ILS "MAP" for circle to land?
Jacopo Lenzi
runway environment in sight at the circle-to-land DH on an ILS
approach, I must immediately execute a missed approach. My examiner
on the instrument checkride, however, had a different theory. He
believes that you can level off at the circle-to-land DH and continue
inbound until the designated time (you know, the LOC approach time).
While that could make sense, since it would allow you to continue
inbound until you reach the straight-in "MAP/DH" but at a higher
altitude, I don't believe the regs support this. Who's right? I
didn't push the issue with him during the checkride, since I did want
my ticket (which I did get), but now I want to know.
Jacopo
PP-ASEL, IA
Ron Bell
approach as you will not have vertical guidance to the runway. I'd fly it
like a LOC approach, until I see the runway, and then circle to land. If I
don't spot the airport at the LOC MAP, go missed. Just my opinion.
--
Ron Bell, PP-ASEL-IA
C-172 N62530 based at KOFP
________________
\ [__] /
\(o)/
{}/ \{}
"Jacopo Lenzi" <jacop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:da5cb435.01071...@posting.google.com...
Jim Baker
Congrats on getting your ticket. IMC flying is the best part of flying to
me.
Your examiner is right. Your problem with understanding this situation is
conceptual I think. A circle to land manuever is a visual procedure and
circling procedures and techniques aren't compatible with precision
approaches and DHs. On a precision approach, you're descending until a
specified decision height. The theory is at that height you make a decision
to go missed or continue straight ahead with the approach to landing.
You'll note that DHs are much lower in nearly all cases than MDAs and that's
why you either see the rwy and land or you go missed. Not so with an MDA
where you level off and drive in to the MAP. You'd be cutting yourself out
of a lot of time to search for the rwy if you treated the Circling MDA as a
DH.
On a circle to land, you're flying an IAP to do a visual manuever to another
rwy. The theory is to descend to the minimum obstruction clearance altitude
(Circling MDA) and drive toward the airport while looking for the runway
environment. If you don't have it by the MAP, you aren't going to have it
on that pass and you must go missed. I searched the CFR/AIM for a reference
and didn't find one. The reference for the above is found in AF Manual
11-217, Instrument Flight Procedures.
Jim
"Jacopo Lenzi" <jacop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:da5cb435.01071...@posting.google.com...
macho...@nosoup4u.com
wrote:
Well, first of all, there is no such thing as "circle-to-land" DH.
Presumably, you mean MDA.
You can remain at the MDA until you reach the MAP. Wht you are
describing, unless I am missing something, is an old-fashioned
localizer approach.
aterpster
minimums. You are free to descend on the G/S, but if you intend to
circle you must level off at the applicable circling MDA. You then may
elect to fly to the non-precision (LOC) MAP at which point you must be
visual to circle or execute the missed approach procedure. Or, if you
are visual prior to the non-precision MAP, you can depart the electronic
guidance and begin a circling maneuver provided your best estimate places
you within the circling maneuvering area (as described in the AIM). The
regulation for this is implied by FAR 97, under which the IAP is issued.
The fact it has circling minimums is your regulatory authorization.
One word of caution, there are a few ILS IAPs in mountainous areas that
require descent on the G/S, even for circling, but that is noted on the
chart. Also, there are some ILS IAPs that do not have circling minimums
but, again, that is apparent from the chart. Finally, there are some ILS
IAPs where the non-precision (LOC) MAP is prior to the runway threshold.
The non-precision MAP is always the "do not pass" line for continuing the
approach without the required visual references. And, the required
visual references for circling are quite permissive; only the airport
must be in sight. But, before you can descend below the circling MDA to
land on any authorized runway, then the visual reference requirements are
the same as they are for straight-in.
Another thing that is often missed by new instrument pilots is that
circling is sometimes restricted to a portion of the circling maneuvering
area. This is noted on the IAP chart, but is very difficult to visualize
on the fly; it is best to understand such restrictions before using the
approach.
john price
minimums usually apply for straight in vs. circling approach....
Level off at the circle to land altitude and look for the
runway
John Price
CFII/AGI/IGI
Flighthawk
all?
Jacopo Lenzi <jacop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:da5cb435.01071...@posting.google.com...
