Lear down TEB

Ted DuPuis said:
"New York Center, Mitsubishi 228-whiskey-papa level 1-6 thousand, any chance direct destination?"
"228-whiskey-papa proceed direct destination."
Click to expand...
It was your New York accent. If you sounded like an Ohioan, they wouldn't have answered until they handed you off to Cleveland, btdt.
 
dtuuri said:
It was your New York accent. If you sounded like an Ohioan, they wouldn't have answered until they handed you off to Cleveland, btdt.
Click to expand...

If you think I have a New York accent, you clearly have never heard me speak.

New York attitude, that's another matter.
 
PaulS said:
My main point is that the instruction, while probably perfectly clear to people who fly there regularly, might be confusing to someone who is actually thinking I need to fly a circling approach.
Click to expand...

But ATC gave them a pretty high altitude to maintain, and told them where to start their circle. Seems that was pretty clear, had they listened.
 
PPC1052 said:
But ATC gave them a pretty high altitude to maintain, and told them where to start their circle. Seems that was pretty clear, had they listened.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I need to read transcript again.
 
PaulS said:
Yeah, I need to read transcript again.
Click to expand...

Actually, they told him to cross DANDY at 1500, circle at TORBY. I was mistaken in that they told them to maintain an altitude. Those two are pretty close, so I think the gist is still there.
 
ATC did not give them a high altitude to maintain, it was VINGS at 2000' and DANDY at 1500' which is mandatory. From there it's 3.8 miles to the runway and about 350 FPM will get you close to a normal descent.
Corrected, that's 350 per NM not FPM.
Also it was VFR conditions and there was no need to go down to circling minimums of 760' Cat B, or 820' Cat C and then start the turn, in a sense, this was a VFR approach and maneuver.
Fly the LOC, use the glideslope and make the crossing restrictions, and turn when at TORBY like they told you.
I'm not a Lear 35 pilot, but I would guess it's a Cat C or even D for circling approaches and not Cat B. There's no way I would be maneuvering at 120 kts or lower until lined up on final and final flaps are extended.
 
Last edited:
PaulS said:
Not sure I'm following you here Maule, the checkride bust part. I'm thinking the instruction works for VMC conditions, but not IMC conditions.
Click to expand...
The ATP PTS requires the circle be flown at MDA, within the proscribed visibility, for the approach category that the Flight Standards Board has determined for the airplane. In this case, assuming Cat C, less than 900 AGL and within 2 1/2 miles of some part of a runway. Initiating the circle at 1300 feet and almost 4 miles (TORBY) would be a checkride bust. Many pilots get stuck on “this is what we need to do for a checkride, so this must be what we do in real life”.

Also, I know the path that the captain chose to fly would work for my pokey 100 knot approach speed airplane, and I'm thinking it would work for a lear too, if flown correctly, but don't know enough about that jet to say for sure.
Click to expand...
I’ve brought a couple dozen guys into jets, and even after circling during training and checking in simulators, they still cant make it work in the airplane for a while...typically half a dozen circles before they can actually get into a position to land without assistance. Some never figure it out, even when they’re at the home airport where they did their instrument training to start with. There’s just a big disconnect between a lot of training/checking and the way it works in real life.
 
Can’t say I’d done a lot flying in NY airspace though I’ve definitely hit KHPN, KCDW, and KFRG more than a few times. On the other hand, I’ve commuted in and out of NYC by car, train, and bus and flown commercially out of all the airports.

It’s always occurred to me that I’d rather fly my personal plane in and out of KEWR rather than KTEB. Just looking at the lay of the land, the proximity of the various airports, traffic, runways, etc.

And in fact, I did once fly into KEWR to drop off a passenger - no problem. (I’d do KJFK if needed, never KLGA and KTEB stays in the ‘let’s not’ zone)

Not a rational assessment, just my gut.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
MauleSkinner said:
The ATP PTS requires the circle be flown at MDA, within the proscribed visibility, for the approach category that the Flight Standards Board has determined for the airplane. In this case, assuming Cat C, less than 900 AGL and within 2 1/2 miles of some part of a runway. Initiating the circle at 1300 feet and almost 4 miles (TORBY) would be a checkride bust. Many pilots get stuck on “this is what we need to do for a checkride, so this must be what we do in real life”.


