Circling Approach Question

Discussion in 'Cleared for the Approach' started by steviedeviant, May 18, 2020.

  1. tspear

    tspear Pattern Altitude PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,236
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Timothy
    Judgement of relative area. Normally fly out of 2k runway, go land at a 5k runway. Watch what happens to the traffic pattern; the pilot tends to become a bomber in the town next door.

    Tim
     
  2. luvflyin

    luvflyin Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Messages:
    7,678
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Luvflyin
    Yeah. They draw radius’ out from the approach end of all the runways. Airports with intersecting runways can have even funnier shapes.
     
  3. MauleSkinner

    MauleSkinner Final Approach

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,004
    Location:
    Wichita, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MauleSkinner
    Hoe does the shape of the protected area affect that?
     
  4. luvflyin

    luvflyin Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Messages:
    7,678
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Luvflyin
    You have to get it yourself. Get a box of Cracker Jack and let us know whatya got
     
    denverpilot likes this.
  5. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    11,051
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    as @luvflyin pointed out (and the AIM, as @dtuuri linked), the protected area isn't for the center of the runway or the runway complex. Instead, "Circling approach protected areas are defined by the tangential connection of arcs drawn from each runway end."

    This is the graphic example from the AIM:
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2020
    denverpilot and mcmanigle like this.
  6. luvflyin

    luvflyin Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Messages:
    7,678
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Luvflyin
    Great Typo. “Protested area.” Was it really a typo or are you going to take credit for it.;)
     
    MauleSkinner likes this.
  7. aterpster

    aterpster En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,612
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    aterpster
    A fro dee anne slip?
     
  8. MauleSkinner

    MauleSkinner Final Approach

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,004
    Location:
    Wichita, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MauleSkinner
    Nah...it’s because the Flight Check guys are pros, and they’re the ones that tested it...so it’s protested.
     
  9. aterpster

    aterpster En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,612
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    aterpster
    This is the actual TERPs for FWS, using the "new" circle to land criteria. These areas are identical for all three IAPs. The reason the CTL MDAs are higher on the ILS is because they cannot be lower than the LOC-only MDA:
     

    Attached Files:

  10. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    11,051
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    My abysmal typing skill takes all the credit. I fixed it.
     
  11. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    11,051
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    That's something a cross-dresser wears.
     
  12. MauleSkinner

    MauleSkinner Final Approach

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,004
    Location:
    Wichita, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MauleSkinner
    I thought cross-dressers were the ladies who changed out the paraments at Easter time.
     
  13. tspear

    tspear Pattern Altitude PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,236
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Timothy
    @dtuuri

    Among the times I have read the AIM; I never caught that one! Ugh, what a basic mistake!

    Tim
     
  14. tspear

    tspear Pattern Altitude PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,236
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Timothy
    When flying the circle portion, you are visual. As such, you judge the distance from the runway. First, note most pilots fly closer to a mile abeam the runway and then judge distance either based on well known landmarks or relative size of the runway compared to other objects within vision. If the runway is twice as large, you will be over twice the distance to have the same appearance. In which case, that can put you at two miles from the runway if you normally fly a one mile off beam downwind. Something I have seen when flying with other pilots multiple times.
    The result, circle to land at a new airport (especially with reduced visibility) when IMC below TPA; for me is not quite an emergency landing, but I dam well have a better reason to tempt fate than gettheritis.

    Note: my opinion will likely change when we can get a HUD with either the correct flight path or the distance information on it.

    Tim
     
  15. aterpster

    aterpster En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,612
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    aterpster
    Most of them have more varied wardrobes than many women. But, we digress about de dress.
     
  16. MauleSkinner

    MauleSkinner Final Approach

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,004
    Location:
    Wichita, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MauleSkinner
    I guess of all the spatial difficulties I’ve seen pilots have with CTL, I’ve never seen invisible boundaries factor into it.

    Most people fly too close due to the lower altitude. The only ones I’ve seen get too far away aren’t looking at the runway.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2020
  17. RussR

    RussR Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,515
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Russ
    The published procedure used the old areas, which is the chart my comment was directed at.

