Witmo
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,434
- Display Name
Display name:
Tim
5C1
How to fail a checkride.
- Thread starter brcase
- Start date
5C1
Witmo
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,434
- Display Name
Display name:
Tim
Sure, if you looked in the chart supplement or on a sectional. The question I posed has to do with the regulation requiring "approved light signals or visual markings." It doesn't say "or is published."
Clip4
Touchdown! Greaser!
Honestly, if you are flying right seat and can’t perform a left circle to land?
I didn't say can't.... I said "best"
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yes, but the times I didn’t have time to do due diligence on the airport I’d have defended myself under 91.3.Have you ever had to divert to an unplanned airport while IMC?
We can do our best to follow 91.103 but Shoot happens.....
But yes, I’ve always found that wording interesting as well.
Last edited:
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
When I got my Single Pilot waiver (not a waiver, but I can’t remember what it called) for the Citation, I was required to demonstrate both left and right CTLs.
Of course, I had to wait until I had something like 50 or 100 single pilot hours in the airplane before I was allowed to circle.
I circle to land all the time off instrument approaches, and don’t remember how to do wind correction angles!
Surely headed for a smoking hole as per the ace pilots here.
Surely headed for a smoking hole as per the ace pilots here.
Hacker
Pre-takeoff checklist
None of which has anything to do with VFR traffic pattern altitudes while flying a circling approach.
danhagan
En-Route
It's been years, but the DPE that did mine wanted a REAL power on stall with the full 20* bank angle, which in the sparrowhawk on a cool morning was a HUGE all blue site picture
Prior to starting the procedure he indicated if we started a spin, it was a FAIL if he had to recover it. At that point, I had done a LOT of power on stalls, but the CFI never asked for 20* of bank angle ... did fine, but it sure had my attention.
I guess, but I have to disagree. I think it would unnecessarily clutter the chart. What do you put down for part time towered airports? I can see pilot getting confused by that. Or what about Class E surface areas where ATC can authorize circling against the pattern? For that matter, I guess you need multiple notes for those airports which are right traffic for 13 and left traffic for 31.
Sure it does. It's very nice to say you are "circling" when the weather is CAVU, but if you actually perform the maneuver when there are 4 VFR pilots in the pattern, I think the FAA would say you are being reckless.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Who said VFR conditions? I don't think those interpretations did. And I could understand if they did...
I mean in IMC, where TPA is in the muck. And yes, unfortunately, that doesn't mean there isn't anyone there. I got buzzed by a Bonanza breaking out of 1/2SM OVC003 when I was cleared for departure at an uncontrolled field. He disappeared back into the muck and was not seen or heard from again...
Ravioli
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Messages
- 8,021
- Location
- Somewhere else
- Display Name
Display name:
Unwanted Guest - Perma-ban Pending
My practical thoughts:
If I was doing a practice approach in severe clear and intending to circle to land, I would fly to the mins and then join the downwind to the active that all the other people are using.
If doing it while the beacon is spinning, I'd get down to mins and pick the circling direction that looks like I'd be less likely to lose sight of the runway while circling.
I'm an IR student, are my practical thoughts out of line with the regs? <- genuine question
If I was doing a practice approach in severe clear and intending to circle to land, I would fly to the mins and then join the downwind to the active that all the other people are using.
If doing it while the beacon is spinning, I'd get down to mins and pick the circling direction that looks like I'd be less likely to lose sight of the runway while circling.
I'm an IR student, are my practical thoughts out of line with the regs? <- genuine question
I did, in the comment he was responding to.
How would you make the distinction? @Hunt-man suggested a note on the chart to remind instrument pilots the universal traffic pattern rules apply to them too. Are you suggesting a more complex 91.126 rule in which operating against the pattern in Class G depends on ceiling or visibility or both, also remembering Class G VFR minimums - 1 mile, clear of clouds. What should that rule say?I mean in IMC, where TPA is in the muck. And yes, unfortunately, that doesn't mean there isn't anyone there. I got buzzed by a Bonanza breaking out of 1/2SM OVC003 when I was cleared for departure at an uncontrolled field. He disappeared back into the muck and was not seen or heard from again...
Unfortunately, yes. Bottom line is, the FAA's position is that the 91.126 traffic pattern rule is not waived for IFR operations. FWIW, I did an article on the subject last year for IFR magazine which hopefully gives some context. It's one of those the magazine made publicly available.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Remember that circling mins are generally going to be well under TPA - More like 400 AGL instead of 800-1000. If you're going to take it all the way down to minimums, I would go missed instead of circling... Though it's a valuable training exercise to be under the hood for a long time, go visual at circling mins, and then make your "pattern", especially at night. Hint: Don't start descending abeam the numbers!
Maybe just make the turns-in-the-pattern reg a Visual Flight Rule rather than a Flight Rule...
Ravioli
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2014
- Messages
- 8,021
- Location
- Somewhere else
- Display Name
Display name:
Unwanted Guest - Perma-ban Pending
I'll add that ALL of my circling has been at a towered field, and they always instruct me to the opposite pattern. Which, while a different situation, might explain my confusion.
We're still dealing with general rules. The traffic pattern rules all have a proviso: "Unless otherwise authorized or required..." The traffic pattern rules don't apply to a Towered field when the tower is open, VFR or IFR. Assuming a non-emergency, you do what the Tower says or approves.
That would be a solution, but it's one I don't see the FAA adopting. It would essentially be giving approval to something unsafe - and too many IFR pilots already think they are special and have priority over mere mortals. Plus, it would be removing a bright line and leaving only the "legal but reckless" vagaries of 91.13. I'm not sure even most pilots would want that.
