Last week, I was doing approaches in actual IMC, and returning back to MBO
(Madison, MS), I broke out right at minimum ceilings 4.8 miles DME from the
JAN VOR. Ceilings were just above 900 feet. Missed minimums are 5 DME an
900 feet ceilings (NOTAM raised it from 860 to 900).

The approach takes you into a 45 degree entry for downwind for runway 17 or
midfield for 35 circle to approach. There was a plane at the end of
taxiway 35 waiting for his clearance for take off.

This got me to thinking.....

Had I broke out of the clouds at mid field at 5 DME from the JAN VOR, what
would be the proper procedure for landing on 35? Winds were blowing from
340 at 21 knots gusting to 29 knots. Airport has a left hand pattern.

Would it be "acceptable" to cross mid field and execute a right hand
pattern entry? No noise abatement issues at this airport.

Allen

On Fri, 6 May 2005 22:07:08 -0500, A Lieberman wrote:

I mixed up runway assignments.....

The approach takes you to a 45 for landing 35 or cross mid field for 17.
Would it be acceptable practice to cross mid field and execute a right hand
pattern for runway 35.

Allen

> Last week, I was doing approaches in actual IMC, and returning back to MBO
> (Madison, MS), I broke out right at minimum ceilings 4.8 miles DME from the
> JAN VOR. Ceilings were just above 900 feet. Missed minimums are 5 DME an
> 900 feet ceilings (NOTAM raised it from 860 to 900).
>
> The approach takes you into a 45 degree entry for downwind for runway 17 or
> midfield for 35 circle to approach. There was a plane at the end of
> taxiway 35 waiting for his clearance for take off.
>
> This got me to thinking.....
>
> Had I broke out of the clouds at mid field at 5 DME from the JAN VOR, what
> would be the proper procedure for landing on 35? Winds were blowing from
> 340 at 21 knots gusting to 29 knots. Airport has a left hand pattern.
>
> Would it be "acceptable" to cross mid field and execute a right hand
> pattern entry? No noise abatement issues at this airport.
>
> Allen

In article >,
A Lieberman > wrote:

> Last week, I was doing approaches in actual IMC, and returning back to MBO
> (Madison, MS), I broke out right at minimum ceilings 4.8 miles DME from the
> JAN VOR. Ceilings were just above 900 feet. Missed minimums are 5 DME an
> 900 feet ceilings (NOTAM raised it from 860 to 900).
>
> The approach takes you into a 45 degree entry for downwind for runway 17 or
> midfield for 35 circle to approach. There was a plane at the end of
> taxiway 35 waiting for his clearance for take off.
>
> This got me to thinking.....
>
> Had I broke out of the clouds at mid field at 5 DME from the JAN VOR, what
> would be the proper procedure for landing on 35? Winds were blowing from
> 340 at 21 knots gusting to 29 knots. Airport has a left hand pattern.
>
> Would it be "acceptable" to cross mid field and execute a right hand
> pattern entry? No noise abatement issues at this airport.

Yep. You can do anything you need to to get on the ground when you're
finishing a circle-to-land approach.

rg

On Fri, 6 May 2005 22:07:08 -0500, A Lieberman > wrote:

>Last week, I was doing approaches in actual IMC, and returning back to MBO
>(Madison, MS), I broke out right at minimum ceilings 4.8 miles DME from the
>JAN VOR. Ceilings were just above 900 feet. Missed minimums are 5 DME an
>900 feet ceilings (NOTAM raised it from 860 to 900).
>
>The approach takes you into a 45 degree entry for downwind for runway 17 or
>midfield for 35 circle to approach. There was a plane at the end of
>taxiway 35 waiting for his clearance for take off.
>
>This got me to thinking.....
>
>Had I broke out of the clouds at mid field at 5 DME from the JAN VOR, what
>would be the proper procedure for landing on 35? Winds were blowing from
>340 at 21 knots gusting to 29 knots. Airport has a left hand pattern.
>
>Would it be "acceptable" to cross mid field and execute a right hand
>pattern entry? No noise abatement issues at this airport.
>
>Allen

In my opinion, there are two issues here. One is regulatory:

================================================== ==============
§ 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G
airspace.

