Sidestep . . .

[Dugie8]

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.




.

Excellent, we be on the same page!

Now, I am getting all of this from the paragraph in the IFH, about Side Step Manuevers, I realize you may not have one handy.

The first paragraph says that ATC may clear you to do a sidestep maneuver to parallel runways 1200 feet or close together. It says nothing whatsover about published mins on the chart, while the next paragraph talking about Circling approaches clearly states that circling mins will be published.

I realize that may be splitting hairs, but to me, if published mins were required, the first paragraph would state something to the effect, ATC may authorize a side step to runways with published sidestep mins, blah blah.

All of this being said, I have been digging and digging, and I am yet to find an approach where you can do a sidestep, that does not have published sidestep mins.

 

[TonyC]

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

For the record, I'm an ex-military lowly civi. :buck: I'd say it varies with the type of charts you're using, but I'll agree that LOC only or G/S OTS or "some other way of skinning that cat" minimums are USUALLY published on the same plate. The fact that we can produce exceptions prevents us from saying always. And since it's not always, we can't conclude a rule from what is usually there. My question regarding that exception was, will you fly such an approach (ILS with no associated "non-precision" minima) without a Glideslope? Is there an MDA that you can assume to substitute for the MDA that you want to see, but won't see, on that plate?

I'm guessing that you will not. My point is that you must treat missing Sidestep minima the same way. If the minima are not published, you can't do it.

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

That's a pretty good example, but it won't make my point as clearly as I'd like. Notice that there are FOUR sets of minima published on this approach. One set for the ILS, one for the Localizer, one for the Sidestep, and one for circling. Coincidentally, the last three use the exact same MDA until you move up to Categories D and E circling. But notice the visibility required for the sidestep is greater than the visibility for the Localizer approach. Notice also that the HAT is different for the sidestep (different runway, different touchdown zone elevation (TDZE)), and it's different than the HAA for the circling approach. IF it is implied that LOCALIZER minima can be used to Sidestep, consider this hypothetical. What if there were no sidestep minima published on this plate, and you arrived in your Category C airplane to fly the approach with 1 mile visibility. Would you be legal to sidestep? You'd be legal to fly the ILS, or even the Localizer. But according to the PUBLISHED sidestep minima, you'd need 1½ miles vis.

The very fact that these three non-precision approaches have been separately analyzed and "TERP"ed to arrive at legal minima which are separately published here tells me that I should not be making ANY assumptions when one of them is missing.

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 think we agree completely on HOW to accomplish a sidestep. In Lloyd's specific example, he was cleared an approach to Rwy 30L, and then cleared to sidestep to the adjacent parallel runway, 30R. The trouble is, there were no published minima for the maneuver. What visibility was required? At what minimum altitude should he have commenced the sidestep maneuver? At what MDA should he have stopped his descent until he was in a safe position to land, from which he could continually remain in a safe position to land?

That's not the kind of stuff we should be making up.




.

 

[TonyC]

All of this being said, I have been digging and digging, and I am yet to find an approach where you can do a sidestep, that does not have published sidestep mins.

Well, it will only take one to prove me wrong!!



Good luck.

[EDIT: That could come across as sounding arrogant, and that's not my intent. It's tongue in cheek, friendly, cordial, and all that stuff... like the scene in Airplane.]


.

 

[fish314]

Well, just to through in my 2 cents, I think Tony C is right on this one. I think that in order to perform a side-step, you would need to have published side-step minimums. But I definitely agree that the guidance is VERY vague and subject to some interpretation. So I can certainly see how you could argue the other way. You guys have already pointed out the appropriate guidance, but I would like to draw attention to 3 places to prove the point.

WARNING: THIS POST IS LONG, AND AS I'VE BEEN WRITING IT, YOU GUYS MAY HAVE ALREADY FIGURED THIS OUT AND MOVED ON TO OTHER QUESTIONS. IF SO, SORRY FOR REPEATING. <<SHRUG>>


FIRST REFERENCE: AIM 5-4-19d.
The first is paragraph 5-4-19d, of the AIM, which says, "Landing minimums for a side-step manuever to the adjacent runway will normally be higher than the minimums to the primary runway".


