Circle to Land at Minimums

[dmccormack]

Has anyone actually done a CTL maneuver at minimums?

What was the situation? Did you have an alternate?

 

[vontresc]

Well almost. We did it once at CTL minimums + at best 100' during my IR training. Convinced me that it wasn't something I really wanted to do all that often.

 

[poadeleted20]

Has anyone actually done a CTL maneuver at minimums?

Yes.

What was the situation?

A lot of times for training purposes (it's a required event on the IR). A few times for real. Generally the situation was either only a circling-only approach or the wind was seriously favoring a runway other than the one with which the approach was aligned.

Did you have an alternate?

I always have an alternate.

As to the "scary" question above, once or twice it was tense, but usually it was just business -- follow the book, descend to MDA, find the runway, select a path, and fly it to the threshold -- and don't leave MDA until landing is assured, but start down soon enough to make a good landing in the TDZ.

PS: Never had to go missed off a circling approach other than for training.

 

[dmccormack]

I always have an alternate.

Under what conditions would you eschew a CTL and use the Alternate?

As to the "scary" question above, once or twice it was tense, but usually it was just business -- follow the book, descend to MDA, find the runway, select a path, and fly it to the threshold -- and don't leave MDA until landing is assured, but start down soon enough to make a good landing in the TDZ.

Was it fairly level terrain of mountainous?

I was thinking I'd have much less problem doing a real-live min 600/1 1/2 CTL at let's say OXB than VVS -- and VVS is a home airport.

PS: Never had to go missed off a circling approach other than for training.

And that would have the potential to be quite disorienting to hit the missed appropriately if you CTL and hit some cloud or obscuration at 600' AGL -- would be tense, for sure.

 

[Everskyward]

I think as far as circling goes, just like for straight-in approaches, it's much easier with a defined ceiling and good visibility underneath than marginal visibility and an indefinite ceiling. I've done circles both to mountain airports and to flatland airports and generally think the mountain airports are a bit more comfortable since the minimums are higher and the sight picture is more normal than if you are circling at 600 or 700 feet in the pattern, but that may just be my own prejudice because I've done more mountain circles than flatland circles (excluding in the simulator). I've missed off circling approaches but not after getting very far into the circle, at least not that I can recall right now.

 

[Larryo]

The circle at mins isn't really hard IF you've trained for it. I've done several, day and night. However I don't do marginal approaches in the mountains at night.

I used to patronize a few airports that had only non precision approaches so I got some practice.

In fact my home base for 10 years, had no approach, so we used the neighboring non precision approach, sometimes at minimums, and then went VFR underneath to get home. Stupid... not really, as it was practiced in good conditions, had a great interstate that led one right to the base leg with excellent visual cues and no obstructions, if you stayed over the interstate.

One thing to really practice is the circle, and how you get from the MDA to the touch down, and YES, that requires practice.

 

[ScottM]

All the time.

The approaches in 10C are a VOR-A and a GPS-B even the straight ins are technically CTLs.

But I rarely, in fact I cannot think of one instance of actually circling to the other runway.

 

[flyersfan31]

Done it, but I was primed and ready, very focused, so it didn't seem like a big deal. Of course, I wasn't flying where nearby terrain or obstacles raise additional challenges. In that case, I'd have been a little sweatier.

 

[Dwight B. Van Zanen]

At TIW the LOC 17 and circle-to-land 35, has a lower minimum than the NDB 35. So if the wind favors using 35 then the circle has a better chance of getting you in than the NDB. Often in training. Once close to minimums.

 

[poadeleted20]

Under what conditions would you eschew a CTL and use the Alternate?

When I miss the approach at the destination.

Was it fairly level terrain of mountainous?

Some of each over the years.

I was thinking I'd have much less problem doing a real-live min 600/1 1/2 CTL at let's say OXB than VVS -- and VVS is a home airport.

