Circling question

[350DRIVER]

VOR A

yes?

3 5 0

 

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

Yeah or at 36U my old base back in the mountains, the only approach was a circle.

 

[bobbysamd]

Circling miss

I would follow AIM recommendations:

5-4-19. Missed Approach

c. If visual reference is lost while circling-to-land from an instrument approach, the missed approach specified for that particular procedure must be followed (unless an alternate missed approach procedure is specified by ATC). To become established on the prescribed missed approach course, the pilot should make an initial climbing turn toward the landing runway and continue the turn until established on the missed approach course . . . .

(emphasis added)

Let's say you're shooting the ILS 17 to circle-to-land to Runway 21. You decide to take a miss. I would interpret the AIM recommendation to mean that you should start your climbing turn to 21 and join the missed-approach procedure.

I second Surplus1's comments about executing circling approaches in the first place. I certainly would not execute a circle if I lost an engine.

I didn't know that the pub's name was now the Aeronautical Information Manual.

 

[Big Duke Six]

It sucks yes, but I felt better circling to a more favorable runway than I did landing a Metro with a 30G35kt crosswind (CYS). It was tight, but if you have the circling mins and execute it properly, it is barely do-able. NEWSFLASH: If you have to circle, it's usually because of the wind, so great care and attention (more than normal) must be taken to keep the correct ground track no matter what the winds. That can be VERY disorienting, especially because the wx is already marginal and here you are pointing 30 degrees off runway track and still getting blown in on downwind or base. DO WHAT IT TAKES TO GO WHERE YOU WANT TO GO. Slow down to keep your turn radius small.

At least I didn't have to worry about scaring the "pax". Boxes didn't care much about comfort.

 

[avbug]

but my question is why are you circling in the first place?

You're kidding, right? How about this? Because often it's all that's available. Or because circling is more favorable due to wind. Or runway length. Or any number of reasons. A great many nonprecision approaches require circling maneuvers.

These approaches are inherently dangerous and should not be conducted in jet aircraft in weather less than 1000/3.

Something special about turbojet engines that makes circling dangerous...where perhaps it isn't in a piston powered airplane? Or a turbopropeller airplane?

Heroics won't help you to reach retirement.

If I ever get to the point in my career where flying an instrument approach becomes "heroic," kill me. A circling approach to landing heroic? Criminey.

 

[surplus1]

You're kidding, right? How about this? Because often it's all that's available. Or because circling is more favorable due to wind. Or runway length. Or any number of reasons. A great many nonprecision approaches require circling maneuvers.

As you might have guessed I'm not unaware of the technical reasons for circling approaches. That is exactly why I threw in the wx minimums that I think appropriate, and which you and others chose to ignore. For the record, many companies choose to establish those minima for circling approaches in heavy aircraft. It's cheaper than CFIT.

Something special about turbojet engines that makes circling dangerous...where perhaps it isn't in a piston powered airplane? Or a turbopropeller airplane?

No, nothing special about turbojets that doesn't apply to other large transport category aircraft. Sorry for stepping on your sensibilities, I should have been more specific. My bad. I've done my turn in the big recips, and turboprops as well as the turbojets so there was no slight intended. A thousand pardons.

If I ever get to the point in my career where flying an instrument approach becomes "heroic," kill me. A circling approach to landing heroic? Criminey.

To be perfectly honest I am much more concerned about the point to which I get in my own career than I am about where you might get in yours.

If you're comfortable with wandering around 500 ft AGL in a 200 thousand pound + airplane, at night, in blowing snow you are more than welcome to be my guest. Have at it and turn yourself on. I do consider that to be heroics. I'm sure I'm not as skilled as other aviators and I have no desire to acquire those skills. I assure you it won't bother my ego one bit to be called a wuss if I don't.

On my ticket I'll do what my judgement says is prudent, and wandering around at low levels in low vis and marginal weather in a big airplane, ain't on my program. Truth is I'd much rather read about you than have you reading about me.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Sorry if I wasn't thinking in terms of Cessnas. Another of my faults revealed.

 

[avbug]

I don't disagree that judgement is required. I don't disagree that circling, dependent on conditions, pilot experience, recency of experience, aircraft, time of day, and a host of other factors, cobine to determine a certain potential risk to be managed in conducting any circling maneuver.

I do disagree that a blanket statement regarding circling has any particular relevance or veracity.

I made no statement regarding Cessna's, but thanks for the snide comment.

Rather than attempting to categorize an aircraft by it's powerplant, perhaps categorizing it appropriately by it's approach and circling speed (and thus it's ability to remain within "protected" airspace) would be a better choice. A category C airplane, flown within category C circling protected radius airspace, is no discriminator among type of powerplant; only upon maneuvering to remain within the given protected distances.

Certainly any maneuver which requires a circle should be planned and briefed accordingly before every beginning the approach, just as any approach should be done. This should include proceedures for becoming established on the missed approach should that be necessary.

Many certificate holders have restrictions, or company policies in lieu of direct operational limitations, prohibiting or limiting circling; particularly at night.

Regardless of one's general proficiency or comfort with respect to flying a circling maneuver, no pilot is ever obligated to accept or conduct a circle to land. If one does not feel comfortable with a particular specific circumstance, then one should not conduct the operation, period. Professional judgement is the final dictation of acceptance.

I see no heroic element in the basic act of circling. If one elects to circle under questionable conditions, then one is not undertaking an act of heroism, but poor professional judgment, and perhaps even stupidity. Assessment of such conditions is subjective to the individual, exactly as it should be. Bottom line...don't feel comfortable, don't do it. However, the general act of circling to a landing is not of it's own accord necessarily haphazard, a risk, or dangerous. It's a common maneuver and should be addressed on a case-specific basis as conditions dictate.

 

[njcapt]

Because at airports like MDW there is no instrument approach for runway 22L/R, which at times is favored by the winds. A circling approach is required by all jet aircraft. Better that then landing with a 15-20 knot tailwind, no?

Neither ATA or SWA are approved for circling approaches to MDW (ATA doesn't do any at all and neither did Vanguard when I was working there - 1000ft/3mi min). This is why it turns into a total cluster fuk when the ceiling slowly lowers to 1000 agl. The first aircraft to miss causes all the others in line to demand runway 13C for landing, which sets off a miserable chain reaction. ORD has to stop departing 14R, and they have to warm up the 13C localizer. Problem is, MDW tower never gets on the horn to ORD to start the process until the first miss. Then all the other aircraft have to hold for 30-45 minutes until they get it all straightened out and turned around. Most of the time we don't have that much extra gas.. so hello, Rockford.

ATA has lowered ceiling and visibility mins for 31C (just got approval for 217ft DH and 3000 RVR), but it means squat when the winds are howling out of the SW - SE. We have heard for years about a GPS approach to 22L that will get us below a 400-500ft ceiling, but nothing official, yet. Nuther problem is, how do you mix traffic that has GPS with traffic that doesn't? I would hate to see half the traffic doing the GPS approach and half doing the circle under a 600 ft ceiling. Makes me glad we have good TCAS.

 

[apdsm]

Neither ATA or SWA are approved for circling approaches to MDW

Did you mean SWA and ATA are not approved for circling approaches below 1000?

 

[TriStar_drvr]

I don't know about SWA, but for ATA, circling minimums are VMC conditions (1000 and 3).