How to fail a checkride.

[Hacker]

Yes. If you are flying on an IFR flight plan and cleared for an instrument approach, and circle to a Class G airport with no tower, the FAA says you must follow the universal traffic pattern rule in 91.126 unless " ‘authorized or required’ by the approach guidelines of a specific airport or by another FAA regulation" or an emergency.

We're talking about altitudes here in our exchange (reference your post #69)...not the already established required turn direction, which is quite clear in the AC from earlier this year.

You asserted there is some sort of implied requirement that, if the weather is good enough for there to be a VFR traffic pattern, that an IFR aircraft flying a circling approach must circle at the VFR traffic pattern altitude, else (as you claim in post #92) "the FAA would say you are being reckless."

Can you back that up with a specific ruling, letter, or case? Or is that just your opinion?

 

[midlifeflyer]

We're talking about altitudes here in our exchange (reference your post #69)...not the already established required turn direction, which is quite clear in the AC from earlier this year.

You asserted there is some sort of implied requirement that, if the weather is good enough for there to be a VFR traffic pattern, that an IFR aircraft flying a circling approach must circle at the VFR traffic pattern altitude, else (as you claim in post #92) "the FAA would say you are being reckless."

Can you back that up with a specific ruling, letter, or case? Or is that just your opinion?

No, I did not assert there is some sort of implied requirement (not use how one asserts an implication) to fly at the VFR traffic pattern altitude. I am saying there is a requirement that a flight on an instrument approach avoid interfering with VFR traffic in the pattern.

That was one of several lessons from the two Alaska Airlines cases. Those involved right turns in the pattern, but the NTSB went beyond that, observing that, even if the flight were (perfectly legal) straight in (as the pilot claimed):

aircraft making valid straight-in approaches at uncontrolled airports would, nevertheless, be deemed in violation of FAR section 91.89(a) if they interfered with other aircraft operating in the standard left-hand pattern.​

That sentiment was incorporated by the FAA in its updated non-towered airport AC 90-66B this past year:

Pilots conducting instrument approaches should be particularly alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the flow of traffic, and should bear in mind they do not have priority over other VFR traffic.​

So I'm saying (my opinion only) that there is more than one way to interfere with aircraft flying a standard pattern than direction of turn. That doesn't require us to forego minimums on a circling approach, but I think it does require us to be cognizant of other traffic and adjust what we do accordingly.

 

[DavidWhite]

30 years ago we all did the right turn, but the FAA Chief Council wrote an opinion saying nah baby nah.

91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.
(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.

(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace—

(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and

http://www.ifr-magazine.com/issues/33_8/features/Which-Way-to-Turn_1277-1.html

My home airport is class G. No lighted whatseyhoosits to tell you to turn right. Thankfully, I, and all other pilots who frequent this airport are smart enough to not let the rulebook run them into the 2,000’ mountain right there.

 

[Kritchlow]

Circling at pattern altitudes is just fine if the weather allows.

 

[Clip4]

My home airport is class G. No lighted whatseyhoosits to tell you to turn right. Thankfully, I, and all other pilots who frequent this airport are smart enough to not let the rulebook run them into the 2,000’ mountain right there.

Must be tough seeing all that aluminum plating on those mountains from the night VFR traffic and non local IFR pilots that follow the left traffic rule and fly into that mountain. What is the airport ID so I can see the carnage on google earth?

I will recommend the FAA include a circling restriction on the chart for since that 2000 ft mountain violates the 1.3 mile category A protected airspace for a circling approach.

 

[dtuuri]

I am saying there is a requirement that a flight on an instrument approach avoid interfering with VFR traffic in the pattern.

That was one of several lessons from the two Alaska Airlines cases.

Those cases didn't involve IFR circling approaches. The arguments involved right turns vs. straight-in approaches under VFR conditions. Do you know of any more germane cases? I'm pretty sure the FAA and NTSB could twist the rules to burn a legal VFR GA pilot if s/he scared all the passengers on a loaded commuter plane that was making a routine circling approach under marginal conditions, or vice versa whatever fits their desire.

 

[dtuuri]

Must be tough seeing all that aluminum plating on those mountains from the night VFR traffic that follow the rules.

Brand new "rule", imo, if it applies to circling approaches too.

 

[Clip4]

Brand new "rule", imo, if it applies to circling approaches too.

