Circling approach

[Ken Ibold]

Well, if you stayed within the appropriate radius for your approach category, you've got a minimum of 300 ft obstruction clearance at MDA. I wouldn't think it would be too difficult, even at night to maintain that altitude until final.

At that particular airport, there was intimidating terrain. At night I trusted the clearance. During the day the visual impact of the adjacent terrain was quite dramatic. There was little room for error. During the approach at night, ignorance was bliss.

 

[Ted]

At that particular airport, there was intimidating terrain. At night I trusted the clearance. During the day the visual impact of the adjacent terrain was quite dramatic. There was little room for error. During the approach at night, ignorance was bliss.

That's how my former home drone of Williamsport was, don't know if you ever flew in there. There was a ~2,000 ft ridge just south of the airport. If you weren't a local who knew the area it could be outright dangerous, and even if you were a local who knew the area there were some visual illusions that could happen. Fortunately by the time I left they'd put in LPV approaches to all runways, which made it much easier and safer.

 

[Velocity173]

You people need NVGs!

 

[Ted]

You people need NVGs!

Yes, we do!

 

[MauleSkinner]

I think it's called "personal minimums" (or in this case, "organizational minimums"). It's only in non-professional GA where folks think anyone who doesn't choose to do everything the FAR allow isn't a competent instrument pilot.

on the other hand, those who choose to do something and can't are...?

 

[Fearless Tower]

on the other hand, those who choose to do something and can't are...?

Typically found in the wreckage.

 

[paflyer]

That's how my former home drone of Williamsport was, don't know if you ever flew in there. There was a ~2,000 ft ridge just south of the airport. If you weren't a local who knew the area it could be outright dangerous, and even if you were a local who knew the area there were some visual illusions that could happen. Fortunately by the time I left they'd put in LPV approaches to all runways, which made it much easier and safer.

Ha! IPT was the destination of my second solo XC from XLL, never having been there. Before I went I did a FS practice run, and that's how I know about the ridge. Hard airport to spot from down low. Note this was pre-GPS.

 

[Ted]

Ha! IPT was the destination of my second solo XC from XLL, never having been there. Before I went I did a FS practice run, and that's how I know about the ridge. Hard airport to spot from down low. Note this was pre-GPS.

Even with GPS it could be hard to spot down low. Learning the local typography was important to finding that airport. Nice thing was that once you figured out the typography and where the airport was in relation to it, it became pretty easy to find.

 

[paflyer]

Even with GPS it could be hard to spot down low. Learning the local typography was important to finding that airport. Nice thing was that once you figured out the typography and where the airport was in relation to it, it became pretty easy to find.

Right, the obscuration became a landmark!

 

[MauleSkinner]

Typically found in the wreckage.

Or hopefully rescued by the guy in the other seat.

 

[Ted]

Right, the obscuration became a landmark!

Exactly!

 

[ateamer]

Even with GPS it could be hard to spot down low. Learning the local typography was important to finding that airport. Nice thing was that once you figured out the typography and where the airport was in relation to it, it became pretty easy to find.

Some of my earliest memories are from IPT, watching the Allegheny Convair 580s that my dad took on business trips for Litton. That is where I got hooked on aviation.

 

[Ted]

Some of my earliest memories are from IPT, watching the Allegheny Convair 580s that my dad took on business trips for Litton. That is where I got hooked on aviation.

What year (roughly) was that?

Learning to fly at IPT and flying around that general area was fantastic, and great luck on my part to get interested in aviation (and have the opportunity to learn) while there. Just a very nice area to fly.

Last Christmas we flew home from New York at 2,500 ft VFR the whole way to stay below the headwinds. Was very fun going through the hills in PA down that low.

 

[SbestCFII]

Say you're flying into a towered airport on an ILS flight plan, and you're /A. You get the ILS to runway X (because that's what you're equipped to fly), but winds dictate the other direction is better.

What do you ask approach for?

ILS X to circle to land on X-180?

If the ceiling is at least TPA +500 do you descend to TPA and fly the pattern, or to the circling mins?

