Lear down TEB

[PaulS]

Paul, I'm not sure you saw my post (#330) of the P/CG definitions. To summarize, pilots are concerned with terrain/obstacle avoidance and use a "circle-to-land maneuver". That's what you demonstrate on a checkride. ATC is concerned with traffic separation and issues "circle to runway" instructions. Not the same thing. As a pilot you keep the former in mind but you must comply with the latter. If you can't for some reason, say, because of reduced visibility or excess altitude, then you still have a fallback plan in mind you can coordinate with the tower. No need for risky aerobatics trying to do the impossible.

I saw the post dtuuri. Before I start, my experience and what I am talking about when I talk about maneuvering is in a single engine piston aircraft, cat b minimums. My limited experience is this, during a circle to land approach how the actual circle is done is decided by the controller at a towered airport. Generally when I do a circle to land approach I have briefed it and have a plan of how I would like to do the approach, I fly a low wing, so I like left traffic as turns in right traffic obscure my view of the runway and airport, I also consider that I may not be given that, which is fine. That's just a preference, but I ask for it if it is not offered and when I ask it usually requires over flying the airport. I usually get what I want and I fly into some pretty busy GA airports, sometimes I don't, NBD.

A few times, during my training practicing circling approaches, the tower has asked me to deviate from the approach for which I had been cleared. Every time I have been asked to "break off the approach" for traffic and enter a downwind, or a base or whatever to stay clear of said traffic. Once I was asked to start my circle 1.5 miles from the airport. I have never been told to "start the circle at (the faf)", which as I said in the post that started this whole string, would have confused me, since I would be on an approach, in an aircraft, where that instruction would put me outside of the protected area. Reading the posts here, now I would understand what they are asking, but would still verify. Essentially what the controller is doing is asking me to go visual on the approach, and as long as the conditions warrant I'm fine with that.

No where did I say I would do "risky aerobatics trying to do the impossible", I believe others were implying that sometimes , in the real world, you need to go outside the published circle to remained stabilized in a fast, heavy jet, I still don't get that, but I don't need to get it for the flying I'm doing. If I can't make the maneuver within the constraints of the approach in the airplane I fly, then I have screwed up somewhere because I am PIC and allowed myself to get in that situation, I'll go missed.

If you have some reference as to where an instruction to "circle" at the faf is standard phraseology I'd love to see it, even though I'm instrument rated now, I'm still learning.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Thanks Dave, I did say Cat B for me, which implies a slower plane, I thought is was obvious, I guess it wasn't.

It was to me. I circle cat D in the jet. Plus our company policy in no circling below 1000’ and 3sm so if we are circling the weather isn’t that bad to begin with...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

IMO, having gotten to the point they were, it'd have been better to just ask the tower for a landing clearance on runway 6, rather than performing aggressive maneuvers to land on 1.

What do they do at KTEB when the wind is out of the north or northwest and the weather is right at circling mins (about 400 feet below the altitude on the approach at TORBY)?

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Sharp turns at low altitude and low airspeeds in a jet are a recipe for disaster. If you've seen the actual video of the Jack Roush Premier Jet crash at Oshkosh [hard to find, it's often taken down by its owner], you'll wonder how it could happen like that. Then you read the NTSB report. Then you read about two pilots getting into such a situation. Then you question the system that gave them tickets to fly.

 

[PaulS]

It was to me. I circle cat D in the jet. Plus our company policy in no circling below 1000’ and 3sm so if we are circling the weather isn’t that bad to begin with...

That's a good point too. My personal mins are +500 feet to the da or mda and +1 mile on the vis. I've flown many approaches to minimums, all with an instructor next to me, not pushing it on my solo approaches.

 

[MauleSkinner]

What do they do at KTEB when the wind is out of the north or northwest and the weather is right at circling mins (about 400 feet below the altitude on the approach at TORBY)?

They get a lot fewer airplanes in.

 

[35 AoA]

I find that interesting, I thought the different categories covered the extra room to maintain safe flight conditions and allow transition to a stabilized final. But again, I have a lot to learn about jet and heavy operations so I'll take your word for it.

I think the issues people run into typically occur in lowered visibility, or a scenario with variable visibility due to localized rain showers in the circling pattern. In these scenarios, pilots seem to have a tendency to fly a very tight pattern so as to maintain sight of the runway. You run into trouble because you are lower and tighter than you are used to in a VFR pattern, and most likely also needing to account for disadvantageous winds at circling MDA. I think the updated FAA criteria probably help give folks more leeway to set up for a stabilized approach, but it doesn't alleviate the often difficult nature of simultaneously keeping the airport in sight, and setting up a stabilized approach. Just my .02. I've been there in a high performance jet, and it is much more challenging than a straight in approach to MDA or DA/DH. I've also scared myself doing one in exactly the conditions I mentioned above.