Jim Baker
Flighthawk, you stand accused of beating a dead horse!
JB
"Flighthawk" <pd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tl9pau8...@corp.supernews.com...
Jim Baker
do.
JB
"john price" <jm.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B54E3BD...@worldnet.att.net...
Steven P. McNicoll
There is no "circle-to-land DH" on an ILS approach.
Norm Melick
>
> My gosh, could this be a valid reason for timing on an ILS approach after
> all?
>
No.
aterpster
john price wrote:
> Circle to land is not an ILS... It's a LOC approach... Different
> minimums usually apply for straight in vs. circling approach....
> Level off at the circle to land altitude and look for the
> runway
Circle-to-land is not a precision approach, but if conducted on an IAP with
the title "ILS," it certainly *is* an ILS approach.
aterpster
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> There is no "circle-to-land DH" on an ILS approach.
I guess the difference in our responses to this new instrument pilot is
that I actually tried to be helpful rather than confrontational.
Steven P. McNicoll
"aterpster" <ater...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B55821F...@hotmail.com...
>
> I guess the difference in our responses to this new instrument pilot is
> that I actually tried to be helpful rather than confrontational.
>
So you're a failure and imperceptive as well.
aterpster
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
You make my case you pompus ass.
happy joe
Look at his credentials. You are a failure, pal, you don't have all those
ratings:
Steven Patrick Mcnicoll
1851 South Sunkist Circle
De Pere, WI 54115-3732
Certificates Private & Control Tower Operator
Ratings Airplane Single Engine Land & Instrument Airplane
Write Steve for all the answers. If you need to get him right away he is just
a phone call away at:
Phone: (920) 336-9163
Stan Gosnell
<3B560120...@hotmail.com>:
You're wasting your time. The only way to deal with McNicoll, Albert
Silverman, & others like them is the killfile.
(If you don't know who Alber Silverman is, consider yourself lucky. I
think it will be interesting to see what he does when he shows up here
after searching all the newsgroups for his name.)
--
Regards,
Stan
Matthew S. Whiting
>
> Hey Terpster, give up pal. You can't win an aviation argument with Steve.
> Look at his credentials. You are a failure, pal, you don't have all those
> ratings:
>
> Steven Patrick Mcnicoll
> 1851 South Sunkist Circle
> De Pere, WI 54115-3732
> Certificates Private & Control Tower Operator
> Ratings Airplane Single Engine Land & Instrument Airplane
>
> Write Steve for all the answers. If you need to get him right away he is just
> a phone call away at:
>
> Phone: (920) 336-9163
Why? I'm guessing he's as obnoxious live as he is here in the ng...
:-)
Matt
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> You make my case you pompus ass.
>
It's "pompous".
john price
Again... You're not doing an ILS... It's a localizer approach
with a circle to land... Your clearance should be N12345
cleared LOC-XX approach, circle to land YY... However some
controllers mistakenly clear you for the ILS-XX, circle to
land YY approach...
John Price
CFII/AGI/IGI
Stan Prevost
there is a transition to a visual circle to land procedure. There is no
vertical guidance on a LOC approach. One can fly a LOC approach down to a
circle to land finish, using no vertical guidance.
Stan Prevost
"john price" <jm.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B5641DC...@worldnet.att.net...
Roy Smith, CFI
> Again... You're not doing an ILS... It's a localizer approach
> with a circle to land...
Well, that's an interesting point. Is there any reason I can't track the
GS down to the circling MDA, or do I need to follow the LOC descent
profile, which may have stepdown fixes. Given a choice, I'd much rather
track the GS (especially if I had an A/P which could do coupled approaches).
--
Roy Smith, CFI-ASE-IA
s b e c k e r @nexbridge.com Randall S. Becker
1. you're not using ILS minima on the chart, you're using circling minima
2. you are required to follow the LOC descent profile, not the ILS. While
this may be the same in 99.99% of the cases, down to the MDA, the 1 airport
that has a difference is going to bust you. Using the GS to descend is legal
as long as you're not violating the provisions of the descent profile on the
approach plate.
Of course, I'm probably wrong.