Will TWR care one way or the other?

Just tell the tower you want to circle to land on the opposite runway. As long as you're at of above circling minimums and adhering to the typical traffic pattern you'll be fine.

 

[steingar]

Glad to see this. Not in any way or shape an IFR pilot. But when I started reading about circling approaches, they sounded rather dangerous to me. Potentially high bank angles close to to ground. If the airport is so small that I can't land with a tail wind I think I might rather seek one a bit larger. Like I said, not an IFR pilot. At least, not yet...

 

[jordane93]

Glad to see this. Not in any way or shape an IFR pilot. But when I started reading about circling approaches, they sounded rather dangerous to me. Potentially high bank angles close to to ground. If the airport is so small that I can't land with a tail wind I think I might rather seek one a bit larger. Like I said, not an IFR pilot. At least, not yet...

Nothing dangerous about a circling approach. It just requires a little more piloting. You’re also protected within a certain radius of the airport depending on your approach category.

 

[ateamer]

What year (roughly) was that?

Learning to fly at IPT and flying around that general area was fantastic, and great luck on my part to get interested in aviation (and have the opportunity to learn) while there. Just a very nice area to fly.

Last Christmas we flew home from New York at 2,500 ft VFR the whole way to stay below the headwinds. Was very fun going through the hills in PA down that low.

View attachment 57394

Late 60s to early 70s. Allegheny switched to the BAC 1-11 around 1973. A couple times, Dad took me up to the FSS on the second floor of the terminal and the "weather man" showed me the maps and teletype. My dad had been a private pilot, but lost his medical before I was born.

Dad got laid off in 1976 so no more airport. We lived in Eldred Township until 1979, and then moved to California.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Nothing dangerous about a circling approach. It just requires a little more piloting. You’re also protected within a certain radius of the airport depending on your approach category.

To say there’s nothing dangerous about a circling approach ignores the fact that there is an increased risk in circling approaches. If they were just basic piloting maneuvers, then every 121 and 135 operation would allow them.....but many do not.

A circling approach can most definitely be safely accomplished, but you need to accept that there is a higher risk and it isn’t because of terrain and obstacle clearance.....

 

[mscard88]

I agree. They are riskier especially in a jet or fast turboprop IMO too.

 

[jordane93]

To say there’s nothing dangerous about a circling approach ignores the fact that there is an increased risk in circling approaches. If they were just basic piloting maneuvers, then every 121 and 135 operation would allow them.....but many do not.

A circling approach can most definitely be safely accomplished, but you need to accept that there is a higher risk and it isn’t because of terrain and obstacle clearance.....

True. But it shouldn’t be seen as some dangerous, crazy maneuver with the proper training.

 

[Radar Contact]

Nothing dangerous about a circling approach. It just requires a little more piloting. You’re also protected within a certain radius of the airport depending on your approach category.

There's no doubt that the radius is protected for each category. I understand your thoughts about it requiring a little more piloting. I feel that it for sure does increase the risk profile vs a straight in approach or a circling approach that allows the circle to be conducted at pattern altitude. Circling a higher performance plane (ie 421 in this case) at say 493agl mins at night vs accepting a 13 kt tailwind or diverting somewhere else is beyond my acceptable risk level at this point in my life but perfectly legal and protected. Back when I was 20 I may have considered it with one feathered

This guy circled at PWK with a 2000' ceiling at night. Had he accepted the tail wind, in my opinion he'd still be flying.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb....ev_id=20060203X00158&ntsbno=CHI06FA076&akey=1

 

[jordane93]

There's no doubt that the radius is protected for each category. I understand your thoughts about it requiring a little more piloting. I feel that it for sure does increase the risk profile vs a straight in approach or a circling approach that allows the circle to be conducted at pattern altitude. Circling a higher performance plane (ie 421 in this case) at say 493agl mins at night vs accepting a 13 kt tailwind or diverting somewhere else is beyond my acceptable risk level at this point in my life but perfectly legal and protected. Back when I was 20 I may have considered it with one feathered

This guy circled at PWK with a 2000' ceiling at night. Had he accepted the tail wind, in my opinion he'd still be flying.

