Circling okay when no Circling listed?

[AA5Bman]

I was flying to Winnemucca, NV (KWMC) the other day on an IFR flight plan. It was a CAVU day, but I was in the system just to keep my skills sharp. Approaching from the north, the wind was also from the north so I would like to be shooting either of the approaches to 14, and circling to land 32 (I could shoot the approach to 32, but it would have required a long detour to get south of the field and then turn around and approach back to the north).

i initially figured I would shoot the RNAV to 14 and circle to land 32. However, upon studying that plate, there was no circling minimums listed. No wanting to try to figure this out in the air, I elected to shoot the VOR to 14, which *does* list circling minimums.

Obviously, you could do what you want on an IFR *training* flight (under VFR rules), but on an actual IFR flight, unless you broke out and cancelled IFR in VMC conditions, I assume there’s no way to circle if they don’t list Circling Minimums?

 

[dtuuri]

I was flying to Winnemucca, NV (KWMC) ...I assume there’s no way to circle if they don’t list Circling Minimums?

A contact approach does it. Winnemucca, huh? Hmm...

 

[aterpster]

I was flying to Winnemucca, NV (KWMC) the other day on an IFR flight plan. It was a CAVU day, but I was in the system just to keep my skills sharp. Approaching from the north, the wind was also from the north so I would like to be shooting either of the approaches to 14, and circling to land 32 (I could shoot the approach to 32, but it would have required a long detour to get south of the field and then turn around and approach back to the north).

i initially figured I would shoot the RNAV to 14 and circle to land 32. However, upon studying that plate, there was no circling minimums listed. No wanting to try to figure this out in the air, I elected to shoot the VOR to 14, which *does* list circling minimums.

Obviously, you could do what you want on an IFR *training* flight (under VFR rules), but on an actual IFR flight, unless you broke out and cancelled IFR in VMC conditions, I assume there’s no way to circle if they don’t list Circling Minimums?

Under IMC if the weather is less than 3 miles, request a contact approach then use the VOR approach's CTL MDA. Not a great solution, but what you're stuck with because the FAA aggressively removed far too many circling minimums. After there is an accident, they will likely reverse course.

 

[MauleSkinner]

What’s wrong with using the VOR approach?

 

[aterpster]

What’s wrong with using the VOR approach?

Substandard rather than PBN. The well-equipped pilot shouldn't be placed in that position.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Substandard rather than PBN. The well-equipped pilot shouldn't be placed in that position.

So you’re saying VOR approaches should be decommissioned?

 

[luvflyin]

I was flying to Winnemucca, NV (KWMC) the other day on an IFR flight plan. It was a CAVU day, but I was in the system just to keep my skills sharp. Approaching from the north, the wind was also from the north so I would like to be shooting either of the approaches to 14, and circling to land 32 (I could shoot the approach to 32, but it would have required a long detour to get south of the field and then turn around and approach back to the north).

i initially figured I would shoot the RNAV to 14 and circle to land 32. However, upon studying that plate, there was no circling minimums listed. No wanting to try to figure this out in the air, I elected to shoot the VOR to 14, which *does* list circling minimums.

Obviously, you could do what you want on an IFR *training* flight (under VFR rules), but on an actual IFR flight, unless you broke out and cancelled IFR in VMC conditions, I assume there’s no way to circle if they don’t list Circling Minimums?

Sure there is. Just do it. Don’t crash though. If you do, you’ll get violated

 

[AA5Bman]

What’s wrong with using the VOR approach?

Nothing - that’s what I did. I was just not sure whether it would have been okay to fly a circling approach from the RNAV.

I guess the crux of the question is whether or not it would be okay to fly the circle to land under IFR if you broke out and had VMC minimums. I suppose you’d have to be able to cancel IFR and couldn’t technically do it while remaining on your IFR flight plan, which you can’t do at WMC because you’re out of radio range.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Nothing - that’s what I did. I was just not sure whether it would have been okay to fly a circling approach from the RNAV.

I guess the crux of the question is whether or not it would be okay to fly the circle to land under IFR if you broke out and had VMC minimums. I suppose you’d have to be able to cancel IFR and couldn’t technically do it while remaining on your IFR flight plan, which you can’t do at WMC because you’re out of radio range.