BTW, he hasn't posted in this thread, but @John Collins is a pretty big proponent of allowing IFR pilots the leeway to do what they feel is necessary on a circling approach. He's the author of at least one follow-up to the Murphy letter, but hasn't gotten too far.
Last edited:
dtuuri
Final Approach
The article can always be rescinded.
The Collins letter allows deviation from 91.126 under the provisio you mentioned above, "Unless otherwise authorized or required...". As I mentioned above, "authorized" when approved by a tower, "required" when needed under Part
EDIT: My mistake. Should be "Part 97 circling minima."
Last edited:
Yes, but John was trying to get more than that. Approval to deviate at nontowered airports based on what the pilot thinks is the best to do.The article can always be rescinded.
The Collins letter allows deviation from 91.126 under the provisio you mentioned above, "Unless otherwise authorized or required...". As I mentioned above, "authorized" when approved by a tower, "required" when needed under Part 95 circling minima.
And, of course, the article can be updated if and when the FAA updates its viewpoint. Heck, I'm always looking for new subjects.
dtuuri
Final Approach
I think he got enough. This has not been an issue, that I'm aware of over the years, where pilots of actual circling aircraft under IFR conditions have had close encounters with local VFR traffic. It's hard to imagine why an FAA inspector might feel compelled to go after such a pilot any more than going after a legal scud running varmint.
Now, I could see wanting to cut CFIs some slack who are training students how to conduct the circling maneuver, if the FAA is really of the mindset that instrument pilots should be able to do it without first practicing under VFR conditions. I think, though, that if the FAA can "consider" (as they do) that a 45° right turn into the downwind doesn't violate 91.126, then they must just as well "consider" that instrument training of the circling maneuver under VFR is necessary in the pursuit of safety as long as it isn't careless and reckless. So far, they seem to. Do you have any evidence they haven't?
There would likely have to be an "event," just like most enforcement actions.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Yes, that's what I was asking, if you knew of any events. Lacking that, fomenting near hysteria about the need to conform to 91.126 during actual or practice circling approaches will become a self-fulfilling fear. Just like crossing over an airport at pattern altitude became an FAA-approved act, when some CFI who's taken certain letters of interpretation to heart hires on at the FAA and makes it so. "We have met the enemy and he is us!"
Not sure how explaining what a rule is equates to "fermenting near hysteria," but if you're hysterical about it, I guess that's the way it goes.
dtuuri
Final Approach
This thread seems full of hysteria with everybody referencing letters of interpretation and citing articles to make sure nobody continues flying circling approaches the same way they've always done them.
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--because that's what IFR Magazine says to do. Or maybe making a missed approach and running out of fuel. Not to mention flunking checkrides when examiners start believing they need to comply with the Chief Counsel. That isn't hysteria, it's a prediction.
Now THAT'S hysteria!
This discussion is idiotic. In actual low IFR weather during a circling maneuver at MDA, the last thing any pilot should be thinking about is any stupid rule that would prevent them from turning appropriately per the diagrams in the Instrument Flying Handbook. I know from personal experience that not enough planning and rehearsal of actions at the missed approach point has made circling to land a rare event. You can request an opposite direction landing or land on a taxiway if you are flying a helicopter. Experience makes these decisions moot. Just keep the runway in sight, turn any way needed within the protected airspace and get on the ground.
Last edited:
I ran into this working on my IFR...kept doing Plan A and Plan B but CFI never once explained what I was doing wrong and how to fix it. Fired him, we were both happy. The owner of the school never contacted me about it. Haven't been able to get back into training due to job, but hopefully, early next year.
Oh yeah, what is a CFIIG? Is that like a CFII AGI?
I think that, so long as ignorance is not an excuse, we might as well understand what the rule is before we decide it's ok to do something else. (Others of course, prefer bliss and think knowledge is a bad thing.) A speed limit of 30 does not mean we won't go 35, and safely. Understanding that the rule is 91.126 applies to everyone does not mean a pilot won't choose what the pilot believes is the safest course of action in a given situation. I would too.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
Instrument Instructor-Glider.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,250
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Unfortunately I think it's more common than we think.. a lot of instructors seem to get stuck in their rigid lesson plan and are not actually that good at teaching.. it is too bad because we spend a lot of money to pursue our passion, so good on you for firing him.. good luck, hope you can get back into it soon
Ah, but Alaska is rule unto itself.
Hacker
Pre-takeoff checklist
We're still talking about an IFR aircraft, on an IFR flight plan, who has been cleared an instrument approach, right?
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.
Actually, even though the FAA goes on to say that the determination that's it's a emergency must be done in good faith based on safety concerns, I think that really does give us a lot of leeway when the weather is really down to near-minimums.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Heck, even practice circling approaches ought to have the right away according to this:
§91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
(a) ...
(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
...
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
Kritchlow
Final Approach
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,884
- Display Name
Display name:
Kritchlow
Or required... in my opinion, as PIC, there may be times it is required for safety of flight.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Gee, I feel dumb. Somehow my wires got crossed and I've been referring to "Part 95" instrument approach procedures in at least four different posts. Of course, not that anybody noticed, it's "Part 97" that includes individual SIAPs. Duh. I went back and made the changes. It's Part 97 and Part 91.113(g), together, that I think gives IFR pilots the authority to circle in whatever direction they deem safest, despite the weather, and have the right of way to boot.