Approach without circling minimums?

kath

kath

Administrator
Management Council Member
PoA Technical Administrator
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
1,874
Location
Anchorage, AK
Display Name
Display name:
Katherine
Hi, all,

If an approach does not list any circling minimums, does that mean that circling is NA?

Here's the specific one I'm looking at: RNAV RWY 8 at Tower, MN:
https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1910/10374R8.PDF

The reason I ask is that there are only two approaches here (one for 8, and one for 26). Both non-precision RNAV, neither one has circling minimums. There's going to be TFR covering the IAF for one of them tomorrow. Are you prohibited from shooting the other and then circling?

There is a prohibited area a little ways to the north of this airport, maybe that has something to do with it?

Thanks,
 
I'd guess since there's a valid approach to each runway (8 & 26) there's no reason to circle in IMC conditions. If you're VMC, cancel when the airport is in sight and land where you wish.
 
When interpreting the FARs, the general rule is that if an action is not prohibited, it is allowed. If there is no note saying "Circling west of rwy 36 prohibited" (for example), circling authority is implicit.

Bob Gardner
 
bobmrg said:
When interpreting the FARs, the general rule is that if an action is not prohibited, it is allowed. If there is no note saying "Circling west of rwy 36 prohibited" (for example), circling authority is implicit.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

What minimums would one employ in that kind of 'bake your own' circling approach ?
 
Sporty west wind there tomorrow. Plan on 26.....or 08 then hope you have vfr minimums to cancel.
 
This is part of a policy first announced in 2017 to eliminate circling minimums where there are other straight in options. Most recent FAA policy statement here.

No circling minimums means no circling procefure is authorized just like the absence of a procedure turn means no procedure turn authorized and the lack of an alternate altimeter setting means the approach is NA if the local setting is not available.

No such thing as a roll your own instrument approach.
 
The P-205 area to the north is over the BWCA, Boundry Waters Canoe Wilderness Area. It's a pristine wilderness area and they want to keep it wild and quiet from engine noise, including motorboats. Shouldn't have anything to do with any TFR.
The TFR is common up there for blasting for one of the many mines, you're in the iron range now with open pit mines.
 
Last edited:
jsstevens said:
I'd guess since there's a valid approach to each runway (8 & 26) there's no reason to circle in IMC conditions. If you're VMC, cancel when the airport is in sight and land where you wish.
Click to expand...

This makes sense to me.
 
bobmrg said:
When interpreting the FARs, the general rule is that if an action is not prohibited, it is allowed. If there is no note saying "Circling west of rwy 36 prohibited" (for example), circling authority is implicit.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

Only if circling minimums are published on the chart.

§91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.​

The approach plate says Rwy 8. If you depart from the final approach course for Rwy 8 with no circling minimums published, then you are no longer 'using' the instrument approach, which puts you in violation of the section above.

[Edited to add:] The floor of controlled airspace is 700 AGL around that airport. Once you get below that height, you could cancel IFR and remain in VFR conditions (clear of clouds and at least one mile visibility during daytime) while you maneuver for the runway of choice.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Only if circling minimums are published on the chart.

§91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.​

The approach plate says Rwy 8. If you depart from the final approach course for Rwy 8 with no circling minimums published, then you are no longer 'using' the instrument approach, which puts you in violation of the section above.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Edit: That last paragraph is technically correct but a bad idea if we are assuming instrument conditions just aboveG that 700 AGL.
 
Last edited:
bobmrg said:
When interpreting the FARs, the general rule is that if an action is not prohibited, it is allowed. If there is no note saying "Circling west of rwy 36 prohibited" (for example), circling authority is implicit.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

The title and the text of the regulation disagrees with implicit authority.

91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.
(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport. This paragraph does not apply to United States military aircraft.

If you can cancel IFR and land VFR in condition 1 mile clear of clouds day, you would be legal at an uncontrolled airport even if below the published TPA.
 
jsstevens said:
I'd guess since there's a valid approach to each runway (8 & 26) there's no reason to circle in IMC conditions. If you're VMC, cancel when the airport is in sight and land where you wish.
Click to expand...
Exactly the FAA's reasoning in deciding to eliminate most circling. When approaches were exclusively based on ground stations, circling was a necessity. With the widespread use of RNAV/GPS, this is becoming less and less true.
 
