How to fail a checkride.

MauleSkinner said:
Was this information available before flight? (91.103)
Click to expand...
Sure, if you looked in the chart supplement or on a sectional. The question I posed has to do with the regulation requiring "approved light signals or visual markings." It doesn't say "or is published."
 
Hunt-man said:
If the FAA is going to apply the traffic pattern rule to actual IFR circling procedures, then the correct direction to circle should be published on the plate. Pilots don't always fly into the same airport everyday and that is a basic fact. If they are applying it to VFR conditions, I get it and that makes sense, but it still needs to be on the plate. We don't always get all the time we want to prepare for an approach. And with over 4000 hours of no autopilot flying under my belt, it is hard to look for info that isn't on the plate while IMC.

The other point that no one has mentioned yet, is that if you are circling, it is usually best to put the airport on the side the pilot is on. Not everyone is PIC in the left seat all the time.
Click to expand...

Honestly, if you are flying right seat and can’t perform a left circle to land?
 
Hunt-man said:
Have you ever had to divert to an unplanned airport while IMC? :)

We can do our best to follow 91.103 but Shoot happens.....
Click to expand...
Yes, but the times I didn’t have time to do due diligence on the airport I’d have defended myself under 91.3.

But yes, I’ve always found that wording interesting as well.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Honestly, if you are flying right seat and can’t perform a left circle to land?
Click to expand...
When I got my Single Pilot waiver (not a waiver, but I can’t remember what it called) for the Citation, I was required to demonstrate both left and right CTLs.

Of course, I had to wait until I had something like 50 or 100 single pilot hours in the airplane before I was allowed to circle. :rolleyes:
 
I circle to land all the time off instrument approaches, and don’t remember how to do wind correction angles!

Surely headed for a smoking hole as per the ace pilots here.
 
midlifeflyer said:
They are still circling mins. But the word is "minimums" not "maximums". The lowest we are permitted go until we meet the requirements of 91.175(c).
Click to expand...

None of which has anything to do with VFR traffic pattern altitudes while flying a circling approach.
 
brcase said:
Here the list I have so far...

Private/commercial:
Spin the airplane during Stall demonstration
Click to expand...

It's been years, but the DPE that did mine wanted a REAL power on stall with the full 20* bank angle, which in the sparrowhawk on a cool morning was a HUGE all blue site picture;)

Prior to starting the procedure he indicated if we started a spin, it was a FAIL if he had to recover it. At that point, I had done a LOT of power on stalls, but the CFI never asked for 20* of bank angle ... did fine, but it sure had my attention.
 
Hunt-man said:
If the FAA is going to apply the traffic pattern rule to actual IFR circling procedures, then the correct direction to circle should be published on the plate. Pilots don't always fly into the same airport everyday and that is a basic fact. If they are applying it to VFR conditions, I get it and that makes sense, but it still needs to be on the plate. We don't always get all the time we want to prepare for an approach. And with over 4000 hours of no autopilot flying under my belt, it is hard to look for info that isn't on the plate while IMC.

The other point that no one has mentioned yet, is that if you are circling, it is usually best to put the airport on the side the pilot is on. Not everyone is PIC in the left seat all the time.
Click to expand...
I guess, but I have to disagree. I think it would unnecessarily clutter the chart. What do you put down for part time towered airports? I can see pilot getting confused by that. Or what about Class E surface areas where ATC can authorize circling against the pattern? For that matter, I guess you need multiple notes for those airports which are right traffic for 13 and left traffic for 31.
 
Hacker said:
None of which has anything to do with VFR traffic pattern altitudes while flying a circling approach.
Click to expand...
Sure it does. It's very nice to say you are "circling" when the weather is CAVU, but if you actually perform the maneuver when there are 4 VFR pilots in the pattern, I think the FAA would say you are being reckless.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Really? Coming in on a circling approach in VFR conditions you are going to fly below the traffic pattern most of the time? Sounds like a particularly bad idea.
Click to expand...

Who said VFR conditions? I don't think those interpretations did. And I could understand if they did...

I mean in IMC, where TPA is in the muck. And yes, unfortunately, that doesn't mean there isn't anyone there. I got buzzed by a Bonanza breaking out of 1/2SM OVC003 when I was cleared for departure at an uncontrolled field. He disappeared back into the muck and was not seen or heard from again... :mad:
 
My practical thoughts:

If I was doing a practice approach in severe clear and intending to circle to land, I would fly to the mins and then join the downwind to the active that all the other people are using.

