Circling approach

[Ravioli]

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.

The airport near here with only 1 ILS allows them, but the ones with ILS to both ends do not. Not sure if that's part of the story or not.

 

[luvflyin]

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.

A C130 did it at El Toro in 1970. Those who saw it said it cartwheeled down the runway.

 

[mscard88]

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.

Yep my airline was the same w/ the type rating having the circling restriction on it.

 

[Ted]

Yep my airline was the same w/ the type rating having the circling restriction on it.

I've heard that was really common.

At the 135 I flew for we had to demonstrate a circling approach on our 135 checkride, but our ops specs didn't allow circling approaches unless conditions were basically good VFR (at which point it's no different from a normal pattern) or if we'd done the approach in the sim for that airport and the forecasted conditions for that day prior to making the flight. Oh, we didn't have a sim, either.

 

[mscard88]

I've heard that was really common.

At the 135 I flew for we had to demonstrate a circling approach on our 135 checkride, but our ops specs didn't allow circling approaches unless conditions were basically good VFR (at which point it's no different from a normal pattern) or if we'd done the approach in the sim for that airport and the forecasted conditions for that day prior to making the flight. Oh, we didn't have a sim, either.

I think we had to have basic VFR (1000 & 3) and could go no lower than that so like you said, just a pattern basically. In the sim we could do them and were tested on them, go figure. I may be off a bit but it was something like that. till had the restriction on the certificate though.

Looking at my certificate it says:

(type ratings) circ. appr. -VMC only

 

[Ted]

I think we had to have basic VFR (1000 & 3) and could go no lower than that so like you said, just a pattern basically. In the sim we could do them and were tested on them, go figure. I may be off a bit but it was something like that. till had the restriction on the certificate though.

I could see doing them in the sim since there could potentially be a situation where you might need to do one (emergency, need to land RIGHT NOW, winds such that circling would be mandatory to do that) even though it's not something that you would ever do in normal operations.

 

[kayoh190]

I don't circle much at work - usually it's flying the localizer to 22 and circling to 13 at LGA. But as others mentioned, we're limited to 1000/3 when doing this, so it's more of a visual approach in practice. You can tell most of the airline guys aren't too comfortable with this - most seem to swing way wide before lining up to 13. They want their 5 mile final, regardless of the protected area.

 

[mscard88]

I could see doing them in the sim since there could potentially be a situation where you might need to do one (emergency, need to land RIGHT NOW, winds such that circling would be mandatory to do that) even though it's not something that you would ever do in normal operations.

Yes the IPs always asked that on orals or in the sim. Meaning if you had to go lower you could but no lower than circling minimums in special circumstances like you mentioned Ted.

 

[luvflyin]

The airport near here with only 1 ILS allows them, but the ones with ILS to both ends do not. Not sure if that's part of the story or not.

Can't have the Localizers to both ends of the same runway turned on at the same time. There'd be no need to allow opposite direction ops to those runways. The one with a Localizer in only one direction would have a need at times.

 

[Velocity173]

A C130 did it at El Toro in 1970. Those who saw it said it cartwheeled down the runway.

That was a maximum effort landing designed to simulate a short, unimproved strip. Tactical arrival or tactical descent, is an aggressive maneuver to avoid ground fire, not necessarily ending in a max effort landing. My point being, the maneuvering phase close to the ground does have an increased risk vs conducting a straight in but not to the point of being dangerous. For the average IFR pilot, a TYPICAL circle should not be dangerous. It it were, then the FAA should ban it completely.

https://fightersweep.com/1511/maximum-effort-landings-in-the-c-130/

 

[Radar Contact]

The airport near here with only 1 ILS allows them, but the ones with ILS to both ends do not. Not sure if that's part of the story or not.

Here's the whole story if you care to read it below. Long story short it's become so cumbersome that most facilities can't do it much anymore due to other traffic/LOA limitations.

