visual circling off an instrument approach

[das Uber Soldat]

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.

By day, this is wrong. I originally believed this, however upon calling CASA was informed the contrary. If you're below the circling minima by day, but meet the descent below MDA requirements, you don't have to climb back up to the circling minima to circle.

Sounds stupid but there you go.

[Angle of Attack]

And the funny thing was whenever I had to circle off an NDB approach, and there was scud around dictating to duck down to 300agl by day generally the NDB Tower was the biggest threat to me!

[j3pipercub]

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.

Yes, on a daily basis... I wish I could use RNAV. And we're not talking Shrike or Chieftan size either, over 5700kgs.

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.

Yes, definitely a practice vs academic.

Sounds stupid but there you go.

Errrmm, to me it sounds like a perfectly logical way to allow a pilot to use his/her JUDGEMENT.

j3

[A37575]

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.

Ah yes...the same bloke who as a brand new QFI on the RAAF C130 Hercules at Richmond showing off the steep climb capabilities of his Herc to a bunch of frightened unstrapped journalists down the back, caused one to fall and fracture his skull. Knew the Regulations to the letter, though...

[das Uber Soldat]

Errrmm, to me it sounds like a perfectly logical way to allow a pilot to use his/her JUDGEMENT.

Just like to reinforce the point that, as I said, I'm not making judgement about whats good or bad, or what to do and how to do it with regard to this reg.

When I remarked that it sounds stupid, I simply mean the wording of it. The fact that the circling minima has nothing to do with the minima to circle in many situations. Thats all mate.

[reynoldsno1]

circle around and maneuver as low 300 AGL if required

I don't think so. Cat A/B minimum obstacle clearance is 90m (295ft). Lower limit for OCH for Cat A is 120m (394ft), Cat B 150m (492ft).

Ref: PANS-OPS Ed 5 V2.

[43Inches]

circle around and maneuver as low 300 AGL if required

and

I don't think so. Cat A/B minimum obstacle clearance is 90m (295ft). Lower limit for OCH for Cat A is 120m (394ft), Cat B 150m (492ft).

Ref: PANS-OPS Ed 5 V2.

Both are wrong with regard to Australian rules, AIP states minimum required obstacle clearance cat A & B as 300ft during visual circling. This is the minimum height you must pass over any obstruction until on final, AGL (above ground level) is above terrain not obstacles.

Errrmm, to me it sounds like a perfectly logical way to allow a pilot to use his/her JUDGEMENT.

The Australian rules allow for more judgement from the pilot and it is his final authority which determines whether it is acceptable to land at an aerodrome. We don't have approach bans or any rules prohibiting approaches to minima even in known bad weather, its the pilots choice.

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.

The AIP are not regs but an interpretation document apparently written in plain english for us to understand. Some sections are guidelines only, others using the words must and shall are directly associated with a particular regulation (and usually attach the reference to CAR), these are the ones you must particularly adhere to. However if you operate outside any of the wording you will have a hard time justifying your actions if it goes wrong.

[calogero_vizzini]

I'd call it a visual go-around and visual manoeuvring for the opposite runway.

It's an academic indulgence to harp on about misseds because it's straight in changing to circling etc. Pragmatically you're coming in, got visual, went around (nb "around", not "missed") and re-circuited for the opposite runway.

As long as all the visual part post go around was done with aerodrome minima, whats the problem?

[ballistix71]

Please don't give people information that is out of context. If someone wants to know the airlaw get them to read complete references. As I use Jepp I'll give the references people are referring to;

Jepp Terminal Instrument Approach/Takeoff Procedures 3.10.1 (pg 21)

A missed approach must be executed if:
a. refers to nav tolerances.
b. refers to suspect navaids.
c. refers to not establishing visual reference at or before MAP/DA/RH.

The one being spoken about;
d. a landing cannot be effected from a runway approach, unless a circling approach can be conducted in weather condictions equal or better than those specified for circling; or

e. refers to loss of visual reference when circling.

Section 3.13 Visual circling or during non-precision approach (NPA) deals with the requirements of visual circling. Please note that it does state that ;

'the assumption is that the runway environment will be kept in sight while at the MDA for circling.

