visual circling off an instrument approach

[desmotronic]

Mainframe,

I think you missed the point. Johnny specifically asked about daylight circling approaches in vmc and if he could circle from the straight in mda. The answer is still yes.

In regards to the airworthiness of the aircraft at Young please refer to CAO 20.18 10.1 below. No way was that aircraft safe or legal.

10 Serviceability
10.1 In the case of a charter or regular public transport aircraft, all instruments and
equipment fitted to the aircraft must be serviceable before take-off, unless:
(a) flight with unserviceable instruments or equipment has been approved by CASA,
subject to such conditions as CASA specifies; or
(b) the unserviceability is a permissible unserviceability set out in the minimum
equipment list for the aircraft and any applicable conditions under subregulation
37 (2) of the Regulations have been complied with; or
(c) CASA has approved the flight with the unserviceable instrument or equipment
and any applicable conditions that CASA has specified in writing have been
complied with; or
(d) the unserviceable instrument or equipment is a passenger convenience item only
and does not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft.

[Mainframe]

Desmo,

Point taken, he did state circling by day, not night.

Night circling off an approach in marginal weather is a completely different game,
and hopefully Johnny will take into account my mistake in mentioning night circling and maybe add it to his store of knowledge anyway.

No argument that the aircraft was definitely unsafe and did not even meet the minimum requirements for IFR RPT.

[das Uber Soldat]

Finally got through to CASA on this issue. Turns out I was wrong.

A visual circuit can be conducted below visual circling minima after a landing cannot be conducted off a S-1 as long as the requirements for descent below MDA are met (in the day).

Apologies for providing incorrect advice.

[The Green Goblin]

Finally got through to CASA on this issue. Turns out I was wrong.

A visual circuit can be conducted below visual circling minima after a landing cannot be conducted off a S-1 as long as the requirements for descent below MDA are met (in the day).

Apologies for providing incorrect advice.

At least you're man enough to eat your humble pie

I've circled off a runway approach many times below the circling height (although above 300 AGL) when there is only an approach onto one runway and the downwind was unacceptable to land on that particular runway, with the reciprocal runway being the better choice.

[The Green Goblin]

You can't take the 300ft obstacle clearance for granted if you circle at the straight in MDA, ( ex: Albury )
I think any one doing this has rocks in their head,

Everybody agrees with that.

If you planned to do the runway approach by day, got visual but couldn't land, then provided you could maintain the runway in sight with the required visibility and maintained obstacle clearance there is nothing stopping you from circling.

I'd be pretty hesitant to do it in anything bigger than a 10 seat cabin twin however.

[Monopole]

A visual circuit can be conducted below visual circling minima after a landing cannot be conducted off a S-1 as long as the requirements for descent below MDA are met (in the day).

Personally I am astounded that that is the case. But if that is the ruling than that is the ruling.

It has been said many times, that the regs need to be a little less ambiguous, and I still cant for the life of me read this particular scenario the same way as the likes of TGG.......

The argument is a mute point for me these days anyway as both my company SOPs prevent us from circling at the OCA and the aircraft configuration for a S/I approach would have you doing a missed approach at the MDA (not even at the MAP), but I still dont think I would of been happy doing it in previous types.

[The Green Goblin]

It has been said many times, that the regs need to be a little less ambiguous, and I still cant for the life of me read this particular scenario the same way as the likes of TGG.......

As I understand it there are different scenarios depending on the approach you are doing.

Conduct a GPS/DME arrival - generally the minima for the approach will be the circling minima. By day you may descend below provided you maintain the obstacle and visibility requirements and clear of cloud. At night remain at the circling MDA until you can land off a normal descent profile for your aeroplane type.