 

[dtuuri]

My limited experience is this, during a circle to land approach how the actual circle is done is decided by the controller at a towered airport.

Sure, under VMC. When it's IMC, you need to get clearance to do what you need to do to be safe.

Generally when I do a circle to land approach I have briefed it and have a plan of how I would like to do the approach, I fly a low wing, so I like left traffic as turns in right traffic obscure my view of the runway and airport...

If you cross the runway perpendicular you can turn so as to keep the threshold in sight out the right window. Pick an aiming point 1/2 mile out from that and turn so the threshold keeps moving from the side window toward the spot in front of you as you fly over your aiming point. No need to make left hand circles only.

No where did I say I would do "risky aerobatics trying to do the impossible"..

I know, I was referring to the accident crew's actions.

If you have some reference as to where an instruction to "circle" at the faf is standard phraseology I'd love to see it, even though I'm instrument rated now, I'm still learning.

"Circle to runway one" is i/a/w the P/CG. I see no problem with being told where to break off the approach instead of in terms of a compass point. FWIW, you'd get the same treatment at Chicago Midway.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I think the issues people run into typically occur in lowered visibility, or a scenario with variable visibility due to localized rain showers in the circling pattern. In these scenarios, pilots seem to have a tendency to fly a very tight pattern so as to maintain sight of the runway. You run into trouble because you are lower and tighter than you are used to in a VFR pattern, and most likely also needing to account for disadvantageous winds at circling MDA. I think the updated FAA criteria probably help give folks more leeway to set up for a stabilized approach, but it doesn't alleviate the often difficult nature of simultaneously keeping the airport in sight, and setting up a stabilized approach. Just my .02. I've been there in a high performance jet, and it is much more challenging than a straight in approach to MDA or DA/DH. I've also scared myself doing one in exactly the conditions I mentioned above.

The problem with the new circling criteria is that it's not reflected in the visibility minimums. If you're circling to the opposite runway, for example, visibility minimums are often not much more than the distance you'd need to be abeam the runway on downwind to make a 25-degree-banked 180 onto the final, even though there's another mile of protected airspace out there. Most of us can't judge that distance exactly, especially when we're substantially lower than normal. Anything that could otherwise have resembled a stabilized final ends up being corrective maneuvering.

If the weather is above minimums, there's no reason not to take advantage of the extra space and/or altitude, but pilots are so conditioned by the training/checking environment that they often don't realize it's available.

 

[MauleSkinner]

If you cross the runway perpendicular you can turn so as to keep the threshold in sight out the right window. Pick an aiming point 1/2 mile out from that and turn so the threshold keeps moving from the side window toward the spot in front of you as you fly over your aiming point. No need to make left hand circles only.

Unfortunately this is another fact that gets completely lost by the time guys are in jets...the overwhelming majority are trained in sims, and the approved circles typically meet the minimum PTS requirement of the landing runway being more than 90 degrees from the approach. Most jet pilots are taught a formula that works for these, but not for most of the circling geometries they'll see in the real world.

It'll be interesting to see if and how the changeover to the ATP ACS affects this.

 

[35 AoA]

Totally agree. No way I'm hanging out at circling MDA if I don't need to be there (wx). The closer I can get to a normal sight picture, mo betta. Like you said, vis is normally what complicates the whole thing, at least in my personal experience. I think the distance judgement piece is important as well. Without accurate means of distance measurement, guys tend to try and fly the same visual sight picture they would at normal (higher) VFR pattern altitude.....putting themselves substantially closer without even realizing what they are doing.

 

[dtuuri]

Totally agree. No way I'm hanging out at circling MDA if I don't need to be there (wx). The closer I can get to a normal sight picture, mo betta. Like you said, vis is normally what complicates the whole thing, at least in my personal experience. I think the distance judgement piece is important as well. Without accurate means of distance measurement, guys tend to try and fly the same visual sight picture they would at normal (higher) VFR pattern altitude.....putting themselves substantially closer without even realizing what they are doing.

There's a flip side to this. If you fly higher than normal due to a high MDA you can exceed circling protection, like a Lear did at Eagle one night once upon a time, and hit a mountain.