You'd have a real problem with a 600-foot ceiling at VVS since the MDA is 673 HAA -- that's a miss for sure. OTOH, the circling mins for the RNAV(GPS) 2 at OXB are 469 HAT, giving you a bit of space to play with. Furthermore, when the weather's that low at OXB, it's usually due to an onshore wind, and landing straight in on 2 is not a bad idea in that case unless it's more southeasterly than NE/E.

And that would have the potential to be quite disorienting to hit the missed appropriately if you CTL and hit some cloud or obscuration at 600' AGL -- would be tense, for sure.

Well, with 131 feet to play with, it's not that hard to stay below the cloud while above MDA at OXB. OTOH, if the clouds are 70 feet below MDA, as they would be a VVS with a 600-foot ceiling, you're pretty much toast before you leave the IAF.

Look, I know you're pretty uncomfortable with CTL's. That's typical, especially for pilots today who are used to having a straight in approach to most any runway. There just isn't the emphasis on CTL in IR training that there used to be when we didn't have a GPS approach to each runway. Those of us who've been flying IFR for several decades had to learn them, and be able to fly them routinely, especially if we were hauling passengers who were paying to get to that location. If we CFI-I's spent more effort teaching circling techniques during IR training, I think a lot of the fear factor due to lack of familiarity/practice with CTL's would go away.

Now don't nobody get the wrong idea -- the risk factor goes up on CTL's, especially when visibility is down. As someone else noted above, I'd rather fly a CTL with the ceiling 100 above MDA but good visibility than with the visibility only a half mile above mins and the ceiling unlimited. It's something you must practice for and be comfortable with or you shouldn't try it for real. But as long as you learn it and practice it, it's another tool in the tool kit that may come in handy some day.

 

[Teller1900]

Three times, off hand; once in Augusta (AUG), once in Rockland(RKD), and once in Lebanon(LEB). Each time it was because the navigation source to the prefered runway was OTS, so the circle was the only option. Like Mari said, it's not bad when you have a defined cloud layer, but it can be tough with indefinite ceilings/vis (rain makes it a real PITA). We, of course, had an alternate each time, but would only use it if we couldn't get in to our destination (these were all Part 121 flights).

Worst one was probably the ILS 17 circle 35 (the VOR was unreliable, so we couldn't do the VOR 35) at Augusta. You have to circle with a left hand pattern, and there was a significant amount of rain, making the maneuver more than a little difficult from the right seat. But, with a good briefing and all eyes outside, it's no more scary than any low approach.

 

[dmccormack]

Look, I know you're pretty uncomfortable with CTL's. That's typical, especially for pilots today who are used to having a straight in approach to most any runway. There just isn't the emphasis on CTL in IR training that there used to be when we didn't have a GPS approach to each runway. Those of us who've been flying IFR for several decades had to learn them, and be able to fly them routinely, especially if we were hauling passengers who were paying to get to that location. If we CFI-I's spent more effort teaching circling techniques during IR training, I think a lot of the fear factor due to lack of familiarity/practice with CTL's would go away.

Well, I wouldn't say uncomfortable -- I just haven't encountered a need yet -- at minimums -- and given the ubiquity of RNAV approaches (and flying RNAV airplanes!), the demand seems to be less.

So my question is driven more by curiosity -- how often is it necessary?

(Quite frankly I find it hard to get a day when weather is right at minimums, and I've been on ready for thatover a year -- we'll get 400-500' clg, 1 mile vis, but anything lower and it's a CB or ice)

Sorta like practicing NDB approaches -- you gotta do them, but around here there is one (LBE), and when it dies, it will be OTS INDEF.

I practiced plenty during IR training and have practiced them under the hood since, but when it really is minimums around here, the fog is part of the equation, and vis is very poor and anytime vis is at min winds are no factor.

 

[poadeleted20]

So my question is driven more by curiosity -- how often is it necessary?

A lot more when you're getting paid to fly than when you're paying to fly.

How's that?

 

[ScottM]

I just remembered a real CTL. I shot the ILS into DPA and the CTL to another airport, 06C. It was hardly at minimums but that was the only time I can think of where I did not land on the runway the approach was set up for.