Last edited:
Still in Minnesota? I know Skyhawks are slow, but really?

I hope the sabbatical is still fun.
 
steingar said:
Still in Minnesota? I know Skyhawks are slow, but really?
Click to expand...

Hah! I'm still in Wisconsin, actually, just across the river from Minneapolis. Weather has kept me here for a week. Mostly the northern Minnesota weather.

This has ratcheted up my goal of getting back into IFR this year and getting comfortable with it. It has led to a lot of interesting internal conversations about how confident I am about all this IFR stuff, especially the procedural stuff that I haven't done in years. (Conclusion: not very. So many questions!).

I've decided for myself that my next flight *will* be IFR, but I'll do it in VFR or at least "pretty good" conditions. Which means today is out: 800-foot ceilings up north.
Looks like it'll be tomorrow.
[Edit: or tonight. I keep forgetting that airplanes can fly at night.]
 
Last edited:
Hard to travel long distance VFR all year. Beware, we're coming up into icing season very soon, something to look out for. I need the IR something fierce, you always hit weather flying something fast. Hell, I got delayed a whole day coming back from 6Y9 by obscuration. Had I the IR it wouldn't have been a big deal, it was VFR at my destination.

Word has it there are CFII's in that part of the country (we've got them here too, though they all appear to be in hiding). Do get proficient, it will make things way easier for you down here. You certainly have the airplane for it. Your Skyhawk boasts more glass than greenhouse.

And of course, enjoy your sabbatical. If I pitched something like that my Chair would look at me funny. Then again, he knows me well.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Exactly the FAA's reasoning in deciding to eliminate most circling. When approaches were exclusively based on ground stations, circling was a necessity. With the widespread use of RNAV/GPS, this is becoming less and less true.
Click to expand...
I didn't notice economy of operations in their bullet list, just FAA's economy. Say you arrive from the west and the wind favors a westward landing — it's a lot more economical to circle off a west arrival than go way out and around for another ten miles shooting a straight-in from the east.

I didn't notice the mention of water below the IAP maneuvering area either. Do they assume single engine planes are all equipped with life preservers? Rafts?

Oh, and another thing, they blame the increase in minima lines on circling approaches? I think it's probably because they added RNAV approaches. When VORs are decommissioned, the excess circling approaches will atrophy back to normal or less.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Exactly the FAA's reasoning in deciding to eliminate most circling. When approaches were exclusively based on ground stations, circling was a necessity. With the widespread use of RNAV/GPS, this is becoming less and less true.
Click to expand...
You probably recall they solicited comments on each affected airport during the proposal. I commented on KCNO, and they concurred with my analysis, thus stopping the proposal. The runways are staggered, the straight-in is to the short runway, and their are no straight-in IAPs from the west.
 
dtuuri said:
I didn't notice economy of operations in their bullet list, just FAA's economy. Say you arrive from the west and the wind favors a westward landing — it's a lot more economical to circle off a west arrival than go way out and around for another ten miles shooting a straight-in from the east.

I didn't notice the mention of water below the IAP maneuvering area either. Do they assume single engine planes are all equipped with life preservers? Rafts?
Click to expand...
They were open to such comments, and made that very clear at the time of the proposal.
 
bobmrg said:
When interpreting the FARs, the general rule is that if an action is not prohibited, it is allowed. If there is no note saying "Circling west of rwy 36 prohibited" (for example), circling authority is implicit.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...
Bob, that is so wrong in this case.
 
aterpster said:
You probably recall they solicited comments on each affected airport during the proposal. I commented on KCNO, and they concurred with my analysis, thus stopping the proposal. The runways are staggered, the straight-in is to the short runway, and their are no straight-in IAPs from the west.
Click to expand...
Yes, I remember. Those are exactly the kinds of things the policy statement and the earlier request for comments talk about taking into consideration.
 
Think about it, if no circling minima exist, then there is no circling area which has been surveyed for obstacles. Legality aside, would circling in such a scenario seem wise?
 
dmspilot said:
Think about it, if no circling minima exist, then there is no circling area which has been surveyed for obstacles. Legality aside, would circling in such a scenario seem wise?
Click to expand...