The crux of my question is if you have a published IAP that does what you want, why would you want to create your own procedure to do it?

 

[flyingron]

I guess the crux of the question is whether or not it would be okay to fly the circle to land under IFR if you broke out and had VMC minimums. I suppose you’d have to be able to cancel IFR and couldn’t technically do it while remaining on your IFR flight plan, which you can’t do at WMC because you’re out of radio range.

Instrument Flight Rules apply when you are flying IFR regardless of the weather conditions. Just because the weather is technically VMC doesn't eliminate the 91.175(c) with regard to going below the MDA for the approach for which you were cleared.

 

[Palmpilot]

If you were in VFR conditions and could remain so, and not too low for communications with ATC, you could cancel IFR and than land in whichever direction you liked.

[Edit: I see that you already acknowledged that possibility in post #1.]

 

[AA5Bman]

The crux of my question is if you have a published IAP that does what you want, why would you want to create your own procedure to do it?

Jeez its just curiosity. Like I said, I flew the VOR.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Jeez its just curiosity. Like I said, I flew the VOR.

Don’t get your undies in a twist...I was just curious.

 

[luvflyin]

Nothing - that’s what I did. I was just not sure whether it would have been okay to fly a circling approach from the RNAV.

I guess the crux of the question is whether or not it would be okay to fly the circle to land under IFR if you broke out and had VMC minimums. I suppose you’d have to be able to cancel IFR and couldn’t technically do it while remaining on your IFR flight plan, which you can’t do at WMC because you’re out of radio range.

You can cancel in that situation. You are required to notify FSS or ATC that you have done it. But you don’t need their permission to do it.

 

[Palmpilot]

You can cancel in that situation. You are required to notify FSS or ATC that you have done it. But you don’t need their permission to do it.

He said he'd be out of radio range at WMC.

 

[flyingron]

Yep, ATC usually goes "RADARSERVICESTERMINATED ADVISECANCELLATIONTHISFREQUENCYORVIAFLIGHTSERVICE HAVEANICEDAY."

You can "cancel" your IFR ahead of calling them up to tell them it has happened.

 

[aterpster]

He said he'd be out of radio range at WMC.

He wouldn't be. ZLC has a RCO on the hill a few miles from the airport.

 

[aterpster]

So you’re saying VOR approaches should be decommissioned?

Yes, where there is RNAV to both runway ends like this airport. They should have cancelled CTL on the VOR IAP and left CTL on both RNAV IAPs. But, they screwed up.

At a lot of other airports, the FAA feels the same way I do. From the last two FAR 97 transmittal letters:

 

[MauleSkinner]

Yes, where there is RNAV to both runway ends like this airport. They should have cancelled CTL on the VOR IAP and left CTL on both RNAV IAPs. But, they screwed up.

At a lot of other airports, the FAA feels the same way I do. From the last two FAR 97 transmittal letters:
View attachment 87645 View attachment 87646 View attachment 87647 View attachment 87648 View attachment 87649

If a VOR approaches are substandard and should be decommissioned, there should be no qualifiers about other approaches available.

 

[aterpster]

If a VOR approaches are substandard and should be decommissioned, there should be no qualifiers about other approaches available.

I said "substandard rather than PBN." Substitute "rather" with "compared to." Performance based navigation they ain't. And, as VOR stations age, they become more difficult to make it through periodic flight inspection. This particular VOR is as good as they get, because it is on the airport and has DME. Note, there is no VOR approach to Runway 32. So far as I know, there never has been. This VOR IAP to 14 probably won't make the cancellation list because it supports the graphical ODP. (That could be made simpler and more flexible, though, with an RNAV ODP.)

 

[MauleSkinner]

I said "substandard rather than PBN." Substitute "rather" with "compared to." Performance based navigation they ain't. And, as VOR stations age, they become more difficult to make it through periodic flight inspection. This particular VOR is as good as they get, because it is on the airport and has DME. Note, there is no VOR approach to Runway 32. So far as I know, there never has been. This VOR IAP to 14 probably won't make the cancellation list because it supports the graphical ODP. (That could be made simpler and more flexible, though, with an RNAV ODP.)

