Sidestep . . .

[mtsu_av8er]

Here's the scenario:

You're established on the ILS final approach course for runway 30L, and you check in with the tower. You are cleared to land, and you acknowledge. About 30 seconds later, another aircraft calls ready for take-off on 30L. The tower clears this aircraft for takeoff, and amends your clearance: "When you get the runway in sight, sidestep to 30R, runway 30R, cleared to land".

Here's the catch: There are NO sidestep minimums listed. You are executing the ILS in IMC (not to minimums, but IMC nonetheless).

Is this cool?

 

[Dugie8]

Here's the scenario:

You're established on the ILS final approach course for runway 30L, and you check in with the tower. You are cleared to land, and you acknowledge. About 30 seconds later, another aircraft calls ready for take-off on 30L. The tower clears this aircraft for takeoff, and amends your clearance: "When you get the runway in sight, sidestep to 30R, runway 30R, cleared to land".

Here's the catch: There are NO sidestep minimums listed. You are executing the ILS in IMC (not to minimums, but IMC nonetheless).

Is this cool?

I have had this argument many times with people who say this ISNT cool, and they cannot point to a document that says that. I say it is cool, since the way the regs read, you only have to use the higher non precision mins if executing a precision approach, for a sidestep manuever.

Places like LAX have published side step mins, but I think those are there since the LOC approaches have conditional MDAs based on DME fixes. The sidestep mins are the higher non dme mins, that is all. I THINK....

 

[EatSleepFly]

Not a controller of course, but I'm with Dugie, I think it's alright. I hope so, I've done it a lot.

4-8-7. SIDE-STEP MANEUVER​

TERMINAL​

Side-step Maneuver. When authorized by an instrument approach procedure, you may clear an aircraft for an approach to one runway and inform the aircraft that landing will be made on a parallel runway.​

5-4-19. Side-step Maneuver
a. ATC may authorize a standard instrument approach procedure which serves either one of parallel runways that are separated by 1,200 feet or less followed by a straight-in landing on the adjacent runway.
b. Aircraft that will execute a side-step maneuver will be cleared for a specified approach procedure and landing on the adjacent parallel runway. Example, "cleared ILS runway 7 left approach, side-step to runway 7 right." Pilots are expected to commence the side-step maneuver as soon as possible after the runway or runway environment is in sight.
NOTE-
Side-step minima are flown to a Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) regardless of the approach authorized.
c. Landing minimums to the adjacent runway will be based on nonprecision criteria and therefore higher than the precision minimums to the primary runway, but will normally be lower than the published circling minimums.

Or you could ask for an ILS 30L circle 30R and just use circling mins...

 

[meritflyer]

I dunno. If there are no mins published then I get a little weird about it but what do I know.. I am just a hack!

 

[surreal1221]

I'll let the pros answer this one. Never encountered this one, or have yet to at least.

 

[TonyC]

Or you could ask for an ILS 30L circle 30R and just use circling mins...

:yeahthat: What he said.




Absent specific sidestep minimums, you'd have to apply circling minimums. I would respond to such a clearance with something like, "Understand you want Three Alpha X-ray to circle to land Rwy 30R?" If everything is kosher, and the controller even understands what you're saying/asking, he should respond with something to the effect of "Roger, Three Alpha X-ray, you're cleared the ILS Runway 30L, circle to land Runway 30R."


Continue to track the localizer inbound, but do not descent below Circling minimums. If you break out, and can position yourself such that you can make a safe landing on 30R, then depart the circling MDA when you're on a visual glideslope for 30R. Easy circling approach.




.

 

[Dugie8]

:yeahthat: What he said.




Absent specific sidestep minimums, you'd have to apply circling minimums. I would respond to such a clearance with something like, "Understand you want Three Alpha X-ray to circle to land Rwy 30R?" If everything is kosher, and the controller even understands what you're saying/asking, he should respond with something to the effect of "Roger, Three Alpha X-ray, you're cleared the ILS Runway 30L, circle to land Runway 30R."


Continue to track the localizer inbound, but do not descent below Circling minimums. If you break out, and can position yourself such that you can make a safe landing on 30R, then depart the circling MDA when you're on a visual glideslope for 30R. Easy circling approach.




