Circling minima TERPS/EASA
CIRC minima are published according to approach categories (A/B/C/D...) that relate to Vref.
Any aircraft is categorized as e.g. cat C. If you exceed the max speed for cat C on your actual approach (e.g. due to abnormal procedures) you have to use the higher cat D minimum in the FAAs world. Does that requirement (use the higher minimum) hold true in the EASA world? I know EASA and FAA/TERPS CIRC minima are not based on the same obstacle free radii - hence my question. |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by JPAirbus
(Post 10161335)
CIRC minima are published according to approach categories (A/B/C/D...) that relate to Vref.
Any aircraft is categorized as e.g. cat C. If you exceed the max speed for cat C on your actual approach (e.g. due to abnormal procedures) you have to use the higher cat D minimum in the FAAs world. Does that requirement (use the higher minimum) hold true in the EASA world? I know EASA and FAA/TERPS CIRC minima are not based on the same obstacle free radii - hence my question. |
I always wondered that. If I'm flying a CAT C aircraft but you fly the approach at a speed that puts you in the CAT D category which minima do you use at airports with differing minima. What about a CAT D aircraft that is light?
|
Originally Posted by Airmann
(Post 10161768)
I always wondered that. If I'm flying a CAT C aircraft but you fly the approach at a speed that puts you in the CAT D category which minima do you use at airports with differing minima. What about a CAT D aircraft that is light?
|
certainly would go into higher cat if non standard config. all got very confusing with TERPS with respect to circling radii and the new limits vs old... very easy to get caught out. allegedly, 9 times more risky than a precision approach. not sure how true but was quoted at a sim check recently. |
Have done countless flaps/slats jammed scenarios in the sim, and not once has anyone suggested using a higher minima. For that matter landing with flaps/slats jammed at close to fully retracted may well put the aircraft above max speed for CAT D even. But our company charts only have C or D on them because that's all we have in the fleet. I Don't know if a CAT E or more even exists?
|
Originally Posted by Airmann
(Post 10161937)
Have done countless flaps/slats jammed scenarios in the sim, and not once has anyone suggested using a higher minima. For that matter landing with flaps/slats jammed at close to fully retracted may well put the aircraft above max speed for CAT D even. But our company charts only have C or D on them because that's all we have in the fleet. I Don't know if a CAT E or more even exists?
|
Originally Posted by VinRouge
(Post 10161935)
allegedly, 9 times more risky than a precision approach. not sure how true but was quoted at a sim check recently. |
I thought that every Airline basically banned circling these days
|
If you have a failure that increases your approach speed and you are thinking whether you should increase your circling minima due to higher approach speed, you are asking yourself the wrong question.
The real question should be: is circling with some (I'm guessing) flight controls problem really the best option that I have available? Most of the time, the answer will be no. |
Originally Posted by FlyingStone
(Post 10162058)
If you have a failure that increases your approach speed and you are thinking whether you should increase your circling minima due to higher approach speed, you are asking yourself the wrong question.
The real question should be: is circling with some (I'm guessing) flight controls problem really the best option that I have available? Most of the time, the answer will be no. We have Cat E published and if I'm ever above 163 Kt in final approach config, that's what I use. Also worth noting the other speed limits for the various segments of the approach apply too as part of terps procedure design, it's not just about finals. The limits are there. It's published you can move up the category but not down. Will try to find the official reference (may be terps/pans ops specific though ) |
Originally Posted by Airmann
(Post 10161937)
Have done countless flaps/slats jammed scenarios in the sim, and not once has anyone suggested using a higher minima. For that matter landing with flaps/slats jammed at close to fully retracted may well put the aircraft above max speed for CAT D even. But our company charts only have C or D on them because that's all we have in the fleet. I Don't know if a CAT E or more even exists?