If doing it while the beacon is spinning, I'd get down to mins and pick the circling direction that looks like I'd be less likely to lose sight of the runway while circling.

I'm an IR student, are my practical thoughts out of line with the regs? <- genuine question
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Who said VFR conditions?
Click to expand...

I did, in the comment he was responding to.

gf said:
I mean in IMC, where TPA is in the muck. And yes, unfortunately, that doesn't mean there isn't anyone there. I got buzzed by a Bonanza breaking out of 1/2SM OVC003 when I was cleared for departure at an uncontrolled field. He disappeared back into the muck and was not seen or heard from again... :mad:
Click to expand...
How would you make the distinction? @Hunt-man suggested a note on the chart to remind instrument pilots the universal traffic pattern rules apply to them too. Are you suggesting a more complex 91.126 rule in which operating against the pattern in Class G depends on ceiling or visibility or both, also remembering Class G VFR minimums - 1 mile, clear of clouds. What should that rule say?
 
Ravioli said:
My practical thoughts:

If I was doing a practice approach in severe clear and intending to circle to land, I would fly to the mins and then join the downwind to the active that all the other people are using.

If doing it while the beacon is spinning, I'd get down to mins and pick the circling direction that looks like I'd be less likely to lose sight of the runway while circling.

I'm an IR student, are my practical thoughts out of line with the regs? <- genuine question
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, yes. Bottom line is, the FAA's position is that the 91.126 traffic pattern rule is not waived for IFR operations. FWIW, I did an article on the subject last year for IFR magazine which hopefully gives some context. It's one of those the magazine made publicly available.
 
Ravioli said:
If I was doing a practice approach in severe clear and intending to circle to land, I would fly to the mins and then join the downwind to the active that all the other people are using.

If doing it while the beacon is spinning, I'd get down to mins and pick the circling direction that looks like I'd be less likely to lose sight of the runway while circling.

I'm an IR student, are my practical thoughts out of line with the regs? <- genuine question
Click to expand...

Remember that circling mins are generally going to be well under TPA - More like 400 AGL instead of 800-1000. If you're going to take it all the way down to minimums, I would go missed instead of circling... Though it's a valuable training exercise to be under the hood for a long time, go visual at circling mins, and then make your "pattern", especially at night. Hint: Don't start descending abeam the numbers!

midlifeflyer said:
How would you make the distinction? @Hunt-man suggested a note on the chart to remind instrument pilots the universal traffic pattern rules apply to them too. Are you suggesting a more complex 91.126 rule in which operating against the pattern in Class G depends on ceiling or visibility or both, also remembering Class G VFR minimums - 1 mile, clear of clouds. What should that rule say?
Click to expand...

Maybe just make the turns-in-the-pattern reg a Visual Flight Rule rather than a Flight Rule...
 
I'll add that ALL of my circling has been at a towered field, and they always instruct me to the opposite pattern. Which, while a different situation, might explain my confusion.
 
Ravioli said:
I'll add that ALL of my circling has been at a towered field, and they always instruct me to the opposite pattern. Which, while a different situation, might explain my confusion.
Click to expand...
We're still dealing with general rules. The traffic pattern rules all have a proviso: "Unless otherwise authorized or required..." The traffic pattern rules don't apply to a Towered field when the tower is open, VFR or IFR. Assuming a non-emergency, you do what the Tower says or approves.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Maybe just make the turns-in-the-pattern reg a Visual Flight Rule rather than a Flight Rule...
Click to expand...
That would be a solution, but it's one I don't see the FAA adopting. It would essentially be giving approval to something unsafe - and too many IFR pilots already think they are special and have priority over mere mortals. Plus, it would be removing a bright line and leaving only the "legal but reckless" vagaries of 91.13. I'm not sure even most pilots would want that.

BTW, he hasn't posted in this thread, but @John Collins is a pretty big proponent of allowing IFR pilots the leeway to do what they feel is necessary on a circling approach. He's the author of at least one follow-up to the Murphy letter, but hasn't gotten too far.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
Bottom line is, the FAA's position is that the 91.126 traffic pattern rule is not waived for IFR operations. FWIW, I did an article on the subject last year for IFR magazine...
Click to expand...
The article can always be rescinded. :)

The Collins letter allows deviation from 91.126 under the provisio you mentioned above, "Unless otherwise authorized or required...". As I mentioned above, "authorized" when approved by a tower, "required" when needed under Part 95 circling minima.
EDIT: My mistake. Should be "Part 97 circling minima."
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
The article can always be rescinded. :)

The Collins letter allows deviation from 91.126 under the provisio you mentioned above, "Unless otherwise authorized or required...". As I mentioned above, "authorized" when approved by a tower, "required" when needed under Part 95 circling minima.
Click to expand...
Yes, but John was trying to get more than that. Approval to deviate at nontowered airports based on what the pilot thinks is the best to do.

