Aircraft Down in San Diego (Dec 27)

Call me a • if you want, but circling at night in a jet, mvfr, in hilly terrain, with no lateral or vertical guidance, is not my idea of a good time. I know BACK IN MY DAY CIRCLING NDB MILITARY BOMBING TERRISTS REAL PILOTS LEARN TO FLY AND I VOTED NO, but IMO screw that approach.
Is this the real Fox :p
 
Call me a • if you want, but circling at night in a jet, mvfr, in hilly terrain, with no lateral or vertical guidance, is not my idea of a good time. I know BACK IN MY DAY CIRCLING NDB MILITARY BOMBING TERRISTS REAL PILOTS LEARN TO FLY AND I VOTED NO, but IMO screw that approach.


Almost like there's a reason 121 operators don't perform circling approaches.

They get a bad name because pilots screw them up, most often from lack of currency in doing them. They’re really not that difficult of a procedure, even in a vaunted jet (which is an airplane like any other), however the risk does go up when pilots do things like descend below circling MDA early prior to being in the proper pattern position to do so; or try to keep the same runway visual offset reference they would have for normal pattern altitudes when they are at circling MDA and end up far too tight to the field which causes the overshooting final that they try to salvage and do the common final turn stall; or they stray outside protected circling distance for their category and impact things attached to the ground. Or, they circle against any printed circling restrictions, to either a non-authorized runway or in a non-authorized direction. Or any host of things. Circling does require some pre-planning, otherwise the risk goes up if doing it on the fly. With the above common risks, it is pilots who increase the risk on these TERPs out procedures. There is no boogeyman in circling procedures, however they are more risk than a straight in because they are more work to accomplish and keep the gotcha’s in the forefront of the mind.

In this case though, this doesn’t appear to be a formal circling approach. It appears to be nothing more than a night visual traffic pattern at pattern altitude based on the Wx, vice an actual circle that’s restricted down to a circling MDA at Wx mins and lower than a normal traffic pattern. This should have been an arrive over the field and enter a left downwind, and complete a landing, keeping it looking like a normal traffic patten at normal pattern altitude. For some reason or another, it didn’t end up as that.
 
The FOM and the restrictions on my certificate say I can one but not the other.

Our books make specific delineation that one is authorized and one isn't.

im still confused about what the difference is. I thought circling to land was doing a circling approach.
 
Call me a • if you want, but circling at night in a jet, mvfr, in hilly terrain, with no lateral or vertical guidance, is not my idea of a good time. I know BACK IN MY DAY CIRCLING NDB MILITARY BOMBING TERRISTS REAL PILOTS LEARN TO FLY AND I VOTED NO, but IMO screw that approach.
Absolutely confident I can do it.

Absolutely not *going* to do it unless I really have to.
 
im still confused about what the difference is. I thought circling to land was doing a circling approach.

my instrument training has faded some but 'I think' circling to land is a visual landing (approach). a circling approach might be published procedures.....?
 
im still confused about what the difference is. I thought circling to land was doing a circling approach.
I'm curious to know roundout's difference as well.

In my mind I think of the KPWK ILS 16 (or RNAV), circle rwy 34. "Cancel IFR prior to beginning the circle" or something similar. Has to do with the larger protected airspace required for the IFR procedure impacting KORD operations.

55E18051-099E-4381-B285-E9921FC6F570.jpeg
 
Surprised by the confusion on circling approaches.

At one of my ATC assignments we ran circling approaches everyday so maybe I got more experience than some. I’ve never heard of a difference between a circling approach vs circle to land.

In this accident the pilot was doing neither. He was VFR.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top