I’ve brought a couple dozen guys into jets, and even after circling during training and checking in simulators, they still cant make it work in the airplane for a while...typically half a dozen circles before they can actually get into a position to land without assistance. Some never figure it out, even when they’re at the home airport where they did their instrument training to start with. There’s just a big disconnect between a lot of training/checking and the way it works in real life.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, what must be done for a check ride is what you are supposed to do real life, that's what has been drilled into my head. If you are at minimums, then my understanding is failing to follow the standards for the approach will put you in danger, out of the safety zone for obstacles. I can see what ATC asked here is ok for VMC, but IMC it should be a no no.

A check ride is a contrived event, but it is supposed to simulate an approach to minimums or as close as the DPE wants to take it within the ACS. Are you saying that in the real world pilots are not following the standards? Just trying to understand.

As far as guys not being able to fly a circling approach, that sounds like an issue to me, although I certainly can appreciate the increased difficulties associated with faster slick airplanes.
 
PaulS said:
Are you saying that in the real world pilots are not following the standards?
Click to expand...
Paul, check out the P/C Glossary:

CIRCLE-TO-LAND MANEUVER−
A maneuver initiated by the pilot to align the aircraft with a runway for landing when a straight-in landing from an instrument approach is not possible or is not desirable. At tower controlled airports, this maneuver is made only after ATC authorization has been obtained and the pilot has established required visual reference to the airport.

CIRCLE TO RUNWAY (RUNWAY NUMBER)−
Used by ATC to inform the pilot that he/she must circle to land because the runway in use is other than the runway aligned with the instrument approach procedure. When the direction of the circling maneuver in relation to the airport/runway is required, the controller will state the direction (eight cardinal compass points) and specify a left or right downwind or base leg as appropriate; e.g., “Cleared VOR Runway Three Six Approach circle to Runway Two Two,” or “Circle northwest of the airport for a right downwind to Runway Two Two.”
 
PaulS said:
Wait a minute, what must be done for a check ride is what you are supposed to do real life, that's what has been drilled into my head. If you are at minimums, then my understanding is failing to follow the standards for the approach will put you in danger, out of the safety zone for obstacles. I can see what ATC asked here is ok for VMC, but IMC it should be a no no.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying that circling 100 feet below the clouds is somehow more appropriate at 800 AGL than at 1300 AGL?

A check ride is a contrived event, but it is supposed to simulate an approach to minimums or as close as the DPE wants to take it within the ACS. Are you saying that in the real world pilots are not following the standards? Just trying to understand.
Click to expand...
No, I’m saying that the PTS/ACS isn’t the standard for flying in the real world.

I haven’t looked at the instrument ACS, but the ATP PTS doesn’t give the examiner any leeway in how close the applicant gets to MDA.
 
Regardless of PTS, if it were me and I heard that instruction, my take would be that I was cleared to circle as early as TORBY, not that I was required to. As in "the pattern is yours, set yourself up for success". If it were VMC, depending on what CFR part I was operating under, I might be able to cheat that early over to centerline (initially below glideslope though visual of terrain/obstacles). If that wasn't legal for me, based on CTL or glideslope requirements, I could just delay my dogleg and enter short final at whatever protected distance the circle allowed based on category aircraft. I feel like that is what ATC was trying to convey.....am I off base here?
 
MauleSkinner said:
So you’re saying that circling 100 feet below the clouds is somehow more appropriate at 800 AGL than at 1300 AGL?


No, I’m saying that the PTS/ACS isn’t the standard for flying in the real world.

I haven’t looked at the instrument ACS, but the ATP PTS doesn’t give the examiner any leeway in how close the applicant gets to MDA.
Click to expand...

Ah, you and I are having a failure to communicate. Instrument ACS is Mda -0, + 100 for a circling approach, and no, I never said, nor implied what you wrote in your first sentence, just trying to figure out what you meant in your other posts, doesn't really matter though, I'll fly them the way I was taught to fly them.
 
PaulS said:
Ah, you and I are having a failure to communicate. Instrument ACS is Mda -0, + 100 for a circling approach, and no, I never said, nor implied what you wrote in your first sentence, just trying to figure out what you meant in your other posts, doesn't really matter though, I'll fly them the way I was taught to fly them.
Click to expand...
And how were you taught to fly them?
 