Ditto what Ron says.

 

[dmccormack]

A lot more when you're getting paid to fly than when you're paying to fly.

How's that?

Pay me and I'll try it.

;-)

 

[tonycondon]

Its been a while, but I remember the only way to get into 06C (no IAP) when the weather sucked was to scud run from DPA. If the weather sucked much, scud running would put you in violation of min altitudes over congested areas as you weren't landing or less than min cloud clearance in E airspace. Hardly a circling to land maneuver as I remember being taught or teaching it.

shoot just trying to stay out of the class B practically puts you in violation of minimum altitudes when going into Schaumburg, and yes, there is still no IAPs there, have to go to DPA and then in.

 

[ScottM]

shoot just trying to stay out of the class B practically puts you in violation of minimum altitudes when going into Schaumburg, and yes, there is still no IAPs there, have to go to DPA and then in.

Not to mention you get to dodge radio towers that are just to the south of the field by a few miles. That is always fun!!!

 

[poadeleted20]

I just remembered a real CTL. I shot the ILS into DPA and the CTL to another airport, 06C.

Unless 06C was within 1.3 nm of DPA, you did not do a "CTL" to the other airport after flying the ILS to DPA. The only legal way to fly an approach to one airport and land at another that has no published approach is to cancel IFR and proceed VFR to the second airport. Hope you had 1000-3 at DPA when you did this...

 

[Skip Miller]

Unless 06C was within 1.3 nm of DPA, you did not do a "CTL" to the other airport after flying the ILS to DPA. The only legal way to fly an approach to one airport and land at another that has no published approach is to cancel IFR and proceed VFR to the second airport. Hope you had 1000-3 at DPA when you did this...

A possible way to do this with less than 1000-3 is to cancel IFR after breaking out on descent, and proceeding to the second airport under Special VFR. Conditions permitting, controllers agreeing, etc. etc. Otherwise, just shoot the ILS and grab a taxi to the other airport.

-Skip

 

[wsuffa]

CTL a few times (at a field I know well) because the approach is technically a CTL because of the final approach course offset. I would be more reticent to do the approach if I didn't know the environment around the airport.

I always have an alternate (except, perhaps, when the destination weather is MVFR and I'm going to an airport with multiple ILS available). IFR or approaches near mins? Absolutely have an alternate.

The approach that was more nerve wracking was the ILS into New Oreleans Lakefront to minimums. For those not familiar, the approach course is over the lake - and in hard IFR to mins, there is no difference in color between sky and lake.

 

[dmccormack]

Many of these responses seem to be "Yes, I've circled to land.."

OK, but have you at minimums?

That's different than scud running under a 1,000 ceiling.

 

[wsuffa]

Many of these responses seem to be "Yes, I've circled to land.."

OK, but have you at minimums?

That's different than scud running under a 1,000 ceiling.

Yes.

Remember that mins are typically higher than a straight-in approach.

Hence my comment about knowing the airport well and reticence to doing it at an unknown field.

 

[dmccormack]

Yes.

Remember that mins are typically higher than a straight-in approach.

Hence my comment about knowing the airport well and reticence to doing it at an unknown field.

Right -- If a straight-in and Circling Mins are listed, then the circling is invariably higher minimums.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

A few times. Take a look at the Localizer D approach into San Diego, Gillespie (KSEE). We discussed this some time ago. Not only minimums, but at night in moderate rain in mountainous terrain and circling is prohibited to the NE. I wouldn't do this approach if I wasn't familiar with the area.

We practice this at SIMCOM each year. One really has to watch altitude, speed and keep the airport environment in sight. There are some ways to reduce risk: one is to circle over the airport when that's a possibility. Using the AP is a consideration, especially if you're single pilot.

Probably wouldn't do minimums into a place I wasn't familiar with if there were mountains or obstacles near by.


Best,

Dave

 

[Everskyward]

Many of these responses seem to be "Yes, I've circled to land.."

OK, but have you at minimums?

