Lear down TEB

[PaulS]

You actually bring up a very good point. The whole "circle to" instruction there, in a pilot's mind, has a lot of connotations about protected airspace, configurations, etc., that the controller probably doesn't care about.

Maybe a better instruction at TEB would be "...cleared localizer 6 to TORBY, then enter a left base for runway 1." Now you're not hung up on a bunch of "how am I going to circle" questions.

Good point, I said this too, circle to land on an approach has definite rules when IMC, "Begin circle at TORBY" is a crap instruction in my opinion. I know what they mean now reading this thread, but I would have questioned the instruction and I couldn't care less if a controller gets testy with me. A better instruction IMO would be turn right at TORBY for the left base RWY 1. Clear and concise. BUT, I don't see that ATC bears any responsibility for this accident, these guys didn't maintain control of their flight and paid the ultimate flight.

As far as the comment be an "experienced pilot", there are over 14,000 airports in the US used by pilots of all experience levels, there is no way even an "experienced" pilot could know instructions like this for all those airports.

 

[midwestpa24]

A better instruction IMO would be turn right at TORBY for the left base RWY 1. Clear and concise. BUT, I don't see that ATC bears any responsibility for this accident, these guys didn't maintain control of their flight and paid the ultimate flight.

I definitely get what several have been saying about the controller's instructions, they may have been ambiguous to someone not familiar with TEB. I doubt it would have made a difference though, you had two pilots but not a pilot-in-command of that aircraft. The low-time FO wasn't even supposed to be on the controls, and the Capt had a history of not wanting to be in command. They were miles behind that aircraft with no hope of catching up. It was just a matter of time.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Good point, I said this too, circle to land on an approach has definite rules when IMC, "Begin circle at TORBY" is a crap instruction in my opinion. I know what they mean now reading this thread, but I would have questioned the instruction and I couldn't care less if a controller gets testy with me. A better instruction IMO would be turn right at TORBY for the left base RWY 1. Clear and concise.

Removes the missed approach option, too.

Edit: also requires additional communication at Tory for the pilots to report the field in sight to get this visual clearance...on an already cluttered frequency.

 

[PaulS]

I definitely get what several have been saying about the controller's instructions, they may have been ambiguous to someone not familiar with TEB. I doubt it would have made a difference though, you had two pilots but not a pilot-in-command of that aircraft. The low-time FO wasn't even supposed to be on the controls, and the Capt had a history of not wanting to be in command. They were miles behind that aircraft with no hope of catching up. It was just a matter of time.

Agreed

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I won't defend the two guys in the cockpit; they made their own fate. But if the controller's options are to give an instruction that requires local knowledge to understand or to give an equally succinct instruction that does not rely on local knowledge, my preference is the latter.

I’m not a smart man nor am I an exceptional pilot. The first time I ever flew into teterboro I did the circle in question in a Jet very easily. If someone can’t follow those instructions they shouldn’t be flying.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I’m not a smart man nor am I an exceptional pilot. The first time I ever flew into teterboro I did the circle in question in a Jet very easily. If someone can’t follow those instructions they shouldn’t be flying.

The only reason “start your circle at TORBY” doesn’t make sense is because instrument instructors teach the test, and you can’t start the circle that far out for the test.

 

[N1120A]

It seems you've missed the context of my comments. There are CFIs out there, well, here too, who want to add to the complexity of IFR circling approach maneuvers, based on Chief Counsel opinions that traffic pattern rules under Part 91 apply, i.e., all left turns. Rubbish, I say.

As for TEB, what they do "all the time" is really a visual "circle to land on a different runway" instruction. The Pilot/Controller Glossary distinguishes (see my quotes up thread) between the two usages of the term "circle".

LOL - all left turns. Countless circling approaches don't allow left turns, and certainly not all left turns.

You actually bring up a very good point. The whole "circle to" instruction there, in a pilot's mind, has a lot of connotations about protected airspace, configurations, etc., that the controller probably doesn't care about.

Maybe a better instruction at TEB would be "...cleared localizer 6 to TORBY, then enter a left base for runway 1." Now you're not hung up on a bunch of "how am I going to circle" questions.

1) To be cleared to the LOC 6, you have to have an ADF (don't ask me why, just read the chart). Maybe that lovely old Lear had one, but probably not.

2) The glideslope intercept actually appears to be prior to TORBY, despite TORBY being the FAF.

3) Circle at TORBY was the correct instruction.

I won't defend the two guys in the cockpit; they made their own fate. But if the controller's options are to give an instruction that requires local knowledge to understand or to give an equally succinct instruction that does not rely on local knowledge, my preference is the latter.