35 AoA said:
Regardless of PTS, if it were me and I heard that instruction, my take would be that I was cleared to circle as early as TORBY, not that I was required to. As in "the pattern is yours, set yourself up for success". If it were VMC, depending on what CFR part I was operating under, I might be able to cheat that early over to centerline (initially below glideslope though visual of terrain/obstacles). If that wasn't legal for me, based on CTL or glideslope requirements, I could just delay my dogleg and enter short final at whatever protected distance the circle allowed based on category aircraft. I feel like that is what ATC was trying to convey.....am I off base here?
Click to expand...

This is what I am getting at, the instruction is unclear IMO, from the video it seems ATC wanted him to turn at Turby, I think a better instruction would be something like, "Lear jet xxx, turn right at Turby, onto left base for 06, cleared to land runway 6. Now having seen this video, if I get something like this I will ask if that's what the controller wants and not care if he laughs or gets mad at me.
 
MauleSkinner said:
And how were you taught to fly them?
Click to expand...

Smart ass answer, per the ACS.

Reasonable answer, fly the approach to MDA and maintain MDA, when within 1.5 or 1.7 miles ( Cat B for me) depending on whether enhanced circling minimums. Then start my circle as I planned or per ATC instructions if applicable, if I have the airport.
 
PaulS said:
Smart ass answer, per the ACS.

Reasonable answer, fly the approach to MDA and maintain MDA, when within 1.5 or 1.7 miles ( Cat B for me) depending on whether enhanced circling minimums. Then start my circle as I planned or per ATC instructions if applicable, if I have the airport.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest not flying jets.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Flying the way you were taught solely because you were taught that way.
Click to expand...

Ok, you really need to write in more complete thoughts. So you are saying I shouldn't fly published approaches as published because it's scary. And you teach people how to fly jets. And I shouldn't fly the way I was taught because I was taught that way. So by extension, people you teach should not fly the way you teach them because otherwise they won't be good pilots?
 
PaulS said:
Ok, you really need to write in more complete thoughts. So you are saying I shouldn't fly published approaches as published because it's scary. And you teach people how to fly jets. And I shouldn't fly the way I was taught because I was taught that way. So by extension, people you teach should not fly the way you teach them because otherwise they won't be good pilots?
Click to expand...

Just so we are all on the same page - have you ever flown a circle in a jet?
 
PaulS said:
Ok, you really need to write in more complete thoughts. So you are saying I shouldn't fly published approaches as published because it's scary.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not. I never said "scary", and I never said anything was bad about flying published approaches.
And you teach people how to fly jets. And I shouldn't fly the way I was taught because I was taught that way. So by extension, people you teach should not fly the way you teach them because otherwise they won't be good pilots?
Click to expand...
No, but if they do things without understanding why they do them that way, they'd probably find themselves in a situation that I didn't teach. Since they have no clue why they do what they do, they wouldn't be able to adapt to the current situation in order to succeed.
 
You guys ought to go read the interviews. BOTH pilots had a history of not only poor flying performance, but the FO wasn't supposed to be handling the controls at all yet, and the Captain had a lot of history of not wanting to be in charge of anything. He had previously flown as an FO on the Falcon, and the captains that flew with him said he never wanted to fly a leg, and refused to make any decisions, saying "that's your job" to them.

Then, he spent the whole flight making the reluctant and unqualified FO fly the plane, and seemed to be pulling the same trick, where he did not want to be in command at all.

There was nobody in command of that flight, period. All this stuff about circling minimums is irrelevant - That level of thinking was not happening whatsoever. There were two guys who were both trying pretty hard to not fly the plane.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
You guys ought to go read the interviews. BOTH pilots had a history of not only poor flying performance, but the FO wasn't supposed to be handling the controls at all yet, and the Captain had a lot of history of not wanting to be in charge of anything. He had previously flown as an FO on the Falcon, and the captains that flew with him said he never wanted to fly a leg, and refused to make any decisions, saying "that's your job" to them.

Then, he spent the whole flight making the reluctant and unqualified FO fly the plane, and seemed to be pulling the same trick, where he did not want to be in command at all.

There was nobody in command of that flight, period. All this stuff about circling minimums is irrelevant - That level of thinking was not happening whatsoever. There were two guys who were both trying pretty hard to not fly the plane.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the Wellstone crash.
 
