Circling approach for the straight in runway
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.
As I posted earlier, I don’t think doing an extended circle in conditions that are not good enough to give you a reference at MDA off an NPA is something I’d 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*, I’m not so sure. I don’t 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...
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(...)
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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 90º 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.
Only half a speed-brake
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 90º or so from the final approach track requiring a circle to land, sometimes with prescribed tracks due to terrain.
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 90º or so from the final approach track requiring a circle to land, sometimes with prescribed tracks due to terrain.
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.
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 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?
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 you’re good with all of these, then I can’t see a legal argument as to why not. Nothing is being busted...
* Minima (depending on the approach)
* Circling area (if wx does does not allow visual)
* ATC instructions
* Charted exceptions
If you’re good with all of these, then I can’t see a legal argument as to why not. Nothing is being busted...
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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?
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 90º 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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smallcog
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 25°
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.
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?
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.
Just finished writing a complete essay, didn't see this post, yes I agree with that completely if you mean to straight in minimums.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Zulu Time Zone
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Small cog;
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.
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?
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
" 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