NTSB issues alert on circling approaches
05-01-2023, 08:11 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Posts: 5,909
Originally Posted by Hotel Kilo
And dot gov (FAA AIS) doesn't either?
Why in the 21st century are we still farting around with circling approaches? Easy to have AIS develop RNAV (RNP) approaches to these runways.
Why in the 21st century are we still farting around with circling approaches? Easy to have AIS develop RNAV (RNP) approaches to these runways.
Last edited by captjns; 05-01-2023 at 08:29 AM.
05-01-2023, 09:05 AM
#13
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,012
A circling approach, or a circle at the end of an approach, is a maneuver, period. Legislating or regulating it away won't change that.
Truckee is a mountain airport, surrounded by terrain. It is not in a valley with mountains around it. It is in the mountains. There's a difference. It is subject to animals on the runway, significant turbulence, rapidly changing weather, lower weather than surrounding airports, more ice than surrounding airports, resident and transient general aviation traffic including frequent seasonal glider activity, and so on. It does have RNAV straight in minimums, but the straight-in and circling minimums are the same for an LNAV arrival, with 1200 to 1800 height above tuchdown. These should be clues that this is not an arrival to a runway in the flats.
This isn't simply about flying to any airport in the world and flying an approach because it has one, or because one is operating under IFR. This would be a special qualification airport, and while Part 91 operations can do mostly as they please, basic airmanship demands that one take a step back and look closely at the operation. Has one been there before? Is this out of the ordinary? Is there perhaps a reason that high minimums are prescribed? Note the terrain on the chart. Note the noise restrictions at night. Give consideration to arriving in visual conditions and having a plan B; it may be better in some cases to land at Reno and drive. It's worth keeping in mind that this airport isn't far from the location of the Donner tragedy: it gets some sucky weather and conditions that have proven unfortunate for a few travelers over the years.
This is an airmanship issue. One can attempt to regulate airmanship into the airman, but it's never met with particularly great success. Simply put: one can't fix stupid. It's bone-deep, and it hurts.
Many moons ago I was at the air tanker pilot convention in reno, when the California crowd gave a report on the new turbine conversions for theiri S-2's . They were happy to report greater performance, and the 800 gallon airplane was now a 1200 gallon airplane. What caught my attention was the speaker who said that with the greater performance, now they could push this airplane into deeper holes and still come out. A truly asinine statement. What might have been best phrased as "we can use increased performance to be more mission-capable" was actually told as "now we can push our safety margins even further, closer to the edge." Idiotic.
What's the relevance? Yes, we can certainly see if we can shoehorn LNAV/VNAV and other approaches into a place like Truckee, perhaps squeeze a little more altitude out of those minimums to get us closer to the runway, but like many things in aviation, we often see a case of just because you can, doesn't mean that you should. We're paid for our judgement. Good judgement is worth its weight in platinum. Bad judgement hurts and sometimes kills. Bad judgement can't be fixed with a tighter approach any more than it's practical to put bubble wrap around the hills and trees to make Truckee more idiot-proof. A visa won't prevent impact with the terrain, or reduce angle of attack or wing loading if one tries to tighten a base to final turn. The mishap in question didn't occur because of an inadequate approach, or an extra passenger, or a missing weight and balance. It occurred because someone flew beyond their own capabilities and those of the airplane at a place that prudence and judgement would/should have dictated a more reasoned evaluation of the destination and options.
At the end of the day, the chief pilot, director of operations, head bottle washer, or CEO isn't in the cockpit with us (usually); we're bestowed the grand title of pilot in command because we have supreme authority, and responsibility, over the operation of that aircraft. We can delegate duties but not responsibility, and that includes owning the outcome. It's our rectum on the line; we're first to the scene of impact. If nothing else, self-preservation says we need to choose wisely, else we'll be joined in the smoking hole by the rest of the crew and passengers, and that's seldom a good thing (except for Kamikaze pilots, in which case one gets a gold star). Do we really need to push the minimums and approach to the gnat's tuchus, or might we simply note that places like Truckee deserve a little more respect and care and that no, we can't regulate, legislate, or design our way into anywhere on the planet. Some places, we need to consider other options, and what might be okay on one day is not okay on the next. There's a big airport with long runways with straight in approaches nearby. They rent cars. Maybe even to extra passengers or pilots without a visa.
Truckee is a mountain airport, surrounded by terrain. It is not in a valley with mountains around it. It is in the mountains. There's a difference. It is subject to animals on the runway, significant turbulence, rapidly changing weather, lower weather than surrounding airports, more ice than surrounding airports, resident and transient general aviation traffic including frequent seasonal glider activity, and so on. It does have RNAV straight in minimums, but the straight-in and circling minimums are the same for an LNAV arrival, with 1200 to 1800 height above tuchdown. These should be clues that this is not an arrival to a runway in the flats.
This isn't simply about flying to any airport in the world and flying an approach because it has one, or because one is operating under IFR. This would be a special qualification airport, and while Part 91 operations can do mostly as they please, basic airmanship demands that one take a step back and look closely at the operation. Has one been there before? Is this out of the ordinary? Is there perhaps a reason that high minimums are prescribed? Note the terrain on the chart. Note the noise restrictions at night. Give consideration to arriving in visual conditions and having a plan B; it may be better in some cases to land at Reno and drive. It's worth keeping in mind that this airport isn't far from the location of the Donner tragedy: it gets some sucky weather and conditions that have proven unfortunate for a few travelers over the years.