MauleSkinner said:
No, I'm not. I never said "scary", and I never said anything was bad about flying published approaches.

No, but if they do things without understanding why they do them that way, they'd probably find themselves in a situation that I didn't teach. Since they have no clue why they do what they do, they wouldn't be able to adapt to the current situation in order to succeed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we are definitely not understanding each other, but you did tell me I should never fly a jet, the other guy said I was scary. You asked me how I was taught to fly a circling approach, I pretty much give you a text book answer and then you say the I should never fly a jet thing. I can't figure out why you would say that and what is wrong with what I am saying. If I'm wrong, tell me why?
 
Dave Theisen said:
@PaulS , I think they are just getting on you because of the mile figures you stated. That’s damn tight in jets. But you did state Cat B, so as long as everyone understands you go by the parameters designated for what you’re flying, we are all good.
Click to expand...

Thanks Dave, I did say Cat B for me, which implies a slower plane, I thought is was obvious, I guess it wasn't.
 
mtuomi said:
Ok, I thought you meant you'd fly a circle like that in a jet. That's scary.
Click to expand...

Got it, nope, single engine piston, I have no idea how to fly a jet and to be honest, not sure I'd ever fly one, unless someone let me take the controls at altitude, for a short time.
 
Dave Theisen said:
@PaulS , I think they are just getting on you because of the mile figures you stated. That’s damn tight in jets. But you did state Cat B, so as long as everyone understands you go by the parameters designated for what you’re flying, we are all good.
Click to expand...
Not the case for what I said, but obviously what I'm saying isn't getting across, either.

but as long as we make minimum standards, it's all good.
 
Last edited:
PaulS said:
Got it, nope, single engine piston, I have no idea how to fly a jet and to be honest, not sure I'd ever fly one, unless someone let me take the controls at altitude, for a short time.
Click to expand...

Yeah got it now.

Energy management is vastly different in a high performance jet. You can't maneuver them the way you can a piston plane. That's why the "piston" way to fly a circle isn't really applicable.
Descending to MDA and then circling when you hit the circle radius often is impossible if you want to maintain a stabilized approach. The TEB "circle at TORBY" actually works well, when done right.
 
I’m trying to picture the left seat/right seat conversation:

RS: your controls
LS: negative, your controls
RS: negative, your negative controls
LS: copy that’s a negative, your negative controls
 
woodchucker said:
I’m trying to picture the left seat/right seat conversation:

RS: your controls
LS: negative, your controls
RS: negative, your negative controls
LS: copy that’s a negative, your negative controls
Click to expand...
Reminds me of couple guys who were partners in a Stearman. Both could really fly it well and they often flew together. One day I watched it make an unusually BAAD landing. After it taxied to the gas pumps and shut down I could hear these two friends arguing back and forth, but couldn't tell what they were saying. As they drew closer to the office, talking with arms flailing about, I heard them, "No, I said YOU got it!" "No you didn't! You said 'I've got it'!" Cracked me up. :)
 
mtuomi said:
Yeah got it now.

Energy management is vastly different in a high performance jet. You can't maneuver them the way you can a piston plane. That's why the "piston" way to fly a circle isn't really applicable.
Descending to MDA and then circling when you hit the circle radius often is impossible if you want to maintain a stabilized approach. The TEB "circle at TORBY" actually works well, when done right.
Click to expand...

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've flown to TEB hundreds of times, in everything from a 172 to a Challenger 605. I've never understood how people fail do to such simple things like crossing DANDY at 1500' on the ILS approach to 6, or level off at 1500' on the RUUDY departure. The ILS 6, circle to 1 isn't hard to figure out either. Then these ****tards in this lear did what they did.....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.
 
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.
 
Groundpounder said:
I've flown to TEB hundreds of times, in everything from a 172 to a Challenger 605. I've never understood how people fail do to such simple things like crossing DANDY at 1500' on the ILS approach to 6, or level off at 1500' on the RUUDY departure. The ILS 6, circle to 1 isn't hard to figure out either. Then these ****tards in this lear did what they did.....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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's one person who I saw hit the skies in a jet not that long ago. A number of us were baffled that the person passed the checkride and is on the line. It won't surprise me if this person ends up in a similar NTSB report someday. The sim company didn't do their job on the type rating (i.e. saying "Sorry, you can't pass"). Maybe the company will do their job and wash the person out, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top