.

I am curious how you come to that conclusion. The above quoted info from the AIM states nothing of having published mins for a sidestep maneuver, it only speaks of using the MDA not a DH/DA of the runway for which you are shooting the approach.

The big thing to remember here is, you can only sidestep to an adjacent runway that is 1200 feet or closer.

The circling idea is cute, but you also raise your vis mins by a fair amount, usually.

All that being said, just looking through some charts for airports like LAX and DFW, there are published mins for sidestep maneuvers, some have different MDAs some have similiar MDAs but different vis requirements, etc. I still don't see where there is a REG that says you have to have those published mins to sidestep, as long as you follow the guidance from the AIM??

 

[EatSleepFly]

I am curious how you come to that conclusion. The above quoted info from the AIM states nothing of having published mins for a sidestep maneuver, it only speaks of using the MDA not a DH/DA of the runway for which you are shooting the approach.

The big thing to remember here is, you can only sidestep to an adjacent runway that is 1200 feet or closer.

You could do a circling approach to any parallel, more than 1200 ft. apart or not, but I'm wondering what mins you'd use to do an actual sidestep if there were no specific sidestep mins published? And I'm wondering if it's even legal to do it where there are no sidestep mins published, since the ATC handbook says, "When authorized by an approach procedure..." What authorizes it? The runways being less than 1200' apart? Published sidestep mins?

 

[daveatc]

Here's the scenario:

You're established on the ILS final approach course for runway 30L, and you check in with the tower. You are cleared to land, and you acknowledge. About 30 seconds later, another aircraft calls ready for take-off on 30L. The tower clears this aircraft for takeoff, and amends your clearance: "When you get the runway in sight, sidestep to 30R, runway 30R, cleared to land".

Here's the catch: There are NO sidestep minimums listed. You are executing the ILS in IMC (not to minimums, but IMC nonetheless).

Is this cool?

It is cool. 99 times out of 100 the mins are going to be the same as the approach you're shooting because runways separated by less than 1,200 ft are considered, for the purposes of spacing and separation, to be the same runway.....logically speaking. The authorization is something that you'd find in the SOPs for the tower, not in the approach plates. It is as simple as "Side Step Maneuvers are authorized."

Ideally, approach is supposed to issue you this when they clear you for the approach. This is so you have some time to mentally set up for it, think about it, contemplate the great mysteries of life, etc. While it's not 100% wrong for tower to request it from you, it's not ideal and should really be given by approach.

Circle to land would not be appropriate to use because the parallel runway is aligned with the runway to which you're shooting the approach. Circle to land is for a non-aligned runway. "Cleared ILS runway 30R, circle to runway 22." If the runways were greater than 1,200 feet apart, they should have their own instrument approach procedures and side step wouldn't be authorized. Not 100% sure on circling to that though. Have to run that one up the flagpole and see what people think.

 

[Dugie8]

One more thing to consider about "Circling". I couldn't legally accept a circling approach if the weather is less than 3 miles and/or 1000 foot ceiling. My type has a limitation on it for "Circling Approach, VMC only"
Our OpSpecs also prohibit circling.

 

[mtsu_av8er]

Good gouge, guys - I appreciate it. I've done plenty of sidesteps, but never to a runway without sidestep minima, nor has the clearance ever been issued by the tower, inside of the marker. Caught me off guard.

This is an awesome forum!!!

 

[daveatc]

Good gouge, guys - I appreciate it. I've done plenty of sidesteps, but never to a runway without sidestep minima, nor has the clearance ever been issued by the tower, inside of the marker. Caught me off guard.

This is an awesome forum!!!

Yeah, it really should come from the approach control, as it is part of the approach. The only time I as a tower controller did it was if it was VFR or if the pilot was just shooting a practice approach. It really shows a bit of lack of coordination between tower and approach. Nothing earth-shattering, but it would catch you off guard.....which is why it shouldn't happen like that!

 

[TonyC]

I am curious how you come to that conclusion. The above quoted info from the AIM states nothing of having published mins for a sidestep maneuver, it only speaks of using the MDA not a DH/DA of the runway for which you are shooting the approach.

Did you read the NOTE at the end of subparagraph b. and the text of subparagraph c.?