Not a new rule, a legal clarification of the old rule that was being improperly interpreted to include an IFR exemption to traffic pattern direction.

 

[DavidWhite]

Must be tough seeing all that aluminum plating on those mountains from the night VFR traffic and non local IFR pilots that follow the left traffic rule and fly into that mountain. What is the airport ID so I can see the carnage on google earth?

I will recommend the FAA include a circling restriction on the chart for since that 2000 ft mountain violates the 1.3 mile category A protected airspace for a circling approach.

There is a circling restriction on the plate, and it is listed as right traffic in the AFD, but there are no lighted indicators that runway 20 is right traffic.

You missed the point though, as I said no one has so far let that reg fly them into the mountain, seeing as how there is no lighted thing to illustrate right traffic for 20.

 

[dtuuri]

Not a new rule, a legal clarification of the old rule that was being improperly interpreted to include an IFR exemption to traffic pattern direction.

Where does(do) the letter(s) say 91.126 eclipses 91.113(g) and pt 97? It's pretty clear Part 97 circling approaches are bidirectional, given all the ink used to show how to perform the maneuvers and all the trig used to layout the obstacle free maneuvering areas. Part 91.113(g) grants priority to the lowest approaching aircraft under right of way rules. I don't see where either the NTSB or FAA Chief Counsel heard those arguments and ruled or opined against them.

OTOH, the NTSB says published advisory material needs to be considered when interpreting a rule and Chief Counsel said other regulations (Part 97?) may preempt 91.126.

 

[Clip4]

Where does(do) the letter(s) say 91.126 eclipses 91.113(g) and pt 97? It's pretty clear Part 97 circling approaches are bidirectional, given all the ink used to show how to perform
the maneuvers and all the trig used to layout the obstacle free maneuvering areas. Part 91.113(g) grants priority to the lowest approaching aircraft under right of way rules. I don't see where either the NTSB or FAA Chief Counsel heard those arguments and ruled or opined against them.

OTOH, the NTSB says published advisory material needs to be considered when interpreting a rule and Chief Counsel said other regulations (Part 97?) may preempt 91.126.

Here is what the chief council has said:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2009/murphy - (2009) legal interpretation.pdf

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2013/collins-2 - (2013) legal interpretation.pdf


“......" Therefore, a pilot approaching to land at an uncontrolled airport may make right turns if such deviation is "authorized or required"
The FAA emphasizes, however, that the circumstances in which this deviation from
§ 91.126(b)(l) is "authorized or required" are very limited. The phrase "authorized or required" itself does not give pilots the discretion to deviate from§ 91.126. Such deviation must be "authorized or required" by the approach guidelines of a specific airport or by another FAA regulation. For example, § 91.3(b) authorizes the pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft to deviate from any rule of part 91 to the extent necessary to resolve "an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action." Although the decision to deviate under these circumstances is within the PIC's judgmentr, this detennination must be made in good faith based on safety concerns and not convenience; failure to do so may result in the suspension of the PIC's certificate”

You have a circle to land appproach without published circling direction prohibitions. Cat A gives you a protected area 1.3 mile radius from the approach ends. What is your good faith safety concern vs convenience? Do you claim lack of pilot proficiency?

 

[dtuuri]

Here is what the chief council has said:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2009/murphy - (2009) legal interpretation.pdf

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2013/collins-2 - (2013) legal interpretation.pdf


“......" Therefore, a pilot approaching to land at an uncontrolled airport may make right turns if such deviation is "authorized or required"
The FAA emphasizes, however, that the circumstances in which this deviation from
§ 91.126(b)(l) is "authorized or required" are very limited. The phrase "authorized or required" itself does not give pilots the discretion to deviate from§ 91.126. Such deviation must be "authorized or required" by the approach guidelines of a specific airport or by another FAA regulation. For example, § 91.3(b) authorizes the pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft to deviate from any rule of part 91 to the extent necessary to resolve "an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action." Although the decision to deviate under these circumstances is within the PIC's judgmentr, this detennination must be made in good faith based on safety concerns and not convenience; failure to do so may result in the suspension of the PIC's certificate”

You have a circle to land appproach without published circling direction prohibitions, what is your good faith safety concern vs convenience? Do you claim lack of pilot proficiency?

See? Perfectly legal on two counts: "Approach guidelines" and "another FAA regulation" (Part 97). No need to justify under 91.3(b).