2−1−31. OPPOSITE DIRECTION
OPERATIONS
Opposite Direction Operations consists of IFR/VFR
Operations conducted to the same or parallel runway
where an aircraft is operating in a reciprocal direction
of another aircraft arriving, departing, or conducting
an approach.
REFERENCE−
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 1-2-2, Course Definitions
a. Each facility must:
1. Determine the operational feasibility of
conducting opposite direction operations.
2. At a minimum, develop the opposite
direction operations procedures necessary to
accommodate aircraft that have an operational need
or receiving operational priority.
REFERENCE−
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 2-1-4, Operational Priority
b. For aircraft receiving IFR services that are
conducting opposite direction operations to the same
runway, facility directives must:
1. Define minimum cutoff points identified by
distance or fixes between:
JO 7210.3AA 10/12/17
2−1−14 General
(a) An arrival and a departure.
(b) An arrival and an arrival.
2. Specify that use of Visual Separation is not
authorized, except at those unique locations that are
operationally impacted by terrain and when issued a
Letter of Authorization by the Service Area Director
of Operations.
3. Require traffic advisories to both aircraft.
EXAMPLE−
OPPOSITE DIRECTION TRAFFIC (distance) MILE
FINAL, (type aircraft). OPPOSITE DIRECTION
TRAFFIC DEPARTING RUNWAY (number), (type
aircraft). OPPOSITE DIRECTION TRAFFIC,
(position), (type aircraft).
4. Require the use of a memory aid.
5. Prohibit opposite direction same runway
operations with opposing traffic inside the applicable
cutoff point unless an emergency situation exists.
6. Specify the position/facility responsible for
ensuring compliance with cutoff points between
aircraft conducting opposite direction operations.
7. Contain the following minimum
coordination requirements:
(a) Define the facility/position that is
responsible for initiating coordination.
(b) All coordination must be on a recorded
line and state “Opposite Direction.” Initial
coordination must include call sign, type, and arrival
or departure runway.
c. The cutoff points established under
subparagraph b1 must ensure that required lateral
separation exists:
1. When a departing aircraft becomes airborne
and has been issued a turn to avoid conflict; or
2. When the first aircraft has crossed the runway
threshold for opposite direction arrivals.
3. If the conditions in subparagraphs c1 and c2
are not met, facility directives must require action be
taken to ensure that control instructions are issued to
protect the integrity of the cutoff points.
d. At a minimum, the following must be
considered when developing cutoff points:
1. Aircraft performance.
2. Type of approach.
3. Operational position configuration.
4. Runway configuration.
5. Weather conditions.
6. Existing facility waivers.
e. For aircraft receiving IFR services that are
conducting opposite direction operations to parallel
runways regardless of the distance between
centerlines, facility directives must:
1. Ensure that a turn away from opposing traffic
is issued when opposing traffic is inside the cutoff
points defined in b1 for the other runway.
2. Specify that use of Visual Separation is
authorized once a turn away from opposing traffic is
issued.
REFERENCE−
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 7-2-1, Visual Separation
3. Require traffic advisories to both aircraft.
EXAMPLE−
OPPOSITE DIRECTION TRAFFIC (distance) MILE
FINAL, (type aircraft). OPPOSITE DIRECTION
TRAFFIC DEPARTING RUNWAY (number), (type
aircraft). OPPOSITE DIRECTION TRAFFIC,
(position), (type aircraft).
4. Require the use of a memory aid.
5. Contain the following minimum
coordination requirements:
(a) Define the facility/position that is
responsible for initiating coordination.
(b) All coordination must be on a recorded
line and state “Opposite Direction.” Initial
coordination must include call sign, type, and arrival
or departure runway.
(c) At those locations that routinely conduct
Opposite Direction Operations due to noise
abatement at night and when issued a Letter of
Authorization by the Service Area Director of
Operations, the provisions of paragraph e5 above are
not required.
f. For VFR aircraft that are conducting opposite
direction operations to same or parallel runways,
facility directives must contain procedures requiring
the use of the following, including but not limited to:
1. Ensuring departing VFR aircraft are issued a
turn to avoid conflict with opposing IFR/VFR traffic.
2. Traffic advisories to both aircraft.
10/12/17 JO 7210.3AA
General 2−1−15
3. State the phrase “opposite direction” if
coordination is required.
4. Memory Aids.
g. All facility directives and letters of agreement
addressing opposite direction operations must be
approved by the Service Area Director of Operations.
REFERENCE−
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 3-8-4, Simultaneous Opposite

