Circling or straight-in minimums?

[Van_Hoolio]

Here's one I just thought of. Here's what actually happed and then I'll pose a "what if". Me and another instructor were flying our Seneca back from ACY. A rain shower was going over the field and the clouds were getting lower. We were cleared for the ILS28 Circle 33R at BWI. Pretty simple, just pop out of the clouds, hang a right and land, it seemed.

What really happened in very quick order was (1) we popped out right at circling minimums, (2) we decided we were not in a position to make a stabilized approach and landing on 33R since the 28 glide slope kept us a little high, (3) tower told us 28 was available and we took it without hesitation, and (4) we landed and it was all good.

We were not at all prepared to shoot the approach to minimums, so that suprised us. Here's the "what if": What if tower offered us 28 after approach cleared us for the ILS28 Circle 33R. Could we then use the strait-in minimums or would the minimums for the approach we were cleared for supercede anything tower tells us?


(and yes, we really did break out at circling minimums, I'm not asking this question to see if we broke the FARs)

[USMC-SGT]

I am not an expert and I should probably have something to prove this but I would say that tower is definately authorized to issue their own clearances to ammend what atc gave you especially since you are in their airspace and under their control. If you were already established on the 28ILS there should be no problem with tower saying that you are cleared to land runway 28. I see it as no different than winds shifting to favor runway 28 or an unexpected closure on runway 33.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by Van_Hoolio

Could we then use the strait-in minimums or would the minimums for the approach we were cleared for supercede anything tower tells us?

You were cleared for the ILS 28, but the set of minimums you use is up to you. How would a controller know? The "circle-to-land 33R" isn't part of the approach clearance, per se, because it's not part of the approach plate title. Controllers are instructed to only clear you for what the title of the approach says. That's why in the past, you might have been cleared for the "ILS 28" even when you asked for the localizer. Of course, that's changed now that ILS' are being republished with the "or LOC" added.

[Van_Hoolio]

In our case, the ATIS read ".....ariving aircraft expect ILS Runway 33L; ILS Runway 28 Circle to RWY 33R...." and I'm pretty sure the controller gave us our approach clearance as "Cleared ILS 28 Circle to 33R". It's pretty standard at BWI, since the jets that need more than 5000 feet of runway depart on 28 and arrive on 33L when the airport is going that direction.

[CFIse]

Originally Posted by Van_Hoolio

We were not at all prepared to shoot the approach to minimums, so that suprised us. Here's the "what if": What if tower offered us 28 after approach cleared us for the ILS28 Circle 33R. Could we then use the strait-in minimums or would the minimums for the approach we were cleared for supercede anything tower tells us?


(and yes, we really did break out at circling minimums, I'm not asking this question to see if we broke the FARs)

I think technically you would not be legal - your approach clearnace was never changed, just a landing clearance was provided. No bent metal, no problem. But in the event of an incident where it came under scrutiny, who really knows. The FSDO inspector that would write you up for it would have to be a di@k, and we know there's nobody like that out there.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by Van_Hoolio

In our case, the ATIS read ".....ariving aircraft expect ILS Runway 33L; ILS Runway 28 Circle to RWY 33R...." and I'm pretty sure the controller gave us our approach clearance as "Cleared ILS 28 Circle to 33R". It's pretty standard at BWI, since the jets that need more than 5000 feet of runway depart on 28 and arrive on 33L when the airport is going that direction.

I don't doubt what you heard, but the approach you were cleared for was "ILS 28". There is no such instrument approach as the "ILS 28 Circle to 33R". Regardless, as long as you are using some set of published minimums on the chart that you are qualified to use, you're not in violation of Part 97. The Part 97 regulations exist independently of what you're cleared to do.

Now, arguably, you might be in violation of an ATC instruction to descend only down to circling minimums, but ATC doesn't have knowledge of what these minimums are (without looking it up) and couldn't care less, so I don't think they had any intent to limit you to circling altitudes; "Circle to 33R" might be regarded as an "expect", assuming that tower still gave you the circling instructions.

But if you actually have to circle, then you need to be at or above the circling minimums once you leave the final approach course, or you WILL be in violation of Part 97. It would be legal and safe to descend down to the straight-in minimums and then climb back up to circling minimums if you decide to circle.

[surreal1221]

ATC can, and does, give circle to land instructions with an ILS or any other precision approach - although they should stated circle (insert cardinal direction) RWYXX.

If you broke out at circle minimums, and tower changes it to 28, then you would go with the straight in minimums. . . but, since the circle minimums are higher than the straight in minimums - for which you already broke out of. . .you're fine.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

ATC can, and does, give circle to land instructions with an ILS or any other precision approach

I know, but that isn't the point. The OP was concerned that he was only cleared down to the circling MDA.