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb....ev_id=20060203X00158&ntsbno=CHI06FA076&akey=1

Agreed. I guess “nothing dangerous” was the wrong choice of words. It’s riskier than a straight in but nothing to worry about as long as you stay within the envelope of your aircraft.

 

[Velocity173]

Increased risk and dangerous are two different things. Yes, at night with little ground references a circle will be challenging. An IAP to mins without an autopilot can be challenging for some as well but I wouldn't call it dangerous.

Military transports practice circling approaches all the time. They're not exactly balling up aircraft left and right. A "tactical arrival" in a military transport is far more aggressive maneuver at a low altitude and I've yet to hear about one plowing in doing that either. There's hot dogging (C-17, B-52 air show crashes) and there's understanding the limits of your aircraft and operating within those limits.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Increased risk and dangerous are two different things. Yes, at night with little ground references a circle will be challenging. An IAP to mins without an autopilot can be challenging for some as well but I wouldn't call it dangerous.

Military transports practice circling approaches all the time. They're not exactly balling up aircraft left and right.

Due to the nature of the beast, I have always felt the military (generally speaking) tends to be a bit better/more formal about risk assessment and mitigation. But danger is part of risk.

With proper training and crew working together, I have no issue with a two pilot operation CTL.

But, personally speaking, I will not accept night CTL at/near minimums if I'm single pilot in any airplane. I consider myself a very competent IFR pilot and I don't have many 'personal minimums' that are more stringent than the FARs…..except that one.

 

[Velocity173]

Due to the nature of the beast, I have always felt the military (generally speaking) tends to be a bit better/more formal about risk assessment and mitigation. But danger is part of risk.

With proper training and crew working together, I have no issue with a two pilot operation CTL.

But, personally speaking, I will not accept night CTL at/near minimums if I'm single pilot in any airplane. I consider myself a very competent IFR pilot and I don't have many 'personal minimums' that are more stringent than the FARs…..except that one.

Yeah, danger or identifying a hazard is part of a risk assessment in the military but the particular maneuver itself might not be considered dangerous or, likely to cause harm. Everything in the RA process has a probability and a severity associated with the operation. While the serverity of an accident during a circle would be high on the list, the probability would still be somewhat low.

I look at it like a Blue Angel DVD I have. The pilot describes their demo as unforgiving but not dangerous. Meaning, there are hazards involved but if you use appropriate controls, you can keep those hazards at an acceptable overall risk level. Now I'm starting to sound like an IP again.

 

[MauleSkinner]

But, personally speaking, I will not accept night CTL at/near minimums if I'm single pilot in any airplane. I consider myself a very competent IFR pilot and I don't have many 'personal minimums' that are more stringent than the FARs…..except that one.

As long as you remember that they are your personal minimums I have no issue with that.

The fact that you choose not to find acceptable ways to mitigate the risk doesn't mean that others aren't able to do so.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The fact that you choose not to find acceptable ways to mitigate the risk doesn't mean that others aren't able to do so.

That comment indicates to me that you don't really understand the hazard.

Like I said above - it's not about obstacle or terrain clearance.

It's called spatial-D. You can't effectively mitigate that when flying single pilot. You can be the greatest stick in the world, and still get suckered into it in those conditions. And to be specific, I'm referring to night, low vis and ceiling at or near mins. I'm fine with a night scenario like the OP suggested where the ceiling is high enough that I can make a standard visual approach at pattern altitude.

Trying to maintain visual contact with the runway while circling at night in low vis is a GREAT way to disorient yourself and if that happens and you are solo, you are kind of screwed. Best you can hope for is to be able to put it on A/P and get out of there. But then you are fully in the soup trying to get yourself on an even keel. A tough task that in my opinion is not worth the risk.

 

[steingar]

Ahh the old "the military does it, so it must be OK". Please do keep in mind that the guys flying the military aircraft are all professional pilots who fly all the time. Lots of the guys reading this fly on the weekends here and there.