 

[MauleSkinner]

There's a flip side to this. If you fly higher than normal due to a high MDA you can exceed circling protection, like a Lear did at Eagle one night once upon a time, and hit a mountain.

We'll, the ability to keep a jet inside Class D for a traffic pattern is less common than you'd think, too.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

We'll, the ability to keep a jet inside Class D for a traffic pattern is less common than you'd think, too.

Lol. Unfortunately true.

 

[35 AoA]

There's a flip side to this. If you fly higher than normal due to a high MDA you can exceed circling protection, like a Lear did at Eagle one night once upon a time, and hit a mountain.

Not familiar with that one. Yeah, I suppose if your high MSL altitude circling MDA were right at the cusp of the limits for obstacle clearance radius (i.e. just below where you would need to go to a higher MDA to continue to ensure obstacle clearance based on higher TAS), adding a few hundred could be a bad thing......especially if there were a crosswind pushing you beyond those limits without you realizing it, as a compounding effect.

 

[dtuuri]

Not familiar with that one.

"Phase of Operation: APPROACH - VFR PATTERN - BASE LEG/BASE TO FINAL"
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20001213X30454&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=NA

Minimums were so high he had to extend downwind to make room for a normal descent. IMO, they shouldn't allow circling if you can't make a normal descent from MDA within circling airspace.

More about it: https://www.facebook.com/AirMedical...ceslifeguard-lnsiskeagle-col/583283501690955/

 

[Velocity173]

"Phase of Operation: APPROACH - VFR PATTERN - BASE LEG/BASE TO FINAL"
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20001213X30454&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=NA

Minimums were so high he had to extend downwind to make room for a normal descent. IMO, they shouldn't allow circling if you can't make a normal descent from MDA within circling airspace.

More about it: https://www.facebook.com/AirMedical...ceslifeguard-lnsiskeagle-col/583283501690955/

What were the circling mins back then?

 

[dtuuri]

What were the circling mins back then?

I can't remember and can't find any articles online. It was written about widely and there was debate about whether Jeppesen should really need to put terrain info on the charts from then on. I think they resisted at first.

 

[Jim_CAK]

.....Sadly I think you will start to see more accidents like this with the shortage of qualified pilots and bottom feeder 135's not fixing their pay and schedule issues.

I never thought much about the part 135 bottom feeder types until recently. I decided to work on my commercial and expect to retire from my day job in a few years. I thought I would like to get an occasional right seat flight even if it is not loggable. This accident where the right seater was not authorized to be the pilot flying and the one in Greenville reminds me there are a lot of seedy operators out there skirting the rules.

 

[hindsight2020]

I never thought much about the part 135 bottom feeder types until recently. I decided to work on my commercial and expect to retire from my day job in a few years. I thought I would like to get an occasional right seat flight even if it is not loggable. This accident where the right seater was not authorized to be the pilot flying and the one in Greenville reminds me there are a lot of seedy operators out there skirting the rules.

Please don't take singular/personal offense to my comment as that's not my primary point, but consider the fact that the existence of your very demographic, in the aggregate, contributes to the solvency of these low-paying part 134.5 operations in the first place. Ditto for FFD operations in the 121 side. Don't shoot the messenger, but it bears mentioning since you imply the business owners are solely to blame for the market conditions that propel these accidents. Obviously I disagree. We need to look in the mirror as a vocational demographic.

 

[Zeldman]

We need to look in the mirror as a vocational demographic

Exactly. Lot of young pilots looking for that first flying job that takes them out of the traffic pattern, and willing to work for low pay just for the experience (hours), which means there will be those companies that will take advantage of those pilots.... a never ending cycle.

 

[Zeldman]

I never thought much about the part 135 bottom feeder types until recently

Are you saying all 135 operators are ''bottom feeder'', or that there are a few 135 operations that are bottom feeders.??

 

[Jim_CAK]

Please don't take singular/personal offense to my comment as that's not my primary point, but consider the fact that the existence of your very demographic, in the aggregate, contributes to the solvency of these low-paying part 134.5 operations in the first place. Ditto for FFD operations in the 121 side. Don't shoot the messenger, but it bears mentioning since you imply the business owners are solely to blame for the market conditions that propel these accidents. Obviously I disagree. We need to look in the mirror as a vocational demographic.

No offense taken. Like I said - I never gave much thought all the years I have been flying until recently. I really feel for the young people desperately trying to build hours and are burried in debt. I am sure they feel tremendous pressure to get to 1500 hours. I hope I have the good sense to walk away from a bad situation.

