Which direction for turns? VFR practice approach.

MAKG1

MAKG1

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
13,411
Location
California central coast
Display Name
Display name:
MAKG
Looking at the KTCY RNAV RWY 12 approach chart

http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1506/pdf/05815R12.PDF

it prohibits circling southeast of rwy 12-30. The reason is terrain and obstructions in that direction, too close to the 400 AGL minimum.

Rwy 30 is left traffic. That's circling southeast of rwy 12-30. Circling on the other side under VFR would seem to violate 14 CFR 91.126(b).

Which one wins? How do you fly this approach under VFR? Winds usually favor 30, and that's the one most folks use in calm winds as well.
 
MAKG1 said:
Looking at the KTCY RNAV RWY 12 approach chart

http://skyvector.com/files/tpp/1506/pdf/05815R12.PDF

it prohibits circling southeast of rwy 12-30. The reason is terrain and obstructions in that direction, too close to the 400 AGL minimum.

Rwy 30 is left traffic. That's circling southeast of rwy 12-30. Circling on the other side under VFR would seem to violate 14 CFR 91.126(b).

Which one wins? How do you fly this approach under VFR? Winds usually favor 30, and that's the one most folks use in calm winds as well.
Click to expand...

I think you meant to say southwest. Anywho...

Under VFR with the runway environment in sight I would abandon the approach at pattern altitude, join the downwind leg and fly left traffic for the runway, just like all the other VFR traffic potentially there. In VMC I wouldn't circle to the east in a manner that could put me head-on with any traffic on the upwind.

Under IMC and breaking out at MDA I'd certainly circle to the east since you'd be about 600 feet under pattern altitude and obstacles would come into play.
 
A prohibition on circling southeast is typically due to obstructions they are worried about you hitting if you break out at circling minimums. I'm guessing that nice little tower on the south side of the airport. It is not a specific authorization to circle anywhere else or to violate the pattern rules of 91.126.

91.126(b) is till in effect. You fly the approach and when breaking out, follow the standard left pattern rules (TCY doesn't indicated any runway with right traffic). No problem if you are flying it VFR since IFR rules to apply to VFR flights.

IFR in VFR conditions? Cancel IFR or ask for a visual approach instead of the IAP.
 
Unless otherwise authorized or required...
 
If you're flying the approach procedure with a circle-to-land under IFR, and the weather does not permit any other option after you break out, then the opposite direction circling maneuver is effectively required, and the exemption discussed in the Collins letter (see above) applies. Of course, if the conditions were such that normal VFR pattern operations are in progress, one would likely be considered in violation of 91.126(b) and possibly 91.13 if one flew the pattern opposite VFR traffic and that caused a conflict with the other aircraft in the pattern even if you were operating under IFR. Further, if you're flying practice approaches under VFR, then the SIAP restrictions are no longer "required", which would also eliminate that exemption.
 
If this is just hypothetical, then I have nothing to add. If you are actually going to do this, be warned that the RNAV into TCY is not currently authorized, as 12-30 has been shortened to 2800/2500 feet. (They are repaving runway 08-26.) Probably be that way thru July. (I was just there this morning.)
 
Rykymus said:
If this is just hypothetical, then I have nothing to add. If you are actually going to do this, be warned that the RNAV into TCY is not currently authorized, as 12-30 has been shortened to 2800/2500 feet. (They are repaving runway 08-26.) Probably be that way thru July. (I was just there this morning.)
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. Construction over there. Though 2800 feet is not a reason to blow away an approach. Palo Alto is shorter. I believe there are some additional obstructions there due to the construction.

You can still use it for VFR practice approaches (at least, pilot nav). Just not IFR. You won't get a clearance on it. And it's not permanent.

That approach is really convenient for Bay Area folks practicing for currency, due to the nearby IAFs.

That airport is notorious for getting chosen for instrument check rides. Along with Stockton.
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that when operating under IFR, this approach would require circling against the VFR traffic direction. This is because of the phrase "unless authorized or required". It is required by part 97 and 91.175. The approach chart states "Circling NA southwest of Rwy 12-30". This is included in a regulation under part 97. Paragraph 91.175 States "(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports. Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA, when it is necessary to use an instrument approach to a civil airport, each person operating an aircraft must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport."

