Circling Approach Question

Does anyone know if there is an airport with CTL permitted only one one side of the runway and the legal traffic pattern for that airport is on the side where CTL is prohibited?

Related to this, my favorite airport, KEMT has right traffic for Runway 19. But, if I don't breakout until at the MAP, I have no practical choice but to enter left traffic for Runway 19. If the tower is open, there is no problem. But, what about at night after the tower is closed?
 
aterpster said:
Does anyone know if there is an airport with CTL permitted only one one side of the runway and the legal traffic pattern for that airport is on the side where CTL is prohibited?
Click to expand...

KFWS. Every approach states Circling NA West of RWY. This seems to be due to the parallel grass runway (East side) that would not be in use on IFR days and they can thereby keep the IFR and VFR traffic separated much easier.

I have shot an approach and when "circling" asked to step to the grass and been cleared to do so, which is easy. Is that a semi-circle?
 
aterpster said:
Does anyone know if there is an airport with CTL permitted only one one side of the runway and the legal traffic pattern for that airport is on the side where CTL is prohibited?

Related to this, my favorite airport, KEMT has right traffic for Runway 19. But, if I don't breakout until at the MAP, I have no practical choice but to enter left traffic for Runway 19. If the tower is open, there is no problem. But, what about at night after the tower is closed?
Click to expand...
I don't know of one. But yours is an excellent example of the problem with the rule.

OTOH not having good choices if you don't break out until the MAP is true for a lot of nonprecision straight in approaches too where the MAP is directly over the threshold.
 
aterpster said:
Does anyone know if there is an airport with CTL permitted only one one side of the runway and the legal traffic pattern for that airport is on the side where CTL is prohibited?

Related to this, my favorite airport, KEMT has right traffic for Runway 19. But, if I don't breakout until at the MAP, I have no practical choice but to enter left traffic for Runway 19. If the tower is open, there is no problem. But, what about at night after the tower is closed?
Click to expand...

My offer is still there. We get a plane, flip a coin to see who’s going to fly it and who is going to rat out to the FAA he saw a plane do it and see where it goes.
 
luvflyin said:
The ceiling is based on the visible horizon. It takes into account clouds as far as can be seen from the observation point. So there can be many situations where you are beneath ‘breaks’ in the clouds, with blue sky above, are 1000 feet above, 500 below and 2000 horizontally from clouds yet be above the ‘ceiling.’
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Absolute page 40: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_150_5220-16E.pdf
Shows the method, track cloud height, over a ten minute period directly over the sensor.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Incorrect. Absolute page 40: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_150_5220-16E.pdf
Shows the method, track cloud height, over a ten minute period directly over the sensor.

Tim
Click to expand...

Not incorrect. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7900_5D.pdf page 85.

In that AC Cloud Height begins on page 33. By 40 it’s into visibility. You’ll see that the viability of the cloud height sensor is validated by direct comparisons to a human aviation weather observer. Automated stations can give some seemingly unusual ceiling reports sometimes. That doesn’t change the fact that if it’s a certified station, human or automated, the ceiling it reports is the ‘ceiling.’ And depending on the size of and location of ‘breaks’ in the bases, you can be in VFR while above the ceiling.
 
luvflyin said:
Not incorrect. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7900_5D.pdf page 85.

In that AC Cloud Height begins on page 33. By 40 it’s into visibility. You’ll see that the viability of the cloud height sensor is validated by direct comparisons to a human aviation weather observer. Automated stations can give some seemingly unusual ceiling reports sometimes. That doesn’t change the fact that if it’s a certified station, human or automated, the ceiling it reports is the ‘ceiling.’ And depending on the size of and location of ‘breaks’ in the bases, you can be in VFR while above the ceiling.
Click to expand...

Ah, your link is for a surface weather observer, a human. I linked to the AWOS, an automated system. Interesting that the two do not have the same standards. And something I did not know or consider!