 

[Clip4]

See? Perfectly legal on two counts: "Approach guidelines" and "another FAA regulation" (Part 97).

Please quote part 97 on direction of turns?

And feel free to read these folks opinion. http://www.ifr-magazine.com/issues/33_8/features/Which-Way-to-Turn_1277-1.html

 

[dtuuri]

Please quote part 97 on direction of turns?

And feel free to read these folks opinion. http://www.ifr-magazine.com/issues/33_8/features/Which-Way-to-Turn_1277-1.html

Oh, that's just midlifeflyer trying to start an argument.

Part 97 approaches place no restrictions on direction of turns that I know of. If they do, though, they'd be specific to a particular airport. Now my turn:

How do you expect pilots to become proficient in circling maneuvers that require turning right if they can't practice them under VFR conditions? Any non-precision approach can surprise the pilot with a runway/airport first appearing out the right window. You certainly wouldn't advocate turning left, away from it would you?​

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Public Service Announcement:

Council:

Counsel:

And yes, that is the FAA's chief counsel in the second pic.

For those who are still confused: https://writingexplained.org/council-vs-counsel-difference

 

[Clip4]

Oh, that's just midlifeflyer trying to start an argument.

Part 97 approaches place no restrictions on direction of turns that I know of. If they do, though, they'd be specific to a particular airport. Now my turn:

How do you expect pilots to become proficient in circling maneuvers that require turning right if they can't practice them under VFR conditions? Any non-precision approach can surprise the pilot with a runway/airport first appearing out the right window. You certainly wouldn't advocate turning left, away from it would you?​

There are two airports within 20 mile of my home airport with circle to land procedures and a right pattern. One has a no circling sector and right traffic due to an obstacle. In the absence of such airports, a circling a right traffic at a controlled airport is a training option.

If you are surprised on a circle to land, a miss is the prudent option. The minimum obstacle clearance on a circling approach is 300 ft above obtacles and 1 mile vis. If the flight vis is 1 mile, and you smart enough to turn the lights on during the day, you shouldn’t be surprised and you are likely below vis. minimums.

 

[dtuuri]

When you go to this airport to practice your right hand circle, what do you do if the landing area appears off to your left? Or you're crossing right over the middle of the runway with the wind from your right and need to enter a left downwind from the inside, assuming it isn't a N/A sector? There are other factors besides visibility that can obscure the runway until the last minute, a tree line for instance.

It's easy to say make a missed approach if the runway isn't exactly where you want it. If all you ever do is train locally in day VFR, ok, fine, have at it. But when you're trying to make a schedule with a maximum passenger load and therefore a minimum fuel load you need to be prepared for the unexpected and able to handle it without needless, arbitrary constraints. Easy to say, "Make a missed approach," which means fly to an alternate, reload, and risk another flight, now dark, now with a pilot/crew more fatigued, now with meetings delayed, etc. Multiplied by thousands of similar flights all because of one stupid "interpretation". You should be fighting this like crazy, not defending it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Now we're gonna have guys breaking out, finding the runway off to their right and mucking around in the vapors trying to line up with the runway using only left-hand turns

It's easy to say make a missed approach if the runway isn't exactly where you want it. If all you ever do is train locally in day VFR, ok, fine, have at it. But when you're trying to make a schedule with a maximum passenger load and therefore a minimum fuel load you need to be prepared for the unexpected and able to handle it without needless, arbitrary constraints. Easy to say, "Make a missed approach," which means fly to an alternate, reload, and risk another flight, now dark, now with a pilot/crew more fatigued, now with meetings delayed, etc. Multiplied by thousands of similar flights all because of one stupid "interpretation". You should be fighting this like crazy, not defending it.

Really? Thousands? With the rule not applying to Classes B, C and D, ATC able to waive it for Class E surface areas, most IFR flights taking place in visual conditions, GPS making circling approaches all but obsolete except in training, and some OpSpecs prohibiting them altogether, not to mention the authority of a pilot to make an emergency assessment which is not too likely to be challenged, this is probably 90% an interesting academic discussion, not exactly good fodder for your Chicken Little approach to the issue.

 

[dtuuri]

Really? Thousands? With the rule not applying to Classes B, C and D, ATC able to waive it for Class E surface areas, most IFR flights taking place in visual conditions, GPS making circling approaches all but obsolete except in training, and some OpSpecs prohibiting them altogether, not to mention the authority of a pilot to make an emergency assessment which is not too likely to be challenged, this is probably 90% an interesting academic discussion, not exactly good fodder for your Chicken Little approach to the issue.