 

[Velocity173]

Ahh the old "the military does it, so it must be OK". Please do keep in mind that the guys flying the military aircraft are all professional pilots who fly all the time. Lots of the guys reading this fly on the weekends here and there.

Never heard of the old "the military does it so it must be ok" saying before and it wasn't my intent to imply that. Just giving an example of a group that performs the circle on a regular basis, vs the reference of some 135/121 ops that aren't allowed to conduct it. If an air carrier believes it's an unnecessary risk, so be it.

I just don't agree with a broad statement that the circle is a dangerous maneuver. As I said, my definition of "dangerous" is something that will most likely end in an injury or even death. I can't think of a legal circling maneuver with a qualified instrument pilot, that would most likely end that way. It is simply a hazard that has an elevated risk associated with it. Some will accept that risk, others may not. Not accepting that risk doesn't show incompetence either.

 

[MauleSkinner]

That comment indicates to me that you don't really understand the hazard.

Like I said above - it's not about obstacle or terrain clearance.

It's called spatial-D. You can't effectively mitigate that when flying single pilot. You can be the greatest stick in the world, and still get suckered into it in those conditions. And to be specific, I'm referring to night, low vis and ceiling at or near mins. I'm fine with a night scenario like the OP suggested where the ceiling is high enough that I can make a standard visual approach at pattern altitude.

Trying to maintain visual contact with the runway while circling at night in low vis is a GREAT way to disorient yourself and if that happens and you are solo, you are kind of screwed. Best you can hope for is to be able to put it on A/P and get out of there. But then you are fully in the soup trying to get yourself on an even keel. A tough task that in my opinion is not worth the risk.

I understand spatial D completely...btdt, but never in a Circling maneuver. I learned early on how to plan my path, divide my attention, and use the airplane's stability and whate remain equipment the airplane may or may not have to keep out of danger.

With a couple thousand hours at circling altitudes, a lot of which involved minimum legal visibility (including a mile and clear of clouds at night when that used to be legal) I don't see a huge risk factor when doing the same thing on an IFR clearance.

Granted, it's not for everybody...probably not even for the majority. It it's still your choice not to do it and not a safety absolute.

 

[Cooter]

Military transports practice circling approaches all the time. They're not exactly balling up aircraft left and right. A "tactical arrival" in a military transport is far more aggressive maneuver at a low altitude and I've yet to hear about one plowing in doing that either. There's hot dogging (C-17, B-52 air show crashes) and there's understanding the limits of your aircraft and operating within those limits.

I think most C-17 guys would be more comfortable doing a tactical arrival than a circling approach at mins. Circling approaches are tough because you almost never practice setting up a landing from there and the normal visual cues are absent. Setting the appropriate separation and maintaining sight is a tough balance, especially at an unfamiliar field. It's very easy to convince yourself that you're looking at something you're not. Correcting for setting up too tight also isn't easy in a large plane. They can be done safely obviously but I personally think they are difficult and most AMC guys arent getting a ton of practice at them. The Maneuver is simplified considerably with a HUD so C-17 guys have an advantage.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I understand spatial D completely...btdt, but never in a Circling maneuver. I learned early on how to plan my path, divide my attention, and use the airplane's stability and whate remain equipment the airplane may or may not have to keep out of danger.

With a couple thousand hours at circling altitudes, a lot of which involved minimum legal visibility (including a mile and clear of clouds at night when that used to be legal) I don't see a huge risk factor when doing the same thing on an IFR clearance.

Granted, it's not for everybody...probably not even for the majority. It it's still your choice not to do it and not a safety absolute.

Ah yes. That's what I figured. Easy to play internet badass when you're neck isn't on the line.

Good day.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Ah yes. That's what I figured. Easy to play internet badass when you're neck isn't on the line.

Good day.

So you're saying every pilot has the same background and experience? Interesting thought.

 

[Kritchlow]

I didn't think airlines did true circling approaches these days. I know we don't. We even have a circling limitation on our type seeing as though we don't demonstrate it in the sim.

 

[Ted]

Increased risk and dangerous are two different things. Yes, at night with little ground references a circle will be challenging. An IAP to mins without an autopilot can be challenging for some as well but I wouldn't call it dangerous.

