The safety of this circling approach

AV8R_87

AV8R_87

En-Route
Joined
Feb 1, 2024
Messages
3,628
Location
NE USA
Display Name
OC
1773067431565.jpeg

Removed details to protect the participants. Aircraft is a light twin jet, similar in size to a Citation.

Aircraft flies the approach for one runway, then circles and lands on an intersecting runway. Flies a "pattern" about 2nm wide at 700ft AGL. The downwind takes him over a moderately populated area (yellow on the sectional for anyone that cares). His 180° downwind to final turn begins over an indoor/outdoor museum area.

With circling approaches not having the best safety record, how wise is it to fly one like this over a populated area?
 
We’ll probably not wise if they’re not proficient with circling approaches. Military does a crap load of them and honestly never heard of an accident during the circle. I can’t even tell you the number of times I’ve cleared P-3s on a TACAN circle. It’s a PITA for the controller on busy days but it can be done safely by the pilot if they know their aircraft and aware of terrain / weather effects.
 
Category B gets a bit under 2 miles in protected area, category C gets a bit over. Sounds like it's probably reasonable. As long as they are at or above the circling MDA, I'm failiing to see what the issue is. Lots of airports have "populated areas" near them. Absent some missing details here, I fail to see the problem.
 
Biggest question that I have is whether the aircraft and crew are based at this airport?

If not, is it a regular destination?

Pilots fully aware of ALL of the local hazards to low flying aircraft are completely different from the stranger arriving. I am not personally comfortable with them flying below the normal pattern altitude in the circling maneuver, but with good visibility, it can be safe.
 
flyingron said:
Category B gets a bit under 2 miles in protected area, category C gets a bit over. Sounds like it's probably reasonable. As long as they are at or above the circling MDA, I'm failiing to see what the issue is. Lots of airports have "populated areas" near them. Absent some missing details here, I fail to see the problem.
Click to expand...
I agree with Ron. Without a bunch more information, I don't see the problem.

Yes, circling approaches add risk factors. Some operators simply prohibit them. But I never understood the all-or-nothing approach to circling. I think it's just an approach type that's particularly conducive to personal minimums. Pulling up the ILS or LOC 3 to my home base as an example, Class B circling minimums are 513' AGL and 1 SM visibility. I see a huge difference between circling with the clouds at 520 AGL with only that 1 mile visibility at one extreme and CAVU conditions on the other extreme. From the description, this pilot had at least 2 miles visibility and a ceiling that permitted flight at an altitude that would be considered VFR at an airport that wasn't controlled airspace to the surface.

I'm not sure what the "populated area" means. If that's a obstacle consideration, there shouldn't be circling authorized there.
 
flyingron said:
Category B gets a bit under 2 miles in protected area, category C gets a bit over. Sounds like it's probably reasonable.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
flyingron said:
Absent some missing details here, I fail to see the problem.
Click to expand...
Sometimes you look at how an airplane is flown and it just doesn't feel right. Circling approaches in light jets are not my strong point, hence why I asked. It felt too steep of a turn, too close to the ground to be the right thing.

midlifeflyer said:
I'm not sure what the "populated area" means. If that's a obstacle consideration, there shouldn't be circling authorized there.
Click to expand...
In the context mentioned above, it meant that if they augered in there was a very high chance of killing a few people on the ground.

Velocity173 said:
We’ll probably not wise if they’re not proficient with circling approaches.
Click to expand...
See next reply.
geezer said:
Biggest question that I have is whether the aircraft and crew are based at this airport?
Click to expand...
Seems like the the airplane recently arrived at the airport, and was conducting what looked like training flights. Multiple approaches flown, but this was the only circling one.
geezer said:
If not, is it a regular destination?
Click to expand...
Definitely not a regular destination.
 
AV8R_87 said:
In the context mentioned above, it meant that if they augered in there was a very high chance of killing a few people on the ground.
Click to expand...
What does the fact they are circling have to do with that? If they were flying a normal VFR pattern at 1500 AGL about the same distance from the runway, and they augured into the ground at the same point, you think it would be better? I would think the extra energy from twice as high up would make it much worse.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Seems like the the airplane recently arrived at the airport, and was conducting what looked like training flights. Multiple approaches flown, but this was the only circling one.
Click to expand...
Now I gotta ask - what was the weather at the time?
 
MauleSkinner said:
But what it probably looked like was a 15-20 degree banked turn.
Click to expand...
Feels about right, probably closer to 20.
midlifeflyer said:
What does the fact they are circling have to do with that?
Click to expand...
Tighter maneuvering and higher chance of stalling it? Didn't a bizjet stall at TEB while trying to do a CTL a few years ago?
midlifeflyer said:
Now I gotta ask - what was the weather at the time?
Click to expand...
Overcast, probably 1200ft agl. Good visibility under.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Tighter maneuvering and higher chance of stalling it? Didn't a bizjet stall at TEB while trying to do a CTL a few years ago?
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it doesn't support your argument. It was a massive screw up, not particularly related to the circling maneuver. These clowns would have crashed on a straight in for 6.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Seems like the the airplane recently arrived at the airport, and was conducting what looked like training flights. Multiple approaches flown, but this was the only circling one.
Click to expand...
Given this tidbit of information it may have been exactly that.