Yes, but why is it that important what others have done? Comparing yourself to pilots with widely varying experience levels isn't really valid IMHO. If you feel you have not been adequately trained or are not comfortable circling then you should either go out and practice it more until you feel better about it, or abstain. Circling is obviously a more difficult and risky maneuver than straight in but it's not suicidal when done properly.

 

[ScottM]

Yes, but why is it that important what others have done? Comparing yourself to pilots with widely varying experience levels isn't really valid IMHO.

I agree. It is not even valid to compare yourself to other pilots of similiar experience. Make the decision on what is comfortable for you. If your are uncomfortable performing a certain maneuver you have two choices.

1. Don't do it
2. Get the training with a good instructor to become comfortable.

 

[dmccormack]

Yes, but why is it that important what others have done? Comparing yourself to pilots with widely varying experience levels isn't really valid IMHO. If you feel you have not been adequately trained or are not comfortable circling then you should either go out and practice it more until you feel better about it, or abstain. Circling is obviously a more difficult and risky maneuver than straight in but it's not suicidal when done properly.

Hang on.. I'm not comparing myself to anyone.

My hunch (guess, intuition, whatever) is that a Circle to Land, at minimums is not a manuever done regularly by low time IFR pilots, and probably shouldn't be, while CTL is more benign conditions (1000' clg, 2 mile vis, etc) is probably to more usual recourse to CTL.

While it is a PTS task, and therefore has to be trained and practiced, I think it's more in the NDB approach category -- you gotta know how, you gotta show you know how, but you ain't gonna go out an do them regularly, especially given the ubiquity of RNAV approaches as an option or alternative.

 

[poadeleted20]

Many of these responses seem to be "Yes, I've circled to land.." OK, but have you at minimums?

With the weather at minimums, or me at MDA? If the former, probably never, since if the weather is at minimums, I won't break out at MDA. If the latter, yes, but only when there's enough space between the above-mins ceiling and MDA to make it without busting MDA or going back in the goo -- about 100 feet should do it.

 

[t0r0nad0]

Yeah, PJ doesn't have an IR, or any IR training. So, PJ chose the Never option. I'm sure that if I had my IR, my response would be different.

 

[poadeleted20]

My hunch (guess, intuition, whatever) is that a Circle to Land, at minimums is not a manuever done regularly by low time IFR pilots, and probably shouldn't be, while CTL is more benign conditions (1000' clg, 2 mile vis, etc) is probably to more usual recourse to CTL.

Ah, well, now we're talking personal minimums here, and there's no doubt in my mind that a "low time IFR pilot" should have more conservative minimums than someone with more actual instrument time than the "low time" pilot has total flight hours, and flies five times as many hours and ten times more actual IFR approaches to near mins a year.

While it is a PTS task, and therefore has to be trained and practiced, I think it's more in the NDB approach category -- you gotta know how, you gotta show you know how, but you ain't gonna go out an do them regularly, especially given the ubiquity of RNAV approaches as an option or alternative.

Again, it's individual -- I know a lot of folks with no IFR approach GPS in their plane who need NDB and CTL approaches to get where they're going. As long as they stay proficient at them, and have their own appropriate personal mins, why not do them?

 

[nosehair]

I've done it lots of times. Probably more than a straight-in ILS to mins.

There are thousands of small airports with circling only approaches.

Frankly, I'm befuddled that it is a question.

Perhaps some practice flying a 600 foot traffic pattern would help with the fear.

I know I always teach plenty of practice at making low at mins circling maneuvers at about 5-600 AGL witin a mile of the runway, because I have had to do it so much myself. On dark and stormy nights.

 

[wsuffa]

Probably wouldn't do minimums into a place I wasn't familiar with if there were mountains or obstacles near by.

Obstacles are something that one has to look at carefully.

I did the old LOC-29 CTL-11 approach to HAO a few times during training (it's now an ILS). There is (was) a tower quite close to the approach end of 11 that was also very close to the CTL safe area. It's something that I would be very uncomfortable dealing with if it were my first approach into the airport.

Familiarity is key.