NDB/VOR - Some approaches are runway approaches and others require circling. I have noticed a lot of the circling style approaches being replaced with runway approaches such as rottnest of late. A Circling approach only has the circling minima whilst the runway approach will let you get lower due to the runway alignment. On a runway approach if you plan to circle then you must use the circling minima, if you plan to land off the approach you may use the lower minima, however by day you may circle if you are visual and satisfy the requirements. At night you would be obligated to conduct a missed approach. At night I would also be hesitant to climb to the circling minima of a runway approach if I could not land at the MDA. I would conduct a missed approach and start the process again. Perhaps in a light piston twin I would consider it, but not in a >5700 aeroplane.

ILS/LLZ - You'd raise a few eyebrows with ATC if you started circling.

GPS - Generally similar minimas to the runway VOR/NDB approaches with the same requirements.

[john_tullamarine]

Makes you wonder why Air Services chart designers would spend all that money and effort publishing various circling MDA minima for different categories of aircraft when all the pilot has to do is study his WAC chart beforehand as part of the planning process and calculate his own MDA.

I know, full well, that Tee Emm has posted a rhetorical question with a wry smile here. I know he has a good knowledge of chart realities and the fanciful optimism shown by many of the younger set. I make the experience distinction because the majority of the more experienced set are still here because they haven't stuck their necks out and taken all that many of the sillier chances available to pilots ...

However, at the expense of being boring, the problem is that none of these charts has sufficiently accurate data to stake your life on down low and dirty .. anyone who tries to use a WAC to figure hard bits down low can only be described as not very bright ... One needs to keep in mind that the procedures designer goes out and flight checks his/her chart data and that his/her initial drafting work is based on the best data available at the time ... and that, generally, is a lot better than WACs.

I wouldn't even stake my life solely on a 1:5000 detailed topo for circling - too many mistakes in the charts out there - without flying it by day first AT the desired level and examining within a reasonable radius from the aerodrome.

[AerocatS2A]

It's important to bear in mind when discussing these types of scenarios that there is the rules and there is safety and the two don't necessarily agree. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is safe in a particular set of circumstances. With everything going for you, intimate knowledge of the aerodrome, and good visibility (not just the min required), there are times when it is relatively safe to descend by day below the MDA. There are also times when it is not.

The answer to the questions "can I ... ?" and "should I ... ?" are often different and in these threads people often answer a "can I ...?" question with a "should I ...?" answer and then great discussion ensues with most of the participants talking past each other.

[john_tullamarine]

"Can I ?" is for the checkie to sign you off and provides a sound basis for "Should I ?" which is for the day to day on the line decision process.

He who considers the former to the exclusion of the latter may just come unstuck at some stage.

Such discussions here ought to look at both so that those coming up the ladder can benefit from the many very experienced folk on PPRuNe. As many have observed none of us has the time to make all the mistakes ourselves ...

[Johnny_56]

Hey guys,

Thanks for all the replies. I'm pretty new to using an instrument rating in anger and this popped up a while back and we had a few different schools of thought on the matter.

So just so i have it straight.

In day you can circle at the straight in minima (or below, so long as you have the required obstacle clearance) to land on whichever runway you want, so long as you maintain vis, clear of cloud, can see the runway environment etc.

At night you can only circle at the circling MDA, descending only when you have intercepted a point in the circuit where you can descend for a landing (or something like that - i don't have the jepps in front of me).

Thanks again, much appreciated

[Jabawocky]

Took a few pages hey!

[Tinstaafl]

If you decide to circle then the weather conditions also have meet the circling minima. Don't forget a precision approach can have its DH lower than the 300' minimum obstacle clearance required for circling so you may have to climb before circling.

At night off a straight-in/landing/runway approach you will have to climb to the circling MDA before circling (if the circling MDA is higher than the straight-in MDA.

[NorthSouth]

johnny_56:

In day you can circle at the straight in minima (or below, so long as you have the required obstacle clearance) to land on whichever runway you want, so long as you maintain vis, clear of cloud, can see the runway environment etc.

At night you can only circle at the circling MDA, descending only when you have intercepted a point in the circuit where you can descend for a landing (or something like that - i don't have the jepps in front of me).