So there’s really no reason not to fly a published VOR approach that does what you want to do.

 

[Arnold]

Yes, where there is RNAV to both runway ends like this airport. They should have cancelled CTL on the VOR IAP and left CTL on both RNAV IAPs. But, they screwed up.

At a lot of other airports, the FAA feels the same way I do. From the last two FAR 97 transmittal letters:
View attachment 87645 View attachment 87646 View attachment 87647 View attachment 87648 View attachment 87649

Is there a way I can subscribe to these transmittal letters. I do miss this aspect of my old paper Jepp chart subscription.

 

[AA5Bman]

He wouldn't be. ZLC has a RCO on the hill a few miles from the airport.

I did not know this. Interesting. So I could have talked to Salt Lake Center right down to the ground on that approach? I kind of assumed I was out of radio contact and radar services because radio was spotty at 10,000' and they kept telling me "radar contact lost, report Sod House VOR" and stuff like that on and off throughout my flight. It's pretty desolate out there, as I'm sure you're aware.

So... Now I'm now wondering if I screwed something else up. I flew the VOR 14 circle to land 32. I don't remember hearing the "circle to land" part in the approach clearance. It might have been there. But let's say it's wasn't: If you're cleared to a specific approach and are intending to fly a circle to land to another runway, does that have to be in the approach clearance? This kind of only matters outside of radar / radio at an uncontrolled field, because if you'e going into a Class Delta or better it's going to get worked out with the tower controller.

In this case, going into a uncontrolled field (presumably) outside radio and radar contact, would the approach clearance need to include the Circle to Land part?

 

[luvflyin]

He said he'd be out of radio range at WMC.

Once reaching VMC and able to continue VFR he can Cancel. It may be awhile before he can get hold of ATC to let them know he ‘did.’

 

[aterpster]

I did not know this. Interesting. So I could have talked to Salt Lake Center right down to the ground on that approach? I kind of assumed I was out of radio contact and radar services because radio was spotty at 10,000' and they kept telling me "radar contact lost, report Sod House VOR" and stuff like that on and off throughout my flight. It's pretty desolate out there, as I'm sure you're aware.

So... Now I'm now wondering if I screwed something else up. I flew the VOR 14 circle to land 32. I don't remember hearing the "circle to land" part in the approach clearance. It might have been there. But let's say it's wasn't: If you're cleared to a specific approach and are intending to fly a circle to land to another runway, does that have to be in the approach clearance? This kind of only matters outside of radar / radio at an uncontrolled field, because if you'e going into a Class Delta or better it's going to get worked out with the tower controller.

In this case, going into a uncontrolled field (presumably) outside radio and radar contact, would the approach clearance need to include the Circle to Land part?

A circle to land clearance would only be at a airport with an operating tower.

As to radar coverage it goes away in those northern Nevada Valleys unless you are going into Battle Mountain, where one the long range radar sites it located.

If you look in the DCS for WMC you will see that ZLC provides non-radar approach control for the airport. The center RCO is on the hill just north of town. Don't know whether it works to the ground, but close to it.

 

[aterpster]

Is there a way I can subscribe to these transmittal letters. I do miss this aspect of my old paper Jepp chart subscription.

Jessepen provided a revision letter. That's different than the transmittal letters. You can download transmittal letters at:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/aero_data/

 

[aterpster]

So there’s really no reason not to fly a published VOR approach that does what you want to do.

Now, you're being argumentative. I won't play that game.

 

[luvflyin]

.....In this case, going into a uncontrolled field (presumably) outside radio and radar contact, would the approach clearance need to include the Circle to Land part?

No. Not only would it not be needed, ATC is not allowed to do it. Here’s their rule about that:

4−8−6. CIRCLING APPROACH
a. Circling approach instructions may only be given for aircraft landing at airports with operational control towers.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Now, you're being argumentative. I won't play that game.

No, I’m rephrasing my original question.

I get enough whiny incompetents who refuse to fly any ground-based approaches because “they’re dangerous”, and I’d like to be able to counter “Wally says they’re dangerous”.