Section 3.13.3 is the section that people will refer to when saying that they can circle to land from a straight in approach below the circling minima. When used in conjunction with 3.10.1 at the MDA for a NPA you can only circle to land if the conditions meet those required for a circling approach.

You can't circle to land if you meet the condition to descend below the MDA for a circling approach 'after' having already descended below the circling MDA in conditions that were below the circling minima and would have resulted in you having to conduct missed approach at the circling minima.

If circling and straight in approaches were the same thing then they would only ever list minima for the straight in approach and not for a circling approach. The only way you'd even get close to circling would be if you met visual approach requirements at the MDA for the straight in approach including minimum altitude requirements.

[Capn Bloggs]

You can't circle to land if you meet the condition to descend below the MDA for a circling approach 'after' having already descended below the circling MDA in conditions that were below the circling minima

I disagree. Take VOR 12 at YBAS for example. Inbound from NW. Intending to do a SI approach, get Visual under solid overcast with good vis at 600ft AAL but can't land straight-in for whatever reason.

You are quite legal to maintain terrain clearance visually ie 300ft AGL Cat A/B and manoeuvre for a full circuit back onto 12 or indeed onto 30 if the tower lets you.

If pilots were never permitted to do anything other than land straight-in or go around off a runway approach then the book would say so.

However, don't do it if you don't know the terrain, and make sure you've briefed/considered it beforehand!

[Ando1Bar]

94 replies later and this is still being argued?

Apart from guys in heavy metal whose ops manuals don't permit circling off S-I approaches, this argument seems to be fought between two main groups: those that have real IFR experience and those who are arguing the toss with experience from only an IREX book.

Ballistix, I'm happy that you've learned to reference and retype the Jepps. Have a think what you are going to do next time you conduct a runway aligned (S-I) approach, in the pouring rain, at an airfield which is only available in one direction. You break visual but are above profile because of the unexpected tailwind up your butt. Are you really going to commence a missed approach, climb back up into the soup all while watching your fuel margin get lower and lower? It's your right to, but I'm circling and getting back on the deck as I've only got 20 mins of fuel left before I hit my reserves.

There is nothing stopping you from circling as long as you meet all of the circling requirements. The only time you need to climb to the circling MDA is at night where you cannot see the terrain.

Go back and read the last five pages of replies before posting again - there are some very good arguments from some very experienced pilots.

[tmpffisch]

I'm also stunned this is still being discussed. The rules are clear and simple, and Ando1Bar is 100% correct. Circling MDA is only for flying at night.

If anyone is still in doubt, go speak to your ATO, FOI, Head of Checking & Training or Chief Pilot for some remedial training!

[ballistix71]

Ando1 & Tmp, I do fly IFR and have done for quite some time.

CP looked at the BAS VOR, the circling minima is still above the straight in minima. The cloud base wouldn't be met for visual circling as per the plate. If you plan to circle to land on 12 and briefed a circling approach you wouldn't be going down to the S-I minima in the first place. Are you saying you always brief the 50/50 bet for a straight in approach that you may need to circle?

Tmpffisch: it concerns me that circling MDAs are being touted as night only. If only for night why not call it Night Circling MDA?

Ando1Bar: With 20mins fuel why not go again and compensate for the wind?....Its why there is a section for declarations of emergencies that allow you to continue in conditions below the required minima. Unless your caught out with unexpected weather surely you would have alternate fuel loads?

Arguments regardless of how logical they appear don't give the PIC cart blanche to do what they like. Similarly the perceptions that 'airlines' don't do it but they are different to GA are at odds with the safety culture that the industry tries to put forward.

Rob, using that logic and interpretation I could say that para (d) allows me to circle at the S-I MDA (both day and night) to land on any runway so long as I do not descend below the S-I MDA and I intercept downwind, base or final. For example PH 24 LOC approach would have me circling at 492' AGL at night with circling vis. I meet the requirements of the procedure being flown (the S-I approach) for cloud and circling vis so all is good.