 

[jordane93]

I don't circle much at work - usually it's flying the localizer to 22 and circling to 13 at LGA. But as others mentioned, we're limited to 1000/3 when doing this, so it's more of a visual approach in practice. You can tell most of the airline guys aren't too comfortable with this - most seem to swing way wide before lining up to 13. They want their 5 mile final, regardless of the protected area.

They did the LDA 22 circle to 13 once. It was my first time doing the circle to 13 also. Approach was beautiful. Landing felt like we got shot down.

 

[Kritchlow]

They did the LDA 22 circle to 13 once. It was my first time doing the circle to 13 also. Approach was beautiful. Landing felt like we got shot down.

Are you authorized to do the GPS approach?

 

[kayoh190]

Landing felt like we got shot down.

Anytime I land at LGA and we don't end up either swimming or on the Grand Central Parkway, I consider it a win!

 

[jordane93]

Are you authorized to do the GPS approach?

Yep. I guess we could have asked for the RNAV 22 (not the RNP. We’re not authorized to do RNP approaches). It was good experience though.

 

[mscard88]

Landing felt like we got shot down.

Yeah BTDT in a CRJ 900 right after they turn me loose from IOE.

Not at LGA though, never had a bad landing there. You concentrate so much going in there I guess. Al least for me.

 

[luvflyin]

That was a maximum effort landing designed to simulate a short, unimproved strip. Tactical arrival or tactical descent, is an aggressive maneuver to avoid ground fire, not necessarily ending in a max effort landing. My point being, the maneuvering phase close to the ground does have an increased risk vs conducting a straight in but not to the point of being dangerous. For the average IFR pilot, a TYPICAL circle should not be dangerous. It it were, then the FAA should ban it completely.

https://fightersweep.com/1511/maximum-effort-landings-in-the-c-130/

Yeah. Circling is not in itself dangerous but that doesn't mean everyone can or should be doing it. I think the C130 at El Toro may have also been doing one of those Tactical arrivals to the Maximum effort landing. I knew a couple people who watched it happen and they said it did an extremely steep approach. Their hands were pointing down at like about 45 degrees as they were telling the story.

 

[Velocity173]

Yeah. Circling is not in itself dangerous but that doesn't mean everyone can or should be doing it. I think the C130 at El Toro may have also been doing one of those Tactical arrivals to the Maximum effort landing. I knew a couple people who watched it happen and they said it did an extremely steep approach. Their hands were pointing down at like about 45 degrees as they were telling the story.

Yep. Rode on Fat Albert years ago. Don't know what they use for an angle on final but I had to grab the bottom of the seat to steady myself. Once they got hard on the brakes and reversers, impossible to keep yourself from leaning on the dude next to ya.

 

[luvflyin]

Yep. Rode on Fat Albert years ago. Don't know what they use for an angle on final but I had to grab the bottom of the seat to steady myself. Once they got hard on the brakes and reversers, impossible to keep yourself from leaning on the dude next to ya.

That's right. They demonstrate that maneuver at airshows. How did you get a ride?

 

[Velocity173]

That's right. They demonstrate that maneuver at airshows. How did you get a ride?

They do rides for active military at show sites. Seen civilians go as well but I believe it's a waiver for them. Basically limited by who you know I suppose.

Being ATC we had first dibs. I was actually on approach when they came in back in 96 and the first thing I asked, after to expect the visual was "Blue Angel nine, you got room for rides this year?" They gave us like 9 "passes" so 3 went each day. No one wanted Friday because that was a non JATO day. Fortunately I got Saturday.

