"Risk is relative" that makes more sense than anything else I've read in this post so far. An experienced pilot that is used to the procedure is not a risk at all, and regarding the landing with a tailwind, landing with more than 10 knots on the tail is not an option for turbine ship pilots.

>"Risk is relative" that makes more sense than anything else>I've read in this post so far. An experienced pilot that is>used to the procedure is not a risk at all, and regarding the>landing with a tailwind, landing with more than 10 knots on>the tail is not an option for turbine ship pilots.In that case why do circle to land procedures have such a high accident rate? especially regarding CFIT and stall/spinPeter

That's easy, inexperienced pilots.When you work for a charter company flying jets, you learn how to do a circle to land.

>That's easy, inexperienced pilots.>When you work for a charter company flying jets, you learn how>to do a circle to land.Inexperienced Pilots??? hmmmm dont think so. I suggest you do a search on circle to land accidents (pages of the stuff)and then maybe understand why some airlines ban themPeter

If they crash than than they're obviously not doing it right. Look at the runwaylook at the gaugesLook at the runwaylook at the gaugesLook at the runwaylook at the gaugesLook at the runwaylook at the gaugesLook at the runwaylook at the gaugesLook at the runwaylook at the gaugesLook at the runwaylook at the gaugesLook at the runwaylook at the gauges

Yes I agree the majority of aircraft accidents are "Pilot Error" whether Private, Professional, experienced or inexperienced.Peter

The faa database also shows that twins are more dangerous than singles-yet we elect to fly twins-and probably have the mindset that a properly trained twin pilot (which of course we are :-) ) has more options and thus safety than a single. Another example of risk being relative.There are times where flying such an approach might actually enhance the safety situation as in my example above. As for the safety, pilot judgement is always what determines the relativity.Where I live-it is often windy (>20 knts)-and being windy the visibility is usually good below the scud-often >10 miles. Breaking out on an instrument approach and then circling to land makes a lot of sense in this situation-especially when going to single runway airports that don't favor the wind. Flying to the circling minimums is something I personally would be reluctant to do-give me at least 2-3 miles and I am ok with it. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

Hey Geoff,I think I would divert to another airport unless there was an issue with fuel, or I had to land.Sounds way too risky for even a very skilled pilot and for me either way. I think these regulations need to be seriously looked at. They aren't safe. That's insane to try to find the runway with that level of visibility.Barry"It is better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than in the air wishing you were on the ground..."

>>I still maintain if the pilot feels comfortable and maintains>visual contact with the runway circle to land can be OK.>I don

The issue with twins is more complex than simply twins being harder to fly. Twins are preferred to fly the most difficult routes over unihabited territory, in icing conditions, at night, over water, etc, etc. If piston singles did the twin routes the stats would probably be inclined differently.

I wouldn't say no risk at all. Maintaining sight of the runway at 140+kts in 2400 metres visisbility at 1500' is not going to be unchallenging. Especially in a corp jet which is probably in the speed unstable part of the drag curve at this point. That 2400m is little over half distance a stadard VFR circuit might be from the runway on the downwind leg. Therefore, if you were flying at minima then you would probably be no more than 2000m to reduce the risk of loosing sight an needing to go-around. That is a bloody tight manouevre with craned necks in anybodies language. Certain keep two pilots quite busy.

Hi Gang,How about letting an OLD Timer add a few comments?Many years ago I flew and instructed in Convair 580's (turoprops) and DC-9's. I've taught and flown hundreds of circling approaches in actual IFR (including rain and snow)and we never had a single accident. I've even flown a couple of circling approaches into Newark in a DC-10 due to main runways being closed. These were in a multi pilot cockpit and that did bring an added level of safety to the procedure as the pilot not flying monitored the instruments for excessive bank angle (over 30 deg), sink rate or airspeed and called them out. However very few Airlines now do a circling approach to published minimums. The one that I was with now requires 1000ft and 3 miles for a circle. Basically VFR. So they do understand the RISKS involved in a low vis circling approach even in a two pilot aircraft.Now lets look at General Aviation and circling in a small single engine or twin. The procedure in it's self is not unsafe. There are many small airports (such as my home base HII, Lake Havasu City) that only have a circling approach. It would be nice if they all had an ILS but that's not the real world. All highway are not all divided four lane either. The most important part of doing a circling approach is situational awareness. Having a plan ahead of time as to how you are going set up for the landing runway. Am I going to enter a close in down wind or am I going to do a teardrop turn around or am I going to fly over the airport to set up for the runway. Also as important is to know in advance how you are going to fly the missed approach from any point during the circle. Note: (From the AIM) If visual reference is lost while circle-to-land from an instrument approach, the missed approach specified for that particular procedure must be followed (unless alternate procedure specified by ATC). To become established on the prescribed missed approach course, the pilot should make an initial climbing turn toward the landing runway and continue the turn until established on the missed approach course.All food for thought. Ed Weber a.k.a Capn Tall

Hi Geoff,Unless I was low on fuel, I would be diverting to another airport...:)Barry

Yep, I think I've read some of your posts in an aviation usenet group as I recall. I certainly do respect your certs and your experience, and your opinion as well. I did fell the transition effect during IFR training when the instructor suddenly lifted the hood and covered the instruments.I guess what I am stating is that some of the CTL minimums are just shy of VFR minimums, that's all. If you've got scattered or broken scud at pattern altitude or going in and out of mist concentrations that does not cut it. Examples are rolling banks of sea or coastal fog - now you see it, now you don't, - that one needs to stay out of. Perhaps the many accidents are pilots who stretched the minimums to get there, which of course is illegal, bias the stats somewhat. CTL procedures if not strictly adhered to do indeed permit hazardous circumstances for pilot goofs. But if you are coming out of a solid layer and vis is good (meaning daylight for many pilots) with a comfortable margin of AGL ceiling, then I can't see a problem.I think we actually both agree but are just stating it differently.I think of CTL as going visual when conditions permit, IFR just being a means to get to that state.(I did not mean to go on, but just wanted to clarify my thoughts.)

>>I think we actually both agree but are just stating it>differently.>Agreed. :-) Best,Jim