 

[Plano Pilot]

Now, you're being argumentative. I won't play that game.

You must have hated NDB approaches, nothing like having everything centered and the runway is not right in front of you when you break out.

 

[aterpster]

You must have hated NDB approaches, nothing like having everything centered and the runway is not right in front of you when you break out.

I got my instrument rating in 1958. Was a LTO, taught and flew LF range approaches. With my background, I really appreciate today's PBN. NBD is all but gone in this country. VOR was designed to be an en route nav aid.

No, I’m rephrasing my original question.

I get enough whiny incompetents who refuse to fly any ground-based approaches because “they’re dangerous”, and I’d like to be able to counter “Wally says they’re dangerous”.

I wouldn't say that about any approach, provided the pilot is proficient and has local knowledge of potentially hazardous locations.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I wouldn't say that about any approach, provided the pilot is proficient and has local knowledge of potentially hazardous locations.

Thank you.

 

[smv]

I get enough whiny incompetents who refuse to fly any ground-based approaches because “they’re dangerous”, and I’d like to be able to counter “Wally says they’re dangerous”.

I love me a good VOR based DME Arc. Even better is when the Arc is there to get you on a localizer for an ILS. I recall seeing an approach not long ago that was a DME Arc that ended at the MAP without an actual final approach course... Wish I could remember which approach that was...

 

[MauleSkinner]

I love me a good VOR based DME Arc. Even better is when the Arc is there to get you on a localizer for an ILS. I recall seeing an approach not long ago that was a DME Arc that ended at the MAP without an actual final approach course... Wish I could remember which approach that was...

The VOR/DME 15 at KMTN has the arc as the final approach course.

 

[smv]

The VOR/DME 15 at KMTN has the arc as the final approach course.

That is the one I had in mind. Thank you!

ETA: Oh yah! This is the one that also has a DME Arc on the missed approach.

 

[AU_James]

As a current IR student, it really helped me understand things a little better once I realized the approach was exactly that- a way to get from en route to landing.

If you're cleared to a specific approach and are intending to fly a circle to land to another runway, does that have to be in the approach clearance?

It seems folks have answered whether you'd get a clearance (has to be towered) but not whether you are allowed to circle from an approach that doesn't list it. If it's a pilot controlled airfield, and you are cleared for the approach, that's all you'll get (no landing clearance, no circling clearance). As long as you can make a landing with only normal maneuvers once you can visually see the runway/environment, I don't know why you couldn't land on the runway you'd like to land on. I guess that's also a question- is there a reason you can't?

nothing like having everything centered and the runway is not right in front of you when you break out.

Isn't that like a VOR-A approach still? My home airport has a VOR-A and it threw me way off the first time I took of the foggles and the runway wasn't anywhere close to lined up in the direction I was heading.

 

[Larry in TN]

I'd recommend 14 CFR 91.175, the AIM, and the Instrument Procedures Handbook for more in-depth study on these questions.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/instrument_procedures_handbook/

 

[aterpster]

Here is a VOR-DME-C that is within 2 degrees of the runway center line. This is the approach on which Skywest almost had a CFIT a couple of years ago because ATC cleared him well below the DME arc altitude.

 

[aterpster]

This is a suffix approach that is aligned within 2 degrees of the runway center line. This is the infamous approach on which a Skywest commuter almost hit the 7,655' terrain/tower because ATC cleared the flight along the arc well below 10,000.

 

[flyingron]

This is a suffix approach that is aligned within 2 degrees of the runway center line. This is the infamous approach on which a Skywest commuter almost hit the 7,655' terrain/tower because ATC cleared the flight along the arc well below 10,000.

For completeness: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2018/02/bombardier-crj-900lr-n162pq-flight-3567.html

The text (apparently from a MailTribune news article) indicates a lack of knowledge of instrument procedures by the author: "forgot the necessity of staying above 10,000 feet or the flight-chart-prescribed 10,700 elevation isn’t clear."

The 10,700 is the MSA and irrelevant. The 10,000 is indeed a hard minimum for the arc and unclear why the controller cleared or why the pilots would descend below it on an approach.