Circling approaches are required for some (maybe all) Instrument Checkrides.
The most recent guidance I read for a Instrument Proficency Check pretty much required demonstrating one as well.

Now the Examiners I work with would really like to see that requirement go away on check rides at they feel it should be a rarely used maneuver and safely demonstrating them on a checkride is often challenging while trying to fit into a busy traffic pattern. The local Class C won't let them do circling approaches, it simply disrupts the traffic flow to much.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
brcase said:
Circling approaches are required for some (maybe all) Instrument Checkrides.
The most recent guidance I read for a Instrument Proficency Check pretty much required demonstrating one as well.
Click to expand...

The ACS requires them for initial certification. The IPC is up to the instructor, but its supposed to be of the same scope as the initial exam and the ACS recommends that all the section VI tasks be accomplished (which includes circling approaches).
brcase said:
Now the Examiners I work with would really like to see that requirement go away on check rides at they feel it should be a rarely used maneuver and safely demonstrating them on a checkride is often challenging while trying to fit into a busy traffic pattern. The local Class C won't let them do circling approaches, it simply disrupts the traffic flow to much.
Click to expand...

Rarely used? Maybe at your class C, but there are still many approaches that don't have straight-in minima. I was flying an MU=2 into FXE just last week and we got an ILS-circle-to-land to the oppositve runway issued to us.

Doing anykind of "to the MAP" or full stop instrument approach in an airport with a busy VFR pattern is going to be dicey no matter what sort of approach you are conducting.

 
At my home airport, KUZA has LPV to runway 2 and 20, but because it interferes with KCLT flight patterns, the RNAV (GPS) Rwy 20 is never allowed. I recall being assigned it once in the last 20 years when the winds favored Rwy 20, so when strong winds are out of the south, CTL is the only option. I flew one yesterday and last year on returning from Sun N Fun.
 
Aren’t approaches made all the time over populated areas?
 
dtuuri said:
Here's one that got two military pilots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_NASA_T-38_crash
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. To be fair though we’re talking about a very unforgiving aircraft and sounds like he didn’t maintain VMC. Also, I’m not sure what approach they were doing but it looks like an ILS 24 and they tried a 360 degree circle back to the runway. Not a typical circle.
 
Part of the problem with circle-to-land is that pilots tend to go into it without a plan for keeping the airplane stable and within normal flight limits. The OP noted the Lear crash at Teterboro, which first off didn’t follow the tower’s instructions, which would have them turn onto a base leg 5 miles from the airport. They also entered a downwind at a distance more appropriate to a Cherokee than a Lear even without factoring in the 30-knot tailwind on base.

On the other hand, it looks like the crew that he questioned in the OP did things according to a good, safe plan.
 
His speed was about 150 kts when he started the turn. Plugging that number and the turn radius (about 0.75nm) in a calculator yields 20 degrees for bank angle. He then lets the speed decrease to about 120 which tightens the base to final portion of the turn.
 
flyingron said:
The ACS requires them for initial certification. The IPC is up to the instructor, but its supposed to be of the same scope as the initial exam and the ACS recommends that all the section VI tasks be accomplished (which includes circling approaches).


Rarely used? Maybe at your class C, but there are still many approaches that don't have straight-in minima. I was flying an MU=2 into FXE just last week and we got an ILS-circle-to-land to the oppositve runway issued to us.

Doing anykind of "to the MAP" or full stop instrument approach in an airport with a busy VFR pattern is going to be dicey no matter what sort of approach you are conducting.
Click to expand...

MU-2? Got your multi now?
 
flyingron said:
Category B gets a bit under 2 miles in protected area, category C gets a bit over.
Click to expand...

Circling areas are now related to altitude (and therefore higher TAS and turn radius at higher altitudes), as opposed to the fixed areas of years past.

Pretty much the minimum radii now (I pulled these from the forms for a sea-level airport) are:
Cat A 1.30
Cat B 1.81
Cat C 2.84
Cat D 3.70

So if the OP's airplane was only 2 nm from the runway, it was well within the circling area for Cat C. And if the "about 2 nm" wasn't a very accurate estimate, it could have been within Cat B as well.

If we knew the actual airport it wouldn't be too hard to find (or calculate) the actual circling radii used. Even just knowing the airport elevation would result in a pretty accurate estimate of the circling radii.
 
RussR said:
And if the "about 2 nm" wasn't a very accurate estimate, it could have been within Cat B as well.
Click to expand...
Using the reference scale I approximated it as 1.5nm, so it could be Cat B. The plane's Vref is within Cat B.
RussR said:
Even just knowing the airport elevation would result in a pretty accurate estimate of the circling radii.
Click to expand...
400ft.
 