At some point, too much increased risk becomes dangerous. Where that line is drawn depends on the plane, pilot, and conditions. Ultimately, none of us know what's going to do us in, so it's a question of deciding which risks we think we can safely mitigate and what's going to create the best probability for a safe outcome. Looking at what typical 135/121 operators have as limitations provides some good insight into what's been found more likely to kill pilots in the past.

I see a lot of people (not saying you in particular) dismissing the risks of circling approaches, which I think is at best disingenuous. I have no problems shooting an IAP to mins single pilot at night with no autopilot, and have done it plenty of times. But I'm comfortable with them, and I would agree that for most pilots they represent significant extra risk. Some people may be comfortable with doing circling approaches at night at mins and think that it's a sign of poor piloting skills if a pilot isn't just as comfortable doing such, and I think that's a load of crap.

 

[denverpilot]

When I've done practice approaches to the only ILS and the flow was to the opposite end they ALWAYS asked how the approach would terminate and I'd say "low approach only" or "circle to land." They'd tell me which side of the RW to circle on. Then occasionally they'd ask me to start the circling early for departing traffic.

They’ve stopped allowing opposite direction practice approaches around here, years ago. I was under the impression it was something that was being done pretty much system-wide.

It worked fine for decades to break off approaches at a landmark determined by the controller, but I guess someone must have come too close to swapping paint, and it’s a thing of the past for us.

 

[Radar Contact]

A "tactical arrival" in a military transport is far more aggressive maneuver at a low altitude and I've yet to hear about one plowing in doing that either.

Having been in the back of a couple C-130's on tactical arrivals into ORBI and ORKK, I have much respect for those maneuver's. Had a head cold and my ears didn't clear for days! In my opinion, military training is second to none and while I felt safe going into those airports in the way that they got us in (starting very high over the airport, at night, no runway lights or A/C lights, NVG's, steep turning dive until roll-out then touch down) I would not for a second let the average GA or 121/135 fly me in that capacity. Fun times.

 

[Radar Contact]

They’ve stopped allowing opposite direction practice approaches around here, years ago. I was under the impression it was something that was being done pretty much system-wide.

It worked fine for decades to break off approaches at a landmark determined by the controller, but I guess someone must have come too close to swapping paint, and it’s a thing of the past for us.

You are correct sir. They've basically made the rules associated with ODO (opposite direction operations) such a pain in the ass and/or simply impossible to comply with that most facilities have knocked it off.

A few people around the country had some close calls and they knee jerk kill it for all. In my opinion, in aviation, if you truly aim for 100% safety you will eventually be at 0% efficiency.

 

[Velocity173]

You are correct sir. They've basically made the rules associated with ODO (opposite direction operations) such a pain in the ass and/or simply impossible to comply with that most facilities have knocked it off.

A few people around the country had some close calls and they knee jerk kill it for all. In my opinion, in aviation, if you truly aim for 100% safety you will eventually be at 0% efficiency.

My brother still does ATC and couldn't believe it when they changed the rule. Said they changed it to revolve around mediocre controllers that had deals don't know how to sequence and separate. Made his life much easier but like you said, too often we dumb these things down to the point where efficiency is sacrificed. I experience the same thing flying EMS. Strapped with so much BS, it's amazing I can get off the ground sometimes...but I digress.

 

[Velocity173]

Having been in the back of a couple C-130's on tactical arrivals into ORBI and ORKK, I have much respect for those maneuver's. Had a head cold and my ears didn't clear for days! In my opinion, military training is second to none and while I felt safe going into those airports in the way that they got us in (starting very high over the airport, at night, no runway lights or A/C lights, NVG's, steep turning dive until roll-out then touch down) I would not for a second let the average GA or 121/135 fly me in that capacity. Fun times.

Yeah, used to watch them at Speicher and cringe sometimes. AF C-130s making Fat Albert look tame in comparison. Really not needed around Speicher. Small arms/light weapons fire was pretty non existent there. Looked cool though!