IFR... it all adds up!

[Ryan F.]

One of those mythbuster flights -- relatively benign IFR (ceilings around 500-1000 for most of the flight) but got a surprise last second hold and an honest to goodness circle to land approach with weather just above circling minimums. Mythbuster because, myth 1: you'll hardly ever get a hold in the real world and, myth 2: circling approaches are going out of style.

Destination was KJYO, Leesburg VA. Winds were 10 knots, gusting 15, favoring runway 35. But JYO has no approaches for 35, requiring CTL. I was told to expect the ILS 17, but requested and was granted the RNAV 17 instead, which featured LPV minimums identical to the ILS.



About 3nm northeast of CACAS, which features a hold-in-lieu of procedure turn, my approach clearance was canceled and I was instructed to hold as published. "Gotta get a departure off of runway 35, sorry," said the controller. Yes, that makes sense in weather like this!

Anyway, that's a breeze on the GTN650. I could have built the hold quickly but instead just pressed the "easy" button by reloading the approach, this time answering the "course reversal at CACAS?" question with a "YES." Took all of 10 seconds.



Enjoying my airplane's new upgrades including an overhauled autopilot, I watched the automation fly a perfect direct hold entry. I was cleared for the approach on the outbound leg so I began my descent from 4000 to 3200 using the pitch mode and pre-selected 3200 on my G5 ADI.

It was time to switch the autopilot to LOC NORM so my newly installed glideslope coupler could do its thing. You can clearly see from this track where that occurs as the AP went from a digital to an analog source on the final and wandered very slightly tracking the RNAV FAC. Prior to that, it didn't waver by more than 0.01.



The autopilot captured the LPV GS and I broke out about 100 feet above the 940 foot circling minimums. Nice little CTL with ragged tops occasionally drooping down to just above the aircraft, just like sim-land.

Nice landing to boot if I don't mind saying so myself!

I got to thinking about my normal checkride profiles for the IRA and how I usually provide the applicant with plenty of time to set up the hold. Yet in this case, ATC dropped the "hold as published" instruction on my just a couple of minutes before arriving at CACAS, while my mindset was already oriented around configuring for the final approach. Yet here it occurs in the real world and for good reason -- JYO had other departures holding on the ground for 35 while inbounds were on the runway 17 approaches (ILS, RNAV.)

Same with the circling approach. Visibility was good, but the ceilings were just above minimums so anything less than nearly perfect altitude control would be unacceptable in this case. All sorts of obstacles on the downwind and base legs.

The skills required to safely exercise the privileges of the instrument rating are certainly required for a reason. It was a pleasure to exercise them on this particular flight.

 

[AggieMike88]

Also points out the need to frequently go exercise those skills.

Cool story, thanks for sharing!

 

[LDJones]

I also teach my students to always keep the "Big Picture" and don't get balled up in the automation when something like this gets sprung on you at the last minute. If you're already navigating to the fix and you get a hold less than a minute from the fix, just continue to the fix, go to HDG mode and turn to the outbound heading, THEN take those ten seconds to reload the approach as you did. Too many get twisted around the axle trying to accomplish that before the fix and mess it up. Keep IFR as simple as possible, especially when you have all the gee-whiz toys on-board.

 

[Country Flier]

I learned and spent my first few years flying IFR with no autopilot. Hand flying this sounds easier than all the reprogramming-button-pushing-in-a-hurry-just-to-get-the-autopilot-to-do-it, but guess that’s just me.
Sounds like fun either way though.

 

[PaulS]

Nice job, did you remember the susp button? Asks the relatively new instrument pilot who knows you would have had to unsuspend probably a few seconds later as you were cleared for the approach on the outbound leg.

This is pretty much the exact scenario JW screwed the pooch on by blowing the hold and not understanding the procedure could be quickly reloaded with the published hold as you did.

 

[luvflyin]

One of those mythbuster flights -- relatively benign IFR (ceilings around 500-1000 for most of the flight) but got a surprise last second hold and an honest to goodness circle to land approach with weather just above circling minimums. Mythbuster because, myth 1: you'll hardly ever get a hold in the real world and, myth 2: circling approaches are going out of style.