In the letter sent to me by the FAA Chief Counsel, he wrote that if i had any further questions to call. So I called and I discussed this exact situation with the attorney after he wrote the opinion and he agreed that it was required by regulation. The conditions really don't matter in this case, because anytime it is at or above circling minimums, it is VMC inside of class G where it is legal to operate under VFR with 1 SM and clear of clouds. It would violate 91.126 to cancel IFR and continue under VFR circling north east using right traffic, but if the aircraft remained under IFR and cancelled after landing, it would violate part 97 and 91.175 if left hand traffic were used.
 
You point out a major problem with that opinion, John, which, based on prior discussions, I know led you to follow up. Too bad they didn't issue an update with some more solid guidance, one way or another.

The problem is the reality that the only place to circle using simple pattern maneuvers to 30 is right traffic conflicts with the reality that doing so conflicts with the regular traffic pattern, both a regulatory and safety issue. I think there' sa problem with a rule that essentially says, "you can't go against the flow of traffic except when you can" when the "except if you can" is so fuzzy and potentially dangerous.

TCY is Class G below 700 and MDA is 600 so, even at ceiling minimums, it is VFR and there might be VFR traffic. That's a bad situation, made increasingly worse by a fairly big factor as the ceiling rises. If the ceiling is 800, is it still ok to circle in right traffic just because you happen to be under IFR? How about 900? 1200? 2000? Clear below 12,000? Is "necessary" subject to pilot interpretation based on skill and comfort level? Is a pilot under IFR sudden required to cance so she can join the standard traffic pattern if weather conditions are above a certain level? If so, when the ceiling and visibility is at what?

I don't have answers to that, just pointing out the problem, which I'm guessing is MAKG's concern in posing a good question. "Well, there's always 91.13" is not a good answer.
 
Last edited:
A tangential discussion in my opinion is whether or not circling in the same direction as the VFR traffic flies is safer than circling the opposite way. 91.126(2) states: "Each pilot of a helicopter or a powered parachute must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft". Turbine aircraft are expected to fly a higher VFR pattern for similar reasons. In low visibility conditions, I have a greater chance of spotting opposite direction traffic on base leg while we are pointed at each other, than one of us overtaking the other while flying the same path, particularly a high wing lower than a low wing.
 
John Collins said:
A tangential discussion in my opinion is whether or not circling in the same direction as the VFR traffic flies is safer than circling the opposite way. 91.126(2) states: "Each pilot of a helicopter or a powered parachute must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft". Turbine aircraft are expected to fly a higher VFR pattern for similar reasons. In low visibility conditions, I have a greater chance of spotting opposite direction traffic on base leg while we are pointed at each other, than one of us overtaking the other while flying the same path, particularly a high wing lower than a low wing.
Click to expand...

IMHO, where an airport has this inherent conflict: circling restricted by Part 97 to one side of the runway, which is opposite traffic pattern requirements, priority should be given to establishing a Class E Surface Area for such an airport.
 
aterpster said:
IMHO, where an airport has this inherent conflict: circling restricted by Part 97 to one side of the runway, which is opposite traffic pattern requirements, priority should be given to establishing a Class E Surface Area for such an airport.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I agree completely. The problem isn't the IFR aircraft flying a non-standard pattern; it's flying an non-standard pattern in the face of other traffic.
 
Last edited:
John Collins said:
A tangential discussion in my opinion is whether or not circling in the same direction as the VFR traffic flies is safer than circling the opposite way.
Click to expand...
:confused: I think that question is effectively precluded by the rule itself. Are you suggesting that at a nontowered field, the rule should be reviewed to determine whether allowing traffic to fly in whatever direction they like would be better than standard traffic patterns? Having seen very busy nontowered traffic patterns, the concept scares me.
 
midlifeflyer said:
:confused: I think that question is effectively precluded by the rule itself. Are you suggesting that at a nontowered field, the rule should be reviewed to determine whether allowing traffic to fly in whatever direction they like would be better than standard traffic patterns? Having seen very busy nontowered traffic patterns, the concept scares me.
Click to expand...