(a) General. Unless otherwise authorized or required, each person operating
an aircraft on or in the vicinity of an airport in a Class G airspace area
must comply with the requirements of this section.

(b) Direction of turns. When approaching to land at an airport without an
operating control tower in Class G airspace—

(1) Each pilot of an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the
left unless the airport displays approved light signals or visual markings
indicating that turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot
must make all turns to the right ...

§ 91.127 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class E
airspace.

(a) Unless otherwise required by part 93 of this chapter or unless
otherwise authorized or required by the ATC facility having jurisdiction
over the Class E airspace area, each person operating an aircraft on or in
the vicinity of an airport in a Class E airspace area must comply with the
requirements of §91.126.

================================================

Sure, the situation could "require" that you make a turn to the right; or
you could get "authorized" by ATC; but you might have to justify your
decision if you felt that it was "required", especially if you did so
without authorization, and there was some incident.

The second (and probably more important) issue has to do with avoiding
possible VFR traffic in the area/pattern that is executing normal left hand
traffic. I believe KMBO is Class G below 700'. If so, the VFR minima are
1 mile/clear of clouds. There certainly could be VFR traffic operating
to/from the airport legally in the Class G with 900/5 weather.

I've done that myself going from a water takeoff to a land airport (KLCI)
served by instrument approaches under conditions similar to what you
describe. All legal. I don't know if seaplanes are allowed on the
reservoir to the east of your airport, but that might be one source of VFR
traffic other than folk in the pattern.

Best,

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Garret wrote:

> In article >,
> A Lieberman > wrote:
>
> > Last week, I was doing approaches in actual IMC, and returning back to MBO
> > (Madison, MS), I broke out right at minimum ceilings 4.8 miles DME from the
> > JAN VOR. Ceilings were just above 900 feet. Missed minimums are 5 DME an
> > 900 feet ceilings (NOTAM raised it from 860 to 900).
> >
> > The approach takes you into a 45 degree entry for downwind for runway 17 or
> > midfield for 35 circle to approach. There was a plane at the end of
> > taxiway 35 waiting for his clearance for take off.
> >
> > This got me to thinking.....
> >
> > Had I broke out of the clouds at mid field at 5 DME from the JAN VOR, what
> > would be the proper procedure for landing on 35? Winds were blowing from
> > 340 at 21 knots gusting to 29 knots. Airport has a left hand pattern.
> >
> > Would it be "acceptable" to cross mid field and execute a right hand
> > pattern entry? No noise abatement issues at this airport.
>
> Yep. You can do anything you need to to get on the ground when you're
> finishing a circle-to-land approach.
>
> rg

Provided there is no restriction to circling and provided you remain within the
circling maneuvering area for your approach category. At this airport for
someone not familiar with the area, electing Cat D minimums would be a prudent
plan provided that got you clear of clouds with adequate visibility.

You didn't have any runway assignment; can't be without an operating control
tower.

A Lieberman wrote:

> On Fri, 6 May 2005 22:07:08 -0500, A Lieberman wrote:
>
> I mixed up runway assignments.....
>
> The approach takes you to a 45 for landing 35 or cross mid field for 17.
> Would it be acceptable practice to cross mid field and execute a right hand
> pattern for runway 35.
>
> Allen
>
> > Last week, I was doing approaches in actual IMC, and returning back to MBO
> > (Madison, MS), I broke out right at minimum ceilings 4.8 miles DME from the
> > JAN VOR. Ceilings were just above 900 feet. Missed minimums are 5 DME an
> > 900 feet ceilings (NOTAM raised it from 860 to 900).
> >
> > The approach takes you into a 45 degree entry for downwind for runway 17 or
> > midfield for 35 circle to approach. There was a plane at the end of
> > taxiway 35 waiting for his clearance for take off.
> >
> > This got me to thinking.....
> >
> > Had I broke out of the clouds at mid field at 5 DME from the JAN VOR, what
> > would be the proper procedure for landing on 35? Winds were blowing from
> > 340 at 21 knots gusting to 29 knots. Airport has a left hand pattern.
> >
> > Would it be "acceptable" to cross mid field and execute a right hand
> > pattern entry? No noise abatement issues at this airport.
> >
> > Allen