I have a few friends that fly single pilot and ocasionaly they are looking for a right seater. I have a few more years to decide.

 

[Jim_CAK]

Are you saying all 135 operators are ''bottom feeder'', or that there are a few 135 operations that are bottom feeders.??

No - I did not mean to imply that they are all bottom feeders. As I considered options I started reading some of the career pilot forums and it was an eye opener how many operations were skirting the rules.

 

[Groundpounder]

Pilots will always be our own worst enemies.

 

[hindsight2020]

Pilots will always be our own worst enemies.

You mean each other's worst enemy. Because I don't know about you, but I always fly with my favorite Captain.

And that's just a Tuesday for me after 4-ship debrief

 

[dtuuri]

What were the circling mins back then?

I woke up this morning and 2300 feet AGL popped into mind. That's on par with Aspen. If it isn't daylight, don't do circling approaches at unfamiliar airports with high minimums is the takeaway, IMO.

EDIT: Today, circling minimums aren't authorized at all and straight-in minimums are over 2000 feet AGL: https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1903/06403LDA25.PDF

 

[IK04]

Once upon a time, in a lifetime long ago, I was asked by tower if I could circle to land in the opposite direction, since they were changing runways.

Since I was flying a published approach and the field was IFR (2,00 and 2) I answered "no, I'll accept a downwind landing." Sometimes ATC thinks helicopters are magical machines that can defeat the laws of gravity, space and time. I'm not saying they are wrong, but I didn't want to test their theory.

 

[Sluggo63]

If the weather is above minimums, there's no reason not to take advantage of the extra space and/or altitude, but pilots are so conditioned by the training/checking environment that they often don't realize it's available.

This can’t be emphasized enough. Our training and evaluation in everything is set up to teach us how to perform in the worst-case scenario. Engine failure at V1. Go-around at minimums. And, germane to this discussion, circling at minimums.

This kind of instruction is great for those corner cases, but it fails to teach what to do in other, more likely scenarios.

Every pilot who has ever had a type-rating in a jet is used to this turn of events:
Capt: “Set Standard Power”
FO: “Standard Power Set ... 80 knots”
Capt: “Checked”
FO: “V1 ... Engine Failure ... Rotate”
...and so on...
Every. Single. Time.

What we don’t practice is engine failures at other times. Just after rotation. During flap retraction. On climb out. Always on the runway right after V1. That’s what the FAA wants to see, so we “teach to the test.”

Likewise, in our training, we always practice circling at minimums. It’s good training, for sure. The sight picture is a lot different at 500’ AGL than it is at 1,500’ and it pays to practice maneuvering at low altitude with gear and flaps hanging. But... instructors have to be cognizant to instruct what to expect in the real world.

I’ve circled in heavy jets quite a bit. The Air Force required us to practice it, and demonstrate on our checkrides. But, I always made sure to instill on those I taught that in real life if you are shooting an approach to circle because you have to land, there is absolutely no reason to descend all the way to circling mins, if the weather doesn’t force you to. Circle as high as the weather allows up to your normal VFR pattern altitude. Make it look as normal as possible if you can.

Practice that worst case, so if you need to, you’ve seen it before and you can perform it safely, but if given the opportunity eliminate that risk of circling low to the ground and climb and make things as normal as possible.

 

[FlyingTiger]

On the other end of the spectrum, I haven't done a circle to land since the end of my IFR check ride so this has been a great refresher for me. The input from you guys that have a lot of experience with this procedure has been particularly valuable. Going to make a point to request a circle to land at my next IFR proficiency.

 

[MauleSkinner]

This can’t be emphasized enough. Our training and evaluation in everything is set up to teach us how to perform in the worst-case scenario. Engine failure at V1. Go-around at minimums. And, germane to this discussion, circling at minimums.

This kind of instruction is great for those corner cases, but it fails to teach what to do in other, more likely scenarios.

Every pilot who has ever had a type-rating in a jet is used to this turn of events:
Capt: “Set Standard Power”
FO: “Standard Power Set ... 80 knots”
Capt: “Checked”
FO: “V1 ... Engine Failure ... Rotate”
...and so on...
Every. Single. Time.

What we don’t practice is engine failures at other times. Just after rotation. During flap retraction. On climb out. Always on the runway right after V1. That’s what the FAA wants to see, so we “teach to the test.”

Likewise, in our training, we always practice circling at minimums. It’s good training, for sure. The sight picture is a lot different at 500’ AGL than it is at 1,500’ and it pays to practice maneuvering at low altitude with gear and flaps hanging. But... instructors have to be cognizant to instruct what to expect in the real world.