I think that since it talks about a particular set of minimums for a "sidestep manuever", and that since it says that these minimums are "normally...higher than the minimums to the primary runway", you have to assume that side-step minimums are required to perform a sidestep maneuver. Note also that it says the "minimums to the primary runway" and doesn't reference the "precision minimums" per se. So it could very well mean that the side-step minimums are normally higher than the non-precision minimums to the primary runway, and I don't think that one should assume that it is refering ONLY to the precision minimums in this paragraph.

I'll grant that it is written EXTREMELY poorly, but I think that if side-steps were allowed at the normal non-precision minimums, the paragraph would read something like, 'side-steps are authorized whenever ATC issues clearance, the runway centerlines are parallel, and displaced by no more than 1200'. Begin the sidestep maneuver from the non-precision MDA, unless a higher sidestep MDA is published." I think having a separate paragraph about side-step minimus AT ALL lends some credence to the idea that you can't do them unless there are minimums published for them.


SECOND REFERENCE: the TERPS Reg
My second reference comes from the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Approaches. For straight-in approaches, the final portion of the approach undergoes an obstacle evaluation. The area that is evaluated begins 200' from the threshold, and is 400' wide (200' either side of centerline) for a precision approach, and 800' wide (400' either sie of centerline) for a non-precision approach. Since this distance is less than the 1200' maximum for which side-step maneuvers may be authorized, I conclude that your normal non-precision approach does not include an analysis of a side-step maneuver.

Here's a link to the terps reg:
http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/11/afman11-226/afman11-226.pdf

Note that even though I've listed the Air Force version (AFI 11-226), it is EXACTLY the same reg used by all of the military services and by the FAA. Each service references it by a different regulation number, but it is exactly the same reg. Good reference for your terps questions.

Unfortunately, it doesn't mention "side-step" maneuvers at all, so it isn't really that helpful, and doesn't clean up the issue too much.

THIRD REFERENCE: THE AIR FORCE VERSION OF THE IFH
Reference number 3 is the USAF regulation about instrument flying. It is basically the USAF's version of the IFH. I realize that it doesn't apply to civilians, but it is based almost exactly on the IFH, and is a close parallel. The USAF reg. is the only source that clearly spells out the issue, so civilian pilots may want to take it as good information, even if it doesn't exactly apply to them. So what does it say? Here goes:

'15.7. Side-Step Maneuver Procedures.​

​

Where a side-step procedure is published, aircraft may make an instrument approach to a runway or airport and then visually maneuver to land on an alternate runway specified in the procedure. Landing minimums to the adjacent runway will be higher than the minimums to the primary runway, but will normally be lower than the published circling minimums.
​

15.7.1. Phraseology.​

​

Examples of ATC phraseology used to clear aircraft for these procedures are: “Cleared for ILS runway seven left approach. Side-step to runway seven right.”
​

15.7.2. Begin Side-step.​

​

Pilots will not begin the side-step maneuver until past the FAF with the side-step runway or side-step runway environment is in sight. The side-step MDA will be maintained until reaching the point at which a normal descent to land on the side-step runway can be started.
​

15.7.3. Lose Visual.​

​

As in a circling approach, if you lose visual reference during the maneuver, follow the missed approach specified for the approach procedure just flown, unless otherwise directed. An initial climbing turn toward the landing runway will ensure that the aircraft remains within the obstruction clearance area.'​

Here's a link to the whole reg: http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/11/afman11-217v1/afman11-217v1.pdf

 

[BobDDuck]

I know this is sort of not the point but...


If an airport is landing ILS approaches but the conditions are VMC or better you could sidestep even if there are no sidestep mins published. The few recent times that I have been asked to sidestep the controller has asked if we have the other runway in sight and then they will clear us to land on it. I don't know if they have a minimum distance that we need to call it in, but all the times they have asked we have been well underneath the ceiling and had plenty of forward visability.

