Circle to land minimas
 

Hi,

Yesterday, i had a discussion with a captain and we would not agree on the circle to land minimas.

He was convinced that the circle to land minimas were linked to the runway we would land on. i.e. we were shooting the ILS 06 circle to land 24 and he pulled out the VOR 24 app plate to read the circle to land minimas.
And his point was that next to the circle to land minimas for each approach, it's written: Circling height based on rwy XX threshold elev of XXXX ft.
For example, for the ILS 06 circling minimas: based on rwy 06 threshold elev of XXX. Remplace ILS 06 and rwy 06 by VOR 24/rwy 24.

But it makes no sense to me, the circling minimas are linked to the approach we are shooting initially. So i'd read the minimums straight out of the original approach plate (i.e. ILS 06 in this case).

At the end, it didn't make any difference since the circling minimas
were exactly the same. (which i do understand why)


I looked up on the Jepp Away Manual and i couldn't find anything, does anyone have references to help me figure it out ?

Thanks

Circling minima are not runway specific. Just occasionally they can be sector specific but it is very rare. Both PANSOPS and TERPS CMs are derived from an area constructed AROUND THE RUNWAYS and since while circling you effectively fly through the 'R06' area and the 'R24 area' and any other runway area................he is wildly wrong However, as you say, since the CM for 06 and 24 will be exactly the same, why not just say "Yes Captain" and use the value printed?

This is pretty basic....he's a Captain? :confused:

GF

galaxy flyer, he's even a TRI and TRE. Flew for major airlines all kind of a/c from DC8 to 747 and has been an A330 SFI for a couple years for Airbus. Even flew the pope.. he got kind of a big ego.

I'm tired of the "Yes captain" sentence with this dude, just wanted to make a point.. I'd really like some reference

Most countries expect you to use the circling minimums specified for the approach you are using, but a few countries in fact refer you to a different IAP chart for circling minimums. Unless a chart makes that reference, though, it would be a technical violation to use the minimums from a different chart. But, there is no practical impact.

Notwithstanding CRM - talk about change rosta or change job.

Exactly what i just did. Called the chief pilot, problem solved.

In the US you use the minimums published for the approach you are flying. This is pretty basic. It was even a question asked when I interviewed with the US major airline that I retired from. I don't know how the pope does it though.

The CA was wrong. Circling minima apply for all runways unless otherwise noted. I suppose some states vary, as shown on this thread.

The Jepp chart ref states that the circling MDH is based on the airport elevation, not the runway elevation. That's further proof that the circling minima wasn't developed with a specific runway in mind.

I wouldn't crucify the guy though, even if he's a training CA. He IS human right...?

- Hmm - I have known the 'odd' exception to that rule:)

Valmont - if you are still around - which chart producer are you using?

In flight you have to obey to the Captain:oh::E:mad:

I wouldn't crucify the guy though, even if he's a training CA. He IS human right...?

What's the difference between God & a Training Captain? God doesn't think he's a training captain.


In flight you have to obey to the Captain

Ouch! What happened to CRM, advocacy and CREW concept? I hope your tongue was firmly in your cheek.

"we're about the crash captain." "No we're not; keep going." "We're about to crash captain." "No we're not; keep.........oh f@£k. Wrong again."

Was it not a DC-10 crashing in MAD where the last words from the Captain when he cancelled the GPWS were, "shut up gringo."

Check Airman:

You might want to reconsider that:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/a...psddcbe331.jpg

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps0f380969.jpg

- we have. Circling minima cannot be lower than the minima for the approach flown. Since this is referenced to threshold elevation, that is what cm will be based on where the VOR minima is higher than the 'basic' circling minima.

Verdict - red herring!:) Not applicable to the OP's OQ.

BOAC:

I was responding to Check Airman's post, not the OP.

one minimum, two minima:E

.......and I was responding to yours, and I suspect Check Airman probably knows what I posted anyway - and he WAS responding to the OP. The point I was making is that your 'example' does not disprove the point that CA and Jepp state. It is obvious that the cm is NOT 1660' at MRY, (based on whatever) but HAS to be published as that based on TE because of the 'rules' - it is 'artificial'. There is nothing to stop you circling at 900 QNH off a visual on 28L.

So why is there no CM for the 19 plate? 8240 would not seem unreasonable.

I suspect that since they've also got an ILS to 01, as well as an NDB to 01 in addition to the LNAV or WAAS 01 procedure, there would just be no sensible reason to circle from a 19 WAAS procedure to get into 01.

edit: The only approach to 19 is the WAAS/LPV however, so if you're not WAAS equipped, the only other way into 19 is to circle.

Above my pay grade however and only offered as a comment on said Captain's aviation savvy. I wonder which missed approach he would chose to fly? :eek:

It is odd though and maybe it's the only example like that...