    The NOTAM updates any MDAs to reflect what the new areas would require - in this case Cats C and D go up. But this is a temporary NOTAM until (at some unknown time in the future) it is included in a published chart.
     
  18. midlifeflyer

    midlifeflyer Touchdown! Greaser!

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    11,051
    Location:
    Chapel Hill NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Mark
    You don't know the people I know :D
     
    MauleSkinner likes this.
  19. aterpster

    aterpster En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,612
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    aterpster
    I assumed those were the new areas. You're right, of course.

    What I don't understand is how they can issue the larger areas by NOTAM without a supporting TERPs map that documents the new obstacle clearance areas. I presume that obstacle assessment had to have been made.
     
  20. RussR

    RussR Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,515
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Russ
    There is one. It's on the IFP Gateway, coordination tab:
    https://www.faa.gov/aero_docs/acifp...8679-FWS/TX_KFWS_ILS OR LOC RWY 35L_A2B_S.pdf
     
  21. aterpster

    aterpster En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,612
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    aterpster
    That looks like the old areas.
     
  22. RussR

    RussR Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,515
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Russ
    No, that's definitely the new areas. Radii of about 1.3, 1.8, 2.8, 3.7 nm. The old ones, Cat A/B/C were really close together at 1.3, 1.5, 1.7 then Cat D at 2.3.
     
  23. MauleSkinner

    MauleSkinner Final Approach

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    7,004
    Location:
    Wichita, KS
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    MauleSkinner
    Looks like the approach plates haven’t been updated, though.
     
  24. RussR

    RussR Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,515
    Location:
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Russ
    Correct. The approach plates themselves were designed with the old criteria. There is no "inverse C" next to the circling minima row.

    The NOTAM was sent about a month ago. It was evaluated using the new criteria. The plate itself will presumably be updated at some point in the future. For now, there is the NOTAM, which provides the MDAs based on the new areas.
     
  25. aterpster

    aterpster En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,612
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    aterpster
    Thanks! For sure, you know.
     
    RussR likes this.
  26. aterpster

    aterpster En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,612
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    aterpster
    Why were't the three NOTAMs issued as abbreviated amendments, which would trigger charting?
     
  27. Ravioli

    Ravioli Final Approach PoA Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2014
    Messages:
    7,205
    Location:
    Fort Worth
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Pasta Man
    And the question seems to remain: Why is the CTL opposite the traffic pattern for all approaches to KFWS?
     
  28. luvflyin

    luvflyin Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Messages:
    7,678
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Luvflyin
    ?? There traffic patterns on both sides of the airport. If you're just comparing it to the big runway the answer is simply that there are obstructions on the west side that don't pass the criteria for Circling Approaches, an IFR procedure(yeah, yeah, you're doing it visually.) But because the MDA's are low, as low as 500' for one of them it's not considered safe to start the visual portion until that late.
     
  29. John Collins

    John Collins Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,322
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    John
    Mark,

    A few belated comments on your article.

    You wrote:
    I pointed the error out and challenged the FAA in my letter/email to them. Unfortunately, the FAA does not quote from my comments to them.

    I did ask that question and had follow up discussions with the attorney regarding the wording "unless otherwise authorised or required" when the approach specified that circling was permitted, but not where the standard traffic pattern requires. Verbally, he agreed that would be an example of "unless otherwise authorised or required". I did not send another email to get this documented.

    Here is the full letter I sent to the General Counsel with my analysis and pointing out their error.

     
  30. John Collins

    John Collins Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,322
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    John
    this is the continuation of the email:

     
  31. John Collins

    John Collins Pattern Altitude

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,322
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    John
    Part 3

     
    denverpilot and PeterNSteinmetz like this.
  32. luvflyin

    luvflyin Final Approach

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Messages:
    7,678
    Location:
    Vancouver, WA
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    Luvflyin
    That's great. Getting the 'evolution' of the regs really helps put it all in perspective. Thanks for taking the time to do that.
     
  33. aterpster

    aterpster En-Route

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,612
    Display Name:

    Display name:
    aterpster
    Also the turf runway is not to be used during IFR or nighttime conditions, per the DCS: Rwy 17L–35R avbl only during dalgt/VFR and dry weather surface conditions.