Destination was KJYO, Leesburg VA. Winds were 10 knots, gusting 15, favoring runway 35. But JYO has no approaches for 35, requiring CTL. I was told to expect the ILS 17, but requested and was granted the RNAV 17 instead, which featured LPV minimums identical to the ILS.

View attachment 96819

About 3nm northeast of CACAS, which features a hold-in-lieu of procedure turn, my approach clearance was canceled and I was instructed to hold as published. "Gotta get a departure off of runway 35, sorry," said the controller. Yes, that makes sense in weather like this!

Anyway, that's a breeze on the GTN650. I could have built the hold quickly but instead just pressed the "easy" button by reloading the approach, this time answering the "course reversal at CACAS?" question with a "YES." Took all of 10 seconds.

View attachment 96817

Enjoying my airplane's new upgrades including an overhauled autopilot, I watched the automation fly a perfect direct hold entry. I was cleared for the approach on the outbound leg so I began my descent from 4000 to 3200 using the pitch mode and pre-selected 3200 on my G5 ADI.

It was time to switch the autopilot to LOC NORM so my newly installed glideslope coupler could do its thing. You can clearly see from this track where that occurs as the AP went from a digital to an analog source on the final and wandered very slightly tracking the RNAV FAC. Prior to that, it didn't waver by more than 0.01.

View attachment 96818

The autopilot captured the LPV GS and I broke out about 100 feet above the 940 foot circling minimums. Nice little CTL with ragged tops occasionally drooping down to just above the aircraft, just like sim-land.

Nice landing to boot if I don't mind saying so myself!

I got to thinking about my normal checkride profiles for the IRA and how I usually provide the applicant with plenty of time to set up the hold. Yet in this case, ATC dropped the "hold as published" instruction on my just a couple of minutes before arriving at CACAS, while my mindset was already oriented around configuring for the final approach. Yet here it occurs in the real world and for good reason -- JYO had other departures holding on the ground for 35 while inbounds were on the runway 17 approaches (ILS, RNAV.)

Same with the circling approach. Visibility was good, but the ceilings were just above minimums so anything less than nearly perfect altitude control would be unacceptable in this case. All sorts of obstacles on the downwind and base legs.

The skills required to safely exercise the privileges of the instrument rating are certainly required for a reason. It was a pleasure to exercise them on this particular flight.

Good post. KISS(keep it simple stupid). Why deal with buttonology, or maybe we should start calling Tapology, with more taps than necessary. FWIW, not sure why you made the identical LPV minimums comparison to the ILS Approach if you were going to Circle. The ILS would have given you an extra 100 feet. You would have been able to identify PEARC.
Did you hear the Controller release the departure? The departures check in after departing?

 

[Ryan F.]

I learned and spent my first few years flying IFR with no autopilot. Hand flying this sounds easier than all the reprogramming-button-pushing-in-a-hurry-just-to-get-the-autopilot-to-do-it, but guess that’s just me.
Sounds like fun either way though.

Either are perfectly fine. If the pilot is comfortable with the automation it doesn't need to be done in a rushed fashion. I actually had a moment to consider all the different ways I could handle this last second hold and in the end, re-loading the approach to accept a course reversal was the simplest solution. There was plenty of time.

Nothing wrong with heading mode then re-loading (previously suggested), building a hold in the box if that functionality is available, or using OBS. Given that the hold is actually a HILOPT and the subsequent fixes will be on the approach, it's probably less button-wrangling to keep it all sequenced as part of the procedure in the box... but all of those methods work!

To your point and others, knowing your avionics and being proficient in their operation is the key to making situations like this a real breeze, no matter how sophisticated -- or how simple -- your IFR panel is.

 

[Ryan F.]

Nice job, did you remember the susp button? Asks the relatively new instrument pilot who knows you would have had to unsuspend probably a few seconds later as you were cleared for the approach on the outbound leg.