"Stan Prevost" <spre...@home.com> wrote in message
news:WJr57.66553$B5.15...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
Hilton
> john price wrote:
> > Again... You're not doing an ILS... It's a localizer approach
> > with a circle to land...
>
> Well, that's an interesting point. Is there any reason I can't track the
> GS down to the circling MDA, or do I need to follow the LOC descent
> profile, which may have stepdown fixes. Given a choice, I'd much rather
> track the GS (especially if I had an A/P which could do coupled
approaches).
Roy,
I have seen some ILS approaches (no I'm not going to spend time digging for
them) which have a note something like: "Descend on GS to circling MDA".
Hilton
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Again... You're not doing an ILS... It's a localizer approach
> with a circle to land... Your clearance should be N12345
> cleared LOC-XX approach, circle to land YY... However some
> controllers mistakenly clear you for the ILS-XX, circle to
> land YY approach...
>
If the plate says ILS you should be cleared for an ILS.
aterpster
john price wrote:
> No...
>
> Again... You're not doing an ILS... It's a localizer approach
> with a circle to land... Your clearance should be N12345
> cleared LOC-XX approach, circle to land YY... However some
> controllers mistakenly clear you for the ILS-XX, circle to
> land YY approach...
That is not correct. ATC must clear you by the name of the approach on the
chart. Only when the chart says "LOC" can you be cleared for a localizer
approach.
aterpster
"Randall S. Becker" wrote:
> It's not an ILS because:
> 1. you're not using ILS minima on the chart, you're using circling minima
> 2. you are required to follow the LOC descent profile, not the ILS. While
> this may be the same in 99.99% of the cases, down to the MDA, the 1 airport
> that has a difference is going to bust you. Using the GS to descend is legal
> as long as you're not violating the provisions of the descent profile on the
> approach plate.
>
> Of course, I'm probably wrong.
You are. It is your call to follow the G/S or the non-precision profile,
stopping descent in both cases at the circling MDA if you intend to circle.
Folks seem to be confusing ILS with precision approach, which it is only when
flown to DH/A for a straight-in landing.
aterpster
>
>
> I have seen some ILS approaches (no I'm not going to spend time digging for
> them) which have a note something like: "Descend on GS to circling MDA".
>
> Those are because of obstacle problems that won't permit the non-precision
> profile.
CVSFLY
out there. Yes for practical tests you need to demonstrate competance,
proficiency and knowledege of IAPs. In the real world be very selective
with circling approaches. You will find some commercial operators forbid
them altogether even when they are proficient and familar with an airport.
> PP-ASEL, IA
Jim Baker
whatever). You're right that you can only be cleared for the IAP name on
the approach page, but you are cleared to fly any approach on that page
which is depicted and has, obviously, minima published for it. That doesn't
include circling approaches of course, because they aren't depicted.
JB
"aterpster" <ater...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B56E0CF...@hotmail.com...
aterpster
Jim Baker wrote:
> Maybe semantically correct aterpster, but not technically correct (or
> whatever). You're right that you can only be cleared for the IAP name on
> the approach page, but you are cleared to fly any approach on that page
> which is depicted and has, obviously, minima published for it. That doesn't
> include circling approaches of course, because they aren't depicted.
Did I say anything to the contrary? When cleared for an ILS approach you can
fly the non-precision or precision approach at your election.
As to circling minimums, I don't follow you. Most, but not all, ILS approach
charts have circling minimums.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Jim Baker" <jfb...@home.com> wrote in message
news:7wJ57.37695$QG2.1...@news1.bnapk1.occa.home.com...
>
> Maybe semantically correct aterpster, but not technically correct (or
> whatever).
>
Actually, it is both.
>
> You're right that you can only be cleared for the IAP name on
> the approach page, but you are cleared to fly any approach on that page
> which is depicted and has, obviously, minima published for it. That
doesn't
> include circling approaches of course, because they aren't depicted.
>
Aren't depicted? What do you mean by that? Most approaches have circling
minima, quite a few have only circling minima, but I've never seen one which
had any specific circling maneuver depicted on the chart.
Norm Melick
>
> Maybe semantically correct aterpster, but not technically correct (or
> whatever). You're right that you can only be cleared for the IAP name on
> the approach page, but you are cleared to fly any approach on that page
> which is depicted and has, obviously, minima published for it. That doesn't
> include circling approaches of course, because they aren't depicted.
