Misinformation from Tower?

cfiOBrian

New Member
I was flying with an instrument student in VFR conditions into KMER (Castle) in Atwater, CA. KMER is towered, non radar. They were taking off and landing 31 and we were doing the RNAV 13. We called tower and told him we were inbound, RNAV 13 at the IAF, circle to land. He told us to continue and report the FAF. We complied and he told us to "Continue, circle to the North, report when commencing circle." Again we complied and began circling at reasonable distance at MDA (640'). As we got closer to being downwind I told my student to climb closer to pattern altitude. At 850' the controller asked us if we were at minimums. I said we were 200' above. We continued to climb and at 1000' the controller angrily told us "on an opposite direction approach, circle to land, you need to stay at minumums; you are receiving vertical separation from traffic!" I simply replied "understood". The he only other traffic in the pattern was an aircraft well ahead of us turning base to final.

On ground freq I inquired, " is that a published procedure for an opposite direction approach, circle to land?....orrr...." His response was that if I looked at the procedure that I'm required to maintain MDA and if I wanted a higher altitude that I would have to request it because it's a VFR altitude.

WHAT?!!!

First off, if you cleared me to circle, why in the world would there be any traffic over me? Secondly, in VFR conditions why wouldn't we all welcome an aircraft to climb up to traffic pattern while circling if able?

Is there ANY merit to what this guy said? References are welcome - I'm willing to learn!
 
For starters, "VFR altitudes" start at 3000 AGL (91.159). Also, any traffic should have been called out when you reported the circle, ie "you will be #2 behind a Cessna turning onto the downwind...."
 
You can add and amount of feet you your MDA you feel like. It's a minimum and not a maximum.
 
FWIW I was always taught to stay within +100/-0' of MDA while circling, not only because of PTS but also for vertical separation.
 
CANPA approaches routinely add lots of feet to MDAs and Cat D/E MDAs tend to be many hundreds of feet higher. The only vertical separation you should have to worry about is out the top of the airspace you're in, generally 2000 or so feet higher in D.
 
I can't find anything that says specifically you are not to climb while on the circling portion of an instrument approach, but I can tell you 99% of controllers will not expect you to climb unless you are commencing the missed approach. The AIM does state that "IAPs are designed to provide an IFR descent from the en route environment to a point where a safe landing can be made." In other words, you can level off prior to MDA no problem, but once you go down, we don't expect you to go back up.

You don't say whether you were on an IFR clearance or conducting VFR practice approaches in this scenario, but if you are IFR controllers often use observed Mode C altitude leaving as a means of separation when they issue an altitude to another aircraft. Since you say the tower is non-RADAR that is unlikely in this case. Either way, in VMC as you say it should be no problem to climb to pattern altitude. Just let the controller know what you're up to.
 
You'd bust a ride for that too. A circle is +100/-0. Its taught that way to simulate being unable to climb due to it being "imc".

Yea, its low, but thats what a circle approach is.
 
Checkride simulates worst case scenario i.e. the wx is down to circling mins. Real life, if I can maintain good vmc at the normal pattern altitude there is nothing wrong with staying there. Climbing up is a little odd.

Also, it's very rare to do a circle at a towered field.
 
Also, it's very rare to do a circle at a towered field.

n725075089_288918_2774.jpg
 
Thank you for the responses. To clear up a couple things...
We were vfr practicing an approach mostly for the purpose of entering g the pattern to land and finish up the flight. I'm aware of the PTS requirements, but I'm more interested in what's legal. I admit, it is a little odd to fly down to minimums and then climb in the downwind. However, because the controller got on us over the radio I'm in a position with my student(s) to elaborate on the situation; whether we were right or wrong, why the controller reacted that way, what the regulations say, and what the general consensus in the pilot/controller community is on the issue. From what I can see, it seems that there was no legal obligation for us to remain at MDA, we were not violating any FAR or procedure, and there was absolutely no merit to what the controller stated. Not to mention that he was completely out of line coming at us sideways over the radio over it.
 
No it's not.

Huh. I guess our towered airports around here have enough approaches to each runway you don't really need to circle too much, even if one goes down there are other options. Everywhere else needs to be like that. Means less hand flying and more coffee sipping/sandwich eating.
 
Thank you for the responses. To clear up a couple things...
We were vfr practicing an approach mostly for the purpose of entering g the pattern to land and finish up the flight. I'm aware of the PTS requirements, but I'm more interested in what's legal. I admit, it is a little odd to fly down to minimums and then climb in the downwind. However, because the controller got on us over the radio I'm in a position with my student(s) to elaborate on the situation; whether we were right or wrong, why the controller reacted that way, what the regulations say, and what the general consensus in the pilot/controller community is on the issue. From what I can see, it seems that there was no legal obligation for us to remain at MDA, we were not violating any FAR or procedure, and there was absolutely no merit to what the controller stated. Not to mention that he was completely out of line coming at us sideways over the radio over it.
I think what you did was legal but not the best manner in which to instruct a circle-to-land. If you were practicing an approach, try not to show a student that they can "give up" or break off of the approach unless their safety is at hand. While it's true you can fly higher, when, in real weather conditions, would you? THAT is the lesson to pass on.

BTW, the controller might have just spilled coffee in his lap; he was out of line.
 
Back
Top