Tim
 
midlifeflyer said:
I thought my article made that clear. In my opinion is it's not authorized because the FAA said so. John Collins brought up that exact point in his correspondence.
Click to expand...
I don't remember what you wrote, but I may have read it. I have read the FAA's answer to Collins and I don't agree with the conclusion that the FAA is saying IFR circling isn't an authorized exception to 91.126 or Part 93 for that matter. In fact, as I've said before, Lorain County Airport west of Cleveland had an issue settled by a judge many years ago in favor of a pilot accused of flying over the Baldwin-Wallace Oberlin Music Conservancy on a circling approach and in non-compliance with Part 93 traffic pattern rules for the airport. I researched it to my satisfaction via telephone with people who should know and claimed to know the facts of the case. It would be great if you could find the case and write about it, can you?
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
I don't remember what you wrote, but I may have read it. I have read the FAA's answer to Collins and I don't agree with the conclusion that the FAA is saying IFR circling isn't an authorized exception to 91.126 or Part 93 for that matter. In fact, as I've said before, Lorain County Airport west of Cleveland had an issue settled by a judge many years ago in favor of a pilot accused of flying over the Baldwin-Wallace Music Conservancy on a circling approach and in non-compliance with Part 93 traffic pattern rules for the airport. I researched it to my satisfaction via telephone with people who should know and claimed to know the facts of the case. It would be great if you could find the case and write about it, can you?
Click to expand...
I liked to the article earlier in the thread.

If you pass on to me whatever other information you might have on the case - names ,dates, which court, etc... (PM is fine), I'll see what I can find.

Dave, I took a quick look. I definitely need more.

I have the Part 93 rule. The only court case I see it, or Lorain County airport mentioned is a 2013 federal case which cites the rule as an example the the FAA's right to set traffic pattern rules. The case itself was a challenge to a helicopter route limitation brought against the FAA by the Helicopter Association International. The Association lost.

I also found an NTSB case in which a pilot was accused of towing a banner too low. The Part 93 rule wasn't mentioned, but the pilot lost.
 
Last edited:
tspear said:
Ah, your link is for a surface weather observer, a human. I linked to the AWOS, an automated system. Interesting that the two do not have the same standards. And something I did not know or consider!


Tim
Click to expand...

Yeah. Automated systems have made METARS available to a lot of places where there wouldn’t otherwise be. But they have some limitations
 
midlifeflyer said:
OTOH not having good choices if you don't break out until the MAP is true for a lot of nonprecision straight in approaches too where the MAP is directly over the threshold.
Click to expand...
Or mid-field, such as at KEMT.
 
Ravioli said:
KFWS. Every approach states Circling NA West of RWY. This seems to be due to the parallel grass runway (East side) that would not be in use on IFR days and they can thereby keep the IFR and VFR traffic separated much easier.

I have shot an approach and when "circling" asked to step to the grass and been cleared to do so, which is easy. Is that a semi-circle?
Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure the circling NA West would because of obstructions. I’ve never heard of that being done at ATC request. Paging @aterpster
 
RussR said:
If you take my Gunnison, CO example, and stay at MDA until you roll out on final, you will be about 1500 feet AGL at 1 mile final in a Cat A airplane. That could require as much as a 2,250 fpm descent and does not seem in any way safe, "normal", or stabilized.
Click to expand...
Exactly! So, at an unfamiliar airport, at night (as per my post) it would be your best option, since descending before that would be the same as playing dice with your life. Ergo, don't plan to land at unfamiliar airports at night with high MDAs.
 
luvflyin said:
I’m pretty sure the circling NA West would because of obstructions. I’ve never heard of that being done at ATC request. Paging @aterpster
Click to expand...
From source:

CIRCLING NA W OF RWY 17R-35L DUE TO NORTH-SOUTH POWER LINES WEST OF AIRPORT.
 
MauleSkinner said:
You funny!:D
Click to expand...

Wasn't being funny. That was a former home base, and it is truly quite far from a normal pattern and what peeps would likely do while circling.

aterpster said:
From source: CIRCLING NA W OF RWY 17R-35L DUE TO NORTH-SOUTH POWER LINES WEST OF AIRPORT.
Click to expand...

Not challenging you in any way, but that isn't on the plate. Where do I find that reasoning? Also, I know there are also power lines running West to East North of the field, which are good visual reference for the base.

Perhaps the two sets of power lines are at different altitudes?
 
I did a circle to land at a few airports, with a DPE who also instructs. I wanted a second opinion on my technique.
All I can say is, I highly doubt I will ever do it for real. OMG, the circle params are so fricking tight that to me eyeball measurement to stay in the safe zone are very problematic at an unknown airport.