Cool ride but at the same time, 0 to + 3 Gs with really no windows, sulfur smell from the rockets filling the cabin, and loud...not exactly a pleasure cruise either. Only like 8 minutes but some dudes were turning green!

 

[denverpilot]

Yep. Rode on Fat Albert years ago. Don't know what they use for an angle on final but I had to grab the bottom of the seat to steady myself. Once they got hard on the brakes and reversers, impossible to keep yourself from leaning on the dude next to ya.

45 on takeoff and 25 landing.

(That video is fun to watch.)

They often take members of the Press and VIPs of the airshow on those flights also.

 

[labbadabba]

I've heard that was really common.

At the 135 I flew for we had to demonstrate a circling approach on our 135 checkride, but our ops specs didn't allow circling approaches unless conditions were basically good VFR (at which point it's no different from a normal pattern) or if we'd done the approach in the sim for that airport and the forecasted conditions for that day prior to making the flight. Oh, we didn't have a sim, either.

Would be an issue at KMKC which has an ILS RWY03 but the big runway is 01. Due to big towers, you have to step over pretty late in the game to get over.

 

[Ted]

Would be an issue at KMKC which has an ILS RWY03 but the big runway is 01. Due to big towers, you have to step over pretty late in the game to get over.

I'm based at MKC.

Runway 3 is still a 5,000 ft runway, so you have a good bit of length to work with. Any piston bird should be able to land on it fine. There's also an ILS 19, so if you're landing on runway 3 then that probably means the winds are favoring 3 and you have a headwind (or at least some headwind component) helping you further. Really, not something I'd be too worried about.

Also, an ILS 3 circle to 1 in that situation is atypical in the sense that it's a pretty simple one. Under the 135 I flew for it would still be prohibited, but from a 91 perspective you could accept that more easily as the runways aren't that far apart. The more concerning is something like an ILS 3 circle to 19 (which would be very atypical) and requires actually circling the airport to get in. Also, circling mins to ILS 3 are 900, which are pretty high and not in the same category as something like an ILS/LPV with circling mins at 300.

Still, I'd take the straight-in if given ILS 3 in the 414 unless conditions were good VFR.

 

[aterpster]

Would be an issue at KMKC which has an ILS RWY03 but the big runway is 01. Due to big towers, you have to step over pretty late in the game to get over.

Shouldn't have to. CTL from the ILS Rwy 03 it not authorized east of the centerline of Runway 01. So, so long as that restriction is observed the CTL MDA protects out to the limit of the CTL protected area. And, that is new CTL criteria ("C" icon).

 

[coloradobluesky]

Circling in poor visibility is what is dicey. If you can see what you are doing, circling shouldnt be a problem. Larger aircraft frequently have higher circling minimums (for good reasons).

 

[luvflyin]

45 on takeoff and 25 landing.

(That video is fun to watch.)

They often take members of the Press and VIPs of the airshow on those flights also.

That was cool. Damn them trees looked close.

 

[Velocity173]

That was cool. Damn them trees looked close.

Not a very good vid but around 4:00 gives a sense what a JATO ride was like inside.

 

[aterpster]

I

Also, an ILS 3 circle to 1 in that situation is atypical in the sense that it's a pretty simple one. Under the 135 I flew for it would still be prohibited, but from a 91 perspective you could accept that more easily as the runways aren't that far apart. The more concerning is something like an ILS 3 circle to 19 (which would be very atypical) and requires actually circling the airport to get in. Also, circling mins to ILS 3 are 900, which are pretty high and not in the same category as something like an ILS/LPV with circling mins at 300.

Can't be that low. The minimum Height Above Airport (HAA) for CAT A is 350' and that is only where obstacles don't exceed 50 feet in the CTL maneuvering area. The minimum HAA for CAT B/C is 450' HAA, and 550' HAA for CAT D. The minimum required obstacle clearance for all categories is 300'

 

[Ted]

Can't be that low. The minimum Height Above Airport (HAA) for CAT A is 350' and that is only where obstacles don't exceed 50 feet in the CTL maneuvering area. The minimum HAA for CAT B/C is 450' HAA, and 550' HAA for CAT D. The minimum required obstacle clearance for all categories is 300'

You're correct, I meant 400'.