On Sat, 07 May 2005 06:20:32 -0700, wrote:

> You didn't have any runway assignment; can't be without an operating control
> tower.

Hi Tim,

I probably used a wrong choice of words.

The VOR alpha into MBO leads you to mid field. If you choose to cross mid
field, and maintain a standard pattern (left hand) that will take you to
runway 17. 45 into downwind takes you to 35.

I had reversed the runways in my initial posting.

Allen

While your logic is sound for the second argument, MBO has an instrument
approach and it underlies Jackson's Class C airspace. I don't have a
sectional for that area, but I'll bet the Class E goes to 700' above surface
at the airport. The sectional may also show that MBO is actually in or
partially in the surface to 4000AGL Class C airspace since it is so close to
Jackson. If that is the case, then the viz and cloud clearance requirements
would preclude that VFR traffic from LEGALLY operating.

Sooo... any Jackson pilot know what Jackson approach expects?


>
> In my opinion, there are two issues here. One is regulatory:
>
> ================================================== ==============
> § 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G
> airspace.
>
> snip >
> ================================================
>
> Sure, the situation could "require" that you make a turn to the right; or
> you could get "authorized" by ATC; but you might have to justify your
> decision if you felt that it was "required", especially if you did so
> without authorization, and there was some incident.
>
> The second (and probably more important) issue has to do with avoiding
> possible VFR traffic in the area/pattern that is executing normal left
> hand
> traffic. I believe KMBO is Class G below 700'. If so, the VFR minima are
> 1 mile/clear of clouds. There certainly could be VFR traffic operating
> to/from the airport legally in the Class G with 900/5 weather.
>
> I've done that myself going from a water takeoff to a land airport (KLCI)
> served by instrument approaches under conditions similar to what you
> describe. All legal. I don't know if seaplanes are allowed on the
> reservoir to the east of your airport, but that might be one source of VFR
> traffic other than folk in the pattern.
>
> Best,
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 17:10:18 -0400, "Paul Lynch" > wrote:

>The sectional may also show that MBO is actually in or
>partially in the surface to 4000AGL Class C airspace since it is so close to
>Jackson. If that is the case, then the viz and cloud clearance requirements
>would preclude that VFR traffic from LEGALLY operating.

I reviewed data prior to MY posting which indicates the contrary to your
assumption.

With regard to your specific statement regarding the CCA, over MBO the
floor of the CCA is at 1700'MSL (or 1374' AGL).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 21:49:45 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Fri, 13 May 2005 17:10:18 -0400, "Paul Lynch" > wrote:
>
>>The sectional may also show that MBO is actually in or
>>partially in the surface to 4000AGL Class C airspace since it is so close to
>>Jackson. If that is the case, then the viz and cloud clearance requirements
>>would preclude that VFR traffic from LEGALLY operating.
>
> I reviewed data prior to MY posting which indicates the contrary to your
> assumption.
>
> With regard to your specific statement regarding the CCA, over MBO the
> floor of the CCA is at 1700'MSL (or 1374' AGL).

Ron,

You are correct, in that MBO is not in Charlie airspace.

There is plenty of room to maneuver south of MBO to land without entering
the inner ring of Charlie airspace.

Even though there is a wind sock at the boat yard off the reservoir, to my
knowledge, there are no sea planes based in the reservoir, so I doubt that
I would find VFR traffic in the pattern when ceilings are 900 feet. Of
course, anything is possible!