Here:

NOTE-
Side-step minima are flown to a Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) regardless of the approach authorized.

c. Landing minimums to the adjacent runway will be based on nonprecision criteria and therefore higher than the precision minimums to the primary runway, but will normally be lower than the published circling minimums.

Clearly, there are minima associated with the side-step maneuver described here, and it is treated as an MDA, just like a circling approach, and NOT like the Decision Height of an ILS.


Now, if there are no published minimums for a side-step maneuvers, what minimums do you have left? The DH for the ILS, and the circling MDA. You certainly cannot use the DH for the ILS. You MAY use the circling minima.


A circling approach does not have to be flown to a runway that is not parallel to the ILS approach here. It is perfectly legitimate to fly the ILS to 30L and circle to 30R. For that matter, it could be ILS to 30L, circle to land on 30L.





.

 

[Dugie8]

Did you read the NOTE at the end of subparagraph b. and the text of subparagraph c.?

Yup, I am curious if you did

Here:



Clearly, there are minima associated with the side-step maneuver described here, and it is treated as an MDA, just like a circling approach, and NOT like the Decision Height of an ILS.


Now, if there are no published minimums for a side-step maneuvers, what minimums do you have left? The DH for the ILS, and the circling MDA. You certainly cannot use the DH for the ILS. You MAY use the circling minima.

Clearly the minimums are associated with the non precision approach "LOC" to the primary runway (ie the one you are shooting the approach to).


A circling approach does not have to be flown to a runway that is not parallel to the ILS approach here. It is perfectly legitimate to fly the ILS to 30L and circle to 30R. For that matter, it could be ILS to 30L, circle to land on 30L.





.

c. Landing minimums to the adjacent runway will be based on nonprecision criteria and therefore higher than the precision minimums to the primary runway, but will normally be lower than the published circling minimums.



If you go back and read my first reply to Lloyd's question, I clearly state that the minimums will be for the non precision approach for the runway you are shooting the approach to.

Here it is, in case you can't find it

I have had this argument many times with people who say this ISNT cool, and they cannot point to a document that says that. I say it is cool, since the way the regs read, you only have to use the higher non precision mins if executing a precision approach, for a sidestep manuever.

Places like LAX have published side step mins, but I think those are there since the LOC approaches have conditional MDAs based on DME fixes. The sidestep mins are the higher non dme mins, that is all. I THINK....

But I do see what you are saying, and the wording is abit nebulous, in my mind, if the minimum criteria being stated is associated with a new set of mins or implying you use the MDA mins for the "primary runway". Be nice to get a controllers POV on this.

 

[TonyC]

c. Landing minimums to the adjacent runway will be based on nonprecision criteria and therefore higher than the precision minimums to the primary runway, but will normally be lower than the published circling minimums.

OK... is there a point you're making by bolding and underlining? You are telling me there are minimums for a sidestep manuever. We agree that the minimums are based on non-precision criteria.


Let me ask you this. If you are flying an ILS approach, and the G/S suddenly becomes inoperable/unusable. We know that many ILS approaches can be flown to G/S OTS minimums. (In the military they are known as "LOC ONLY" approaches, even when the title of the approach doesn't say that. In the civilian world, they're known as ILS approach, glideslope out of service.) These minimums are based on non-precision criteria. But what if the particular approach does not HAVE such minimums published? What will you do? Will you make up your own minimums?

(See PANC ILS Rwy 12 if you need an example.)


You cannot fly an approach for which you have no minimums. You cannot fly a sidestep maneuver for which you have no minimums.


A circling approach to an adjacent runway will "look" just like a side-step, but it uses circling minimums.




.

 

[TonyC]

If you go back and read my first reply to Lloyd's question, I clearly state that the minimums will be for the non precision approach for the runway you are shooting the approach to.

OK, we're going to confuse each other and everyone else if I'm replying to what you've posted while you're editing it - - you added this before I started.

When you say "for the non precision approach for the runway you are shooting the approach to", what are you saying?

Lloyd specifically asked about an ILS to 30L with no published sidestep minima. What minima are you suggesting he substitute?