In this particular case it ended up being a course reversal because I was cleared for the approach on the outbound leg of the hold, so there was nothing else to do but let the GTN650 do what it was expecting to do, which was sequence past CACAS after the second time the aircraft crossed the fix. Had I not been given an approach clearance, I would have needed to inhibit waypoint sequencing as you suggested.

It helps to sort of be able to read the tea leaves on the frequency. I could tell the controller was trying to get me in on the approach but had to cancel because of the opposite direction departure from JYO. I could also tell by the tone of his voice that my delay would be minimal, so I rather expected a single lap in the hold. Those are subtle layers of interpretation which resonate after a lot of exposure to the system. Nothing wrong with "suspending" and then "unsuspending" rather than waiting as I did.

 

[Ryan F.]

Good post. KISS(keep it simple stupid). Why deal with buttonology, or maybe we should start calling Tapology, with more taps than necessary. FWIW, not sure why you made the identical LPV minimums comparison to the ILS Approach if you were going to Circle. The ILS would have given you an extra 100 feet. You would have been able to identify PEARC.
Did you hear the Controller release the departure? The departures check in after departing?

Correct, the DAs were the same for the straight-ins. I was told to expect the ILS RW17 earlier in the flight, and there was no mention of CTL at that time. I noted the ceilings were above all minimums however.

I did not hear the controller release the departure. Must have been on a different frequency.

 

[luvflyin]

Correct, the DAs were the same for the straight-ins. I was told to expect the ILS RW17 earlier in the flight, and there was no mention of CTL at that time. I noted the ceilings were above all minimums however.

I did not hear the controller release the departure. Must have been on a different frequency.

Duh. I'm a dummy. I just realized there's a Tower there. You wouldn't have heard it

 

[MauleSkinner]

To your point and others, knowing your avionics and being proficient in their operation is the key to making situations like this a real breeze, no matter how sophisticated -- or how simple -- your IFR panel is.

That’s my big takeaway...whatever you’ve got, including both automation and hand-flying, know what you’ve got available AND be proficient in its use so that you can process and make the best decision on how to fly the procedure at hand efficiently. Especially when things change last-minute like this.

Having the situational awareness to know and/or quickly determine which transition contains the published hold is a weak area I see frequently as well.

I got to thinking about my normal checkride profiles for the IRA and how I usually provide the applicant with plenty of time to set up the hold...

That’s an interesting point...on the one hand, it’s a proficiency level they should probably have. On the other hand, there’s checkride stress and the fact that if someone flies four approaches in just over an hour in real life like we do on an ATP-level check, they should probably have their certificates reevaluated.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I learned and spent my first few years flying IFR with no autopilot. Hand flying this sounds easier than all the reprogramming-button-pushing-in-a-hurry-just-to-get-the-autopilot-to-do-it, but guess that’s just me.
Sounds like fun either way though.

All the button pushing is required to have lateral guidance. Nothing to do with using an autopilot.

 

[Ryan F.]

All the button pushing is required to have lateral guidance. Nothing to do with using an autopilot.

Well, most button pushing, anyway. For autopilots which have the ability to capture a VGP or GS there are some additional considerations on AP. Those were in effect here in order to be able to capture the glidepath with an Altimatic III.

 

[Tantalum]

I learned and spent my first few years flying IFR with no autopilot. Hand flying this sounds easier than all the reprogramming-button-pushing-in-a-hurry-just-to-get-the-autopilot-to-do-it, but guess that’s just me.
Sounds like fun either way though.

Sometimes it is just easier to do it by hand, or at least just go to heading mode and sort of manually do it with the auto pilot..

I screwed something up the other day while in nav mode and approach armed and the plane started trying to turn itself back to go to the IAF.. just shut it off and did it by hand

 

[Tantalum]

One of those mythbuster flights -- relatively benign IFR (ceilings around 500-1000 for most of the flight) but got a surprise last second hold and an honest to goodness circle to land approach with weather just above circling minimums. Mythbuster because, myth 1: you'll hardly ever get a hold in the real world and, myth 2: circling approaches are going out of style.