Tim
 
Ravioli said:
Wasn't being funny. That was a former home base, and it is truly quite far from a normal pattern and what peeps would likely do while circling.
Click to expand...
Given the opportunity, I see a lot of pilots who would spread a circle out that far.
 
Ravioli said:
Not challenging you in any way, but that isn't on the plate. Where do I find that reasoning? Also, I know there are also power lines running West to East North of the field, which are good visual reference for the base.
Click to expand...

Wally is referencing the source document for the procedure, which often contain explanations like this. However, the end result is what we see on the chart, where the actual reason for something isn't (usually) important.
 
RussR said:
Wally is referencing the source document for the procedure, which often contain explanations like this. However, the end result is what we see on the chart, where the actual reason for something isn't (usually) important.
Click to expand...
Tue. But the current source document for that approach doesn't have that language.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Tue. But the current source document for that approach doesn't have that language.
Click to expand...

Well, sorta yes, sorta no. There is actually another form for each procedure which is even deeper information, the Form 8260-9. This form isn't usually considered "source" documentation, because it isn't the direct source for what's put on the chart. But it is background information for what goes on that source document - obstacle information for each segment, latitude and longitudes, elevations, runway data, altimeter adjustments, turn radius calculations, all kinds of stuff. And often what constitutes the procedure designer's "notes" on why they did this and that. The 8260-9 forms are not as readily available to the public as the "source" documents, the Form 8260-3 and -5, but Wally seems to have easy access to them.
 
RussR said:
Well, sorta yes, sorta no. There is actually another form for each procedure which is even deeper information, the Form 8260-9. This form isn't usually considered "source" documentation, because it isn't the direct source for what's put on the chart. But it is background information for what goes on that source document - obstacle information for each segment, latitude and longitudes, elevations, runway data, altimeter adjustments, turn radius calculations, all kinds of stuff. And often what constitutes the procedure designer's "notes" on why they did this and that. The 8260-9 forms are not as readily available to the public as the "source" documents, the Form 8260-3 and -5, but Wally seems to have easy access to them.
Click to expand...
That could certainly be. I rarely if ever have any reason to doubt Wally.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That could certainly be. I rarely if ever have any reason to doubt Wally.
Click to expand...

I didn't doubt @aterpster, I asked him to clarify in chat this morning, and he looked at the approach plate and opined. He can share his opinion here so that I don't misquote him.
 
Ravioli said:
I didn't doubt @aterpster, I asked him to clarify in chat this morning, and he looked at the approach plate and opined. He can share his opinion here so that I don't misquote him.
Click to expand...
I wasn't challenging your question. Actually I was agreeing with it since the source document I looked at doesn't say that.
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. That 1772 tower would have been out of the circling area. Here’s about how big circling areas are.

https://www.faa.gov/aero_docs/acifp/F38CF805357B4F6B8847954DC0E014ED-FWS/TX_KFWS_RNAV GPS RWY 35L_A1A_S.pdf
Click to expand...

Cat D circling radii (using the "new" values denoted by the inverse C) are typically in the 3.6 to 4.0 nm range depending on altitude - distance measured from the runway. However, the FWS procedure linked above is still using the old areas (identified by the lack of the inverse C) and therefore the Cat D radius is only 2.3 nm.

The 1772 tower is (roughly) 5 or so nm away from the runway.
 
aterpster said:
Does anyone know if there is an airport with CTL permitted only one one side of the runway and the legal traffic pattern for that airport is on the side where CTL is prohibited?
Click to expand...

Did I get a prize for knowing one? :)
 
Ravioli said:
Wasn't being funny. That was a former home base, and it is truly quite far from a normal pattern and what peeps would likely do while circling.



Not challenging you in any way, but that isn't on the plate. Where do I find that reasoning? Also, I know there are also power lines running West to East North of the field, which are good visual reference for the base.

Perhaps the two sets of power lines are at different altitudes?
Click to expand...
I can't get inside their mind. You could ask them in OKC. Easy enough to do on the IFP Gateway. I see powerlines on both the sectional and the TAC passing through the Class D airspace near the edge.