If you're suggesting that he substitute the MDA for the ILS G/S out of service, I disagree. If you're suggesting that he use the MDA for some other non-precision approach to 30L, I disagree. If he is cleared to fly the ILS to Rwy 30L, the ONLY minima he is authorized to use are those minima that are part of THAT approach.



.

 

[SteveC]

Tony, I'm a little confused. Are you saying that you can use LOC ONLY mins (assuming they exist for the approach in question) for the side-step or not?




<edit to add>
all right, I guess you clarified while I was typing.

 

[Dugie8]

OK... is there a point you're making by bolding and underlining? You are telling me there are minimums for a sidestep manuever. We agree that the minimums are based on non-precision criteria.


Let me ask you this. If you are flying an ILS approach, and the G/S suddenly becomes inoperable/unusable. We know that many ILS approaches can be flown to G/S OTS minimums. (In the military they are known as "LOC ONLY" approaches, even when the title of the approach doesn't say that. In the civilian world, they're known as ILS approach, glideslope out of service.) These minimums are based on non-precision criteria. But what if the particular approach does not HAVE such minimums published? What will you do? Will you make up your own minimums?

(See PANC ILS Rwy 12 if you need an example.)


You cannot fly an approach for which you have no minimums. You cannot fly a sidestep maneuver for which you have no minimums.


A circling approach to an adjacent runway will "look" just like a side-step, but it uses circling minimums.




.

Yup there is a point. I think you and I are reading the "rule" differntly, let me see if I can get my point across.

Of course there have to be mins to an approach, duh. What I am saying is, the mins for the sidestep, while published most of the time, are "implied" to be the MDA of the approach you are shooting to the primary runway. That is why I bolded and underlined that part, not being a smart ass, pointing out my rational.

I have the Instrument flying handbook in front of me here, page 10-20, there is no mention of published mins for a sidestep, it simply restates what the AIM says.

TO ME, that says if there is not a reason to have seperate published mins for a sidestep maneuver, and the runways are no more than 1200 feet apart, you can use the LOC MDA for your sidestep mins.

 

[Dugie8]

OK, we're going to confuse each other and everyone else if I'm replying to what you've posted while you're editing it - - you added this before I started.


Yup, we are, SO STOP IT! :insane:

When you say "for the non precision approach for the runway you are shooting the approach to", what are you saying?

Lloyd specifically asked about an ILS to 30L with no published sidestep minima. What minima are you suggesting he substitute?


If you're suggesting that he substitute the MDA for the ILS G/S out of service, I disagree. If you're suggesting that he use the MDA for some other non-precision approach to 30L, I disagree. If he is cleared to fly the ILS to Rwy 30L, the ONLY minima he is authorized to use are those minima that are part of THAT approach.



.

I think you may have your military "rules and terms" a little mixed up with us lowly civies. Most of the time, I say again, MOST OF THE TIME, an ILS is published as an ILS/LOC approach to runway XX. With both the Precision and Non Precision mins published

KLRD for example (note it has sidestep mins published)
http://www.naco.faa.gov/d-tpp/0608/00226ILD17R.PDF

The IFH, clearly states the pilot will be cleared for the non precision approach to the primary runway, with clearance to sidestep to the parallel runway.

I very well could be reading it wrong.

 

[TonyC]

Yup there is a point. I think you and I are reading the "rule" differntly, let me see if I can get my point across.

Of course there have to be mins to an approach, duh. What I am saying is, the mins for the sidestep, while published most of the time, are "implied" to be the MDA of the approach you are shooting to the primary runway.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Now that I believe that I know exactly what you're saying, I can say unequivo... unequiva... ummm... for SURE, that I disagree.

I do NOT believe that the sidestep mins are "implied" to be anything. In Lloyd's case, he wasn't using an MDA, he was using a decision height (I'm guessing it was, more specifcally, a decision altitude). And even IF the ILS approach he was using happened to also mention LOC only mins, or G/S OTS mins, or something along those lines, even THAT MDA could not be construed to be the sidestep MDA. While the MDA for a sidestep manuever is derived using the same methodologies as used to derive an MDA for a non-precision approach, that does NOT imply that any minima derived using that methodology may substitute for a sidestep MDA.


I'll try to find some examples that bear out that analysis. Until then, at least we know what we're disagreeing about now.




.