What if he were not visual at the circling MDA, but went down another 100 feet and broke out, just above the straight-in DA/MDA?

I say he's still legal, because he was cleared for the "ILS 28" and all sets of minimums are available to him. The "Circle to 33R" are instructions for what happens once he goes visual. ATC can only clear an aircraft for the name in the title of the approach and I'm unaware of any provision for them to subtract or add to any of the listed sets of minimums.

[MSNFlyer]

I agree with tgrayson on this one. The circle to land is an add on to the approach to get you to visual and then tower can give you instructions if they need to. Most times when I do circling approaches tower will even give me circling instructions that are certainly not on the approach plate (e.g. "Cessna 12345 circle South, cleared to land runway 32).

Certainly in this case breaking out, going visual and getting another runway would not be a violation. You are simply complying with tower instructions.

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

I say he's still legal, because he was cleared for the "ILS 28" and all sets of minimums are available to him. The "Circle to 33R" are instructions for what happens once he goes visual. ATC can only clear an aircraft for the name in the title of the approach and I'm unaware of any provision for them to subtract or add to any of the listed sets of minimums.

I agree with this.

[dc3flyer]

The only reason approach tells you the circle part is so you know what to expect. The tower has the say on what runway you land. If you broke out at circling mins, who cares... your now visual. Do you HAVE to stay on the glideslope if you break out on an ILS at 1000' AGL???

When doing a circle, I always use the approach as a LOC anyway instead of an ILS. I want to get down so I can start my circle.

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by dc3flyer

The only reason approach tells you the circle part is so you know what to expect. The tower has the say on what runway you land. If you broke out at circling mins, who cares... your now visual. Do you HAVE to stay on the glideslope if you break out on an ILS at 1000' AGL???

When doing a circle, I always use the approach as a LOC anyway instead of an ILS. I want to get down so I can start my circle.

No, you dont have to stay on the glide slope once you've broken out. The reason you'd maybe want to is you may pop back in to clouds and potentially be below GS indications and need to execute a missed.

[jrh]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

No, you dont have to stay on the glide slope once you've broken out. The reason you'd maybe want to is you may pop back in to clouds and potentially be below GS indications and need to execute a missed.

Why would you need to execute a missed approach *only* for going back into the clouds and being below glideslope? What if you had been in the clouds the whole time?

That's the whole point to having higher minimums during a LOC approach. As long as you don't go below those minimums, and you haven't reached the MAP yet, then anywhere along the LOC at that altitude is safe.

I mean...shoot...if you're shooting a LOC approach, you don't even need to have GS reception!

I agree with DC3...get down as soon as you can, so you can plan your circle as soon as possible.

[meritflyer]

"I mean...shoot...if you're shooting a LOC approach, you don't even need to have GS reception!"

Nobody was talking about shooting a LOC approach. You were not cleared for the LOC approach. The LOC and ILS approaches are infact, two seperate approaches.

"What if you were in the clouds the whole time?"

Then you obviously wouldnt have disregarded GS indications.

"That's the whole point to having higher minimums during a LOC approach. As long as you don't go below those minimums, and you haven't reached the MAP yet, then anywhere along the LOC at that altitude is safe."

Where did all this discussion of a LOC approach come into play? The OG was talking about GS (which a LOC obviously doenst have).

If you were break out, disregard course guidance (specifically GS indications), re-enter IMC, why wouldnt you just set up for the GPS? The FAC is the same. ATC will never know. [sarcasm]

[jrh]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

So your going to revert to flying a LOC approach after GS indications have been lost? Not me.

I was referring to a ILS as was dc3. You were not cleared for the LOC approach. The LOC and ILS approaches are infact, two seperate approaches.

If you break out, disregard course guidance, re-enter IMC, why wouldnt you just set up for the GPS? The FAC is the same. ATC will never know. [sarcasm]

Oops, I misread the original DC3 quote. I thought he was saying that if he was expecting to circle to another runway, he would shoot the LOC approach in order to get down faster.

To answer your question, no, if I was cleared for the ILS, I'd stay on glideslope, and if I lost the glideslope, I'd go missed. Sorry for the confusion.

[Dugie8]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

"I mean...shoot...if you're shooting a LOC approach, you don't even need to have GS reception!"

Nobody was talking about shooting a LOC approach. You were not cleared for the LOC approach. The LOC and ILS approaches are infact, two seperate approaches.

"What if you were in the clouds the whole time?"

Then you obviously wouldnt have disregarded GS indications.

"That's the whole point to having higher minimums during a LOC approach. As long as you don't go below those minimums, and you haven't reached the MAP yet, then anywhere along the LOC at that altitude is safe."

Where did all this discussion of a LOC approach come into play? The OG was talking about GS (which a LOC obviously doenst have).