What part of "circle at TORBY" is hard to understand. Even if they didn't know the part about the stadium, it isn't hard to know that Runway 1 is 50 degrees to the right of runway 6. At that point, in VMC, you're going to see the airport, so it isn't anything that requires special knowledge - just eyes and a compass.

The only reason “start your circle at TORBY” doesn’t make sense is because instrument instructors teach the test, and you can’t start the circle that far out for the test.

IDK about most, but my instrument instructor said that, as long as safety of flight is not compromised, you fly the instructions that ATC gives you. That includes higher minima and differing circles.

 

[Sluggo63]

3) Circle at TORBY was the correct instruction.

It might be now, but back then I don't think it was. Just going by the IAP in the NTSB report, the "new" circling protected airspace criteria was not in use at TEB yet. The "old" distances were still in effect. That means for a Cat D circle, the protected airspace extended 2.3 NM from the end of the runway. TORBY is 3.8 NM from the approach end of runway 6, a full 1.5 NM outside the protected circling airspace.

According to JO 7110.65X:

Do not issue clearances ... which might cause an aircraft to exceed the circling approach area distance from the runways within which required circling approach obstacle clearance is assured.

 

[N1120A]

It might be now, but back then I don't think it was. Just going by the IAP in the NTSB report, the "new" circling protected airspace criteria was not in use at TEB yet. The "old" distances were still in effect. That means for a Cat D circle, the protected airspace extended 2.3 NM from the end of the runway. TORBY is 3.8 NM from the approach end of runway 6, a full 1.5 NM outside the protected circling airspace.

According to JO 7110.65X:

Except that the circle was with the minimums at TORBY, not the circling minimums.

 

[Sluggo63]

Except that the circle was with the minimums at TORBY, not the circling minimums.

I'm not following you. Are you saying the instructions specified to maintain 1300' until a certain point?

 

[MauleSkinner]

I'm not following you. Are you saying the instructions specified to maintain 1300' until a certain point?

The altitude you descend to for the circle can be no lower than the MDA, but can be significantly higher if you choose. In this case, with the field in sight from TORBY, there's no need to descend below 1300' until necessary for landing.

 

[dtuuri]

The altitude you descend to for the circle can be no lower than the MDA, but can be significantly higher if you choose. In this case, with the field in sight from TORBY, there's no need to descend below 1300' until necessary for landing.

But I don't know where the boundaries are for that MDA which is narrowing as you approach the runway six threshold. I'd say when you break off the approach early to circle for runway one it's a matter of 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within a 2000 feet radius until necessary to descend for a normal landing.

For me, a real circling approach is like a holding pattern where you start over a fix and return to it using certain maneuvers designed to keep within protected airspace. Ideally, you prefer start over the airport and turn toward the landing spot for all the same reasons. When real-life hurdles prevent that, you have to adjust:

Get permission from the tower before you can do it.
Avoid N/A sectors.
Break off early and circle under VFR.
​

For the newbie, every place is an unfamiliar airport. My advice is to keep the above in mind and study the approach plates long before arrival. And don't be too cute by half, thinking you can do them at night with a VFR sight picture. That dark spot out front might have a really good reason for not having any lights on it.

​

 

[Tarheelpilot]

The only reason “start your circle at TORBY” doesn’t make sense is because instrument instructors teach the test, and you can’t start the circle that far out for the test.

Yeah well ... you already know this but that’s the kind of dumb crap that happens when someone is taught to pass a test rather than being taught to fly an airplane. Preaching to the choir but there is no excuse for this type of loss in today’s aviation world.

 

[MauleSkinner]

But I don't know where the boundaries are for that MDA which is narrowing as you approach the runway six threshold. I'd say when you break off the approach early to circle for runway one it's a matter of 1000 feet above the highest obstacle within a 2000 feet radius until necessary to descend for a normal landing.

​

So how do you determine the maxim7m distance from the airport to fly a visual pattern in order to avoid obstructions?

 

[dtuuri]

So how do you determine the maxim7m distance from the airport to fly a visual pattern in order to avoid obstructions?

Calibr8ted eyeballs?

 

[N1120A]

I'm not following you. Are you saying the instructions specified to maintain 1300' until a certain point?

The minimum altitude at TORBY is published. On the chart. You don't descend below that until you either continue past TORBY on the ILS or you do the visual circling to runway 6.

The altitude you descend to for the circle can be no lower than the MDA, but can be significantly higher if you choose. In this case, with the field in sight from TORBY, there's no need to descend below 1300' until necessary for landing.