I can't believe that's allowed in Oz. In the UK you most certainly cannot circle at the straight in minima, day or night. Take the example of a Cat 1 ILS with a DH of 200 ft, but where there's no ILS to the other end so you're flying it in a tailwind with the intention of circling to land from the other end. You get to 300 ft and see the lights. Brilliant! But the circling OCH is 395 ft because there's a 100ft mast under the downwind (Cat A/B MOC 295ft). So you climb to 400ft as you're turning off the ILS on to the downwind and very soon you find yourself in cloud. So you have to do a messy climbing go-around back towards the airfield. What's the point of that?
If the intention is to fly a circling approach it seems to me to be madness to continue descending below the circling minima, knowing that you have to climb again.
NS

[das Uber Soldat]

I think the spirit of the reg is that you must intend on actually landing on the runway associated with the runway aligned approach.

Hence, if before starting the approach you knew that the wind was not suitable to use the S-!, then you need to use the circling minima, even in the day.

Only in the situation where you expected to use runway associated with the S-1, but then were unable to for some reason once visual, would you then be able to circle at this new, lower minima providing of course that you met the descent below MDA requirements in the first place.

Speaking with CASA about the issue a while back they made it fairly clear that they would take a fairly dim view to people intentionally using the S-1 minima whilst knowingly having the intent to circle to another runway from the outset.

[Jack Ranga]

mmmmmm..........'in the spirit of'

There's no way I'd be doing anything in the spirit of what CASA intended.

I'd be listening very carefully to those who've been there and done it and surivived it and have taught it and checked it in airline ops

[das Uber Soldat]

Im not passing judgment on what is a good idea or not, what to do or how to do it. Only relaying what was told to me. Something along the lines of 'if you absolutely had the intention of landing off the S-1 on its associated runway, but found yourself at the minima and unable to land on that runway for whatever reason, then you could by day circle at this reduced minima asl ong as you met the descent below MDA criteria.'

This whole section of the regs are terribly written in the first place. In fact all the regs are terribly written, but thats a different thread.

[43Inches]

You get to 300 ft and see the lights. Brilliant! But the circling OCH is 395 ft because there's a 100ft mast under the downwind (Cat A/B MOC 295ft). So you climb to 400ft as you're turning off the ILS on to the downwind and very soon you find yourself in cloud. So you have to do a messy climbing go-around back towards the airfield. What's the point of that?
If the intention is to fly a circling approach it seems to me to be madness to continue descending below the circling minima, knowing that you have to climb again.
NS

You can not climb to achieve the minimum circling height as the AIP states;

1. That you must maintain at least minimum obstacle clearance until established on final approach (visual circling by day requirement). This means if there is an obstacle which restricts your descent you can not descend until beyond it.

2. If circling is not possible a missed approach must be commenced (missed approach requirement). If you are already below the minimum height you would require during your circle to land then you can not circle and a missed aproach must be commenced unless you can land straight-in. Once a missed approach is commenced the procedure must be completed.

[Jack Ranga]

This whole section of the regs are terribly written in the first place. In fact all the regs are terribly written, but thats a different thread.

Agree totally with you, my personal opinion, there are not that many ME-CIR Instructors that I would trust to have enough experience to teach you how to stay alive left in GA.

There are a few crusty old bastards on here, and you'll work out who they are, that may just save your skin if you listen (read) carefully to what they have to say.

(Not targetting you das, when I say 'you' I mean all of us)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

In years past, I did multiple MECIR renewals with the late Noel Bellamy, who prided himself on knowing the regs to the letter, and took great pleasure in winning the debate with any FOI foolish enough to argue about what he could and could not do in situations like this.

I would be interested to hear from any experienced instrument rated GA pilots on whether this is a real issue today or just of academic interest.

Maybe I am spoilt! Have yet to go somewhere that my TSO 145/6 Garmin 430 would not allow me to fly a straight-in approach.

Are there really professional pilots out there who don't have the option flying a GPS RNAV appr. I show my age by feeling the need to have an ADF on board, but apart from maintaining currency and for renewals - I never use it.

Dr