Attached is Page 9 of the 8260-3 for the ILS.
TX_KFWS_ILS OR LOC RWY 35L_A2B_F-1-9.jpg
 
midlifeflyer said:
Aha! There it is!
Click to expand...
I misspoke about the form I posted. It is the 8260-9 which, as Russ states, is not Part 97, rather a worksheet record for lack of a better word. The 8260-9 is circulated during coordination for anyone who chooses to be on the near-daily coordination notice.
 
Technical question, one when I looked never found a definitive answer; or am I over analyzing? (over analyzing is the more likely)
Circling is defined as X distance from the runway. Now, I have never know a runway for fixed wing airplanes to be a single spot; but instead a long line. So a Cat A is 1.3 miles. With a 5K runway, isn't the shape of the protected area more of an ellipse than a circle? Or is this implied? Think about landing at a large airport with circle to land; the ellipse long side could be longer than the width! How many pilots are really ready for that situation?

Tim
 
tspear said:
Technical question, one when I looked never found a definitive answer; or am I over analyzing? (over analyzing is the more likely)
Circling is defined as X distance from the runway. Now, I have never know a runway for fixed wing airplanes to be a single spot; but instead a long line. So a Cat A is 1.3 miles. With a 5K runway, isn't the shape of the protected area more of an ellipse than a circle? Or is this implied? Think about landing at a large airport with circle to land; the ellipse long side could be longer than the width! How many pilots are really ready for that situation?

Tim
Click to expand...
You’re correct...the protected area has a funny shape. What situation would that make a pilot unready for?
 
RussR said:
Cat D circling radii (using the "new" values denoted by the inverse C) are typically in the 3.6 to 4.0 nm range depending on altitude - distance measured from the runway. However, the FWS procedure linked above is still using the old areas (identified by the lack of the inverse C) and therefore the Cat D radius is only 2.3 nm.

The 1772 tower is (roughly) 5 or so nm away from the runway.
Click to expand...

I found that in the IFP Gateway. The file date was 04/21/2020. This was there along with it also. It sure looks like the new stuff. The location of the Sycamore Strip Airport bears this out.
https://www.faa.gov/aero_docs/acifp...E014ED-FWS/TX_KFWS_RNAV GPS RWY 35L_A1A_F.pdf
 
tspear said:
Technical question, one when I looked never found a definitive answer; or am I over analyzing? (over analyzing is the more likely)
Circling is defined as X distance from the runway. Now, I have never know a runway for fixed wing airplanes to be a single spot; but instead a long line. So a Cat A is 1.3 miles. With a 5K runway, isn't the shape of the protected area more of an ellipse than a circle? Or is this implied? Think about landing at a large airport with circle to land; the ellipse long side could be longer than the width! How many pilots are really ready for that situation?

Tim
Click to expand...
Fig 5-4-29 : https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap5_section_4.html
 
Here are two of the power poles west of the airport. A bit north they turn east and come fairly close to the airport.

N 32 33 53.39 , W97 21 42.14

N 32 33 59.62 , W97 21 34.66
 
MauleSkinner said:
You’re correct...the protected area has a funny shape. What situation would that make a pilot unready for?
Click to expand...

Judgement of relative area. Normally fly out of 2k runway, go land at a 5k runway. Watch what happens to the traffic pattern; the pilot tends to become a bomber in the town next door.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Technical question, one when I looked never found a definitive answer; or am I over analyzing? (over analyzing is the more likely)
Circling is defined as X distance from the runway. Now, I have never know a runway for fixed wing airplanes to be a single spot; but instead a long line. So a Cat A is 1.3 miles. With a 5K runway, isn't the shape of the protected area more of an ellipse than a circle? Or is this implied? Think about landing at a large airport with circle to land; the ellipse long side could be longer than the width! How many pilots are really ready for that situation?

Tim
Click to expand...

Yeah. They draw radius’ out from the approach end of all the runways. Airports with intersecting runways can have even funnier shapes.
 
tspear said:
Judgement of relative area. Normally fly out of 2k runway, go land at a 5k runway. Watch what happens to the traffic pattern; the pilot tends to become a bomber in the town next door.

Tim
Click to expand...
Hoe does the shape of the protected area affect that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top