"I wonder which missed approach he would chose to fly?" - yes, that would be interesting, but of course - he is a TRE/I...............:)

BOAC:

Current FAA policy is to not publish CTL minima on an approach with vertical guidance and only a DA. I would like to see "with precision minimums only" because that has more clarity, but LPV does not yet have the ICAO stamp of approval to be classified as precision.

Actually the strange thing here is that there is NOT an LNAV line of minima on the 19 procedure? Then the Captain could have his opposite direction circling mins...which might even be higher like KMRY. :}

Have you ever seen any other RNAV (GPS) with only an LPV line of minima?

Speaking of the miss, ask said TRI what would happen in the FMS when he pressed TOGA circling around to the opposite runway.

GF

I had to fly one other rotation with this dude, you would'nt believe what he did to me today... I think the think the CP wont like what i'll have to say.

BOAC, we're using Jepp.

With the Yellowstone example, i would'nt try a RWY 19 approach circle to land 01 as it doesn't seem to be an option looking at the plate.

GF, he'll tell me that he'd rejoin the initial MA procedure, we already talked about it.

Aterpster, BOAC got a point. Thanks for giving examples though, we got a good discussion going on ;).

Circle to land minimums are on the approach plate you are using. Sometimes it says which way you have to circle but that is all you care about. Do not ever look at other approach charts, use the approach you are doing because it is all there. Keep it simple because that is why you only need one approach chart.

And neither would I!
I'm not familiar with that field, but looking at the terrain I think circling off the 19 approach could lead to a world of pain.
There's probably a good reason a circling approach isn't published, and the trainer of the OP needs to think very carefully before going off piste.

Thanks Valmont - I have never seen that 'comment' on a Jepp plate. Can you tell me which which approach please?

What is this issue with circling off 19? If there were minima published (and it would probably be 8240 - but missing as Aterp explained) there should be no 'terrain' issue at all. This shows a basic misunderstanding of what a circling area is.

Aterp - how far away is recognition of LPV in ICAO? As OK says, why no LNAV for 19? Mind you, we may not have seen all the plates?

BOAC:

There is no issue with publishing CTL on the LPV 19. The issue is FAA policy. They used to publish CTL on an IAP with precision-only minimums, or Decision Altitude only, if you will. They changed the policy some three or four years ago. There apparently is an obstacle or obstacles that interfere with a 3-degree gradient LNAV path and a 3-degree VNAV path. LPV uses far different containment areas; basically ILS criteria with their "troughs."

No idea about ICAO on this.

As to LNAV it may have worked with a steeper descent gradient but that would require a second IAP (Y and Z), which the FAA presumably didn't want to do at this location. Or some obstacle to the left or right of the ILS/LPV lateral areas caused LNAV too steep to meet criteria. Can't tell without the FAA work records.

- we have moved on from that - you explained why earlier. The issue is about flying a CTL off 19 - see posts #26 and #28 where I assume posters are concerned about the 'terrain' which indicates a possible lack of understanding of the principle behind CTL areas under both TERPS and PANSOPS.

Legitime autority of the Captain still exists

BOAC:

Under FAR 97, no one can circle to land off the LPV 19 IAP. The can request clearance from ATC for a contact approach if their ops specs permit contact approaches, or they can request a visual approach if the weather conditions are sufficient for a visual approach. In either case the pilot would assume sole responsibility for terrain clearance. Or, if the weather is sufficient, they can cancel IFR and do whatever they feel is safe to land on other than Runway 19.

I take it you have not read #26 and #28. I'll say again - we understand " no one can circle to land off the LPV 19 IAP"...........

OT...from that plate, circle to land CAT D into WYS !?!? :eek:

With RNP procedures, I have never put circling on a plate, anywhere in the world...

http://flightaware.com/resources/air...Z+RWY+23/png/1

To further muddy the water.....

Here's an example of a runway (KRIL 26) with separate plates for an LNAV procedure (with CTL) and the separate WAAS LPV. Of note, the descent gradient for the LPV (3.60) is steeper than the gradient for the LNAV (3.58).

No one size fits all in them thar hills....:)

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1305/06741RW26.PDF

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1305/06741RX26.PDF

(Once again, the LPV to WYS 19 is the ONLY IAP to 19, no LNAV. I think this is probably somewhat unique to find a runway ONLY served by an LPV line of minima, nothing else. I'm also wondering then why 19 couldn't be served with an LP line of minima with CTL which might have to be higher than 8240 as a result of the LP approach mins possibly being higher than 8240 on that end?...once again creating a problem for said Captain)

No need to overcomplicate things …ILS 06 Circle 24 …. Use the circling minima on ILS 06 plate and incase of missed approach turn shortest distance towards the missed approach for the instrument landing runway…in this case ILS 06 missed approach.

BOAC:

Who are you addressing?

FltPath:

That implies you have a choice. You don't.

- er, you?

BOAC:

You got me confused. I thought I was being responsive. Then again, I'm an old guy.

:ooh: