Approach without circling minimums?

luvflyin said:
Yeah. I had my mind on the thread title Circling. I think they can still get him for Trademark Infrigement though for saying TERPsed.:) The whole thang was just a joke. What's these Climb Corridor things you are talking about?
Click to expand...
U.S. Government publications cannot be copyrighted. "TERPs" is in the public domain/
 
midlifeflyer said:
NBAA, for example, the organization which represents those $50/minute operators, urged the FAA to pause the plan in 2017 due to some specific issues, but "generally supports the establishment of the proposed evaluation criteria for IAP cancellations,” and is directly involved in the decision about which approaches to eliminate.
Click to expand...
NBAA used to be reasonable when it came to issues like this. Maybe they are simply choosing their battles not standing on principles.

midlifeflyer said:
If I were interested in opposing a specific elimination, I would comment on it, as @aterpster did, not impotently scream at the heavens after it was accomplished.
Click to expand...
Ad hominem characterizations don't change the fact that circling approaches serve multiple runways from a single approach direction, thus giving more bang for the user's buck. We should want more of them, not less, and our leaders should be finding ways to get planes on the ground in as short of a distance as possible to make best use of the "Direct to" technology everybody today is so proud to have at their fingertips.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Both considerations described in the FAA policy statement as part of the evaluation whether or not to eliminate circling for a specific procedure.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was addressing the "no one needs to circle" statement.
 
EdFred said:
Or in the case of some airports, there is no approach from the other direction. Troy, MI for example (http://www.airnav.com/airport/VLL)
Click to expand...
And at Half Moon Bay Airport, the elimination of the circling minima from the Runway 30 approach plate means that when the wind favors Runway 12, you have to fly way out over that cold water. A little scary in a single. I wish I had known about this in time to take advantage of the comment period.
 
Lakeview, Oregon came into coordination on Tuesday (KLKV). I commented and they withdrew the proposal to remove CTL on the two RNAV approaches.
 
aterpster said:
Lakeview, Oregon came into coordination on Tuesday (KLKV). I commented and they withdrew the proposal to remove CTL on the two RNAV approaches.
Click to expand...
You just saved somebody(s) from flying an extra 30 plus nm and doing a PT in order to land with a headwind. Or, maybe from crashing trying to land with a tailwind.
 
aterpster said:
Lakeview, Oregon came into coordination on Tuesday (KLKV). I commented and they withdrew the proposal to remove CTL on the two RNAV approaches.
Click to expand...

Is there a place to find which Approaches are going into coordination without searching airport by airport?
 
luvflyin said:
What was the reason?
Click to expand...
They reviewed those two IAPs and the VOR IAP. Because the CTL minimums on the VOR IAP are higher than the CTL minimums on the two RNAV IAPs, they rescinded the proposal. And, they can't delete CTL on the VOR IAP because it doesn't have straight-in minimums.
 
luvflyin said:
Is there a place to find which Approaches are going into coordination without searching airport by airport?
Click to expand...
You sign up on the IFP Gateway, then choose all the airports that interest you (one by one) and check that you want to receive notice of any proposed or actual changes. You will then receive emails.
 
aterpster said:
You sign up on the IFP Gateway, then choose all the airports that interest you (one by one) and check that you want to receive notice of any proposed or actual changes. You will then receive emails.
Click to expand...

That’s ringing a bell. There was a video about how to do that here, or maybe it was another forum. Anyone remember it? Do you think the overwater thing would have made a difference at Half Moon Bay, HAF, if someone had commented?

EDIT: Found it. https://www.faa.gov/tv/?mediaId=892
 
luvflyin said:
That’s ringing a bell. There was a video about how to do that here, or maybe it was another forum. Anyone remember it? Do you think the overwater thing would have made a difference at Half Moon Bay, HAF, if someone had commented?
Click to expand...
my hunch is they would not consider the overwater flight a valid objection for this program.
 
aterpster said:
my hunch is they would not consider the overwater flight a valid objection for this program.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but what if you've got a 30kt tailwind flying the approach? They are OK with that? Even airliners don't land with tailwinds like that.
 
EdFred said:
Yeah, but what if you've got a 30kt tailwind flying the approach? They are OK with that? Even airliners don't land with tailwinds like that.
Click to expand...
HAF has IAPs to both runway ends. Just like me landing at LAX to the east when the wind required it.
 
aterpster said:
HAF has IAPs to both runway ends. Just like me landing at LAX to the east when the wind required it.
Click to expand...

I didn't look at HAF. I thought it only had one based on what Richard had said since he quoted me in regards to VLL - which does have circling.
 
EdFred said:
I didn't look at HAF. I thought it only had one based on what Richard had said since he quoted me in regards to VLL - which does have circling.
Click to expand...
If an airport only has one approach I would not expect circling to be removed. It really shouldn't even come up for public comment since it likely does't meet the cancellation selection criteria in the policy statement..
 
EdFred said:
I didn't look at HAF. I thought it only had one based on what Richard had said since he quoted me in regards to VLL - which does have circling.
Click to expand...
I didn't mention the Rwy 12 approach because I couldn't think of any safety reason why someone would want to fly it and circle to Rwy 30; the Rwy 30 approach does not go beyond gliding distance from land.
 
@dtuuri I'm with you 100%. I circled for an approach at Saratoga Springs the one time I flew there, despite the target runway having its own approach. It saved me quite a bit of time based on the direction from which I was arriving.

ATC asked me, "um, don't you just want the other approach instead?" "No, this is faster." "True dat, cleared [approach that I wanted]." (I may be paraphrasing slightly).

Circled, got down faster, skills were practiced, life was good.

Edit: just checked the RNAV (GPS) RWY 5 into 5B2. Sure enough, the circling mins are gone. I sure hope there is a significant advantage in them not having to compute/maintain the circling minima, because it's a shame to lose that operational capability. A tragedy? No. A shame/PITA? Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top