Since the airspace would be all mine for an IFR arrival, and winds would be
prevailing out of the north, Jackson approach would expect me to land on
35.

I **wouldn't think** JAN Approach would care how I maneuvered to get to 35,
whether I entered downwind or improvise my own right hand pattern.

I just want to be sure I am "procedurally correct" without having the need
to "deviate from FARS" and making a PIC decision should a right hand
pattern be warranted when breaking out midfield on the VOR alpha at MBO.

The regulations do state left hand patterns (Thanks Ron for posting), so I
just wonder how others would handle this circle to land procedure with
winds prevailing out of the north?

I am aware, that I can deviate from FARS as warranted in the interest of
safety to the flight but would rather not exercise that right, but do it
right in the first place.

Allen

On Sat, 14 May 2005 08:55:03 -0500, A Lieberman >
wrote:

>Since the airspace would be all mine for an IFR arrival,

The point I was trying to make is that that is not necessarily the case.
ATC will separate you from other IFR traffic, but they have NO
responsibility to separate you from VFR traffic.

>I **wouldn't think** JAN Approach would care how I maneuvered to get to 35<

I'd agree with that. But that does not make it safe or legal.

>I doubt that I would find VFR traffic in the pattern when ceilings are 900 feet.
>Of course, anything is possible!

Since VFR traffic can legally be in the pattern in that airspace with
weather at 900/5, you only have to be wrong once to have a really bad day.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have legally flown to a similar
airport in similar weather, VFR. I have also seen, at my home airport,
powered parachutes in the pattern and the vicinity at a few hundred feet
AGL.

My preference on a circling approach is to always fly a left hand pattern.
If there is some safety reason to execute a right hand pattern (or if the
airport has right traffic), then I will fly a right hand pattern.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 13:28:40 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> My preference on a circling approach is to always fly a left hand pattern.
> If there is some safety reason to execute a right hand pattern (or if the
> airport has right traffic), then I will fly a right hand pattern.

Hi Ron,

I really appreciate your input. Let me ask you this question as I really
learn from others....

Seeing how the VOR Alpha approach leads you into the airport, and if you
reached midfield at minimums, how would you execute the landing for runway
35 if you don't execute a right hand pattern?

There are no noise sensitive areas, nor any unusual considerations around
MBO.

Allen

On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:05:26 -0500, A Lieberman >
wrote:

>On Sat, 14 May 2005 13:28:40 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> My preference on a circling approach is to always fly a left hand pattern.
>> If there is some safety reason to execute a right hand pattern (or if the
>> airport has right traffic), then I will fly a right hand pattern.
>
>Hi Ron,
>
>I really appreciate your input. Let me ask you this question as I really
>learn from others....
>
>Seeing how the VOR Alpha approach leads you into the airport, and if you
>reached midfield at minimums, how would you execute the landing for runway
>35 if you don't execute a right hand pattern?
>
>There are no noise sensitive areas, nor any unusual considerations around
>MBO.
>
>Allen

It's good that you describe a specific approach, because all of these sorts
of questions depend critically on the approach one is flying.

For the KMBO VOR-A approach, the missed approach point is at MAFCA which is
west of the runway. When I reached MAFCA, if I had the field in sight, the
runway would be ahead of me, and crossing my flight path. So I would turn
right to enter the left downwind, and fly a normal left handed pattern.
If, at MAFCA, I did not have the runway in sight, I would be executing a
missed approach.

In addition to the above considerations, there is also the fact that the
minimum visibility for this approach (for a Category A a/c) is one mile.
MAFCA is only 1000' from the runway. If I do not pick up the runway prior
to MAFCA, it is likely I will not have the required visibility to make the
approach. (Not definite, as there could be an obstruction to visibility
that clears up directly over the airport). So it is likely that if I just
barely see the airport upon reaching the MAP, I'll have to execute a "miss"
anyway.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Lighten up man. I stated I did not have the sectional and you never stated
that it was under the C airspace.