 

[dmccormack]

Again, it's individual -- I know a lot of folks with no IFR approach GPS in their plane who need NDB and CTL approaches to get where they're going. As long as they stay proficient at them, and have their own appropriate personal mins, why not do them?

Agreed.. maybe I should have asked -- "Who does CTL instead of using the RNAV straight-in?"

I was probably not clear, but I wonder if CTL is going the way of the NDB as RNAVs become more common at GA fields.

One of our local GA, one-runway, formerly VFR-only airports just added an RNAV for each direction:http://www.airnav.com/airport/KWAY

 

[ggroves]

Has anyone actually done a CTL maneuver at minimums?

What was the situation? Did you have an alternate?

Yes, once getting back into the home drome (OKV) before a line of T-storms passed through. It was the most expeditious was to get in, vs. going further out and using the GPS or the ILS. The ceiling was +/-100' above MDA. I practiced CTL numerous times @ MDA during IR training and was comfortable. This is important, vs. breaking off at pattern alt. during IR training.

Alternate was to fly further east and land @ HEF or JYO until the T-storms passed.

Greg

 

[gismo]

Many of these responses seem to be "Yes, I've circled to land.."

OK, but have you at minimums?

That's different than scud running under a 1,000 ceiling.

Given that I've had to go missed more than once on a CTL approach, I'd say that I've definitely done them at minimums (I was at the MDA but the clouds were lower). I've also done a couple when the reported visibility (in snow) was right at the limit and like someone else said, that's a lot less "comfortable" than CTL in good vis just below the ceiling. The one thing I try to avoid at all cost is a CTL in low vis to an airport I'm not familiar with. IMO it's just too easy to get disoriented.

 

[gismo]

Agreed.. maybe I should have asked -- "Who does CTL instead of using the RNAV straight-in?"

I was probably not clear, but I wonder if CTL is going the way of the NDB as RNAVs become more common at GA fields.

One of our local GA, one-runway, formerly VFR-only airports just added an RNAV for each direction:http://www.airnav.com/airport/KWAY

While we may get to the point of having a straight in RNAV approach to every runway at every IFR airport, that day is a long ways off. I'd say that less than 25% of the airports I fly to have an approach to more than one runway and some have nothing but a -A (CTL to all runways).

I don't think I would ever chose to fly a CTL to a runway served by a straight in approach I can use unless the weather provided excellent visibility under a ceiling that was several hundred feet above the CTL MDA.

 

[poadeleted20]

Agreed.. maybe I should have asked -- "Who does CTL instead of using the RNAV straight-in?"

Not me -- I'd rather shoot an RNAV(GPS) than any other type of approach, including ILS. Better lineups, more stable steering, better needle response, vertical guidance even on nonprecision approaches, and usually lower mins than any other nonprecision system (especially if there's an LPV option).

 

[dmccormack]

Not me -- I'd rather shoot an RNAV(GPS) than any other type of approach, including ILS. Better lineups, more stable steering, better needle response, vertical guidance even on nonprecision approaches, and usually lower mins than any other nonprecision system (especially if there's an LPV option).

 

[MauleSkinner]

Back when was flying out of FCM, I did a fair number of CTL at minimums...there are no approaches to the west (airspace conflicts with MSP), so I'd shoot the 36 approach and circle to 27L. It's a lot easier when you've got 35 knots of wind out of the west

Done quite a few of 'em at DPA, as well...winds out of the south, so shoot the ILS 10, circle to 19 (or whatever the runways are there...I can't remember.)

I've also run across several airports recently (including the one I work out of) that have had runway extensions that make approaches N/A, probably due to the increased descent angle for the straight-in, so you have to shoot the opposite approach and circle if the wind favors the no-approach runway.

As Ron said, when you're paid to fly 'em, you get to work with circling at minimums more frequently than when you're paying to fly 'em.

Fly safe!

David

 

[drizzt76]

I had to put never because all of my approach to mins. in IMC has been in a helicopter. It don't make too much sence to CTL to another runway when you don't really need to use them.