BOAC, Check your private messages.

Please tell me....
 

Valmont,

Please tell me this guy was not U.S. trained. Please tell me....


Fly safe,


PantLoad

Legitimate autority of the Captain still exists

Roulishollandais: In general, yes, but there's not legitimate authority to command and force you to do the wrong thing, especially crash the a/c. "I was only obeying orders." is not a defence. Are you suggesting that a captain has the authority to force an F/O to disobey SOP's or execute bad airmanship in an unsafe manner; or to do so himself without being opposed?

Spot on, with the caveat that the SOP's themselves probably say something along the lines of "The captain may take any action...blah,blah...safety".
Mine do.
And the captain disappearing into the boonies muttering about PANS CTL areas having nothing to do with terrain would be one such discussion point, if I were RHS (or jumpseat).

Here are 2 questions for those who understand circling:

Would you, unlike some here, circle off 19 at the meteor crater if there were published minima?

Is this ONE occasion where you could be justified in looking at the 01 plate to extract CTL minima?

SUPPLEMENTARY: What if joe-driver decided to fly the LPV 01 to a CTL at 8240'?

Just when you thought it was safe to relax....

Said Captain is flying a Category C aircraft to scenic Lewiston, and planning to fly the RNAV (GPS) RWY 26 with the intent of circling to RWY 08. He notes the 26 LNAV MDA is 4480 and Category C circling minimum is 4720.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1305/00231R26.PDF

“Okay kid, for today’s lesson get out the RNAV (GPS) RWY 08 plate and we’ll use those minima to circle.”

Kid notes that the LNAV MDA is 4520 and Category C circling minimum is 4780, higher than the 26 plate. Kid points this out to the Captain.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1305/00231R8.PDF

“Okay kid, then get out the VOR RWY 08 plate and let’s take a look.”

Kid points out that the Category C S-8 VOR minimum is 4600 but Category C circling minimum is 4660, lower than the 26 plate.

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1305/00231V8.PDF

Kid points out that there are no other IAPS to KLWT.

Captain scratches his head…ponders 4660, 4720 & 4780. ”Okay :mad: it kid, we’ll just fly the LPV straight-in to 08 and do some more circling training tomorrow.

My main breaker has tripped. What are they doing?

OK465

I gotta ask, did you just happen upon KLWT or do you use for some mind-bending treatment of new IR students?

GF

Perhaps Valmont's Captain moonlights for the FAA?

GF

I was looking for somewhere nice to go on honeymoon with my new 24 year old bride.

I'd suggest a straight-in rather than a circle.......................:)

And you, at 68, makes proud to be an American.

GF

shes 24 and you choose Lewiston? :rolleyes:

ZLV baby...ZLV... :ok:

OKC465:

So, why does the guy try to violate Part 97 rather than simply getting a clearance for the Runway 8 procedure?

FltPathOPN:

She is an avid hunter and fishergirl.

The mountains around Lewiston are stunning.

Going back to the beginning of this thread, I suggest that the 'captain' in question was confused over the difference between a 'cirlcing' manuever and a 'side-step.'

Circling is simple -

It is common to fly to an airport where there is, let's say, an ILS approach but only to one runway. Suppose the winds don't favor that runway on this particular day. What to do? How about flying the ILS down to circling minimums, then circle to land on the opposite runway.

Just about every training manual, AIP, etc will state something to the effect of "...decend to the circling minimums on the profile view of the approach in use..."

Nowhere is it ever suggested to use the minimums for an approach that you DID NOT fly!

Whereas,

Sidestep Maneuver -

ATC may authorize a side-step maneuver to either one of two parallel runways .... followed by a straight-in landing on the adjacent runway. Aircraft executing a side-step maneuver will be cleared for a specified nonprecision approach and landing on the adjacent parallel runway.

For example, "Cleared ILS runway 7 left approach, side-step to runway 7 right." Pilots are expected to commence the side-step maneuver as soon as possible after the runway or runway environment is in sight. Landing minimums to the adjacent runway will be based on nonprecision criteria for the approach and therefore higher than the precision minimums to the primary runway, but will normally be lower than the published circling minimums.

Gotta say it; I agree with Pantload on this one.

Related to this thread, the FAA is finally implementing PANS-OPs-like circle to land areas. It will likely take 6, or more, years for this to factor through all the FAA IAPs:

http://ww1.jeppesen.com/documents/av...RPS_Chg_21.pdf

The first such IAPs were published on May 2.

OK465:

My bad. I was thinking of Livingston, just east of Bozeman.

@RAT 5
I don't contest the F/O has to be able to say NO in some cases (ie Flight KE801 GUAM 1997). But then HE will have to prove the Captain asked him to do something illicit or countrary to air safety. The Captain according to the Law does not need to prove he was right...

The result is in conflictual relation increasing flight after flight, and probably problems with the CP who will surely prefer to defend the Captain.
No doubt that Valmont told that storry to get help from us not to circle, but to manage relation improvement with "this Dude" and the "CP" and his future in the Airline.
But most Captains have learnt from experience and "do it simple".

I would like (reluctantly:O) to return from 24 yr old brides and what to do with them to circling minima and in particular post #47.

These figures contradict everything I have ever understood or been taught about circling. Can anyone who understands this US system explain the varying altitudes?