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 17:10:18 -0400, "Paul Lynch" > wrote:
>
>>The sectional may also show that MBO is actually in or
>>partially in the surface to 4000AGL Class C airspace since it is so close
>>to
>>Jackson. If that is the case, then the viz and cloud clearance
>>requirements
>>would preclude that VFR traffic from LEGALLY operating.
>
> I reviewed data prior to MY posting which indicates the contrary to your
> assumption.
>
> With regard to your specific statement regarding the CCA, over MBO the
> floor of the CCA is at 1700'MSL (or 1374' AGL).
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 18:07:04 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> In addition to the above considerations, there is also the fact that the
> minimum visibility for this approach (for a Category A a/c) is one mile.
> MAFCA is only 1000' from the runway. If I do not pick up the runway prior
> to MAFCA, it is likely I will not have the required visibility to make the
> approach. (Not definite, as there could be an obstruction to visibility
> that clears up directly over the airport). So it is likely that if I just
> barely see the airport upon reaching the MAP, I'll have to execute a "miss"
> anyway.

Thanks Ron!

You did clear up one thing. I was thinking that 5.0 DME was mid field for
MBO, when in reality it is MAFCA.

Duhh, read the chart Allen.....

If you are interested,
http://www.archive.org/details/ALiebermanVORAlphaApproachintoMBO is the
actual approach. I took a VFR pilot friend up who had never been in IMC.
File is 40 meg. For my DSL, it takes 2 1/2 minutes to download.

This was the first time I did it by myself down this close to minimums.
Ceilings were right at 1000, and visibility was about 2 miles below the
ceiling. I broke out 4.8 DME from the JAN VOR.

Couple of things to note...

Below NAV one, I have a "digital" VOR. It tells me what radial I am on
when I switch it from NAV1 or NAV2. I can tell it to indicate to or from
the VOR. So, you can see, I was as close as I can be on that 137 radial.

I overshot final, as I didn't take into account the tail wind on my turn to
base. I had a 40 knot tail wind!

Surface winds were 21 gusting to 29 knots, so I did a no flaps landing.

I have done the approach with my instructor 2 other times right at minimums
in my IFR training, and when we broke out, it was right at mid field, which
maybe because of my prior experiences had in my mind that mid field was
MAFCA for my missed approaches. On these two approaches we used 17.

There was one other lesson, where we did a missed approach for the real
deal, as ceilings dropped below minimums after we left.

I have noticed in my experiences that the ceilings tend to be a little
higher east of the field. Probably the reservoir has something to do with
that, though I don't know for sure.

Allen

On Sat, 14 May 2005 18:15:48 -0400, "Paul Lynch" > wrote:

>Lighten up man. I stated I did not have the sectional and you never stated
>that it was under the C airspace.

Sorry about that. After I typed and hit <send> I realized it sounded
harsh. And I did not intend that. Usually I check my posts for that sort
of thing, but I was in a hurry.




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 21:18:31 -0500, A Lieberman >
wrote:

>Thanks Ron!

You're welcome.

A few things to keep in mind:

1. Low visibility *circling* approaches are tough. And they get more
tough with faster/larger a/c. I have been told that a number of the
commercial carriers are far more restrictive with regard to circling
approaches than the FAA minimums.

2. There are many non-precision approaches (although MBO is not one of
them) where, if you do not see the airport until reaching the MAP, you will
not be "continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the
intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal
maneuvers" which is one of the requirements to operate below the MDA
(91.175).

3. I think your DSL is faster than my wireless ISP. But it was an
interesting video. I've not done anything like that, but I can see where
it could be a great learning tool.

And you'll get used to compensating for the wind as you gain more
experience; but we all still screw up from time to time, in any number of
ways.