Ultimately, like people have said, the pilot can do what he 'thinks' is the correct actions. Just let those of us who disagree know your flying before we get on the aircraft with you guys. At least then I get to make a decision about my safety that way.

[Capn Bloggs]

Are you saying you always brief the 50/50 bet for a straight in approach that you may need to circle?

No I'm not. But it makes a big difference if I'm in a Baron or PC12 verses a 747.

[A37575]

If anyone is still in doubt, go speak to your ATO, FOI, Head of Checking & Training or Chief Pilot for some remedial training!

And every one of those august appointments will have a different personal opinion if asked singly and all will share the same opinion of the most senior appointment if asked at a conference around the table...

[ballistix71]

Rob not sure what your getting at with the following;

"Why is it safer to scud run under the lowering cloud base to an obstacle clearance height of whichever category, in daylight. Than to continue an approved approach to the same point? be visual at the same point? and continue the "extension" of your approach from the same point?

Even if I am visual at circling minima in daylight depending on airport configuration and where im circling to will determine my "break off" point. I can still continue the approach to my npa mda and break off from there..."

In both the above examples you are effectively stating that you meet the vis requirements prior to the visual circling MDA if I read it correctly. Meeting the circling requirements and then descending means you already have the AD environment in sight. Being visual at the circling minima and opting for a S-I approach and landing also meets the circling requirements.

I see that as a different situation to breaking clear of cloud at the S-I MDA and then deciding to circle to land. If it is ok to do this by day then you could argue the reference to point d. in my earlier post that I could do it an night as I am not below the S-I MDA and I have the circling vis, clear of cloud etc. Not sure how many people would agree with that statement given the consensus seemed to be that the circling MDA must be adhered to at night.

From what I am understanding, you are saying I could also then draw a conclusion that if my vis is ok for circling but not ok for the S-I approach I could circle to land even though I do not meet the requirements to have landed from the S-I approach which should result in a missed approach.

Looking at the charts the S-I approach generally has higher vis requirements (LOC normally the exception). If you could just circle to land why not have the same vis requirement for both?

Eg Using YBAS VOR RWY 12.
I fly the S-I approach at the MDA the visibility is 2.4KM and the cloud base is BKN at 2370'. The vis is ok for circling but not acceptable for a S-I. The cloud is ok for the S-I approach but not for the circling approach. When will you actually conduct a missed approach? At the circling minima you have no idea that you will break clear of cloud and at the S-I you are supposed to do a missed approach because you don't meet the minima.

[knightflyer]

Your ATO, CFI, CP should all have the same opinion, anyone seen the check captains handbook recently published by CASA?? It's very black and white, (no pun intended), attempt to circle from below the circling minima day or night and you fail your check, just as the regs say. By day you may descend below the circling minima once inside the circling area for your category of aircraft to not below minimum obstacle clearance height (NOT AGL) in order to maintain visual circling, not achieve visual for circling. By night, not below circling minima till once inside the circling area and at a point in the cct that you would normally descend from that height. , how many pages for something thats in black and white, read the regs how you like fellas but remember, you are the one that has to explain your actions to the CP if it goes pear shaped, and thats always a lot easier if you have erred on the side of caution, the company may not like it that you didn't give it a "little nudge" to get in but as long as you have given it your best shot within the rules you can't be sacked for bringing 'em back alive. me, several have tried and lost

[ballistix71]

Rob,

Thanks I was getting a bit confused with the analogy. I know this is probably one of the most argued pieces of air law but I always looked at it from the safest option and not from how I can make my boss the most $$.

[desmotronic]

Xcel,
The rules are quite clear.

PM me if you like.

[Ando1Bar]

Ando1Bar: With 20mins fuel why not go again and compensate for the wind?....Its why there is a section for declarations of emergencies that allow you to continue in conditions below the required minima. Unless your caught out with unexpected weather surely you would have alternate fuel loads?

Yep, sounds good. Why didn't I think of that? Declare an emergency and intentionally set out to bust a minima on the second approach despite the fact I was safely visual on the previous approach.

For those who want to join in the debate, jump on:



I'm outta here. I'm comfortable with my view of circling and I have the support of my colleagues and CASA ATOs I've spoken to.