Circling Approach in a Cat D Full Flight Simulator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Circling Approach in a Cat D Full Flight Simulator
Item 56 of the instrument rating test form requires a circling approach flown safely from a selected instrument approach. The relevant CAO does not state a minimum visibility to be applied only that the circling MDA must be respected. The minimum published visibility in AIP for Category C aircraft for all Australian aerodromes is 4.0 kms.
During a recent CASA observed instrument rating test in a jet transport simulator the instructor set the cloud base just above the circling MDA and visibility 4.0 kms. The pilot under test objected saying although the simulator was certified for circling approaches, the visual scene was limited to ninety degrees either side meaning once the pilot had passed the end of the runway he had no more visual acquisition of the runway environment and thus would be required to make a missed approach.
The instructor advised the pilot to utilise the EFIS MAP mode and turn base after a specified time. The pilot under test again objected saying that meant he was now flying heads down on instruments in order to watch the aircraft progress on the moving map display and that was prohibited because the circling approach is a visual manoeuvre.
The pilot then suggested he would continue downwind and turn base keeping within the 4.2 nm MDA protected area and maintain the circling MDA until reaching the desired glide path profile where he would descend on final for landing. The instructor refused to accept this option saying the visibility had been pre-set at the AIP minimum visibility of 4 kms and going to 4.2 miles from the runway would put the runway out of sight.
The pilot said you can't have it both ways. In one instant when I lose the runway environment because of the visual cut off angle of the side window you say go on instruments and use the moving map until you see the runway on base and final. Then you contradict yourself by saying I am not allowed to use the AIP allowable circling area of 4.2 nm for Category C because I will lose sight of the runway with 4.0 kms IAL visibility for Cat C circling.
The CIR requires a circling approach. Where a company procedure does not permit a circling approach in the type of aircraft concerned then the circling approach for the CIR is cancelled - but with a restriction. Many full flight Category D simulators in Australia are certified for circling approaches despite their visual displays being limited to 90 degrees either side of centre. It is more or less accepted by CASA that it is thereby impossible to have the runway environment in sight at all times in the circling manoeuvre, and heads down on instruments after passing the last visual cue at the landing end of the runway is accepted as part and parcel of the simulator visuals inherent limitation. In other words a little bit of "cheating" is allowed in order to get the circling box ticked off.
That being the case it is downright wrong and unfair for an instructor or check pilot to insist on a limiting visibility for a circling approach yet disallow the use of the 4.2nm protected area. Comments?
During a recent CASA observed instrument rating test in a jet transport simulator the instructor set the cloud base just above the circling MDA and visibility 4.0 kms. The pilot under test objected saying although the simulator was certified for circling approaches, the visual scene was limited to ninety degrees either side meaning once the pilot had passed the end of the runway he had no more visual acquisition of the runway environment and thus would be required to make a missed approach.
The instructor advised the pilot to utilise the EFIS MAP mode and turn base after a specified time. The pilot under test again objected saying that meant he was now flying heads down on instruments in order to watch the aircraft progress on the moving map display and that was prohibited because the circling approach is a visual manoeuvre.
The pilot then suggested he would continue downwind and turn base keeping within the 4.2 nm MDA protected area and maintain the circling MDA until reaching the desired glide path profile where he would descend on final for landing. The instructor refused to accept this option saying the visibility had been pre-set at the AIP minimum visibility of 4 kms and going to 4.2 miles from the runway would put the runway out of sight.
The pilot said you can't have it both ways. In one instant when I lose the runway environment because of the visual cut off angle of the side window you say go on instruments and use the moving map until you see the runway on base and final. Then you contradict yourself by saying I am not allowed to use the AIP allowable circling area of 4.2 nm for Category C because I will lose sight of the runway with 4.0 kms IAL visibility for Cat C circling.
The CIR requires a circling approach. Where a company procedure does not permit a circling approach in the type of aircraft concerned then the circling approach for the CIR is cancelled - but with a restriction. Many full flight Category D simulators in Australia are certified for circling approaches despite their visual displays being limited to 90 degrees either side of centre. It is more or less accepted by CASA that it is thereby impossible to have the runway environment in sight at all times in the circling manoeuvre, and heads down on instruments after passing the last visual cue at the landing end of the runway is accepted as part and parcel of the simulator visuals inherent limitation. In other words a little bit of "cheating" is allowed in order to get the circling box ticked off.
