Circling okay when no Circling listed?

flyingron said:
For completeness: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2018/02/bombardier-crj-900lr-n162pq-flight-3567.html

The text (apparently from a MailTribune news article) indicates a lack of knowledge of instrument procedures by the author: "forgot the necessity of staying above 10,000 feet or the flight-chart-prescribed 10,700 elevation isn’t clear."

The 10,700 is the MSA and irrelevant. The 10,000 is indeed a hard minimum for the arc and unclear why the controller cleared or why the pilots would descend below it on an approach.
Click to expand...
Both the controller and the flight crew were clueless. Had it not been for EGPWS, it would have been a tragedy and endless finger pointing.
 
aterpster said:
Both the controller and the flight crew were clueless. Had it not been for EGPWS, it would have been a tragedy and endless finger pointing.
Click to expand...

One thing that may have added to the confusion of an inexperienced pilot is that it is common for ATC to vector aircraft onto ILS finals below the published altitude for the segment. Very different situation, of course.

The RNAV (RNP) 32 MFR is a much better approach!
 
Larry in TN said:
One thing that may have added to the confusion of an inexperienced pilot is that it is common for ATC to vector aircraft onto ILS finals below the published altitude for the segment. Very different situation, of course.

The RNAV (RNP) 32 MFR is a much better approach!
Click to expand...
Skywest isn't RNP AR qualified, nor are their airplanes properly equipped. As you know, that bar is set extremely high.

I know the tech guru at SWA. Even though their fleet is RNP AR equipped, they don't maintain MFR because it is an alternative only airport. He pointed out when the weather will permit the VOR/DME-C fly the ILS 14 instead, then circle to land to Rwy 32.
 
aterpster said:
Both the controller and the flight crew were clueless. Had it not been for EGPWS, it would have been a tragedy and endless finger pointing.
Click to expand...

The preliminary is out. Do you know if there is a docket on this. I can’t find one
 
luvflyin said:
The preliminary is out. Do you know if there is a docket on this. I can’t find one
Click to expand...
It wasn't an accident.

It was the same type of investigation the NTSB did on the Eva Mt. Wilson caper.
 
aterpster said:
I know the tech guru at SWA. Even though their fleet is RNP AR equipped, they don't maintain MFR because it is an alternative only airport. He pointed out when the weather will permit the VOR/DME-C fly the ILS 14 instead, then circle to land to Rwy 32.
Click to expand...
Our Airbus fleet doesn't have RNP so our Airbus are not permitted to land MFR Rwy 32 at night. They schedule the late flights in as 737s.

The biggest problem I've had with RNP approaches on the 737 is getting ATC to let us know if we're going to use one early enough that we have time to set it up properly. You can't switch to RNP quickly like you can switching ILS approaches. Too many opportunities for errors.
 
Larry in TN said:
One thing that may have added to the confusion of an inexperienced pilot is that it is common for ATC to vector aircraft onto ILS finals below the published altitude for the segment. Very different situation, of course.
Click to expand...
But the glideslope (which is what you want anyhow), but not below the minimum altitude for that segment. How can you be "established" on an approach when you are not within it's published area.
 
flyingron said:
But the glideslope (which is what you want anyhow), but not below the minimum altitude for that segment. How can you be "established" on an approach when you are not within it's published area.
Click to expand...
Not sure if I'm interpreting your statement correctly.

ATC will frequently vector us to join a localizer at an altitude that it above the step-down altitude for the point where we join the localizer. This happens most frequently at larger airports with localizer courses published quite a bit farther out than the standard service volume. See the ILS approach at ORD 27L as a good example. The LOC course is published out as far as NRMAH D26.2. NRMAH is six step-down fixes outside the published G/S intercept altitude. ATC will give you a final turn with "Maintain 6000' until established,..." but the vector has you join the LOC at a point when the published minimum altitude is 8,000'. This is common. Inexperienced pilots can become accustom to this practice which may reduce the liklihood of catching an ATC mistake similar to the one encountered by the incident Skywest flight.
 
Larry in TN said:
Our Airbus fleet doesn't have RNP so our Airbus are not permitted to land MFR Rwy 32 at night. They schedule the late flights in as 737s.

The biggest problem I've had with RNP approaches on the 737 is getting ATC to let us know if we're going to use one early enough that we have time to set it up properly. You can't switch to RNP quickly like you can switching ILS approaches. Too many opportunities for errors.
Click to expand...
Yep, I know all about them. I was on the PARC for 4 years when the criteria were implemented, then AC 90-101 was written.

SWA was behind putting them at a lot of airports where they were not needed. Having said that, the one at Medford is a great use of the criteria. So are: KGUC, KRIL, KEAT, and KABQ Runway 26.
 
aterpster said:
KABQ Runway 26.
Click to expand...
I used the RNAV (RNP) Y 26 to backup a visual approach into ABQ last summer. Sure makes it a lot easier!

Those RNP approaches, especially with the RF-legs, is the one thing that the 737 does really well. For everything else, it's an airplane that only an accountant could love! LOL

P.S. Did you hear about Walter?
 
Larry in TN said:
I used the RNAV (RNP) Y 26 to backup a visual approach into ABQ last summer. Sure makes it a lot easier!

Those RNP approaches, especially with the RF-legs, is the one thing that the 737 does really well. For everything else, it's an airplane that only an accountant could love! LOL

P.S. Did you hear about Walter?
Click to expand...
Walter?

Oh, I would add KPSP to the list of really useful RNP AR airports. Not needed often, but sometimes in the winter it gets rainy and fairly low ceilings there.
 
flyingron said:
But the glideslope (which is what you want anyhow), but not below the minimum altitude for that segment. How can you be "established" on an approach when you are not within it's published area.
Click to expand...

You can kind of be. They can’t say join the Localizer at an altitude below the minimum for that segment and give the approach clearance. But they can tell you to join the Localizer and maintain an altitude until a Fix that begins a segment with a minimum altitude that is not higher than your assigned altitude and give the clearance.
 
Larry in TN said:
.....See the ILS approach at ORD 27L as a good example. The LOC course is published out as far as NRMAH D26.2. NRMAH is six step-down fixes outside the published G/S intercept altitude. ATC will give you a final turn with "Maintain 6000' until established,..." but the vector has you join the LOC at a point when the published minimum altitude is 8,000'.....
Click to expand...

If I’m ready you correctly, that is an illegal clearance. It looks like you are intercepting the Localizer between JOEBO and NRMAH at 6000. They can say intercept the Localizer, maintain 6000 until RIPPR cleared for the Approach. But to say maintain 6000 until established on the Localizer, cleared for the Approach if you are outside of GRABL is illegal.
 
Larry in TN said:
I used the RNAV (RNP) Y 26 to backup a visual approach into ABQ last summer. Sure makes it a lot easier!

Those RNP approaches, especially with the RF-legs, is the one thing that the 737 does really well. For everything else, it's an airplane that only an accountant could love! LOL

P.S. Did you hear about Walter?
Click to expand...
They have quite a tribute going for him on Beechtalk. Some comparisons to John Deakin, who I do know and have met.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top