally Posted by aterpster View Post
Why not? If the runway is in sight and you are too high, what is your plan?
On a straight in approach if the runway is insight and I am too high it is because something went wrong in my NPA, so it is a go around and we give it another try.
On a side note, I know we are only discussing "legal aspects" but guys nobody will shoot You for not being able to land out of a straight in approach in marginal weather and having to divert. On the opposite side, if somebody ends up trying to be smart by doing something he has never tried before or has never heard of, then things could go differently.
sonicbum is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2019, 18:54
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 381
Originally Posted by sonicbum View Post
I give You credits for the explanation but to be honest I don't think anybody would get away with it should an event occur in such circumstances. I can't prove You black on white that it is not legal, but I would not want to discover it under a safety investigation conducted by some Authority, therefore, before some readers decide to try it out and avoid an unnecessary diversion to their operator, I would really try to bring it to the attention of some regulators and come up with a clear cut explanation.
Sonicbum, if you were familiar with Heraklion, you would most probably agree that circling back to rwy 27 is not more dangerous than a standard circling pattern to rwy 09. There's the city and port with large ships and cranes just east of rwy 09. (And a displaced threshold on rwy 09 because of it.) On rwy 27 you come in over the sea, and as long as you stay on the center line of the rwy or north of it, there's nothing but water. (apart from an island 6NM north of the airport rising to 883 ft) The circle back to land on 27 is just as safe (even safer!) than a standard circle to land to rwy 09. A competent, well trained and prepared crew should be able to do it. Probably my operator wouldn't blame me if I diverted to Chania or Athens, but I sure would like to bring my passengers to their intended destination if there's a safe and legal way to bring them there.

Originally Posted by sonicbum
On the opposite side, if somebody ends up trying to be smart by doing something he has never tried before or has never heard of, then things could go differently.
It all depends on the experience, decision making and many other airmanship factors.

But, we're not talking about the legality anymore and that was the main question.
My personal final conclusion: It's not illegal, therefore it's legal. whether it's a good idea depends on many other considerations that have nothing to do with the legal aspect! (But in Heraklion it sure is less risky than circling to 09) This was my last contribution to this thread. (Unless anybody would start making incredibly stupid remarks ! )

Last edited by sabenaboy; 1st Apr 2019 at 20:33.
sabenaboy is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2019, 19:03
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Atlanta
Age: 51
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by sonicbum View Post
On a straight in approach if the runway is insight and I am too high it is because something went wrong in my NPA, so it is a go around and we give it another try.
On a side note, I know we are only discussing "legal aspects" but guys nobody will shoot You for not being able to land out of a straight in approach in marginal weather and having to divert. On the opposite side, if somebody ends up trying to be smart by doing something he has never tried before or has never heard of, then things could go differently.
Not keeping my promise to stay out of the discussion very well....

Two things I need to point out:
You keep saying straight in approach, but it is a circling approach, even if it is associated with a specific rwy (so no you wouldn't be too high if you are at circling minimum and close to the rwy.
This is not some crazy newn thingy, like I already posted, the guy representing 60.000 airline pilots in the USA says this is okay, and it is trained too, it's apparently in the Canadian AIM.

There's no way the pilot would get in trouble if he followed this procedure correct if something were to happen. Maybe if it would go wrong often enough the authorization would be removed, but guess what, many more aircraft have crashed dipping below minimum or
​​diving down get the straight in, than by circling back.
hans brinker 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.