That being the case it is downright wrong and unfair for an instructor or check pilot to insist on a limiting visibility for a circling approach yet disallow the use of the 4.2nm protected area. Comments?
The Captain would be within his right to conduct the missed appch when the runway was lost from sight in the sim, however personally I have found saying anything other than 'yes sir' in the sim serves only to extend the debrief and lower the score.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
3 Posts
Sounds like Instructor ego at full speed, not a rare event unfortunately.
I have 1500 hours as an Instrucor in a level D, with reduced, ie less than 180 degree, vision and the manouver was a horses butt to even consider to be relvant to real life.
It was impossible to view the threshold after passing abeam, setting the so called visibility at the required level was a guess as the vision was at my time not sufficiently accurate to do this with any honesty.
This was in Alteon and CAE simulator centers so a general problem.
CAE in Holland do not do low level circling approaches in the Simulator and in the European sphere not in real life either.
For my sins I called threshold passage from the Instructor's map and allowed the timing to be completed and the turn onto final to the landing was achievable to satisfy me, the CASA rep of the time, my Alteon auditor and the consensus of fellow instructors.
In the more modern, google picture, and wider vision angles some portion of the approach lights MAY be visible, not current so not sure.
Australia is the last bastion of the circling approach, remember when we were FORBIDDEN to do straight-in, MUST do 3 legs of a circuit!!! Ansett WA was allowed to do "drift down circuits" prior to "the date" after some hand wringing by the CASA of the day.
Pilots like this one are well served to stand their ground when the ego factor runs amuck. There is nothing like a Simulator walk off to clear the air in cases like this.
I know, I did it as a canditate in a large Airline and commom sense prevailed, not much fun for an hour or so but worth the effort.
I have 1500 hours as an Instrucor in a level D, with reduced, ie less than 180 degree, vision and the manouver was a horses butt to even consider to be relvant to real life.
It was impossible to view the threshold after passing abeam, setting the so called visibility at the required level was a guess as the vision was at my time not sufficiently accurate to do this with any honesty.
This was in Alteon and CAE simulator centers so a general problem.
CAE in Holland do not do low level circling approaches in the Simulator and in the European sphere not in real life either.
For my sins I called threshold passage from the Instructor's map and allowed the timing to be completed and the turn onto final to the landing was achievable to satisfy me, the CASA rep of the time, my Alteon auditor and the consensus of fellow instructors.
In the more modern, google picture, and wider vision angles some portion of the approach lights MAY be visible, not current so not sure.
Australia is the last bastion of the circling approach, remember when we were FORBIDDEN to do straight-in, MUST do 3 legs of a circuit!!! Ansett WA was allowed to do "drift down circuits" prior to "the date" after some hand wringing by the CASA of the day.
Pilots like this one are well served to stand their ground when the ego factor runs amuck. There is nothing like a Simulator walk off to clear the air in cases like this.
I know, I did it as a canditate in a large Airline and commom sense prevailed, not much fun for an hour or so but worth the effort.
IMO it is impossible to do a safe circling approach staying within 4km of the runway environment in a biggish jet that has a Vref of 140ish. One must rollout on final at less than 300ft to remain inside 4km during the widest part of the base turn. In VMC, ie 5km vis, no problem, just stay inside the circling area for best protection.
As for the SIM, I think the testee is going a little overboard, as the downwind leg is not flown using the runway for directional guidance; after getting to the correct spacing, you'd be flying a track to get to the timing for the base turn onto final. Provided an accurate time is started, either as GB suggested by the SIMO calling abeam, or making an allowance for the SIM visuals (in my case and extra 10" after losing the threshold), the base turn can be done pretty accurately. The fact that you can't see the threshold for the whole of the downwind leg is a given and would probably also occur in the aircraft unless you keep it so tight it becomes ridiculous.