No. The reason you can't shoot a circling approach is because ATC didn't
clear you for the circling approach.
Depiction (or lack thereof), has nothing to do with it.
Norm Melick
Jim Baker
title ILS RWY 34 that you were only cleared for the ILS approach. My
comment was that you were cleared for any approach on that plate which
normally, in the case of an ILS, includes the S-LOC. You are not cleared to
circle however, even with the minima printed, until you request and are
cleared for the circle. Judging by your remark below "When ...election." we
are saying the same thing. I guess I just misunderstood your comment.
JB
"aterpster" <ater...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B576804...@hotmail.com...
Jim Baker
have to request it. If circling minima are printed, you can fly the
maneuver once requested and cleared. If they're not printed you can't even
ask for it. That's why the maneuver itself isn't drawn out on the plate.
Theoretically, depiction has everything to do with it. ATC doesn't clear
you for a S-LOC when the title of the plate is ILS, but because it's
depicted, you're cleared to fly it.
JB
"Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B5774C9...@worldnet.att.net...
Steven P. McNicoll
> clear you for the circling approach.
> Depiction (or lack thereof), has nothing to do with it.
>
ATC may give circling approach instructions only at airports with operating
control towers. At uncontrolled fields you are free to circle as you see
fit, ATC will not clear you for a circling approach, and ATC cannot prevent
you from making a circling approach.
Norm Melick
>
> My point exactly Norm. The circling approach isn't depicted because you
> have to request it.
Well, ATC can assign you a circling approach as well.
> If circling minima are printed, you can fly the
> maneuver once requested and cleared. If they're not printed you can't even
> ask for it. That's why the maneuver itself isn't drawn out on the plate.
> Theoretically, depiction has everything to do with it. ATC doesn't clear
> you for a S-LOC when the title of the plate is ILS, but because it's
> depicted, you're cleared to fly it.
>
> JB
The reason they don't depict a circling approach is because the
"pattern" is left up to the pilot. He may draw it out in his head anyway
he wants, as long as he complies with any ATC instrucion or local
pattern requirement, and any notes published on the approach plate.
Absent an emergency.
Norm Melick
Jim Baker
mine.
JB
"Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B5778A7...@worldnet.att.net...
Timothy M. Metzinger
<hen...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>No. The reason you can't shoot a circling approach is because ATC didn't
>clear you for the circling approach.
>Depiction (or lack thereof), has nothing to do with it.
BS. At an uncontrolled field, ATC has NO IDEA what the weather is. They clear
you for the approach (FDK ILS 23 for example) and you as the PIC determine
which runway you will land on. If the winds favor another runway, you
descend down to circling MDA, and then press on and circle.
At a controlled field, approach may clear you for the ILS, and then the Tower
may clear you to circle. Happens ALL the time here at DCA.
Timothy Metzinger
Commercial Pilot - ASMEL - IA AOPA Project Pilot Mentor
'98 M20J - N1067W
Pipers, Cessnas, Tampicos, Tobagos, and Trinidads at FDK
john price
Unless you want to get down sooner to get under clouds
John Price
CFII/AGI/IGI
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Well it seemed to me that you said that if flying an approach with the
> title ILS RWY 34 that you were only cleared for the ILS approach. My
> comment was that you were cleared for any approach on that plate which
> normally, in the case of an ILS, includes the S-LOC. You are not cleared
to
> circle however, even with the minima printed, until you request and are
> cleared for the circle.
>
ATC may give circling approach instructions only at airports with operating
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> The circling approach isn't depicted because you
> have to request it.
>
That's not correct. At controlled fields it can be assigned by ATC without
your request, at uncontrolled fields you don't need to request and ATC
cannot assign it.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Timothy M. Metzinger" <tmetz...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20010719210139...@nso-fi.aol.com...
>
> BS. At an uncontrolled field, ATC has NO IDEA what the weather is.
>
Not true, lots of uncontrolled fields have weather reporting.
Matthew S. Whiting
I know the fields with an FSS do, but there are few of them anymore.
Are you talking about the automated equipment?
