Circling Approaches Explained Part I

[@jameshuggins7320]

Keep saving lives, sir. Also, it’s really nice to not have the dumpster fire distraction that is Dan’s ego.

[@ProbableCause-DanGryder]

Saving lives at $20/month.

[@furtif000]

I’ve done some circling app to opposit QFU, in CAVOK, and the big challenge for an airliner is to keep runway in sight while banking and to manage strong tail wind in downwind, staying within OCH area in high terrain layout 😊. PS : considere to cancel the circling if some failure are modifying your speed profile etc …

[@davehallier8584]

Holy mackerel ! Major comprehensive herein! I’m listening to this podcast half asleep in my lazy boy chair at night. Why? Because you have nailed it on many levels and must really thank you for putting this material together in light of N880Z et al! Very well presented and actually woke me up! Why aren’t we trained for this? I’m a retired CPL, regional stuff, received my IFR GRP1 fore decades go before RNAV GPS. You have very graciously explained the average pilot and how we can easily screw up our intended approaches by opting for the passive Circling approach, which as you point out numerous times is a death wish! Totally! Why do we even promote a CA anyway? Recipe for disaster. Can’t thank you enough for explaining this. I have a very good young friend freight captain with a new baby girl that I can’t wait to further argue this procedure with. He captains a B1900 daily doing freight feeder routes in all kinds of night and marginal weather (Amazon) to get the product delivered. I’m nearing 65, still maintain a CPL CAT1 GRP 1, but wouldn’t touch that type of flying with a barge pole now! That’s a young man’s game, sometimes foolish. Not many old brave pilots, but many young ones which are invincible and arrogant! I did survive that era thank God!

[@chuckcampbell3927]

🛑🛫📖🛬🛑 Great job. Thank you for all the labor you put into making this presentation. 📖🙏🐆✈️

[@AviationNewsTalk]

You're welcome! I do a lot of instrument training and watch pilots make the same mistakes, so I wanted to share my insights.

[@NighthawkCarbine]

I hate circling approaches and refuse them at night and low IFR situations.

[@AviationNewsTalk]

Excellent sir! If only all pilots would avoid them in these situations, we'd have fewer accidents.

[@brianjohnson7137]

Excellent video Max! You’re right, I did learn some things. I had no idea that the terpsters intended us to use certain bank angles for a given approach category. Great information!

[@OrhanBaser1]

Excellent! Thank you for detailed very helpful information and tips.

[@OrhanBaser1]

Great explanation; thank you Max!

[@AviationNewsTalk]

Glad you enjoyed it Orhan!

[@jakew9887]

Excellent presentation. Thanks

[@briantoplessbar4685]

What is the purpose of a circling approach? Is it used if only one runway heading has ILS? What other situation would it make sense for an airport to have a circling approach? Is it just a way to land and not something on an approach plate? Non pilot trying to understand?

[@lepetitprincejets]

Thanks Max, reminded me the smoky circling…

[@michaeljohn8905]

Thank you for making these videos for us. I’m not very wealthy. These help me so much. Thank you. Mike KLZU Liked and subbed !

[@byronbailey9229]

Airlines forbid circling approach.

[@AviationNewsTalk]

It's a great policy, but I'm not sure they all do. I watched a regional Skywest flight that my wife was on fly into Missoula, MT about 3 years ago. They flew the RNAV (GPS)-D, which is a circling approach. I watched them break out around 1000 feet practically over the runway, and then they flew the missed. The winds were shifting and they then flew the ILS. My wife said she saw the pilots afterwards and that they looked shook.

[@CFITOMAHAWK]

It is Low GRM. and most ATP's dont practice Low GRM. And tough winds make them even more difficult. Or no autopilot to keep alt and speeds. Tough GRM i called it. Most commercial pilots suck on Tough GRM to the point of canceling the flight if had to do a manual circling with winds.. It sucks to suck on windy circlings. I used to teach them.

[@SubTroppo]

As a non-pilot, the mind boggles! As I understand it the flight simulators do not use/have examples of difficult circling approaches.

[@AviationNewsTalk]

They have the capability to fly virtually any circling approach, but for some reason, for large multi-million dollar sims, the FAA just has them fly a small number of them. Really odd.

[@SubTroppo]

@@AviationNewsTalk Perhaps the reason is that circling approaches are to be avoided but they just don't want to explicitly say it. How many aviation businesses would have to move if circling approaches were banned?

[@dlvox5222]

These pilots had familiarity complex with this airport, mainly because it was home base for them. They cancelled a IFR approach prior to landing because they “knew” the airport and had no intention of landing on the shorter runway in wet conditions. Way too low in that weather for a VRF approach in a tight terrain airspace. Apparently it was not a stall spin that caused the crash, but a power line collision at low altitude. You can see the blue flash of a transformer explosion from the civilian back yard camera. The Oh shit was the point of impact into power lines.

[@AviationNewsTalk]

The airplane hit powerlines and it hit the ground, but neither caused the accident; both occurred after the pilots lost control and the airplane was on the way down. The area of the crash was confined to an extremely small area, indicating he aircraft was coming straight down; had it been flying more or less level when it hit the powerlines, the crash would have been spread out horizontally over a much larger area. Second, the powerlines were extremely low, of the type you'd expect to find in a residential neighborhood. The last altitude registered for the aircraft, almost immediately before the crash was 950', approximately 400 feet above the ground in that area. The aircraft would have to plunge nearly straight down from that height to get down to where the powerlines are. Yes, the plane hit powerlines, but it was already out of control and passed through them as it was plunging to the ground.

[@arturoeugster7228]

DL As you said, they cancelled IFR. The only correct way to land on 27 R is to fly a normal pattern at a proper altitude : cross wind perpendicular to the runway followed with the wider down wind appropriate for the higher approach speed of the Learjet (1.4 × stallspeed), which is beyond I-8 ,then into base about where I-8 turns to the north, and into final with the usual intercept of the localizer, keeping in mind that a southern wind may require an early turn to final. That gives them 3 miles ( the visibility was 3 miles) to execute a stabilized approach, slowing to 1.2×stallspeed. In other words a normal VMC procedure at night. Why different from a day pattern? Given the ceiling reported (2000 ft), a 1000 ft AGL pattern reduces noise on the ground below , especially to the densely populated trailer parks, well illuminated and located along the localizer. 200 ft beyond the impact point is one of the trailer parks. The outcome of the accident would have been an unmitigated disaster, had the impact occurred 300 feet beyond. As an CFII, based on that airport I have discouraged night landings with high performance aircraft on 27R under VFR. At night IFR approaches are not authorized on 27R .

[@arturoeugster7228]

It is my opinion, that a circling approach, always flown in VMC, is meant to be other than a straight in approach. Nothing to do with flying a semi circular path direct from downwind into short final. That means that it should be a usual traffic pattern, for the landing runway. Nowhere is such an improvised 'circling' approach practiced in preparation for the instrument rating. It is a fact that in other countries instead of a procedure turn ( 45 ° and followed by a 180 back towards the localiser or equivalent) they fly an elongated half loop reversal with published in- and outbound courses. Sometimes without the alternate holding pattern reversal option. That does not mean that we should adopt those practices, because they are not robust, compared to a formal procedure turn.