I’ve circled in heavy jets quite a bit. The Air Force required us to practice it, and demonstrate on our checkrides. But, I always made sure to instill on those I taught that in real life if you are shooting an approach to circle because you have to land, there is absolutely no reason to descend all the way to circling mins, if the weather doesn’t force you to. Circle as high as the weather allows up to your normal VFR pattern altitude. Make it look as normal as possible if you can.

Practice that worst case, so if you need to, you’ve seen it before and you can perform it safely, but if given the opportunity eliminate that risk of circling low to the ground and climb and make things as normal as possible.

You'd be amazed at how confused pilots get when you combine an approach with weather at 2000 & 5 or so with a no-flap visual...
"I wouldn't circle no flaps in real life."

"Would you do a visual traffic pattern with no flaps in real life?"

"Yes."

"That's what I'm asking you to do."

And they still fly well past the visibility because "they were taught" to build a waypoint for a 5-mile final for a no-flap visual.

 

[dtuuri]

Practice that worst case, so if you need to, you’ve seen it before and you can perform it safely, but if given the opportunity eliminate that risk of circling low to the ground and climb and make things as normal as possible.

Yep, plan for the worst, but look for the best. Going to TEB? The chart says no circling NW of the airport, so have a plan for circling to each runway from every direction — before takeoff — in your hip pocket. Then, look for a way not to have to execute it when you get there. And never, never forget the Learjet that hit the mountain at Eagle. That captain had almost 20,000 hours.

 

[PPC1052]

But, I always made sure to instill on those I taught that in real life if you are shooting an approach to circle because you have to land, there is absolutely no reason to descend all the way to circling mins, if the weather doesn’t force you to. Circle as high as the weather allows up to your normal VFR pattern altitude. Make it look as normal as possible if you can.

Practice that worst case, so if you need to, you’ve seen it before and you can perform it safely, but if given the opportunity eliminate that risk of circling low to the ground and climb and make things as normal as possible.

I'm certainly not a very experienced IFR pilot, but this always seemed pretty obvious to me. The check ride was to demonstrate your capabilities at the circling minimum. But if weather permitted, there was no reason to be down there that low circling to the airport. I have always anticipated adjusting my descent altitude based on the ceiling height.

 

[PPC1052]

No need to make left hand circles only.

Uh, oh. Where is that popcorn emoji?

 

[dtuuri]

Uh, oh. Where is that popcorn emoji?

Why is that controversial?

 

[PPC1052]

Why is that controversial?

To be clear, at towered airports, it's not controversial. Fly which ever direction the tower allows, and isn't prohibited by the applicable charts. It's the non-towered ones where the debate arises.

Here is Mark's article in IFR Magazine on the subject. No need to rehash the controversy out further here. http://www.ifr-magazine.com/issues/33_8/features/Which-Way-to-Turn_1277-1.html

 

[dtuuri]

To be clear, at towered airports, it's not controversial. Fly which ever direction the tower allows, and isn't prohibited by the applicable charts. It's the non-towered ones where the debate arises.

Here is Mark's article in IFR Magazine on the subject. No need to rehash the controversy out further here. http://www.ifr-magazine.com/issues/33_8/features/Which-Way-to-Turn_1277-1.html

TL;DR. This works for me:

​

 

[PPC1052]

TL;DR. This works for me:

View attachment 72657​

Is the red X where the Lear crash landed?

 

[dtuuri]

Is the red X where the Lear crash landed?

No, smarty pants, it's the aiming spot you pick 1/2 mile from the threshold, so you can line up with the runway as I described here:

...

If you cross the runway perpendicular you can turn so as to keep the threshold in sight out the right window. Pick an aiming point 1/2 mile out from that and turn so the threshold keeps moving from the side window toward the spot in front of you as you fly over your aiming point. No need to make left hand circles only.

 

[sourdough44]

Sorry, just jumping ahead, didn’t read everything. Yes, that recreation is nasty, should of stayed on the ground. At least no innocents were onboard or hurt on the ground.

The ‘trick’ for a circling approach like this is an early maneuver, after breaking out VMC. Yes, they gave a fix where to start the circle, distance looks reasonable, then you have .3 or so to play with. Circle early, ‘constant descent angle’ letdown, as you ease on final. In this case, the wind would blow you over for part of it.

In most cases there is no need to be circling near a charted circling MDA, company restrictions or not. In the rare cases where weather is right at circling mins, yeah, be 110% alert or go elsewhere.