Matt
Steven P. McNicoll
"Matthew S. Whiting" <whi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:3B578972...@epix.net...
>
> I know the fields with an FSS do, but there are few of them anymore.
> Are you talking about the automated equipment?
>
Yup. At many of those fields with FSSs the weather observation is automated
as well.
Tarver Engineering
"Stan Gosnell" <stang@[204.52.135.1]> wrote in message
news:90E2B0EB2st...@204.52.135.10...
> ater...@hotmail.com (aterpster) wrote in
> <3B560120...@hotmail.com>:> >> news:3B55821F...@hotmail.com...
> >> >
> >> > I guess the difference in our responses to this new instrument pilot
> >> > is that I actually tried to be helpful rather than confrontational.
> >> >
> >>
> >> So you're a failure and imperceptive as well.
> >
> >You make my case you pompus ass.
>
> You're wasting your time. The only way to deal with McNicoll, Albert
> Silverman, & others like them is the killfile.
plonk
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Timothy M. Metzinger
<ronca...@writeme.com> writes:
>Not true, lots of uncontrolled fields have weather reporting
You are correct but many do not. Anyway, the point was that ATC does not
assign circle-to-land at uncontrolled fields unless the runway served by the
ILS is closed.
Norm Melick
> >No. The reason you can't shoot a circling approach is because ATC didn't
> >clear you for the circling approach.
> >Depiction (or lack thereof), has nothing to do with it.
>
> BS. At an uncontrolled field, ATC has NO IDEA what the weather is.
Oh really? Sure about that?
> They clear you for the approach (FDK ILS 23 for example) and you as the PIC determine
> which runway you will land on.
Within certain limitations/regulations.
> If the winds favor another runway, you descend down to circling MDA, and then press on and circle.
Within certain limitations/regulations.
> At a controlled field, approach may clear you for the ILS, and then the Tower
> may clear you to circle. Happens ALL the time here at DCA.
No shit? Happens ALL the time here in the USA. Perhaps if you'll stop
pounding your chest long enough to re-read my posts, quote Jim's post in
it's entirety, then use some 8th grade reading comprehension skills,
you'll see your mistake.
Norm Melick
I purposely skip all the BS titles/certificates/aircaft flown
Norm Melick
> You are correct but many do not. Anyway, the point was that ATC does not
> assign circle-to-land at uncontrolled fields unless the runway served by the
> ILS is closed.
Now this is a BS statement.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Timothy M. Metzinger" <tmetz...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>
> You are correct but many do not.
>
Yes, but you said "At an uncontrolled field, ATC has NO IDEA what the
weather is." At many uncontrolled fields ATC has a very good idea what the
weather is.
>
> Anyway, the point was that ATC does not assign circle-to-land at
uncontrolled
> fields unless the runway served by the ILS is closed.
>
ATC does not assign circle-to-land at uncontrolled fields PERIOD.
JPH
--
JPH (Another Terpster)
"aterpster" <ater...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B55821F...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> > There is no "circle-to-land DH" on an ILS approach.
Matthew S. Whiting
OK, I agree then that saying the controller has "no idea" of the weather
would be an overstatement, however, the AWOS/ASOS equipment has some
pretty severe limitations. Last I knew it only looked essentially
straight up and had a few other limitations. Also, it seems like they
are "OOS" way too frequently. Still hard to beat a human on the ground
for good weather.
Matt
aterpster
Jim Baker wrote:
> Well it seemed to me that you said that if flying an approach with the
> title ILS RWY 34 that you were only cleared for the ILS approach. My
> comment was that you were cleared for any approach on that plate which
> normally, in the case of an ILS, includes the S-LOC. You are not cleared to
> circle however, even with the minima printed, until you request and are
> cleared for the circle. Judging by your remark below "When ...election." we
> are saying the same thing. I guess I just misunderstood your comment.
We are saying the same thing. Also, if the approach is to an airport without an
operating control tower, no further clearance is needed to circle, if that is
what you need to do.
aterpster
Norm Melick wrote:
No. The reason you can't shoot a circling approach is because ATC didn't clear you
for the circling approach.