This is an airmanship issue. One can attempt to regulate airmanship into the airman, but it's never met with particularly great success. Simply put: one can't fix stupid. It's bone-deep, and it hurts.
Many moons ago I was at the air tanker pilot convention in reno, when the California crowd gave a report on the new turbine conversions for theiri S-2's . They were happy to report greater performance, and the 800 gallon airplane was now a 1200 gallon airplane. What caught my attention was the speaker who said that with the greater performance, now they could push this airplane into deeper holes and still come out. A truly asinine statement. What might have been best phrased as "we can use increased performance to be more mission-capable" was actually told as "now we can push our safety margins even further, closer to the edge." Idiotic.
What's the relevance? Yes, we can certainly see if we can shoehorn LNAV/VNAV and other approaches into a place like Truckee, perhaps squeeze a little more altitude out of those minimums to get us closer to the runway, but like many things in aviation, we often see a case of just because you can, doesn't mean that you should. We're paid for our judgement. Good judgement is worth its weight in platinum. Bad judgement hurts and sometimes kills. Bad judgement can't be fixed with a tighter approach any more than it's practical to put bubble wrap around the hills and trees to make Truckee more idiot-proof. A visa won't prevent impact with the terrain, or reduce angle of attack or wing loading if one tries to tighten a base to final turn. The mishap in question didn't occur because of an inadequate approach, or an extra passenger, or a missing weight and balance. It occurred because someone flew beyond their own capabilities and those of the airplane at a place that prudence and judgement would/should have dictated a more reasoned evaluation of the destination and options.
At the end of the day, the chief pilot, director of operations, head bottle washer, or CEO isn't in the cockpit with us (usually); we're bestowed the grand title of pilot in command because we have supreme authority, and responsibility, over the operation of that aircraft. We can delegate duties but not responsibility, and that includes owning the outcome. It's our rectum on the line; we're first to the scene of impact. If nothing else, self-preservation says we need to choose wisely, else we'll be joined in the smoking hole by the rest of the crew and passengers, and that's seldom a good thing (except for Kamikaze pilots, in which case one gets a gold star). Do we really need to push the minimums and approach to the gnat's tuchus, or might we simply note that places like Truckee deserve a little more respect and care and that no, we can't regulate, legislate, or design our way into anywhere on the planet. Some places, we need to consider other options, and what might be okay on one day is not okay on the next. There's a big airport with long runways with straight in approaches nearby. They rent cars. Maybe even to extra passengers or pilots without a visa.
05-03-2023, 12:40 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2007
Position: Sr. VP of button pushing
Posts: 2,730
05-03-2023, 02:38 PM
#17
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,012
I believe that's circling procedures, meaning procedures which are only a circle to land procedure.
Most procedures contain circling minimums, which will be applicable any time the final approach course is not aligned within 30 degreess of the runway for which the procedure is assigned; procedures which are not assigned a runway due to approach orientation, or which have minimums so high that descent from MDA would not permit a straight-in landing, would be circling-only.
Truckee has both types, and also each procedure with straight in minimums has circling values, which are the same as the straight in minimums. Minimums are established in this case due to the need to maneuver, and not only for approach obstacle clearance, but for the missed approach.
Most procedures contain circling minimums, which will be applicable any time the final approach course is not aligned within 30 degreess of the runway for which the procedure is assigned; procedures which are not assigned a runway due to approach orientation, or which have minimums so high that descent from MDA would not permit a straight-in landing, would be circling-only.
Truckee has both types, and also each procedure with straight in minimums has circling values, which are the same as the straight in minimums. Minimums are established in this case due to the need to maneuver, and not only for approach obstacle clearance, but for the missed approach.
05-05-2023, 11:59 AM
#19
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,012
Circling minima apply due to course alignment, as well as the ability to make a stable descent from the missed approach point. Many approaches include circling minima for when the approach is straight-in with a 3 degree glidepath to the runway. Many ILS approaches for example, have circling minima. In such cases, the circling minima enable one to fly the approach to the designated runway ,and circle to another.
The presence of circling minima does not preclude a straight-in landing on the designated runway, but instead implies obstacle protection within a given approach category circling radius.
As noted above, only a few approaches in the US feature circle-only minima.
The presence of circling minima does not preclude a straight-in landing on the designated runway, but instead implies obstacle protection within a given approach category circling radius.
As noted above, only a few approaches in the US feature circle-only minima.
05-06-2023, 07:42 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 460
Originally Posted by captjns
Circling minima apply where the descent angle exceeds, if memory serves correctly, 3.5 degrees.
1 the final approach course differs from runway alignment by more than 30 degrees.
2 the decent rate required from the FAF to the Threshold crossing height is greater than 400 ft/nm.
3 A runway is not clearly defined on the airfield.
as someone previously stated, circling only minima does not preclude for landing straight in, e.g. ASE
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