Always remember to have fun. And remember:

"Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad
judgement" :-)


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

A Lieberman > writes:

> [...] If you are interested,
> http://www.archive.org/details/ALiebermanVORAlphaApproachintoMBO is
> the actual approach. [...] This was the first time I did it by
> myself down this close to minimums. [...]

Unless I misheard the video, your stall warning horn came on a few
times during the downwind-to-final turn. Be careful, so you can keep
making neat approaches.

- FChE

On 15 May 2005 08:52:05 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:

> Unless I misheard the video, your stall warning horn came on a few
> times during the downwind-to-final turn. Be careful, so you can keep
> making neat approaches.

*smile* You did hear correctly, and if you noticed, immediately after the
chirps, I decreased my bank and increased power.

Spin at that altitude would not be pretty....

Allen

No problem. I may be oversensitive from some other newsgroups where the
shotguns are always out and blasting away!


"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 May 2005 18:15:48 -0400, "Paul Lynch" > wrote:
>
>>Lighten up man. I stated I did not have the sectional and you never
>>stated
>>that it was under the C airspace.
>
> Sorry about that. After I typed and hit <send> I realized it sounded
> harsh. And I did not intend that. Usually I check my posts for that sort
> of thing, but I was in a hurry.
>
>
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Y'All,
Here are some thoughts that I have not yet posted to my web site.
Would appreciate any additions.
Gene Whitt
Flying in Circles IFR

---Circling approaches are an option to be avoided in times of reduced
visibility

---Circling requires that you have the runway in sight at all times

---You cannot leave the circling MDA unless able to descend to the runway

---You must choose the circle before descending below its MDA

---Circling at night, in low visibility and exposed to disorientation is a
lost poker hand


---The notes restricting just where circling is allowed is usually a clue

---Don't ask for a circling approach where ceilings are not well above
circling minimums

---By keeping your distance from the airport until turning final you avoid 'killer'
bank angles

---Being IFR in VFR conditions at an airport does NOT give you any special
'rights'

---Go missed if you lose visual of the runway

Gene Whitt wrote:
> Y'All,
> Here are some thoughts that I have not yet posted to my web site.
> Would appreciate any additions.

I'd add a note that although it is often recommended that one not descend below
MDA until you are aligned on the final, there are some circling approaches where
following this policy will cause you to miss, since at the minimum permissible
visibility, you will be too high to descend to the runway.

> Gene Whitt
> Flying in Circles IFR
>
> ---Circling approaches are an option to be avoided in times of reduced
> visibility
>
> ---Circling requires that you have the runway in sight at all times
>
> ---You cannot leave the circling MDA unless able to descend to the runway
>
> ---You must choose the circle before descending below its MDA

"the" -> "to" ? You must choose to circle... ?

>
> ---Circling at night, in low visibility and exposed to disorientation is a
> lost poker hand
>
>
> ---The notes restricting just where circling is allowed is usually a clue
>
> ---Don't ask for a circling approach where ceilings are not well above
> circling minimums
>
> ---By keeping your distance from the airport until turning final you avoid 'killer'
> bank angles
>
> ---Being IFR in VFR conditions at an airport does NOT give you any special
> 'rights'
>
> ---Go missed if you lose visual of the runway

Gene,

Although I agree that circling approaches at minimums are arguably one of
the most dangerous things a GA IFR pilot can do, I feel that with proper
training, briefing and precautions, they can be safely accomplished.

It gets into the area of trying to teach judgement.