And, of course, the article can be updated if and when the FAA updates its viewpoint. Heck, I'm always looking for new subjects.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Yes, but John was trying to get more than that. Approval to deviate at nontowered airports based on what the pilot thinks is the best to do.
Click to expand...
I think he got enough. This has not been an issue, that I'm aware of over the years, where pilots of actual circling aircraft under IFR conditions have had close encounters with local VFR traffic. It's hard to imagine why an FAA inspector might feel compelled to go after such a pilot any more than going after a legal scud running varmint.

Now, I could see wanting to cut CFIs some slack who are training students how to conduct the circling maneuver, if the FAA is really of the mindset that instrument pilots should be able to do it without first practicing under VFR conditions. I think, though, that if the FAA can "consider" (as they do) that a 45° right turn into the downwind doesn't violate 91.126, then they must just as well "consider" that instrument training of the circling maneuver under VFR is necessary in the pursuit of safety as long as it isn't careless and reckless. So far, they seem to. Do you have any evidence they haven't?
 
dtuuri said:
I think he got enough. This has not been an issue, that I'm aware of over the years, where pilots of actual circling aircraft under IFR conditions have had close encounters with local VFR traffic. It's hard to imagine why an FAA inspector might feel compelled to go after such a pilot any more than going after a legal scud running varmint.

Now, I could see wanting to cut CFIs some slack who are training students how to conduct the circling maneuver, if the FAA is really of the mindset that instrument pilots should be able to do it without first practicing under VFR conditions. I think, though, that if the FAA can "consider" (as they do) that a 45° right turn into the downwind doesn't violate 91.126, then they must just as well "consider" that instrument training of the circling maneuver under VFR is necessary in the pursuit of safety as long as it isn't careless and reckless. So far, they seem to. Do you have any evidence they haven't?
Click to expand...
There would likely have to be an "event," just like most enforcement actions.
 
midlifeflyer said:
There would likely have to be an "event," just like most enforcement actions.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I was asking, if you knew of any events. Lacking that, fomenting near hysteria about the need to conform to 91.126 during actual or practice circling approaches will become a self-fulfilling fear. Just like crossing over an airport at pattern altitude became an FAA-approved act, when some CFI who's taken certain letters of interpretation to heart hires on at the FAA and makes it so. "We have met the enemy and he is us!"
 
dtuuri said:
Yes, that's what I was asking, if you knew of any events. Lacking that, fomenting near hysteria about the need to conform to 91.126 during actual or practice circling approaches will become a self-fulfilling fear. Just like crossing over an airport at pattern altitude became an FAA-approved act, when some CFI who's taken certain letters of interpretation to heart hires on at the FAA and makes it so. "We have met the enemy and he is us!"
Click to expand...
Not sure how explaining what a rule is equates to "fermenting near hysteria," but if you're hysterical about it, I guess that's the way it goes.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Not sure how explaining what a rule is equates to "fermenting near hysteria," but if you're hysterical about it, I guess that's the way it goes.
Click to expand...
This thread seems full of hysteria with everybody referencing letters of interpretation and citing articles to make sure nobody continues flying circling approaches the same way they've always done them.

Now we're gonna have guys breaking out, finding the runway off to their right and mucking around in the vapors trying to line up with the runway using only left-hand turns--because that's what IFR Magazine says to do. Or maybe making a missed approach and running out of fuel. Not to mention flunking checkrides when examiners start believing they need to comply with the Chief Counsel. That isn't hysteria, it's a prediction.
 
dtuuri said:
This thread seems full of hysteria with everybody referencing letters of interpretation and citing articles to make sure nobody continues flying circling approaches the same way they've always done them.

Now we're gonna have guys breaking out, finding the runway off to their right and mucking around in the vapors trying to line up with the runway using only left-hand turns--because that's what IFR Magazine says to do. Or maybe making a missed approach and running out of fuel. Not to mention flunking checkrides when examiners start believing they need to comply with the Chief Counsel. That isn't hysteria, it's a prediction.
Click to expand...
Now THAT'S hysteria!
 