If you were break out, disregard course guidance (specifically GS indications), re-enter IMC, why wouldnt you just set up for the GPS? The FAC is the same. ATC will never know. [sarcasm]

Not quiete Merit, if the plate is named ILS 22 but has LOC mins on it, ATC will clear you for the ILS, even if the GS is OTS. It is up to you the pilot to apply the correct mins, just like when you have a conditional MDA.

I have never heard (doesn't mean it doesn't happen) approach clear me for the circle, tower has always done that?

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by Dugie8

Not quiete Merit, if the plate is named ILS 22 but has LOC mins on it, ATC will clear you for the ILS, even if the GS is OTS.

I'd think they'd clear you for the LOC. If someone had missed that NOTAM that the GS was inop, they may be expecting some sort of GS indication which may lead to a problem or a whole bunch of aircraft going missed. Do you have a reference by chance that states that?

[Dugie8]

Originally Posted by meritflyer

I'd think they'd clear you for the LOC. If someone had missed that NOTAM that the GS was inop, they may be expecting some sort of GS indication which may lead to a problem or a whole bunch of aircraft going missed. Do you have a reference by chance that states that?

Other than my own experience, I can't quote you a chapter from the AIM or the controller handbook, I will dig and see what I can find.

[meritflyer]

PS Good to see you here. Where you been??

[Dugie8]

Here you go Merit, from the ATC Handbook

PHRASEOLOGY-
CLEARED (type) APPROACH.

(For a straight-in-approach- IFR),

CLEARED STRAIGHT-IN (type) APPROACH.

(To authorize a pilot to execute his/her choice of instrument approach),

CLEARED APPROACH.

(Where more than one procedure is published on a single chart and a specific procedure is to be flown),

CLEARED (specific procedure to be flown) APPROACH.

(To authorize a pilot to execute an ILS/MLS approach when the glideslope/glidepath is out of service),

CLEARED (type) APPROACH, GLIDESLOPE/GLIDEPATH UNUSABLE.
EXAMPLE-
"Cleared Approach."
"Cleared V-O-R Approach."
"Cleared V-O-R Runway Three Six Approach."
"Cleared F-M-S Approach."
"Cleared F-M-S Runway Three Six Approach."
"Cleared I-L-S Approach."
"Cleared Localizer Back Course Runway One Three Approach."
"Cleared R-NAV Runway Two Two Approach."
"Cleared GPS Runway Two Approach."
"Cleared BRANCH ONE R-NAV Arrival and R-NAV Runway One Three Approach."
"Cleared I-L-S Runway Three Six Approach, glideslope unusable."
"Cleared M-L-S Approach."
"Cleared M-L-S Runway Three Six Approach."
"Cleared M-L-S Runway Three Six Approach, glidepath unusable."


I added the emphasis.

[meritflyer]

Ahh... makes much more practical sense that they add the "GS inop" wording to the clearance.

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by Dugie8

Other than my own experience, I can't quote you a chapter from the AIM or the controller handbook, I will dig and see what I can find.

Something has changed, though, in the last 2-3 years. Most ILS' are now published as "ILS or LOC 28". Since there is an "OR" in the title, ATC has the latitude to clear you for either one.

[Dugie8]

Originally Posted by tgrayson

Something has changed, though, in the last 2-3 years. Most ILS' are now published as "ILS or LOC 28". Since there is an "OR" in the title, ATC has the latitude to clear you for either one.

Yup, still a couple straight ILS plates with LOC mins too, plus I am starting to see more plates that are just ILS with ILS mins, and plates with LOC names and LOC mins.

[meritflyer]

Originally Posted by jrh

To answer your question, no, if I was cleared for the ILS, I'd stay on glideslope, and if I lost the glideslope, I'd go missed. Sorry for the confusion.

This brings up an interesting point though..

I was helping a student study for the instrument knowledge test and there is a question phrased exactly like this -

Immediately after passing the final approach fix inbound during an ILS approach in IFR conditions, the glide slope warning flag appears. The pilot is ..

B) permitted to continue the approach and descend to the localizer MDA.

The reference it gives is AIM 1-1-9.

I can NOT find this in AIM 1-1-9.

Thoughts?

[tgrayson]

Originally Posted by Dugie8

Yup, still a couple straight ILS plates with LOC mins too, plus I am starting to see more plates that are just ILS with ILS mins, and plates with LOC names and LOC mins.

MEM is still that way. Sometimes, they'll still clear you for the LOC if you ask for a LOC, but I agree, the proper clearance is for the ILS. Of course, when we're shooting practice approaches, they really can't say "GS unusable" because it's not. ;-)

ATC says they don't particularly care if you fly the LOC profile instead of the ILS, but they want to know about it because their MSAW goes off when you start the "chop and drop" on the NP approach. At a satellite airport, it doesn't matter at all.