And the minimum altitude at TORBY is 1300', so you are supposed to comply with that and then make the visual left base for runway 6 on the circle. It was really quite simple. This isn't a circle where you are being plopped over the middle of the airport or with very high minimums for a straight in. It is a circle to a runway 50 degrees to the right of the other runway, so it is a left base entry. Basic VFR flying.

 

[weilke]

So how do you determine the maxim7m distance from the airport to fly a visual pattern in order to avoid obstructions?

That kind of approach may not work at every airport, but it does work at TEB. The fact that the last 10,000 aircraft that did the 'ils6 circle to 1' haven't hit anything at 1300ft is a pretty good tip-off that you'll be fine on the obstructions.

I am not sure why the FAA keeps it as this circling approach. The only other option to get that kind of curved approach path would probably be with a RNP approach, and that would make it pretty useless for the majority of TEB traffic.

 

[Sluggo63]

The altitude you descend to for the circle can be no lower than the MDA, but can be significantly higher if you choose. In this case, with the field in sight from TORBY, there's no need to descend below 1300' until necessary for landing.

I agree. And all this is moot now with the new circling criteria, but... like you said, if I choose, I can stay at 1300'. But, if I also choose, on a LOC 6-circle to 1, I should also be able to descend to the circling MDA and maneuver and be clear of obstacles, if I choose. That's where my heartburn is.

Yes, I've done this circle. No, I haven't hit anything. I get it, but I still think it was a bad/illegal instruction. Again... doesn't matter now. The expanded circling protected airspace starts at TORBY these days

The minimum altitude at TORBY is published. On the chart. You don't descend below that until you either continue past TORBY on the ILS or you do the visual circling to runway 6.

Right, but past TORBY, I could descend to 780 (IIRC) and maneuver down there, but only within 2.3NM from the threshold of 6 and 1.

And the minimum altitude at TORBY is 1300', so you are supposed to comply with that and then make the visual left base for runway 6 (sic-runway 1) on the circle. ... It is a circle to a runway 50 degrees to the right of the other runway, so it is a left base entry. Basic VFR flying.

This is exactly my point. The controller should be using a phrase like, "cleared the visual approach to runway 1, enter left base at TORBY."

That kind of approach may not work at every airport, but it does work at TEB. The fact that the last 10,000 aircraft that did the 'ils6 circle to 1' haven't hit anything at 1300ft is a pretty good tip-off that you'll be fine on the obstructions.

I hate these airports that play "I have a secret" with their procedures. You go somewhere and someone tells you "you should'a done this or that" and when you ask where that's written, "it's not... that's just the way they do it here." Do you know what? Publish it somewhere, so we all know.

There are a lot of airports with special local procedures, and most of them are listed in the Jepp airport pages. There should have been something in the Jepps that said "When landing to the north in VMC weather, crews can expect to get the ILS to runway 6 and circle to runway 1. Crews are expected to commence the circle maneuver at TORBY to enter a left base for runway 1. Crews shall remain at 1300' MSL until established on a normal glidepath for runway 1." (not that this particular Lear crew would have read it anyhow).

 

[MauleSkinner]

Calibr8ted eyeballs?

So what’s the problem with circling in VMC at almost pattern altitude?

 

[MauleSkinner]

This is exactly my point. The controller should be using a phrase like, "cleared the visual approach to runway 1, enter left base at TORBY."

Personally, I’d rather keep my instrument approach clearance...I’ve always hated how they do that at Aspen.

 

[dtuuri]

So what’s the problem with circling in VMC at almost pattern altitude?

At night, at an unfamiliar airport, in order to keep the same sight picture (descent angle), you need to be farther away from the airport and risk being beyond protected airspace. At mountain airports where circling minimums are very high already—it's impossible to both stay within circling boundaries at MDA and make a normal descent for landing when turning final. This is what got the Lear crew at Eagle we discussed earlier. During daylight, though, with good vis, you just need good eyesight. That's all I'm saying and I'm sure you'd agree.

 

[dtuuri]

Personally, I’d rather keep my instrument approach clearance...I’ve always hated how they do that at Aspen.

Aspen's a good example of what I'm saying. You can't remain in IFR protected circling airspace at minimums and hold off descending until turning final. To make a normal descent you need to be VFR and a "visual" would be the only viable technique. So, why not have ATC clear you for that in the first place?

 

[MauleSkinner]

Aspen's a good example of what I'm saying. You can't remain in IFR protected circling airspace at minimums and hold off descending until turning final. To make a normal descent you need to be VFR and a "visual" would be the only viable technique. So, why not have ATC clear you for that in the first place?

