VOR-A Approach at PHNL

[CaptainLars 21]

Hi all,

I'd like to know if I handled this right. I got assigned the following VOR-A approach to rwy 26R at PHNL.

Now if my humble aviation knowledge doesn't betray me, this means a circle-to-land procedure. Circling north of rwy 08L/26R is not allowed for Cat D aircraft, as the plate states. I did a google search and found out that a circling procedure below 1000ft has to be carried out inside a 3.6nm radius within the runway edges (http://www.rapp.org/archives/2013/05/circle-to-land/ Also note the graphic "... four common methods used for circling..."). So I draw a 3nm ring around HNL VOR and around the IEPC localizer which is very near to 26R threshold. When I came inside the 3nm radius, I made a right turn to approximately hdg 30°, while slowly descending, and then a left turn to align with the rwy centerline. At my first attempt, I came in too high (I was obviously very afraid of coming in too low), but at my second attempt, I was well established at about 500ft along the extended rwy centerline.

So I'd like to know from you that know much more about procedures than I do, if I did that right. I imagine that such a procedure probably doesn't make too much sense at a busy airport like Honolulu in the first place, but this aside: ProATC-X has some flaws, but overall it does a good job. Would you have done any different? Aside from requesting a different approach, but I thought it fun to do that, and it certainly was. And isn't this, ehm, too dangerous to do it with passengers inside?

[scandinavian13 5,192]

42 minutes ago, CaptainLars said:

And isn't this, ehm, too dangerous to do it with passengers inside?

That's up to you to determine. Knowing other, better, approaches are available, however, I would've requested one of those. No need to fly an old approach like that unless the ILSes were out and your RNAV capability dropped.

[pilot87 12]

Following on from what Kyle said, I don't think dangerous is the word I'd use. Being a pilot is all about risk assessment and in this case yes the risk is certainly greater than a runway aligned straight-in approach, so then as Kyle said it's up to you as the pilot in command to determine if the risk is too great. However that is also the beauty of a simulator in being able to attempt things that you would unlikely encounter in the real world - the same as real world pilots do. We train for engine failures, fires, etc but the hope is you never actually have to use that training.

Based on what you've posted I would say you a definitely on the right track though. I fly in Australia under Australian rules and regulations so the following information is provided in that context:

• If you haven't already, have a read through the Flight Crew Training Manual (provided by PMDG with all the other documentation) specifically section 5.52 on-wards. This section covers circling approaches and also covers circling areas. As you stated the FAA appears to have changed their circling area guidance in 2013 and the FCTM provided is from 2011, so there is a slight discrepancy however the basics still apply. For reference, Boeing also state that all -200 models are actually certified as category C aircraft whilst the -300, -300ER and F model are category D.
• Given the final approach course from the VOR is quite oblique to the runway, if the conditions allow you could also request to join upwind instead of trying to cram the entire circuit into a very small area. In that case the principle is the same except you would fly all legs of the circuit instead of just essentially an oblique base and final. 
• The latest charts also have the circling altitude for category D aircraft at 1400'. I notice your chart may date back to 1996. An MDA is a minimum descent altitude so if you get visual early (and can maintain it) there's not really any reason why you can't level off at your normal circuit altitude and fly that. In Australia the circuit height for a high performance aircraft is 1500' AGL. Honolulu has an elevation of 13' so that would make the circuit altitude of 1600' (13 + 1500 = 1513 but you can't set that on the MCP so round up to the nearest 100' = 1600').

Having said that, you are absolutely correct in stating that it's highly unlikely a 777 would be flying a circling approach such as that. Whilst a VOR-A approach is still a legitimate approach type you would probably have a hard time explaining why you elected to fly that one if something went wrong when there were other more suitable approaches. In the case of 26L at PHNL which does not have an ILS the more likely scenario would be the RNAV (RNP) approach. As RNP approaches become more common this seems to be the preferred approach (after ILS and certainly ahead of a VOR circling approach). But if something drastic happened and that was your only option, then it's great to know you can fly that approach.

[richjb2 195]

Hi Lars,

For the most part, you did things right.  Just a few comments.

1. The distance you have to remain within for CAT D on this approach is 2.3 NN since this approach is designed to the old US. TERPS circling protected airspace standard.  If the Circling minima had a negative "C" icon, then you can use the larger circling radii .  