--ron


On Mon, 16 May 2005 15:08:09 GMT, "Gene Whitt" >
wrote:

>Y'All,
>Here are some thoughts that I have not yet posted to my web site.
>Would appreciate any additions.
>Gene Whitt
>Flying in Circles IFR
>
>---Circling approaches are an option to be avoided in times of reduced
>visibility

Circling approaches are an option to be approached with extreme caution in
times of reduced visibility

>
>---Circling requires that you have the runway in sight at all times
>
>---You cannot leave the circling MDA unless able to descend to the runway

USING NORMAL MANEUVERS AND AT A NORMAL RATE OF SPEED
>
>---You must choose the circle before descending below its MDA
>
>---Circling at night, in low visibility and exposed to disorientation is a
POTENTIALLY LOSING POKER HAND
>
>
>---The notes restricting just where circling is allowed is usually a clue
>
>---Don't ask for a circling approach where ceilings are not well above
>circling minimums
UNLESS YOU ARE CONFIDENT OF YOUR ABILITIES; AND CURRENT WITH THE PROCEDURE.
>
>---By keeping your distance from the airport until turning final you avoid 'killer'
>bank angles
>
>---Being IFR in VFR conditions at an airport does NOT give you any special
>'rights'

Add emphasis to this one (above)

>
>---Go missed if you lose visual of the runway
AT ANY TIME, EVEN IF JUST BRIEFLY.
>

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Mon, 16 May 2005 15:08:09 GMT, "Gene Whitt" >
wrote:

>Y'All,
>Here are some thoughts that I have not yet posted to my web site.
>Would appreciate any additions.
>Gene Whitt

Oh, and I'd add:

If you don't have the runway in sight prior to the MDA, you may NOT be able
to make a successful landing using normal maneuvers (a requirement to
operate below the MDA).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> If you don't have the runway in sight prior to the MDA, you may NOT be able
> to make a successful landing using normal maneuvers (a requirement to
> operate below the MDA).

I'm sure Gene understands what you are saying, but for my benefit, could you
elaborate a little on this statement? Why is this true?

Thanks.

Dave

Dave Butler > wrote in news:1116264343.869268@sj-nntpcache-5:

> Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> If you don't have the runway in sight prior to the MDA, you may NOT
>> be able to make a successful landing using normal maneuvers (a
>> requirement to operate below the MDA).
>
> I'm sure Gene understands what you are saying, but for my benefit,
> could you elaborate a little on this statement? Why is this true?

Cloud bases are seldom perfectly level. They are lower in some places
than in others. If you get the airport in sight right at MDA, then it's
likely that there will be areas where the cloud bases will be below MDA,
and you'll probably fly through them as you circle.

--
Regards,

Stan

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin

Stan Gosnell wrote:
> Dave Butler > wrote in news:1116264343.869268@sj-nntpcache-5:
>
>
>>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you don't have the runway in sight prior to the MDA, you may NOT
>>>be able to make a successful landing using normal maneuvers (a
>>>requirement to operate below the MDA).
>>
>>I'm sure Gene understands what you are saying, but for my benefit,
>>could you elaborate a little on this statement? Why is this true?
>
>
> Cloud bases are seldom perfectly level. They are lower in some places
> than in others. If you get the airport in sight right at MDA, then it's
> likely that there will be areas where the cloud bases will be below MDA,
> and you'll probably fly through them as you circle.

OK, sure, thanks, but if Ron meant that, wouldn't he have said "...you're likely
to have to go missed... " instead of all that stuff about normal maneuvers? I'd
still like to hear Ron's answer.

Dave

Stan Gosnell > wrote:
>Cloud bases are seldom perfectly level. They are lower in some places
>than in others. If you get the airport in sight right at MDA, then it's
>likely that there will be areas where the cloud bases will be below MDA,
>and you'll probably fly through them as you circle.

Clouds can do some weird **** (especially near bodies of water). I
once flew into UUU (Newport, RI) for a practice approach. The plan
was a low approach and go missed. The airport is near the coastline,
and the approach is from over land towards the water. Inbound to the
airport, I was in decent visibility and little bits of scattered scud
here and there. What I didn't realize was that there was a low
overcast layer on the water side, that ended just about at the
airport.

I reached the MAP, had a perfect view of the runway, started my climb,
and almost immediately found myself in solid IMC. Had I been doing a
circling approach, I could have easily found myself suddenly in cloud
while circling below the MDA.