There are no Cat E civil aircraft, and I have never seen a published E minima. Interestingly, the EGLL control zone size was established all those years ago in the anticipation of civil Cat E being developed, to cover a Cat E circling. It is about time it was re-sized to reflect the real wold of the last 40+ or more years. Amazingly, the initial zone proposed for the new Sydney (AU) West airport is more or less the same size, ie: to cover a maneuver that will never be flown by an aircraft that does not and will not ever exist . But one can never be "too safe", can one, no matter what destruction of existing GA traffic and existing airfields results. Tootle pip!! |
Its the need/want to go outside the protected area for the various cats.
CAT C is radius 2.7 CAT D is 3.6 CAT E is 4.5 With a MDA below 1000ft. I have been challenged about staying in the 2.7 which makes getting the stabilisation gate shall we say interesting. Some SOP's have a partial stabilisation gate at 1000 for circling and 500ft for complete. Others they don't even mention it. in theory the vis minima is 2NM for CAT C and 2.5 NM for cat D I have never tried a sim approach in viz that low but I really can't see me being able to keep the runway in sight and be stable. And 500ft would be challenging wings level etc etc. And that's with no specials Flap 0 and Vref of 170knts and bank of 30 degrees your not going to make the turn to finals with 3.7km viz and field in sight. 6.5KM viz of cat E you might have a chance. Stabilised borderline. Terps cat E is 3.2 km viz. Most CAT C circling approaches I have seen and been tested on never seem to stay inside the protected area if you do them the way the TRE wants them, in fact most are bordering outside the CAT E protected area. These are just thoughts on what I have seen on circling approaches over the years. I could get the plane in but it would be using "cowboy" skills which thankfully are extremely not current these days, and the safety officer would quite rightly be sending me to the CP for a right roasting. Those cowboy skills are not trained for in modern CAT operations it would be a 10 deg AoB constant aspect, roll the wings level at 200ft and land. A circling approach at min viz and minimas for me is a last ditch get it on the ground in real life, no more escape options left. In the sim its good for training and making you think in contrived situations. Real life I have had to operate into single ended IFR approach runways and done Circling approaches for real in a CAT B machine but without modern stabilised approach SOP's I would say all of them would have been categorised as unstable, runway centre line and bank angle over 5 deg not obtained by 500ft. . My current C machine I wouldn't even attempt it unless we were going to crash otherwise. |
Originally Posted by Pugilistic Animus
(Post 10161990)
I thought that every Airline basically banned circling these days
If they opt out they can still CTL with reported ceiling and visibility of not less than 1,000 and 3. |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by LeadSled
(Post 10162164)
There are no Cat E civil aircraft, and I have never seen a published E minima.
|
CAT C is radius 2.7 CAT D is 3.6 CAT E is 4.5 With a MDA below 1000ft. We use CAT E, however, has to be a heavyweight clean wing approach (no slat or flap) to require this. I also have operationally used CAT E minima to prevent the cowboy style approach talked about above; by reverting to cat E minima, you have far more space to manoevre (as long as you have the visibility and cloudbase to do this of course) |
I thought that every Airline basically banned circling these days Depending of course on the destination terrain characteristics, circling approaches are not in themselves categorised as dangerous (providing any published No Circling area is respected). It is the questionable competency of the pilots flying them that gives people the yips; particularly those that are totally dependent on the automatic pilot as a crutch to lean on. |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by VinRouge
(Post 10162505)
Worth pointing out that those limits only apply to old style TERPS plates. the newer ones (inverse bold C) have differing circling radii, as do pans ops plates. I think it varies with MDA/H too. Which is why i really don't like flying them operationally. Why procedures designers didn't stick with a standardized radius across al types of plate I won't know; at the bare minimum (no pun intended) Circling minima should include the circling radius you can go out to.
|
Just to double check, have I got the current panops radius correct for MDA below 1000ft?
If not what are they? I remember those because they all add up to 9 and go up by 1 for each cat increase making them easy to remember. |
Thank you Aterpster and Sheppy for the additional information
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:11. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.