Instrument approach circle to land

[Fearless Tower]

Maybe the point of the discussion is just an exercise…. BUT, why in the world would you do an approach to 28 and circle to land on 23? The breeze would have to be pretty stiff to make a difference wind-wise. I think there is way more risk breaking off an approach to attempt a circle to a cross-runway. Is 28R closed in this example?

Wind would have been a quartering tailwind and gusting for the accident airplane landing on 28R. Because of the large displaced threshold on 28R, the available landing distance for all 3 runways is the same - 3400', so it's not like you are giving up a longer runway by landing 23 vs 28R.

What 23 lacks is approach lighting and it is narrower that 28R, but under the accident conditions, that really wouldn't have mattered.

Every time I gave gotten the ILS 28R CTL 23, the cloud bases were similar to the accident flight - well above pattern altitude, so once you descend on the ILS to around 1500-2000',you report field in sight and make a left base entry to 23. Not really risky unless you don't understand what ATC is telling you.

 

[Fearless Tower]

It's Circling unless there are published "sidestep" minimums. Would you really want to be switching runways at 200' agl?

Exactly. You would want to make the sidestep much earlier than 200 feet AGL.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I know sometimes like at TEB you have to fly a certain approach the circle because a long straight in to the landing runway would conflict with another airports (in this case Newark's) traffic. Maybe in OPs example you can't fly straight in to rwy 23 because that would conflict with SEE traffic.

There is no Instrument approach to 23 because of the mountain range to the NE and the proximity to Miramar.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Losing the airport after beginning the Circle has it's rules. I don't see any of the Circling options discussed so far as particularly more difficult than the others. Start the climb, make initial turn towards the airport and then get established on the Procedure. There's a little 'roll your own' aspect to it no matter which Circling maneuver you started out with.

In this case “safe air” for the published missed is westbound. So whichever color line I chose, I’d make a climbing turn toward the airport, and continue the turn until my compass said “W”; from there I’d roll wings level and figure out which way to correct towards the missed procedure.

 

[Fearless Tower]

It’s not that bad in a lot of jets, either, if you’ve got some idea what you’re doing. Unfortunately a lot of jet pilots don’t.

What people don't like isn't the idea of circling, but doing it at/near circling minimums. Flying at say 500-600' AGL in reduced visibility just on the edge of the ceiling requires a pilot to juggle a lot of different tasks with little room for error.

I'll fly precision approaches to mins any day/night, but my personal mins are to only accept a circling approach if ceiling is at least pattern altitude.

 

[Albany Tom]

The faa agrees with you, however there are still some applications.

....

I don't see circling in a light aircraft as all that dangerous. It's flying a vfr pattern; a bit closer to the ground than usual if you're at minimums. If you don't like that, give yourself personal minimums for circling. I agree it's uncomfortable flying at 500' and I'll take a straight in over a circle, but on a 1100' day in a piston single? No big deal.

I think that's really it, yours and Fearless responses. It seems reasonable to me if you have visibility equivalent to at least a low pattern...and if you know the area. There seem to be a lot of ways to screw it up, but to me they seem to involve either breaking the rule of not having the airport in sight during the process, or of loosing SA and running into terrain while trying to either go around or go missed.

 

[Kritchlow]

What people don't like isn't the idea of circling, but doing it at/near circling minimums. Flying at say 500-600' AGL in reduced visibility just on the edge of the ceiling requires a pilot to juggle a lot of different tasks with little room for error.

I'll fly precision approaches to mins any day/night, but my personal mins are to only accept a circling approach if ceiling is at least pattern altitude.

Yup. Maybe they’re out there, but I know if no major carrier that even trains a true circling approach any longer. It’s all VFR mínimums for circling, and our type ratings have that limitation.

 

[Jim K]

I think that's really it, yours and Fearless responses. It seems reasonable to me if you have visibility equivalent to at least a low pattern...and if you know the area. There seem to be a lot of ways to screw it up, but to me they seem to involve either breaking the rule of not having the airport in sight during the process, or of loosing SA and running into terrain while trying to either go around or go missed.

Yep. An eye opener for me during training was a VOR-A approach to a small airport I hadn't been to. In this case the approach brings you in almost perpendicular to the runway. When we reached the MAP, which is timed, he had me look up....I didn't see the airport. He then told me to look out the side window; we were directly over it. That was disorienting and I could see how it could be dangerous. Not all circling approaches are created equal.

 

[luvflyin]

Yep. An eye opener for me during training was a VOR-A approach to a small airport I hadn't been to. In this case the approach brings you in almost perpendicular to the runway. When we reached the MAP, which is timed, he had me look up....I didn't see the airport. He then told me to look out the side window; we were directly over it. That was disorienting and I could see how it could be dangerous. Not all circling approaches are created equal.

Reminds me of a story. Friend of mine in an Arrow going into Roseburg KRBG. Bad weather. Tells his wife, tell me when you see the airport. She says there it is. He looks up to a windshield full of goo. Does the Missed Approach. Asks her where was it. She says it was right down there under us.

 

[martym]

Looking at the AOPA comment on 22G they showed a path for the circle to land drawn in red.
I am thinking in a circle to land the green path would make more sense, as you are going to stay closer to the airport the entire time.

Thoughts?

Your green flght path would be an excellent choice if you were flying from the right hand seat. And when given the clearance "...blah...blah..., circle to runway 23" you would say: "I'm planning on circling North for a right downwind to runway 23" so they would know exactly what you are doing. Always tell them exactly how you plan to circle because it's not standardized.

 

[luvflyin]

There is no Instrument approach to 23 because of the mountain range to the NE and the proximity to Miramar.

It looks like the Terrain would allow a 23 Approach. Minimums probably wouldn't be very low, maybe no straight in. Probably no better than 28 Circling Mins. I don't see Obstructions as any problem with a Rwy 5 Approach. But I'd guess Miramar and Lindbergh are the reasons they didn't bother making either.

 

[brcase]

It's Circling unless there are published "sidestep" minimums. Would you really want to be switching runways at 200' agl?

Example:
View attachment 100988

Not very common and only really useful when there's more traffic than the ils runway can handle... so super busy airports like sfo.

I agree it should be flown to circling minimums. The sidestep minimum would be useful if the main runway is closed and the parallel does not have an equivalent approach.

Brian

 

[MauleSkinner]

I agree it should be flown to circling minimums. The sidestep minimum would be useful if the main runway is closed and the parallel does not have an equivalent approach.

Brian

Sidestep is also useful when the FBO is closer to the other parallel, but approach puts you on the approach to the far runway.