So you're saying the Aspen approach cannot be completed as published?

 

[MauleSkinner]

At night, at an unfamiliar airport, in order to keep the same sight picture (descent angle), you need to be farther away from the airport and risk being beyond protected airspace. At mountain airports where circling minimums are very high already—it's impossible to both stay within circling boundaries at MDA and make a normal descent for landing when turning final. This is what got the Lear crew at Eagle we discussed earlier. During daylight, though, with good vis, you just need good eyesight. That's all I'm saying and I'm sure you'd agree.

I don't agree that you need to be further from the airport just because it's night, nor do I agree that KTEB should comply with airspace limitations of KEGE.

 

[dtuuri]

So you're saying the Aspen approach cannot be completed as published?

Yes.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Yes.

I disagree.

 

[dtuuri]

I don't agree that you need to be further from the airport just because it's night, nor do I agree that KTEB should comply with airspace limitations of KEGE.

At an unfamiliar airport I'm saying you can't see what's "out there". Not a controversial statement.

At circling minimums, assuming they're typically well below VFR pattern altitude, you'll be well within circling boundaries when you turn final. If you try to maintain that same sight picture when turning final, but at a higher altitude, you'll be outside of the boundary (or could very well be, depending). It's just simple geometry.

 

[MauleSkinner]

At an unfamiliar airport I'm saying you can't see what's "out there". Not a controversial statement.

At circling minimums, assuming they're typically well below VFR pattern altitude, you'll be well within circling boundaries when you turn final. If you try to maintain that same sight picture when turning final, but at a higher altitude, you'll be outside of the boundary (or could very well be, depending). It's just simple geometry.

So you don’t do visual patterns at night?

You’re being kind of inconsistent here...in one post you say you’re better off with a visual, and in the next you say that’s dangerous because the airspace isn’t protected.

 

[dtuuri]

I disagree.

What gradient will you have at the maximum circling radius on final at MDA? Caveat: I'm not sure whether all airports or Aspen in particular have been upgraded to the newer horizontal limits and my opinion is based on the old ones and my study of it in bygone days.

 

[MauleSkinner]

What gradient will you have at the maximum circling radius on final at MDA? Caveat: I'm not sure whether all airports or Aspen in particular have been upgraded to the newer horizontal limits and my opinion is based on the old ones and my study of it in bygone days.

Who says I have to be on the extended centerline when I leave MDA?

 

[dtuuri]

So you don’t do visual patterns at night?

You’re being kind of inconsistent here...in one post you say you’re better off with a visual, and in the next you say that’s dangerous because the airspace isn’t protected.

I think you're jumping around and cherry picking what I say, too.

Who says I have to be on the extended centerline when I leave MDA?

Well, that's the rub isn't it? If you leave before that, you better know for sure what's in those dark spots at night. On final, there are certain TERPS protections (I'd have to research them, it's been a while), such as lighting, for one, I think. Nothing before that point.

 

[PaulS]

Don't you have to be visual before you circle? Other wise you go missed. If the airport isn't in sight then you remain on the final approach course and go missed. If you have the airport in sight, get inside the circle area and lose the airport, you climb, circle back to the final approach course and go missed.

 

[dtuuri]

Don't you have to be visual before you circle? Other wise you go missed. If the airport isn't in sight then you remain on the final approach course and go missed. If you have the airport in sight, get inside the circle area and lose the airport, you climb, circle back to the final approach course and go missed.

In the context of @MauleSkinner and my conversation a "visual" means an ATC "Cleared visual approach".

 

[MauleSkinner]

Well, that's the rub isn't it? If you leave before that, you better know for sure what's in those dark spots at night. On final, there are certain TERPS protections (I'd have to research them, it's been a while), such as lighting, for one, I think. Nothing before that point.

I’d say that’s where we disagree on what a CTL actually is...I think it’s a visual maneuver. You’ve apparently got something else in mind.

 

[Sluggo63]

I’d say that’s where we disagree on what a CTL actually is...I think it’s a visual maneuver. You’ve apparently got something else in mind.

I think we all agree that a CTL is a visual maneuver, but, and maybe I'm misreading your posts, you seem to insinuate that as long as it's visual, you're not concerned about being outside the circling protected airspace when you're at the circling MDA.

 

[dtuuri]

I’d say that’s where we disagree on what a CTL actually is...I think it’s a visual maneuver. You’ve apparently got something else in mind.

