FAA Considers Canceling Certain Circling Procedures

deadstick said:
Wow. I’m impressed. When your on a downwind circling, you can spot the difference between 1.7 and 1.75 miles.

Heck, last I heard most people screw up a circling approach because they’re too close and overshoot final.
Click to expand...
I never mentioned a radius.
 
z987k said:
I think they all are now. At least the RNP 1 stuff. The 650/750 can do radius to fix since 2015 I think.

That said a stand alone GTN 650 install is over $10k. A significant portion of the value of the whole airplane for a lot of people. Not economical yet imo.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about RNP 0.3, which would be needed to truly replace the circles at some places and do the things Roger is talking about. That, or just have people start making up their own "procedures" when they break out at 600'.
 
gotWXdagain said:
I'm talking about RNP 0.3, which would be needed to truly replace the circles at some places and do the things Roger is talking about. That, or just have people start making up their own "procedures" when they break out at 600'.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware of any GA avionics that can do RNP 0.3. I think some places would need the 0.11
 
Richman said:
An inop GS receiver or transmitter affects one aircraft or one airport.

Busted GPS and/or WAAS affects everything.

Get off the magenta line...it's not all that scary....
Click to expand...
Do you know how GPS works? The wording of your post indicates you don't.
I have plenty of time flying circling NDB approaches with only a 6 pack thank you.
i currently fly a plane with nothing but the big window in front of you.
 
z987k said:
I'm not aware of any GA avionics that can do RNP 0.3. I think some places would need the 0.11
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Show me any avionics that can both be put into a skylane out of the box and be done so reasonably affordably and I'll show you a pilot that will use it. In the meantime, this is just asking for alot of GA instrument rated pilots to invent their own 500' AGL traffic patterns (which if your class E floor begins at 700'...)
 
NovemberEcho said:
They didn't say they're eliminating ALL circling approaches
Click to expand...
exactly.
If a field has 4 runways, do we need circling minima for each approach to each runway? I imagine having more RNAV straight ins would be beneficial (especially if you can get an LPV published to a runway that previously was only a VOR/NDB). Can't completely abandon the ground based navaids, solar flares and space weather are scary
 
bimmerphile said:
exactly.
If a field has 4 runways, do we need circling minima for each approach to each runway? I imagine having more RNAV straight ins would be beneficial (especially if you can get an LPV published to a runway that previously was only a VOR/NDB). Can't completely abandon the ground based navaids, solar flares and space weather are scary
Click to expand...
You could abandon ground based navaids everywhere west of PA and east of Denver.
Just have something to the effect of - in case of loss of GPS signal, Fly heading XXX, climb and maintain 3000, contact ATC.
 
z987k said:
You could abandon ground based navaids everywhere west of PA and east of Denver.
Just have something to the effect of - in case of loss of GPS signal, Fly heading XXX, climb and maintain 3000, contact ATC.
Click to expand...
1xe7l6.jpg
 
Itchy said:
Good. I don't know the statistics on wrecks due to circling, it is actually one of the least used instrument procedures as far as I can tell. (Well NDB approaches win that) But I do know when I was a check airman, circling was the biggest heartache.
Click to expand...
If it's somewhat challenging and takes a modicum of knowledge or skill, kill it before it kills you. Automate everything; Sit in lounger with beer; observe screen in midfield plane of vision. Life is grand... and improving all the time.
 
Roger Roger said:
Yeah, a no-kidding circle at ceiling and vis mins is a definite wake up and pay attention moment. But I feel that just canceling procedures that give you an option of a more efficient transition to the airport (let's say the winds favor 11, but you're coming from the south and the ceiling and vis are VFR and you just need to punch down through the layer) is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Click to expand...

I'm all abut saving time and gas. The Contact Approach is a beautiful thing if you really are just trying to punch through a layer without driving past the field 15 miles. It helps to know what the Min Vectoring Altitude is, and of course that it be a field and terrain you're familiar with.
 
Flyinthrew said:
I'm all abut saving time and gas. The Contact Approach is a beautiful thing if you really are just trying to punch through a layer without driving past the field 15 miles. It helps to know what the Min Vectoring Altitude is, and of course that it be a field and terrain you're familiar with.
Click to expand...

I've been controlling coming on a decade now and I've had exactly 2 pilots request a contact approach.
 
Flyinthrew said:
I'm all abut saving time and gas. The Contact Approach is a beautiful thing if you really are just trying to punch through a layer without driving past the field 15 miles. It helps to know what the Min Vectoring Altitude is, and of course that it be a field and terrain you're familiar with.
Click to expand...
Ahahahaha. Must be nice to be a flat land pilot.
 
Richman said:
And if the GPS, or some part of it, goes TU?

They canned Loran. Whatcha got left?

Even if you lose just the WAAS portion, that wrecks your LPV mins.
Click to expand...
LPV mins for most approaches aren’t much lower. And not a very good argument because just basic RNAV approaches have much lower mins than even the best circles.

How often have you lost your GPS? A simple dual install is insanely cheap vs installing NDB, VOR, and ILS receivers and cockpit equipment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top