Again, not really the point you are discussing, but still related.

 

[Dugie8]

That is a very good point Bob, and talking with a buddy of mine who is mucho smarter than me, brought up the point; If you are driving right down to mins for the LOC approach, sidestepping probably isn't a real good idea anyway.

 

[fish314]

Actually Bob, I think that it kind of is along the point (the point being when could you perform a sidestep type maneuver if there are no published sidestep mins.)

Obviously, if the field is VFR, I think this sort of a maneuver would be no problem, but I think you would pretty much be acting under the auspices of VFR rather than IFR once you began. Not that you would lose your IFR clearance or anything, but I can see tower providing directions when they are VMC that they wouldn't under IMC.

I also agree that if you only went down to circling minimums, you should be able to perform a sidestep maneuver as a type of a "circle", but you should still keep in mind all of the circling protected airspace, rules, etc.

But absent VFR weather, or weather that would allow a circle, I think that a sidestep would only be permissable if there is side-step minima published (and of course the weather MET that minima).

 

[TonyC]

I know this is sort of not the point but...


If an airport is landing ILS approaches but the conditions are VMC or better you could sidestep even if there are no sidestep mins published. The few recent times that I have been asked to sidestep the controller has asked if we have the other runway in sight and then they will clear us to land on it. I don't know if they have a minimum distance that we need to call it in, but all the times they have asked we have been well underneath the ceiling and had plenty of forward visability.

Again, not really the point you are discussing, but still related.

I believe the correct terminology in that case is "Visual Approach." You have described the conditions for a Visual Approach, and the clearance for a visual approach, but this one just happens, because of the late swap from ILS on the primary runway to Visual on the adjacent parallel runway, to look like a sidestep.

And yet, even though it might take the exact same flight path as a genuine, legitimate SideStep maneuver, it is not technically a sidestep.




.

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

Somewhat off topic but why would the ILS be used in severe clear. I listen to ATIS here at KPHX from time to time and in the ATIS message they give pilots the option for the visual or the ILS.

Not always but sometimes!

 

[averyrm]

If you don't have the airport in sight, or are unfamilliar shooting the ILS can be easier.

 

[daveatc]

Somewhat off topic but why would the ILS be used in severe clear. I listen to ATIS here at KPHX from time to time and in the ATIS message they give pilots the option for the visual or the ILS.

Not always but sometimes!

We're required to advertise the instrument and/or visual approach that is currently in use at the airport, regardless of weather conditions.

 

[JAM]

While I have heard the word "sidestep" when not on a "sidestep" approach, I think it is uncommon. More commonly, I hear, "N12345, change runway. Runway 26L, cleared to land." Do you guys hear this the same way often?

 

[daveatc]

While I have heard the word "sidestep" when not on a "sidestep" approach, I think it is uncommon. More commonly, I hear, "N12345, change runway. Runway 26L, cleared to land." Do you guys hear this the same way often?

Ideally, you should only hear 'sidestep' in conjunction with an instrument approach. The phraseology you mentioned, Change Runway....., I've used that a million times with VFR guys beating up the pattern. That is what you should hear in that scenario.

 

[Fly_Unity]

Im doing Kings Instrument course right now, and they said if there is no published sidestep minimums, use the circling min.
However Im kindve lost at what everyone is talking about here, I may be way off subject, I never been on an ILS yet.

 

[mtsu_av8er]

Somewhat off topic but why would the ILS be used in severe clear. I listen to ATIS here at KPHX from time to time and in the ATIS message they give pilots the option for the visual or the ILS.

Imagine the controllers trying to sequence 20 or 30 aircraft to one runway. Telling them to join the localizer would be sooo much easier.

Like Averyrm said, when I'm not familiar, I'll just tell 'em I want to join the localizer, and I know that'll get me there!