No, I am just challanging the assumption that IFR traffic flying in the same direction as the VFR pattern is necessarily a good idea.
 
aterpster said:
IMHO, where an airport has this inherent conflict: circling restricted by Part 97 to one side of the runway, which is opposite traffic pattern requirements, priority should be given to establishing a Class E Surface Area for such an airport.
Click to expand...

If I were king of the US, I would go farther than that. I would require any airport that has instrument approaches would have the same visibility and cloud separation requirements as exists for class E surface areas. I would lower the transition area to the surface for such airports. I don't think it is inherently safe to force IFR aircraft to mix with VFR aircraft in low visibility and without cloud separation requirements.
 
John Collins said:
If I were king of the US, I would go farther than that. I would require any airport that has instrument approaches would have the same visibility and cloud separation requirements as exists for class E surface areas. I would lower the transition area to the surface for such airports. I don't think it is inherently safe to force IFR aircraft to mix with VFR aircraft in low visibility and without cloud separation requirements.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that. But, it is amazing how many small airports want the instrument flight procedures but do not want the restrictions.

When Alaska Airlines was establishing RNP AR at all their non-towered airports in Alaska they made sure a Class E Surface Area was part of the deal. Of course, they have the clout to force such a program.
 
John Collins said:
No, I am just challanging the assumption that IFR traffic flying in the same direction as the VFR pattern is necessarily a good idea.
Click to expand...
At a nontowered airport? I'm not buying the idea that it's safer for an IFR airplane to be operating opposite the VFR traffic pattern any more than it would be safer for a VFR airplane to operate opposite the rest of the traffic. The assumption that it is safer for everyone to be operating in the same direction is fundamental to 91.126(b), and if you reject that for IFR aircraft, you must therefore reject 91.126(b) entirely. Since the FAA has been pretty hard on that particular subject in past enforcements, I don't see that as a viable position.

Sure, if the weather is down so there's no VFR traffic in the pattern, I'm fine with circling opposite the VFR pattern per the letter John linked. OTOH, I feel reasonably certain that if a conflict developed in good VFR conditions between a VFR aircraft following the published pattern and an IFR aircraft circling opposite the published traffic pattern because of a circling restriction, despite what it says in John's letter, the FAA would find the IFR pilot to be in violation of 91.13 careless/reckless if not 91.126(b).
 
Ron Levy said:
At a nontowered airport? I'm not buying the idea that it's safer for an IFR airplane to be operating opposite the VFR traffic pattern any more than it would be safer for a VFR airplane to operate opposite the rest of the traffic. The assumption that it is safer for everyone to be operating in the same direction is fundamental to 91.126(b), and if you reject that for IFR aircraft, you must therefore reject 91.126(b) entirely. Since the FAA has been pretty hard on that particular subject in past enforcements, I don't see that as a viable position.

Sure, if the weather is down so there's no VFR traffic in the pattern, I'm fine with circling opposite the VFR pattern per the letter John linked. OTOH, I feel reasonably certain that if a conflict developed in good VFR conditions between a VFR aircraft following the published pattern and an IFR aircraft circling opposite the published traffic pattern because of a circling restriction, despite what it says in John's letter, the FAA would find the IFR pilot to be in violation of 91.13 careless/reckless if not 91.126(b).
Click to expand...

I think the point he was making that transition areas should go to the surface, thus precluding conflicts in lousy weather conditions (less than 1,000 and/or 3 miles).

If that were done, then there would be no requirement for communications capability with ATC on the airport's surface.
 
aterpster said:
I think the point he was making that transition areas should go to the surface, thus precluding conflicts in lousy weather conditions (less than 1,000 and/or 3 miles).

If that were done, then there would be no requirement for communications capability with ATC on the airport's surface.
Click to expand...
:confused: Is there such a requirement? IOW to establish an IAP with only a transition area to, say 700 feet, there needs to be communications capability with ATC at the surface? Or am I misreading you?