Destination was KJYO, Leesburg VA. Winds were 10 knots, gusting 15, favoring runway 35. But JYO has no approaches for 35, requiring CTL. I was told to expect the ILS 17, but requested and was granted the RNAV 17 instead, which featured LPV minimums identical to the ILS.

View attachment 96819

About 3nm northeast of CACAS, which features a hold-in-lieu of procedure turn, my approach clearance was canceled and I was instructed to hold as published. "Gotta get a departure off of runway 35, sorry," said the controller. Yes, that makes sense in weather like this!

Anyway, that's a breeze on the GTN650. I could have built the hold quickly but instead just pressed the "easy" button by reloading the approach, this time answering the "course reversal at CACAS?" question with a "YES." Took all of 10 seconds.

View attachment 96817

Enjoying my airplane's new upgrades including an overhauled autopilot, I watched the automation fly a perfect direct hold entry. I was cleared for the approach on the outbound leg so I began my descent from 4000 to 3200 using the pitch mode and pre-selected 3200 on my G5 ADI.

It was time to switch the autopilot to LOC NORM so my newly installed glideslope coupler could do its thing. You can clearly see from this track where that occurs as the AP went from a digital to an analog source on the final and wandered very slightly tracking the RNAV FAC. Prior to that, it didn't waver by more than 0.01.

View attachment 96818

The autopilot captured the LPV GS and I broke out about 100 feet above the 940 foot circling minimums. Nice little CTL with ragged tops occasionally drooping down to just above the aircraft, just like sim-land.

Nice landing to boot if I don't mind saying so myself!

I got to thinking about my normal checkride profiles for the IRA and how I usually provide the applicant with plenty of time to set up the hold. Yet in this case, ATC dropped the "hold as published" instruction on my just a couple of minutes before arriving at CACAS, while my mindset was already oriented around configuring for the final approach. Yet here it occurs in the real world and for good reason -- JYO had other departures holding on the ground for 35 while inbounds were on the runway 17 approaches (ILS, RNAV.)

Same with the circling approach. Visibility was good, but the ceilings were just above minimums so anything less than nearly perfect altitude control would be unacceptable in this case. All sorts of obstacles on the downwind and base legs.

The skills required to safely exercise the privileges of the instrument rating are certainly required for a reason. It was a pleasure to exercise them on this particular flight.

Awesome write up, and thanks for the visuals! What kind of plane are you flying again? Just curious

 

[David Megginson]

I learned and spent my first few years flying IFR with no autopilot. Hand flying this sounds easier than all the reprogramming-button-pushing-in-a-hurry-just-to-get-the-autopilot-to-do-it, but guess that’s just me.
Sounds like fun either way though.

Flying a last-minute VOR or NDB hold requires little to no setup. Flying a GPS hold eliminates the fussing with timers and headings later on, but exacts an up-front cost in a lot of distracting knob twiddling and button pushing.

All of the above is true whether you're hand flying or watching George do it.

 

[Ryan F.]

Awesome write up, and thanks for the visuals! What kind of plane are you flying again? Just curious

PA-30, Twin Comanche.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Well, most button pushing, anyway. For autopilots which have the ability to capture a VGP or GS there are some additional considerations on AP. Those were in effect here in order to be able to capture the glidepath with an Altimatic III.

Yep. I understand. Regardless the autopilot reduced the work load not increased it as the post I quoted claimed.

 

[Tantalum]

Twin Comanche

Awesome!

 

[somorris]

Thanks for taking the time to do the nice writeup, Ryan. Very informative.

At a lot of airports, there is a tendency for the airport managment and/or commission to allow various entities to erect obstacles in the circling area and cause the circling minima to be raised. I think they do not realize what an impact this can have on the airport's useability as well as thinking nobody ever uses the circling procedure anyway. You just proved them wrong.