At your home drome or any airport you know like the back of your hand it may not be an unwise thing to do
 
I wonder if you could get clearance to switch to a contact approach once you got under the ceiling. That might address Mark's concern with possible traffic conflicts resulting from cancelling IFR.
 
Addressing the OP, no you are not allowed to perform a circle to land there.

Following the advice about if something is not explicitly forbidden in the FARs then it is ok is a great way to bust your butt and or get a violation. I think you will find the FAA's perspective is just the opposite...if it is not specifically authorized then it is forbidden. The old saw about it being easier to get forgiveness than permission does not apply with the FAA!

Be legal, smart, and safe!
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
How did this flight turn out, anyway?
Click to expand...

Well, for one thing, I eventually decided to aim for Eveleth Airport instead of Tower. It was just a little closer to my actual destination (a lake in the middle of nowhere where they're building a neutrino detector -- long story), and looked like it had more services. So the approach I was expecting was the RNAV RWY 27 at Eveleth, which does have circling minimums**, as well as LPV. There was a lot of stuff NOTAM-ed out of service, which made planning interesting.

Saturday morning, there was fog blanketing absolutely everything, but all the forecasts were calling for it to disappear and turn clear, starting in the south (it was already clear in New Richmond when I departed) and then lifting in the north too (by the time I was supposed to get to Eveleth). But by the time I got close, the fog had *not* lifted. Hibbing was still reporting 1/2SM and FG and VV002. I watched it for a while (I was VFR on top at this point), but it didn't seem to be changing at all. So I canceled IFR, and told approach I was turning back to Cloquet, which I had just flown over and I knew was clear. I landed there and fueled and had lunch from my cockpit-snack supply...

Eveleth and Hibbing seem to have both turned clear right after I landed at Cloquet... Oh well, ya win some, ya lose some. I continued on to Eveleth about an hour later, and it was blue sky and beautiful. Flew that part VFR. My "first IFR in 14 years" morning had already been interesting enough.

Did I mention that this flight was my first filing IFR in 14 years? Well, it was. And I survived! :)


**rendering this discussion moot for this particular flight, but of course, I learned quite a few things from asking...
 
jonvcaples said:
I think you will find the FAA's perspective is just the opposite...if it is not specifically authorized then it is forbidden.
Click to expand...
Then why are so many FAA regulations worded in terms of what persons may NOT do? Where do the regulations specifically authorize flying solo at night without being in night currency? Where do they specifically authorize VFR flight without VFR flight plans? Where do they specifically authorized flight in class G airspace without talking to ATC?
 
kath said:
Did I mention that this flight was my first filing IFR in 14 years? Well, it was. And I survived! :)
Click to expand...

Great story! Thanks for returning with it.
Now about that neutrino detector... (sounds interesting!)
 
Palmpilot said:
Then why are so many FAA regulations worded in terms of what persons may NOT do? Where do the regulations specifically authorize flying solo at night without being in night currency? Where do they specifically authorize VFR flight without VFR flight plans? Where do they specifically authorized flight in class G airspace without talking to ATC?
Click to expand...
Are you trying to say that you can roll your own circle to land MDAs if not are charted on a particular IAP?
 
aterpster said:
Are you trying to say that you can roll your own circle to land MDAs if not are charted on a particular IAP?
Click to expand...
He is not. Only Bob said that. Palm referred to the applicable regulation earlier.

Real point is both "permitted unless expressly forbidden" and the opposite are overly-simplistic. We are in general a "permitted unless expressly forbidden" society when compared with most others, but "forbidden" requires reading, comprehension, interpretation, understanding, context. and application.

In this case, while rolling one's own departure is not prohibited, rolling one's own IAP is. Reading the applicable regs tells us this.
 
kath said:
Well, for one thing, I eventually decided to aim for Eveleth Airport instead of Tower. It was just a little closer to my actual destination (a lake in the middle of nowhere where they're building a neutrino detector -- long story), and looked like it had more services. So the approach I was expecting was the RNAV RWY 27 at Eveleth, which does have circling minimums**, as well as LPV. There was a lot of stuff NOTAM-ed out of service, which made planning interesting.
Click to expand...
Very interesting! I had read about the NOvA "far detector" at Ash River, but I thought that one was finished and already in operation. Is the new detector part of the same experiment or a different one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top