You're must be trying to confuse Paul. Close your eyes Paul. Of course it's a visual maneuver (not "a visual" this time Paul, if you're sneaking a peek). At night, if it isn't lit up, you can't see it! You'd be foolish to descend into a dark hole on downwind or base when you can't see what's there. It killed a 20,000 hour Learjet pilot at Eagle, trying to make a VFR pattern sight picture work at an unfamiliar airport. There are no unlit areas around TEB that I can recall.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I think we all agree that a CTL is a visual maneuver, but, and maybe I'm misreading your posts, you seem to insinuate that as long as it's visual, you're not concerned about being outside the circling protected airspace when you're at the circling MDA.

No, I’m insinuating that if I’m well above MDA, I treat it like a visual with my own obstacle clearance, and that when I descend below MDA, I’ve determined visually that there is no terrain or obstruction between me and the runway.

 

[PaulS]

In the context of @MauleSkinner and my conversation a "visual" means an ATC "Cleared visual approach".

You're must be trying to confuse Paul. Close your eyes Paul. Of course it's a visual maneuver (not "a visual" this time Paul, if you're sneaking a peek). At night, if it isn't lit up, you can't see it! You'd be foolish to descend into a dark hole on downwind or base when you can't see what's there. It killed a 20,000 hour Learjet pilot at Eagle, trying to make a VFR pattern sight picture work at an unfamiliar airport. There are no unlit areas around TEB that I can recall.

Just reread the report and cockpit recording. They were flying the approach at 180 knots, TORBY is at 3.8 miles which was within the 4.5 miles for a Cat E approach. They should have turned at TORBY as instructed and all might have been fine, although the airplane before them broke it off due to unfavorable winds, sounds like they had trouble manuevering. Instead they waited until 1 mile away from the airport to turn, probably going 180 knots. I didn't see whether they had briefed the approach, but my inclination is that they didn't because they thought they had a lot more time than they actually had.

Nowhere in the report did I see ATC say cleared visual approach to them. They were flying an instrument approach, Torby was within the protected area for the speeds they were flying and the instruction ATC made sense for this aircraft being flown the way it was being flown.

The co-pilot had busted his ppl checkride twice for problems with "takeoffs, landings and emergency procedures. He had struggled with normal procedures during his Lear training and crashed the simulator during an ILS approach. He required additional training that postponed his original checkride date in the Lear, and it sounds as though he was struggling with circle to land procedures as that was the last thing to be signed off before his checkride, which he passed. These guys didn't have a chance this day because they didn't realize how far behind that airplane they were. The co-pilot tried to turn over the controls, but after the first attempt failed, I think he should have exerted his PIC status and gone missed to regroup. It's just a sad story.

The only thing that had bothered me about this incident was the ATC instruction to circle at TORBY, which from other comments, I thought was outside the protected area but now I know it was not for the speeds being flown. I should have read the reports again, I would have answered my own question.

Dturri, I'm a newly minted instrument pilot, I like going through these things to learn stuff. I have a good instructor who told me that circling to land, at night, at mda, in instrument conditions, for the type of flying I do, recreational, is probably not a smart thing to be doing. I agree with him. I'd prefer a precision approach, or at least one aligned with the runway and conditions not at minimums. Some will say "what's the point of having the rating if you can't fly to minimums?" My answer to that is we can't all be Aces, if it works for you, have at it.

 

[mtuomi]

I hate these airports that play "I have a secret" with their procedures. You go somewhere and someone tells you "you should'a done this or that" and when you ask where that's written, "it's not... that's just the way they do it here." Do you know what? Publish it somewhere, so we all know.

There are a lot of little local idiosyncrasies like this, even at the really big airports.

ORD for example - the standard is that you get assigned 210 knots, then get cleared for an approach. If you start slowing down, they will yell at you, hard.
So even though AIM 4-4-12 g. says approach clearance removes all prior speed assignments, they still expect you to keep that 210kts until told otherwise (which they will give a bit closer to the FAF).

 

[MauleSkinner]

Dturri, I'm a newly minted instrument pilot, I like going through these things to learn stuff. I have a good instructor who told me that circling to land, at night, at mda, in instrument conditions, for the type of flying I do, recreational, is probably not a smart thing to be doing. I agree with him. I'd prefer a precision approach, or at least one aligned with the runway and conditions not at minimums. Some will say "what's the point of having the rating if you can't fly to minimums?" My answer to that is we can't all be Aces, if it works for you, have at it.

While I understand the whole “personal minimums” thing, also keep in mind that if you make it your goal to be proficient to published minimums, your personal minimums will reasonably be lower than if you only strive to be good enough for your personal minimums, in which case your personal minimums will probably have to increase substantially over time.