I'm fuzzy on this but I thought it was the reverse, that surface ATC communications capability was a prerequisite for establishing controlled airspace to the surface.
 
azure said:
:confused: Is there such a requirement? IOW to establish an IAP with only a transition area to, say 700 feet, there needs to be communications capability with ATC at the surface? Or am I misreading you?

I'm fuzzy on this but I thought it was the reverse, that surface ATC communications capability was a prerequisite for establishing controlled airspace to the surface.
Click to expand...

You are correct. For a Class E Surface Area there needs to be both weather reporting and communications with ATC on the surface of the airport.

For an airport with a 700 transition area communications need exist only at the IAF.

So, in John's hypothetical all transition areas would go to the surface, thus eliminating selective Class E Surface Areas. So, what would be the purpose of requiring communications to the surface at all those airports, except those with an operating control tower? Without a tower, it's one-in/one-out anyway.
 
Well don't be the odd ball!!!

If I'm comming in and I hear someone saying over the radio they are in bound on the what ever approach, circling for runway blah blah, I'd expect them to fly the approach as it's shown on the plate.

I don't really know or care if you're IFR or VFR.

For our company check rides we aim for VFR as it saves time, when we do a circle we do it as depicted on the plate.

My biggest thing is predictability, if you're talking approaches do what the plate says, as that's what folks are going to be expecting.


There are also plenty of times you will need to shoot a IMC IFR approach and there may still be VFR pattern traffic.
OVC020, still great for pattern ops or local stuff, but if I'm comming in from a long cross country you bet I'm IFR and punching through on the IAP.

Just communicate and be predictable.
 
Last edited:
Being predictable sounds good, but non instrument rated pilots who happen to be in the pattern don't usually have approach plates. Even instrument rated pilots may not have familiarized themselves with the plates for a particular airport when they're operating under VFR.

I'm not sure what the best solution is, or if there even is one.

Of course, communicating one's position and intentions is always helpful.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Being predictable sounds good, but non instrument rated pilots who happen to be in the pattern don't usually have approach plates. Even instrument rated pilots may not have familiarized themselves with the plates for a particular airport when they're operating under VFR.

I'm not sure what the best solution is, or if there even is one.

Of course, communicating one's position and intentions is always helpful.
Click to expand...

The ideal solution from a safety standpoint, in my opinion obviously, is to join the VFR pattern if the weather permits and there's traffic already in the pattern.

I see no reason to continue a descent to the MDA and circle the opposite direction if weather conditions are good.
 
Last edited:
aterpster said:
So, in John's hypothetical all transition areas would go to the surface, thus eliminating selective Class E Surface Areas. So, what would be the purpose of requiring communications to the surface at all those airports, except those with an operating control tower? Without a tower, it's one-in/one-out anyway.
Click to expand...
What is the reason for it now? What would change if all transition areas were to the surface? Other than the cost of maintaining the additional comm equipment, of course...
 
Here's what the AIM (I know, everyone's favorite document) says in 5-4-19:

f. Circling Minimums. In some busy terminal areas, ATC may not allow circling and circling minimums will not be published. Published circling minimums provide obstacle clearance when pilots remain within the appropriate area of protection. Pilots should remain at or above the circling altitude until the aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers. Circling may require maneuvers at low altitude, at low airspeed, and in marginal weather conditions. Pilots must use sound judgment, have an indepth knowledge of their capabilities, and fully understand the aircraft performance to determine the exact circling maneuver since weather, unique airport design, and the aircraft position, altitude, and airspeed must all be considered. The following basic rules apply:
1. Maneuver the shortest path to the base or downwind leg, as appropriate, considering existing weather conditions. There is no restriction from passing over the airport or other runways.
2. It should be recognized that circling maneuvers may be made while VFR or other flying is in progress at the airport. Standard left turns or specific instruction from the controller for maneuvering must be considered when circling to land.
3. At airports without a control tower, it may be desirable to fly over the airport to observe wind and turn indicators and other traffic which may be on the runway or flying in the vicinity of the airport.
 
azure said:
What is the reason for it now? What would change if all transition areas were to the surface? Other than the cost of maintaining the additional comm equipment, of course...
Click to expand...