This discussion is idiotic. In actual low IFR weather during a circling maneuver at MDA, the last thing any pilot should be thinking about is any stupid rule that would prevent them from turning appropriately per the diagrams in the Instrument Flying Handbook. I know from personal experience that not enough planning and rehearsal of actions at the missed approach point has made circling to land a rare event. You can request an opposite direction landing or land on a taxiway if you are flying a helicopter. Experience makes these decisions moot. Just keep the runway in sight, turn any way needed within the protected airspace and get on the ground.
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
What was interesting to me was how obvious these failure points are. Identifying the wrong fix on a step down or flying a hold wrong??

and if these people are failing because their instructors are doing the exact same one hour plan over and over again and the students can't actually handle new situations, then how is an IR pilot ever supposed to actually do a proper cross-country and use their license and airplane for the purpose it was built; to go cool and fun places. Shameful and pitiful
Click to expand...
I ran into this working on my IFR...kept doing Plan A and Plan B but CFI never once explained what I was doing wrong and how to fix it. Fired him, we were both happy. The owner of the school never contacted me about it. Haven't been able to get back into training due to job, but hopefully, early next year.
 
IK04 said:
This discussion is idiotic.
Click to expand...
I think that, so long as ignorance is not an excuse, we might as well understand what the rule is before we decide it's ok to do something else. (Others of course, prefer bliss and think knowledge is a bad thing.) A speed limit of 30 does not mean we won't go 35, and safely. Understanding that the rule is 91.126 applies to everyone does not mean a pilot won't choose what the pilot believes is the safest course of action in a given situation. I would too.
 
murphey said:
I ran into this working on my IFR...kept doing Plan A and Plan B but CFI never once explained what I was doing wrong and how to fix it.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I think it's more common than we think.. a lot of instructors seem to get stuck in their rigid lesson plan and are not actually that good at teaching.. it is too bad because we spend a lot of money to pursue our passion, so good on you for firing him.. good luck, hope you can get back into it soon
 
DavidWhite said:
I circle to land all the time off instrument approaches, and don’t remember how to do wind correction angles!

Surely headed for a smoking hole as per the ace pilots here.
Click to expand...
Ah, but Alaska is rule unto itself.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Sure it does. It's very nice to say you are "circling" when the weather is CAVU, but if you actually perform the maneuver when there are 4 VFR pilots in the pattern, I think the FAA would say you are being reckless.
Click to expand...

We're still talking about an IFR aircraft, on an IFR flight plan, who has been cleared an instrument approach, right?
 
flunked the short field obstacle bit the first round & didn't do much better on the second so...

examiner showed me how it's done then gave me a pass
 
Hacker said:
We're still talking about an IFR aircraft, on an IFR flight plan, who has been cleared an instrument approach, right?
Click to expand...
Yes. If you are flying on an IFR flight plan and cleared for an instrument approach, and circle to a Class G airport with no tower, the FAA says you must follow the universal traffic pattern rule in 91.126 unless " ‘authorized or required’ by the approach guidelines of a specific airport or by another FAA regulation" or an emergency.

Actually, even though the FAA goes on to say that the determination that's it's a emergency must be done in good faith based on safety concerns, I think that really does give us a lot of leeway when the weather is really down to near-minimums.
 
Hacker said:
We're still talking about an IFR aircraft, on an IFR flight plan, who has been cleared an instrument approach, right?
Click to expand...

Heck, even practice circling approaches ought to have the right away according to this:

§91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.
(a) ...

(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
...
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.
 
Clip4 said:
30 years ago we all did the right turn, but the FAA Chief Council wrote an opinion saying nah baby nah.

91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G airspace.
(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area must comply with the requirements of this section.

(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an operating control tower in Class G airspace—

(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to the right; and

http://www.ifr-magazine.com/issues/33_8/features/Which-Way-to-Turn_1277-1.html
Click to expand...
Or required... in my opinion, as PIC, there may be times it is required for safety of flight.
 
Gee, I feel dumb. Somehow my wires got crossed and I've been referring to "Part 95" instrument approach procedures in at least four different posts. Of course, not that anybody noticed, it's "Part 97" that includes individual SIAPs. Duh. I went back and made the changes. It's Part 97 and Part 91.113(g), together, that I think gives IFR pilots the authority to circle in whatever direction they deem safest, despite the weather, and have the right of way to boot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top