In any case, the company should have the SIM idiosyncrasies sorted out as an SOP ie how it is going to be done well before some poor line driver has to make a stand.
As for the SIM, I think the testee is going a little overboard, as the downwind leg is not flown using the runway for directional guidance; after getting to the correct spacing, you'd be flying a track to get to the timing for the base turn onto final. Provided an accurate time is started, either as GB suggested by the SIMO calling abeam, or making an allowance for the SIM visuals (in my case and extra 10" after losing the threshold), the base turn can be done pretty accurately. The fact that you can't see the threshold for the whole of the downwind leg is a given and would probably also occur in the aircraft unless you keep it so tight it becomes ridiculous.
In any case, the company should have the SIM idiosyncrasies sorted out as an SOP ie how it is going to be done well before some poor line driver has to make a stand.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Wherever the hotel drink ticket is valid
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where does it say that you must be able to maintain the runway in sight to complete a circling approach? I thought that a missed approach was only required if the visibility reduced below the minima (4km). In that case, it is perfectly reasonable to expect a pilot to circle above obstacle clearance height as long as the minimum level of visibility is maintained.
Now, for a night circling approach, we start to get a little more convoluted as you can only descend from MDA once you can conduct a continuous descent to land, which would clearly require some sense of runway location in relation to flight path.
So for the purposes of re-issuing a CIR, you could require a day circling approach at the minimum visibility for the approach.
Icarus
NB - Jepps are in the crew room so I have elected to shoot my mouth off without referring to the good books. Any errors in fact are made without apology and minimal embarrassment!
Now, for a night circling approach, we start to get a little more convoluted as you can only descend from MDA once you can conduct a continuous descent to land, which would clearly require some sense of runway location in relation to flight path.
So for the purposes of re-issuing a CIR, you could require a day circling approach at the minimum visibility for the approach.
Icarus
NB - Jepps are in the crew room so I have elected to shoot my mouth off without referring to the good books. Any errors in fact are made without apology and minimal embarrassment!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for a night circling approach, we start to get a little more convoluted as you can only descend from MDA once you can conduct a continuous descent to land,
But to deliberately descend below the circling MDA without certain knowledge of the position of the critical obstacle purely to achieve a favourable descent profile, is mindless and the legal people would crucify you if you survived. There is no point in having a circling MDA (Minimum Descent Altitude) if you are going to flaunt it at night where it may be impossible to judge terrain clearance immediately below the aircraft. The AIP states that you are entirely responsible for obstacle clearance once you choose to leave the MDA (on downwind or base -my words)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus, I've got the gobbledegookbook handy.
AIP ENR 1.5, 1.7.3
"During visual circling or during NPA, descent below MDA may only occur when the pilot:
c) maintains visual contact with the landing runway environment (ie runway threshold or approach lights, or other markings identifiable with the runway)."
AIP ENR 1.5, 1.7.3
"During visual circling or during NPA, descent below MDA may only occur when the pilot:
c) maintains visual contact with the landing runway environment (ie runway threshold or approach lights, or other markings identifiable with the runway)."
He's good - deserves a pass just for having spare capacity to argue on downwind....
Perhaps a better way to keep the simism's out of it and yet still get in a legal circle tick would be to set up the scenario to require a circle to a 90deg cross runway rather than a 180 to the opposite end.
Perhaps a better way to keep the simism's out of it and yet still get in a legal circle tick would be to set up the scenario to require a circle to a 90deg cross runway rather than a 180 to the opposite end.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a go Mate
Ramble On you just beat me to it. With a cross runway you can maintain some visual reference. The thing is though that some guys are just too serious. It is a SIM and the whole idea is that it gives you an opportunity to practice things out of the ordinary. Can you hold an altitude, heading, and mentally calculate a visual turning point? Can you hand fly a turn on to final in a safe and accurate manner at night? It gives you a chance to show that you have some ability. Of course I know that the whole idea of the SIM ride is to adhere to Company SOP's but please think outside the square and have a go.
it would be very courageous of the pilot to commence descent below the circling MDA at any time at night until you are established within the approach splay where obstacle clearance to the threshold is guaranteed - especially if you have PAPI/VASIS guidance from four miles.