Which is still pretty low to the ground in a low ceiling, low vis situation to be maneuvering.

 

[aterpster]

You're correct, I meant 400'.

Which is still pretty low to the ground in a low ceiling, low vis situation to be maneuvering.

Too low except for the very proficient.

 

[aterpster]

Attached it the CTL protected airspace for the MKC RNAV Rwy 3. It would be identical for the ILS Rwy 3.

The other areas are the LNAV final and missed approach. Note how the area excludes the WDAF and KCMO towers. (yeah, I was based there too when TWA still used MKC.)

 

[mtuomi]

Too low except for the very proficient.

That's a big reason why many 121/135 ops prohibit circle to land ops. They simply don't do them often enough to consider them safe.
And also why it makes comparison to military a moot point, it is a safe maneuver - if you do them all the time.

 

[denverpilot]

You're correct, I meant 400'.

Which is still pretty low to the ground in a low ceiling, low vis situation to be maneuvering.

Too low except for the very proficient.

When we were training, @jesse found one of those for me to do at night... and followed up the “experience” by mentioning, “See how those bite people in the ass all the time?” Yeah. Yeah, I do.

Even without a ragged ceiling above us to contend with, just a simulated one, 400’ AGL circling, at night, at an unfamiliar airport, simulates the stress and the lack of any margin to screw up, pretty well.

No plans to repeat that any more often than truly necessary and even then, happy to find ways to plan on making it unnecessary.

 

[SbestCFII]

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.

Unless otherwise specified, circle-to-land procedures should follow the established traffic pattern. Circle at of above the circling MDA (traffic pattern altitude is preferable) if clear. No 500' separation from the cloud base is required if conducted under IFR. If the cloud base is less that 500' above the pattern altitude, no one should be flying VFR (not legally anyway).

 

[dmspilot]

Unless otherwise specified, circle-to-land procedures should follow the established traffic pattern. Circle at of above the circling MDA (traffic pattern altitude is preferable) if clear. No 500' separation from the cloud base is required if conducted under IFR. If the cloud base is less that 500' above the pattern altitude, no one should be flying VFR (not legally anyway).

Although I would not do so nor advocate doing so, the traffic pattern altitude is not regulatory. Unless you're in a controlled airspace surface area, you can fly VFR at 699' agl in 1 mi and clear of clouds. Or even 500' when the ceiling is 501'.

 

[aterpster]

Although I would not do so nor advocate doing so, the traffic pattern altitude is not regulatory. Unless you're in a controlled airspace surface area, you can fly VFR at 699' agl in 1 mi and clear of clouds. Or even 500' when the ceiling is 501'.

I often wonder how the FAA decided on 700 feet for a transition area. No one in airspace at the FAA today knows. Why not something lower to protect all the low minima LPV IAPs out there? A Class E Surface Area solves those problems but tends to create its own set of problems. And, no Class E Surface Area unless there is ATC communication on the surface.

 

[luvflyin]

I often wonder how the FAA decided on 700 feet for a transition area. No one in airspace at the FAA today knows. Why not something lower to protect all the low minima LPV IAPs out there? A Class E Surface Area solves those problems but tends to create its own set of problems. And, no Class E Surface Area unless there is ATC communication on the surface.

And Certified weather observation. I wonder how many Approaches way back then when 700' was decided on had Minimums lower than that.

 

[SbestCFII]

Circling approach are reasonable, just maintain the safe altitude and always stay coordinated during the turns. If you overshoot or it doesn't feel right, you can continue circling and try again. Don't rush it...safety first.

 

[aterpster]

Circling approach are reasonable, just maintain the safe altitude and always stay coordinated during the turns. If you overshoot or it doesn't feel right, you can continue circling and try again. Don't rush it...safety first.

Perhaps so in the daytime, but many are fraught with hazards at night unless you have good local knowledge, especially at mountainous airports.