Circling Only Approach Criteria

h0ckeyace

h0ckeyace

Well-Known Member
I was looking at approaches with a student today and came across the following approach:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1304/09974RA.PDF

I can't figure out why it is a circling only approach? Final approach course is within 30 degrees and the descent angle is normal... what other criteria could cause this to be circling only?

In the notes section it says use another airport's altimeter setting, there is also an obstacle near the final, but those are the only possible reasons I can think of.

Thanks!
 
Another point would be the 1399 elevation point just East of the airport. At almost 640 ft agl, I would think that pushes the limits of some aircraft performance considering the Cat A & B aircraft.
 
h0ckeyace said:
I was looking at approaches with a student today and came across the following approach:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1304/09974RA.PDF

I can't figure out why it is a circling only approach? Final approach course is within 30 degrees and the descent angle is normal... what other criteria could cause this to be circling only?

In the notes section it says use another airport's altimeter setting, there is also an obstacle near the final, but those are the only possible reasons I can think of.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8260.3B_Chgs_1-25.pdf
 
h0ckeyace said:
I was looking at approaches with a student today and came across the following approach:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1304/09974RA.PDF

I can't figure out why it is a circling only approach? Final approach course is within 30 degrees and the descent angle is normal... what other criteria could cause this to be circling only?

In the notes section it says use another airport's altimeter setting, there is also an obstacle near the final, but those are the only possible reasons I can think of.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
In addition to all the obstructions charted, the chart doesn't show (in any great detail anyway) the hill a mile north of the field.

See here and put terrain on.
 
I'm not familiar with the area, but looking at Autothrust's link, the runway doesn't appear to be an IFR runway (no instrument markings). That would explain the circling only mins
 
undflyboy06 said:
Another point would be the 1399 elevation point just East of the airport. At almost 640 ft agl, I would think that pushes the limits of some aircraft performance considering the Cat A & B aircraft.
Click to expand...
I'll just throw a little bit of Jet A into my 150 and it won't be a problem. :D
 
Right down to mins, 1200 AGL at 1.5 miles out (category B) would yield a pretty steep approach angle (on the order of 7.6*). Not real stable to just go straight in.
 
ShortField said:
Right down to mins, 1200 AGL at 1.5 miles out (category B) would yield a pretty steep approach angle (on the order of 7.6*). Not real stable to just go straight in.
Click to expand...

This.

You can't make a "descent to the runway using normal maneuvers" if you see the runway just before the MAP.

There is some maneuvering required to land after arriving at the MAP at the MDA.

The various obstacles are irrelevant other than the fact that they may be responsible for the high MDA.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
ShortField said:
That doesn't apply here. There is no VDP, and if there were, it wouldn't be a circling only approach.
Click to expand...

Right. But what I'm saying is, if you look at many, many straight-in approaches, their VDP's are quite often farther out than their visibility minimums.
 
Cessnaflyer said:
Erm, what?
Click to expand...


The OP asked why the approach referenced had circling minimums only, when the approach course was aligned with the runway.

The answer is because the MDA is too high to permit a descent to landing using normal maneuvers at the MAP. I presume the MDA is high because of obstacles in the area, but I don't know that for sure. However, the direct cause of the lack of straight in minimums is due to the high MDA.

That is why I said the obstacles are irrelevant. With respect to the OP's question, they - whatever they are - don't matter.
 
The obstacles/terrain do matter because they are the direct cause of the MDA being higher and the cause for the steep angle therefore no straight in approach.
 
FAF to Rwy is ~2000' in 5.9 miles, or roughtly 330'/nm. This is well within the TERPS 400'/nm limitation. From the IAF to Rwy is only 250'/nm so that is reasonable too. Course is lined up within 30*.

I don't know why. Perhaps the Rwy not having "instrument" markings is the factor. The terrain isn't, otherwise there would be notes regarding the circle or they wouldn't have the approach in the first place.
 
flyboy6585 said:
The terrain isn't, otherwise there would be notes regarding the circle or they wouldn't have the approach in the first place.
Click to expand...

Doesn't have to have limitations since it is only up to Cat B and the terrain is probably outside the radius.
 
flyboy6585 said:
FAF to Rwy is ~2000' in 5.9 miles, or roughtly 330'/nm. This is well within the TERPS 400'/nm limitation. From the IAF to Rwy is only 250'/nm so that is reasonable too. Course is lined up within 30*.

I don't know why. Perhaps the Rwy not having "instrument" markings is the factor. The terrain isn't, otherwise there would be notes regarding the circle or they wouldn't have the approach in the first place.
Click to expand...

4V4 count as a runway that has straight in mins with no instrument markings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top