Circling Apporaches. Where did they go?

[780Pilot]

Hey Guys,


Was looking at my local RNAV approach at CEZ3 and noticed the circling minima isn't there anymore. I checked other airports nearby like CZVL and all there RNAVs don't have circling minima anymore. What happened to circling approaches?

[iflyforpie]

https://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-an ... oke-EN.pdf

1) No need for the most part due to RNAV approaches (in many cases, LPV or RNP precision approaches) available to either end of most aerodromes.

2) Historically—even when pilots weren’t Children of the Magenta—they were the most dangerous type of approach flown.

[co-joe]

Taking away the minimums doesn't make them safer though. Not everyone has RNP or LPV capability.

[GoinVertical]

Also, what are we supposed to do now when there's nobody to give us conditions on the ground and "straight in minima may not be used"?

[Braun]

They didn’t remove the circling minima everywhere. I believe if there are approaches to each specific runway they removed it if not it’s still there. Ex. CYHU ILS24R circling minima is still there as 06L only has an RNAV.

[linecrew]

There has been an AIC running with a heads up on this since last March including where they would not be removed: Link to AIC 10/19

I guess this is also probably tied to the NAVAID modernization plan where a lot of the old NDBs that are at or approaching the end of their life-cycle will be decommissioned.

[Cessna 180]

EZ3 has their approaches made by a third party, not NavCan, (can't remember the guys name, but i think hes based in Josephburg or something), and the airport operator likely didn't pay for the circling area to be surveyed this year (or something like that).

[iflyforpie]

Taking away the minimums doesn't make them safer though. Not everyone has RNP or LPV capability.

A straight in LNAV is still better than circling. Plus with SCDA you can turn many step down approaches into a stable approach that mimics a precision one.

Also, what are we supposed to do now when there's nobody to give us conditions on the ground and "straight in minima may not be used"?

Circling for field inspection? Can’t you just... inspect it on final?

You can always... go around!!!

[photofly]

It can be awfully hard to spot some obstacles on final; four foot piles of gravel close to the threshold, for example.

[L39Guy]

EZ3 has their approaches made by a third party, not NavCan, (can't remember the guys name, but i think hes based in Josephburg or something), and the airport operator likely didn't pay for the circling area to be surveyed this year (or something like that).

My outfit does RNAV approaches including CEZ3. Cost is not an issue for adding or removing circling approaches. It’s purely a safety issue removing probably the most hazardous manoeuvre out there when there is the ability to do a straight-in approach.

[iflyforpie]

It can be awfully hard to spot some obstacles on final; four foot piles of gravel close to the threshold, for example.

I fail to see how it would be easier to see in a low downwind or crossing the field trying to control the aircraft and not hit anything.

On final, avoid the things. They aren’t going to jump scare you at 50 feet.

[goingnowherefast]

Also, what are we supposed to do now when there's nobody to give us conditions on the ground and "straight in minima may not be used"?

Call the airport ahead of time? It's certaintly safer to be given the info before departure, potentially cancelling the trip than it is to depart do a circling inspection at night in a snow storm. What do you honestly expect to see at circling minimums anyway? If it's night, you'll see black ground, some runway lights, more black, apron flood lighting, parking lot, more black ground. Is the runway bare pavement, or 12" of snow? Can't tell, it's all black at night.

The only time I've found runway overhead inspections useful, the weather was quite good and it was called a VFR circuit. They usually resulted from a questionable inspection on final anyway.

[GoinVertical]

Also, what are we supposed to do now when there's nobody to give us conditions on the ground and "straight in minima may not be used"?

Call the airport ahead of time? It's certaintly safer to be given the info before departure, potentially cancelling the trip than it is to depart do a circling inspection at night in a snow storm. What do you honestly expect to see at circling minimums anyway? If it's night, you'll see black ground, some runway lights, more black, apron flood lighting, parking lot, more black ground. Is the runway bare pavement, or 12" of snow? Can't tell, it's all black at night.

The only time I've found runway overhead inspections useful, the weather was quite good and it was called a VFR circuit. They usually resulted from a questionable inspection on final anyway.

To be clear, I've never believed that circling overhead for a runway inspection was the better option in shit weather, but it's a regulation that needs to be replaced or clarified with the removal of circling minima.

If the intent is for pilots going to remote locations with no ground station communication is to cloud break down to legal VFR (which is what it should be anyway IMO) then the regs should say that. Additionally, how long in advance is a phone call valid? If you call before a 2 hour flight, is that sufficient info to use straight-in minima?

Again, there are available solutions, but as far as I'm concerned the regulator should do a better job spelling it out for novice pilots at potentially sketchy remote operations.

[goingnowherefast]

Ah, I see what you are saying.

Wouldn't it be great if the remote airports had CARS like the even more remote arctic airports? Northern Ontario and Manitoba have the worst airports in the whole country. The arctic has CARS, better runway maintenance, longer runways, better de-icing, terminals are habitable (unlike ZFG). I can't figure out why anybody tolerates it, especially the locals.

[NovaBoy]

Circling approaches. Where did they go? I’ll tell you where they didn’t go, they didn’t go away from any training at FlightSafety. Localizer to 27 circle for 18R in KMEM, twice a year for the last 15 years. Only time I ever circle. LOL

[goingnowherefast]

Surely your company can update the SOPs and training manuals to get rid of circling. Then co-ordinate with FlightSafety to have it removed from the training. That sim time can be better used focusing on other more useful exercises.

[Capt. Underpants]

Ah, I see what you are saying.

Wouldn't it be great if the remote airports had CARS like the even more remote arctic airports? Northern Ontario and Manitoba have the worst airports in the whole country. The arctic has CARS, better runway maintenance, longer runways, better de-icing, terminals are habitable (unlike ZFG). I can't figure out why anybody tolerates it, especially the locals.

Two words describe why there’s a difference - federal money.

[co-joe]

Taking away the minimums doesn't make them safer though. Not everyone has RNP or LPV capability.

A straight in LNAV is still better than circling. Plus with SCDA you can turn many step down approaches into a stable approach that mimics a precision one.

...

Right, but look at how many air carriers are still doing the Rnav A onto Runway 34 in YLW. LPV, and RNP IAPs are not that common with Canadian carriers yet.

[iflyforpie]

Taking away the minimums doesn't make them safer though. Not everyone has RNP or LPV capability.

A straight in LNAV is still better than circling. Plus with SCDA you can turn many step down approaches into a stable approach that mimics a precision one.

...

Right, but look at how many air carriers are still doing the Rnav A onto Runway 34 in YLW. LPV, and RNP IAPs are not that common with Canadian carriers yet.

Kelowna is a special example. Substitute it with Terrace, Castlegar, Cranbrook, Penticton, etc all being airports with significant obstacles on approach and/or in the missed which preclude a precision approach from one or both directions unless (maybe) it’s an RNP.

But for 90% of the airports east of the Rockies and south of 60... an LPV or LNAV with SCDA provisions is easily implemented.

It is fun doing that RNAV A into Kelowna, though. The look on the FO’s face is priceless when they see where the runway is. I just shake my head when it’s only 6 knots out of the north and they give me AMBAT. Give me the beacon and I’ll just cancel.

[co-joe]

...
It is fun doing that RNAV A into Kelowna, though. The look on the FO’s face is priceless when they see where the runway is. I just shake my head when it’s only 6 knots out of the north and they give me AMBAT. Give me the beacon and I’ll just cancel.

I felt that way in the Beech. Not so much in bigger machines.