When cleared for an approach that has circiling minimums those minimums are
available to you if you need or elect to use them. At airports with operating
control towers you need the concurrence of the tower to circle. But, at an
airport without an operating control tower (which is the majority of airports with
IAPs), ATC has no jurisdiction whatsover over whether you elect to circle-to-land.
aterpster
Jim Baker wrote:
> My point exactly Norm. The circling approach isn't depicted because you
> have to request it. If circling minima are printed, you can fly the
> maneuver once requested and cleared. If they're not printed you can't even
> ask for it. That's why the maneuver itself isn't drawn out on the plate.
> Theoretically, depiction has everything to do with it. ATC doesn't clear
> you for a S-LOC when the title of the plate is ILS, but because it's
> depicted, you're cleared to fly it.
I presume you mean by "the circiling approach isn't depicted because you have
to request it" to mean an approach chart that does not have circling minimums.
In that case you cannot circle because there are no circling minmums and AVN
has not evaluated the circling area for obstacles. Approaches without circling
minimums are typically at major airports where every runway end has a
straight-in IAP.
Without published circling minimums ATC cannot create them out of thin air.
The authorizations and protections of an approach chart are a flight operations
"contract" between you and the FAA Flight Standards Service, not ATC. ATC
determines, based on airspace availability, whether you will be granted an air
traffic clearance to use a given approach procedure.
aterpster
JPH wrote:
> Aterpster, I thought your response to the original question was perfect!
Thanks. I was trying to be helpful to someone who was seeking information
beyond declaratory utterances. ;-)
Stan
wrote:
aterpster, you've been a tremendous help to many pilots. It is good
to hear from you at this ng ever since Wally Roberts left it.
Please don't let SM drive you away. When he makes his arrogant
coments, all of us just dismiss them.
Its a shame, since SM is a tremendously smart person too, just has no
people skills
Stan
aterpster
Stan wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 12:57:32 GMT, aterpster <ater...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> aterpster, you've been a tremendous help to many pilots. It is good
> to hear from you at this ng ever since Wally Roberts left it.
> Please don't let SM drive you away. When he makes his arrogant
> coments, all of us just dismiss them.
>
> Its a shame, since SM is a tremendously smart person too, just has no
> people skills
Thanks.
It distresses me that he seems to enjoy attacking people and engaging in
name-calling. We know that he is a working air traffic controller. Whether he
likes it or not, once so identified he represents the FAA, indirectly at
least. It's like someone signing on here and saying "I am a captain for
Skyblast Airlines" then goes on to conduct himself like SM. It wouldn't
reflect too well on Skyblast Airlines.
Stan
contain such people. His attitude thus reflects more on himself, and
not so much his employer.
99% of controllers do a very good job. Even with dealing with the 5%
of pilots who seem not to know what's in the fars and aim.
Stan
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 12:15:47 GMT, aterpster <ater...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
aterpster
>
> 99% of controllers do a very good job. Even with dealing with the 5%
> of pilots who seem not to know what's in the fars and aim.
> Stan
I would agree except that perhaps the good controller percentage is more like 95%.
;-)
John R. Copeland
---JRC---
"Stan" <pstan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3b595eaf...@allnews.nb.sympatico.ca...
Stan
He was a regular poster, a few years back. I think he got pissed at
having to defend himself from a certain individual. He was clearly
the guru among the many other intelligent posters.
Stan
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001 21:50:53 GMT, "John R. Copeland"
<jcop...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>Wally Roberts left us?
>---JRC---
>
>"Stan" <pstan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message =
>news:3b595eaf...@allnews.nb.sympatico.ca...
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 12:57:32 GMT, aterpster <ater...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
John R. Copeland
Wally, if you're out there somewhere, give us a sign. Ommmmmm.
---JRC---
"Stan" <pstan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:3b59f5e5...@allnews.nb.sympatico.ca...
Rnee Michael Steiniger
turns back visual to 27. No info on the plate, thay never use 9. Any one
wanna explain it to a beginner???news:3B56E16F...@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > I have seen some ILS approaches (no I'm not going to spend time digging
for
> > them) which have a note something like: "Descend on GS to circling MDA".
> >
> > Those are because of obstacle problems that won't permit the
non-precision
> > profile.
>