AV8R_87 said:
His 180° downwind to final turn begins over an indoor/outdoor museum area.
Click to expand...
If the approach was at night to an unfamiliar field, descending before within about 10° of final over a dark abyss that could be filled with rocks or trees is risky. Not so much in a well-lit populated area.
 
There must be a reason most (all?) 121 operators don’t circle.
Heck, most don’t even certify true circles on the type.
 
Kritchlow said:
There must be a reason most (all?) 121 operators don’t circle.
Heck, most don’t even certify true circles on the type.
Click to expand...
I suspect there are a number of reasons, perhaps with an underlying assumption that it will be done at minimums with respect to both ceiling and visibility in aircraft that are more resistant to quick flight path changes.

Even the jet @AV8R_87’s sees as so dangerous was apparently doing it for training and practice with a 1200’ ceiling and VFR visibilities, basically a safe, normal, albeit lower, VFR pattern like we’ve all done to obtain the rating.
 
Kritchlow said:
There must be a reason most (all?) 121 operators don’t circle.
Heck, most don’t even certify true circles on the type.
Click to expand...
Well most 121 operators don't fly into general aviation airports.
Most all fly into airports that have their own approach control services and appropriate straight
in approaches to all main runways.
 
bonefishpete said:
Well most 121 operators don't fly into general aviation airports.
Most all fly into airports that have their own approach control services and appropriate straight
in approaches to all main runways.
Click to expand...
That's true for the big iron, but that wouldn't need need an OpSpec prohibition. There is still regional 121 activity going into smaller and nontowered airports. Easy example, Alaska, American, Delta, JetBlue, Southwest, and United all have flights into Hayden Colorado during the ski season. Even A320s and 737s. And, horror of horrors, Center handles the approach!
 
Last edited:
Kritchlow said:
There must be a reason most (all?) 121 operators don’t circle.
Heck, most don’t even certify true circles on the type.
Click to expand...

Circling approaches would require an OpSpec, and then it would require a training and checking event. From a cost standpoint considering the majority of approaches don't require it then it's not needed.

This is why when a type is issued under 121 it typically carries the limitation "CIRC. APCH. - VMC ONLY"
 
AV8R_87 said:
View attachment 150649

Removed details to protect the participants. Aircraft is a light twin jet, similar in size to a Citation.

Aircraft flies the approach for one runway, then circles and lands on an intersecting runway. Flies a "pattern" about 2nm wide at 700ft AGL. The downwind takes him over a moderately populated area (yellow on the sectional for anyone that cares). His 180° downwind to final turn begins over an indoor/outdoor museum area.

With circling approaches not having the best safety record, how wise is it to fly one like this over a populated area?
Click to expand...

Every flight has risk. Circling approaches are not inherently dangerous, but they are higher risk. Inexperienced or un-proficient pilots conducting circle to land approaches, especially at night, is a factor that increases risk for this procedure. The MDA for the procedure accounts for structures within the protected area. A PAPI or VASI also provides obstacle clearance on final within 4 miles of the runway.

The fact the procedure takes the aircraft over a populated area or over an indoor/outdoor museum increases the risk zero. A straight in LPV approach places the aircraft over the museum at the same AGL the visual approach path lights provide.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
That's true for the big iron, but that wouldn't need need an OpSpec prohibition. There is still regional 121 activity going into smaller and nontowered airports. Easy example, Alaska, American, Delta, JetBlue, Southwest, and United all have flights into Hayden Colorado during the ski season. Even A320s and 737s. And, horror of horrors, Center handles the approach!
Click to expand...
In 2022, a
JetBlue Airbus A320 departing from Yampa Valley Airport (HDN) in Hayden, Colorado, performed an emergency takeoff to avoid a head-on collision with a Beechcraft King Air, resulting in a tail strike. The King Air had entered the runway without authorization, causing the incident.

Gets exciting some times also.
Way back when airliners began Hayden service I overheard the pilots telling the agent's that they had never landed in Hayden before. Makes perfect sense.
 
bonefishpete said:
In 2022, a
JetBlue Airbus A320 departing from Yampa Valley Airport (HDN) in Hayden, Colorado, performed an emergency takeoff to avoid a head-on collision with a Beechcraft King Air, resulting in a tail strike. The King Air had entered the runway without authorization, causing the incident.

Gets exciting some times also.
Way back when airliners began Hayden service I overheard the pilots telling the agent's that they had never landed in Hayden before. Makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...
I basically pulled Hayden out of my hat since I've flown into there. I guess I could have selected KPGV in Eastern North Carolina :D
 
Didn't see this asked, apologies if I missed it - is there a published circling approach for that airport, and if so what's the min altitude? Asking because I'm new to this whole IFR thing, and I came into it with a negative feeling about circling approaches, but there are some airports where daytime they don't seem unreasonable. In some cases an airport may only have one RNAV straight in approach, and the rest are circling. So if the wind is going the wrong way, you're going to circle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top