 

[Country Flier]

Yep. I understand. Regardless the autopilot reduced the work load not increased it as the post I quoted claimed.

Never said workload increase (although in my plane there would be). To me just seems rushed, and not as easy as hand flying.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Never said workload increase (although in my plane there would be). To me just seems rushed, and not as easy as hand flying.

That doesn’t make sense to me.

If the task becomes easier when the autopilot is turned off then the auto pilot was increasing work load.

sometimes it’s appropriate to decrease the level of automation to increase situational awareness and overall safety of the flight. I just did not see that in the OP’s situation. Only my opinion.

 

[coma24]

Excellent writeup! CTL at 1000ft AGL is one thing, but if they're at 500agl, the site picture is different than a regular pattern. The geometry is tighter, the base leg is short and everything happens faster. It's very easy to overshoot, resulting in a tendency to over bank. Clink, another link in the chain on a bad day.

Doesn't sound like it was a factor here, though. Good stuff, thanks for sharing.

 

[midwestpa24]

At a lot of airports, there is a tendency for the airport managment and/or commission to allow various entities to erect obstacles in the circling area and cause the circling minima to be raised. I think they do not realize what an impact this can have on the airport's useability as well as thinking nobody ever uses the circling procedure anyway. You just proved them wrong.

Its not us. The airport only has control over what the airport owns. We can do our best to get the city/county to implement and enforce height zoning, but at the end of the day its above our pay-grade.

For what its worth, its outside of the FAA's jurisdiction too. They can study the obstruction and tell what the impact would be, but they actually can't stop it either. All they can do is amend the procedures to account for the obstruction. Zoning is local jurisdiction.

 

[somorris]

Of course you are right, but the grant assurances bind the City to certain conditions, one of which is protecting the airspace as I recall. If the feds would do a little more enforcement in this area, things might change a little.

 

[midwestpa24]

Of course you are right, but the grant assurances bind the City to certain conditions, one of which is protecting the airspace as I recall. If the feds would do a little more enforcement in this area, things might change a little.

Yes and no. Below is the grant assurance.

Hazard Removal and Mitigation.
It will take appropriate action to assure that such terminal airspace as is required to protecting instrument and visual operations to the airport (including established minimum flight altitudes)will be adequately cleared and protected by removing, lowering, relocating, marking, or lighting or otherwise mitigating existing airport hazards and by preventing the establishment or creation of future airport hazards.

The airport is bound by the grant assurance. The airport's neighbor isn't. Now airports can work with the surrounding regulatory bodies to create zoning restrictions, but those bodies are not necessarily bound by the grant assurances either. It's not uncommon for city owned airports to not be located within the city that owns them. Add in the fact that airport height restrictions can stretch for miles, possibly crossing multiple jurisdictions, let's just say it gets complicated. My airport for example has airspace that covers both a city and two counties, none of which are the city that owns the airport.

 

[somorris]

Good points.

 

[aterpster]

Thanks for taking the time to do the nice writeup, Ryan. Very informative.

At a lot of airports, there is a tendency for the airport managment and/or commission to allow various entities to erect obstacles in the circling area and cause the circling minima to be raised. I think they do not realize what an impact this can have on the airport's useability as well as thinking nobody ever uses the circling procedure anyway. You just proved them wrong.

Any proposed construction that will increase CTL MDAs has to be handled under Part 77. It's up to the FAA regional office to issue a hazard determination.

 

[Martin Pauly]

That's a nice example of real-world IFR, Ryan. Circle-to-land is one of these underrated tools; there can be value in CTL to a runway which has a perfectly good approach of its own, or even CTL to the same runway the approach is for. I hope the FAA won't eliminate too many of these CTL minimums.

 

[N1120A]

That's a nice example of real-world IFR, Ryan. Circle-to-land is one of these underrated tools; there can be value in CTL to a runway which has a perfectly good approach of its own, or even CTL to the same runway the approach is for. I hope the FAA won't eliminate too many of these CTL minimums.

They'll only remove them if they can get lower mins on a straight in approach