On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:28:42 -0400, Dave Butler > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> If you don't have the runway in sight prior to the MDA, you may NOT be able
>> to make a successful landing using normal maneuvers (a requirement to
>> operate below the MDA).
>
>I'm sure Gene understands what you are saying, but for my benefit, could you
>elaborate a little on this statement? Why is this true?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Dave

I miswrote a bit. In addition to what others have written, what I really
meant to write was that "if you don't have the airport in sight prior to
the MAP (missed approach point) ..."

And the reason for that has to do with geometry. The MAP may be too close
and to allow for normal maneuvers to land. (And using normal maneuvers is
a requirement of 91.175)

Sorry about the confusion.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Mon, 16 May 2005 15:08:09 GMT, Gene Whitt wrote:

Hi Gene,

First and foremost, thanks for hosting your awesome website! Some of my
comments in my "newbie" sense of the IFR world.

> ---Circling approaches are an option to be avoided in times of reduced
> visibility

This would be tough to avoid at an airport like mine. Maybe rephrase:

IF POSSIBLE Circling approaches are an option to be avoided in times of
reduced visibility. Precision approaches should be the preferred choice if
available.

> ---You must choose the circle before descending below its MDA

Can you clear this statement up? I am not sure I understand it.

> ---Circling at night, in low visibility and exposed to disorientation is a
> lost poker hand

I would rephrase the last part ....a potentially loosing poker hand.

> ---By keeping your distance from the airport until turning final you avoid 'killer'
> bank angles

You may want to add to this statement, keep in mind winds aloft direction
may push you closer to the airport then you intend.

Allen

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 13:28:42 -0400, Dave Butler > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you don't have the runway in sight prior to the MDA, you may NOT be able
>>>to make a successful landing using normal maneuvers (a requirement to
>>>operate below the MDA).
>>
>>I'm sure Gene understands what you are saying, but for my benefit, could you
>>elaborate a little on this statement? Why is this true?
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>Dave
>
>
> I miswrote a bit. In addition to what others have written, what I really
> meant to write was that "if you don't have the airport in sight prior to
> the MAP (missed approach point) ..."
>
> And the reason for that has to do with geometry. The MAP may be too close
> and to allow for normal maneuvers to land. (And using normal maneuvers is
> a requirement of 91.175)
>
> Sorry about the confusion.

Cool. Thanks for the clarification. Dave

If you want to provide your real email address I'll send you an old IFR Refresher article
about circling.

A Lieberman wrote:

> On Mon, 16 May 2005 15:08:09 GMT, Gene Whitt wrote:
>
> Hi Gene,
>
> First and foremost, thanks for hosting your awesome website! Some of my
> comments in my "newbie" sense of the IFR world.
>
> > ---Circling approaches are an option to be avoided in times of reduced
> > visibility
>
> This would be tough to avoid at an airport like mine. Maybe rephrase:
>
> IF POSSIBLE Circling approaches are an option to be avoided in times of
> reduced visibility. Precision approaches should be the preferred choice if
> available.
>
> > ---You must choose the circle before descending below its MDA
>
> Can you clear this statement up? I am not sure I understand it.
>
> > ---Circling at night, in low visibility and exposed to disorientation is a
> > lost poker hand
>
> I would rephrase the last part ....a potentially loosing poker hand.
>
> > ---By keeping your distance from the airport until turning final you avoid 'killer'
> > bank angles
>
> You may want to add to this statement, keep in mind winds aloft direction
> may push you closer to the airport then you intend.
>
> Allen

On Mon, 23 May 2005 03:32:17 -0700, wrote:

> If you want to provide your real email address I'll send you an old IFR Refresher article
> about circling.

Hi Tim,

is a valid address. Look forward to seeing it!

Allen

> wrote in message ...
> If you want to provide your real email address I'll send you an old IFR Refresher article
> about circling.
>

I'd like to see it too please-- jclonts at hot dot rr dot com

--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