Sorry, but you have to go by the lowest common denominator. GPS approaches aren't mandatory, circling approaches still need to be trained for and circling approaches are bread and butter for corporate pilots delivering executives to the boondocks. "Visual approaches" aren't "circling approaches". Your article is really the Chicken Little sounding an alarm and now you've got folks like Clip4 training pilots to miss the approach if they have to make a right turn to circle. My prediction up thread has already come true.

This has never been an issue until your article, AFAIK. Pilots practice circling approaches in VFR conditions so they can do them in less ideal weather later on. The industry needs to be able to do them for proficiency, to be safe. I've never heard of anybody doing one in order to garner landing priority. I think it should be recognized that instrument training of circling approaches needs to coexist with VFR training and that normal right of way rules should apply, i.e., the lowest aircraft has priority under Part 91.113(g).

What about a contact approach? Obviously the weather is poor. There might be a really good reason for doing it, but it puts the pilot on a right base. Are you saying he/she can't land, but needs to circle the whole airport to the left first? C'mon.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Sorry, but you have to go by the lowest common denominator. GPS approaches aren't mandatory, circling approaches still need to be trained for and circling approaches are bread and butter for corporate pilots delivering executives to the boondocks. "Visual approaches" aren't "circling approaches". Your article is really the Chicken Little sounding an alarm and now you've got folks like Clip4 training pilots to miss the approach if they have to make a right turn to circle. My prediction up thread has already come true.

This has never been an issue until your article, AFAIK.

You need to get out more. It's been discussed a number of times since the earliest Chief Counsel letter on the subject. Where do you think I got the idea for the article to begin with? I learned that the readership of the magazine and the folks who hang out online are completely different markets, so pretty much all my articles come fro things which have been discussed pretty extensively. I bet most folks on this board don't even know that I'm writing for the magazine.

Part of the reason for it is that it's so controversial. I think it generates thought. Of course, to some folks, knowledge is a bad thing. If ultimately your position comes down to, "don't give people information; they might not use it properly," sorry, I have to disagree with you on some very basic principles.

This was a thread on "How to fail a checkride." Whatever a pilot faced with poor visibility and low clouds might actually do, and whatever anyone, including me, might think of what the FAA has said on the subject, this can be one of those checkride gotchas - a direct violation of the FARs.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I’m just waiting to see what happens when circling minima at major airports go the way of the dodo bird, and we have to reset all of our sim circles to Podunk, uncontrolled airport. Are we still going to have right seat guys circle to the right, regardless of traffic pattern direction?

 

[dtuuri]

...this can be one of those checkride gotchas - a direct violation of the FARs.

Do you know of any Flight Standards guidance stating that it would be? Has the subject come up during annual examiner refresher training? If anybody has the power to set the lawyers in the Chief Counsel's office straight, it would be Flight Standards. I'm not too hopeful.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Do you know of any Flight Standards guidance stating that it would be? Has the subject come up during annual examiner refresher training? If anybody has the power to set the lawyers in the Chief Counsel's office straight, it would be Flight Standards. I'm not too hopeful.

Nope. But then again, I'm not privy to any guidance singling out any specific part 91 rule as being either worthy or unworthy of enforcement on a checkride. Personally, I cover it when I do an IPC, from both a regulatory and a practical standpoint and, if we're doing primary instruction for the rating, would do the same.

I don't disagree with those who find the Chief Counsel's series on this subject problematic. I don't see an issue with the basic rule that 91.126 applies to everyone. But I think they could have been far more helpful on the "authorized or required" and they way the interpretations handle the "emergency" issue.

The reality is that, when you ask for a "legal interpretation," that's what you get. We've seen it before (known ice is a famous one). We are not going to get one that says "you are special" when there is no regulatory exception to say so. Going way out on a limb, the practical reality for me is that a pilot doing opposite direction traffic circling and is called out in it is likely to be treated differently depending on the conditions at the time. Was it because it was quicker on that CAVU or because ceiling and visibility were both close to minimums and the pilot made a safety of flight decision in an expected empty pattern. That's a completely different inquiry than, "hey, does this rule which applies to everyone apply to me too?" and not one we generally find in interpretation letters.