Read John's Post #18.

It will never happen, though. Let's say it did for sake of discussion. Why would ATC comm suddenly be required when presently at IFR airports without a surface area it is not required?
 
James331 said:
Well don't be the odd ball!!!

If I'm comming in and I hear someone saying over the radio they are in bound on the what ever approach, circling for runway blah blah, I'd expect them to fly the approach as it's shown on the plate.
Click to expand...
That may work for you, but not for a Student Pilot on his/her first solo. And that solo Student isn't going to be expecting anyone to be flying opposite the published pattern direction, either. That is why you shouldn't circle opposite published pattern direction unless the weather is so bad you have to, in which case there shouldn't be any solo Students in the pattern.
 
Turningfinal said:
The ideal solution from a safety standpoint, in my opinion obviously, is to join the VFR pattern if the weather permits and there's traffic already in the pattern.

I see no reason to continue a descent to the MDA and circle the opposite direction if weather conditions are good.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
 
Turningfinal said:
...I see no reason to continue a descent to the MDA and circle the opposite direction if weather conditions are good.
Click to expand...

And MDA is a minimum altitude, not a mandatory altitude.
 
aterpster said:
Except when being given an instrument check by Capt. Ron. :eek:
Click to expand...
No, it's definitely a minimum altitude when I'm giving the ride -- just like it says in the PTS. I teach it as a hard floor, when 100 feet of maneuvering room above the floor, so if you're smart, you aim 50 high.
 
Ron Levy said:
No, it's definitely a minimum altitude when I'm giving the ride -- just like it says in the PTS. I teach it as a hard floor, when 100 feet of maneuvering room above the floor, so if you're smart, you aim 50 high.
Click to expand...

That's still way too low for my personal minimums. When the weather is lousy, it is a high risk procedure.
 
aterpster said:
That's still way too low for my personal minimums. When the weather is lousy, it is a high risk procedure.
Click to expand...
No argument there, but when I'm prepping someone for an IR practical test or giving an IPC, I have to do it per the PTS.
 
aterpster said:
Read John's Post #18.

It will never happen, though. Let's say it did for sake of discussion. Why would ATC comm suddenly be required when presently at IFR airports without a surface area it is not required?
Click to expand...
I did read it. I'm still not clear on why it's required for a surface area. I can think of reasons why it's a good idea, and for sure I would prefer to have it (see the thread Center Always Looking For Us After Landing), but that's not a strong enough reason to require it.
 
azure said:
I did read it. I'm still not clear on why it's required for a surface area. I can think of reasons why it's a good idea, and for sure I would prefer to have it (see the thread Center Always Looking For Us After Landing), but that's not a strong enough reason to require it.
Click to expand...

It's never been clear to me either.
 
John Collins said:
If I were king of the US, I would go farther than that. I would require any airport that has instrument approaches would have the same visibility and cloud separation requirements as exists for class E surface areas. I would lower the transition area to the surface for such airports. I don't think it is inherently safe to force IFR aircraft to mix with VFR aircraft in low visibility and without cloud separation requirements.
Click to expand...

Nothing is forcing IFR aircraft to mix with VFR aircraft in uncontrolled airspace. There are many reasons to have higher personal minimums than the minimums on the Approach Plate. Not wanting to fly IFR in uncontrolled airspace is a perfectly good reason to raise your personal minimum to remain in controlled airspace. That being said, I don't like it either and agree with you that Surface Areas should be established for any airport with Instrument Approach minimums low enough to allow IFR flight in uncontrolled airspace. The requirement for radio communication with ATC for establishment of a Surface Area maybe should be reevaluated. Reluctance by Airport management to have a Surface Area could be countered with "your choice, Surface Area or higher minimums."
 
I'm wondering to about the Radio communication requirement for establishment of a Surface Area. We'd probably have to go back to when the Control Zone was invented, long before the cell phone and all of our other present day means of communication were considered. With the exception of the very few Airport Traffic Areas that weren't within Control Zones, Class D was simply a new name for what already existed. The term Class E Surface Area had to be invented to cover the Non Towered Control Zones and the extensions and other odd shapes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top