2.  Because this is a joint use airfield (Hickman AFB), the approach has CAT E minima.  You could use the MDA of 1500' with circling radii of 4.5 NM, if the weather permitted.  That's basically a VFR pattern.  You can always use the higher MDA and larger circling radii for the next higher approach category if the weather permits.   

3. The preferred method is draw the circling CAR rings around the runway thresholds using the FIX Page.  Enter "RW26L" and  "RW26R" on the two FIX  pages and enter a "/2.3", assuming CAT D minima, for each for each fix to draw circle around each threshold that will give you a good MAP view of the circling protected airspace during your base to final visual segment.  

4.  A normal 3 degree descent is 300 feet per NM.  To descend from the CAT D MDA of 780' MSL (744' HAA) will take about 2.3 NM.  The required descent rate is approximately 1/2 your ground speed ( e.g., 150K = 750 FPM).  

5.  The goal is to roll wings level on final, no closer than 1 NM from the threshold and no lower than 300' above the runway threshold elevation.   That's the minimum target to shoot for.  Given the likelihood of a 90 degree base to final turn, it's likely also the best you can hope for and still circle within the protected airspace.   Based on the required descent described in 4., pick a point on base to begin a descent at rate of 750 FPM that will allow you to roll wings level 1 NM from the runway.  The PAPI for 26L will help .

In the real world, airlines do not circle less than 1000' & 3.  In fact, most US type ratings issued through airline training programs restrict circling to VFR minima of a 1000' & 3 NM.

The PHNL VOR A circle to 26R is an interesting approach and given that there's no other approach to that runway, it's use not out of the realm of possibility.  It might be the first approach I try with the B777 for P3Dv4, should it release this weekend. 

Thanks,

Rich Boll

Wichita KS

 

 

[pilot87 12]

35 minutes ago, richjb2 said:

The PHNL VOR A circle to 26R is an interesting approach and given that there's no other approach to that runway, it's use not out of the realm of possibility.  It might be the first approach I try with the B777 for P3Dv4, should it release this weekend. 

There is the RNAV (RNP) arrival that the 777 would definitely be able to fly - the older 744 may not be able to although I'm not 100% on that. I imagine with an updated FMS it would be possible pending jumping through all the other regulatory hoops associated with that.

You mentioned a few other things that seem to be US specific and that's not something I could help with - it's always interesting to see the significant differences between ICAO signatory nations.

[richjb2 195]

Hi Hayden,

Lars was asking specially about circling to 26R from the VOR approach.  My discussion was focused on that question.  

I checked my ForeFight app with the current PHNL charts.  I did not see an RNP approach to 26R. Is the approach to that runway that you have an airline special RNP approach? 

From the discussions on RNP AR approaches on the PSX forum, the B744 is not approved for RF Legs,  if correct, it would not be approved for the public RNP AR approach to runway 26L since that approach requires RF legs .  

If one is looking for a real circling approach that the airlines do with some regularity, try the ILS 1R circle to runway 30 at Washington-Dulles (KIAD).  When the wind is below from the west in excess of operational crosswind limits, the airlines are forced to use runway 30 for landing.  United in particular.  I know they do it in the 737s and Airbuses, and maybe up the B757. Not certain for sure about the B767/B777.   They do it only at their OpSpec limit of 1000'/3SM. 

 Best Regards,

Rich Boll

 

[Driverab330 74]

11 hours ago, CaptainLars said:

Hi all,

I'd like to know if I handled this right. I got assigned the following VOR-A approach to rwy 26R at PHNL.

Now if my humble aviation knowledge doesn't betray me, this means a circle-to-land procedure. Circling north of rwy 08L/26R is not allowed for Cat D aircraft, as the plate states. I did a google search and found out that a circling procedure below 1000ft has to be carried out inside a 3.6nm radius within the runway edges (http://www.rapp.org/archives/2013/05/circle-to-land/ Also note the graphic "... four common methods used for circling..."). So I draw a 3nm ring around HNL VOR and around the IEPC localizer which is very near to 26R threshold. When I came inside the 3nm radius, I made a right turn to approximately hdg 30°, while slowly descending, and then a left turn to align with the rwy centerline. At my first attempt, I came in too high (I was obviously very afraid of coming in too low), but at my second attempt, I was well established at about 500ft along the extended rwy centerline.

So I'd like to know from you that know much more about procedures than I do, if I did that right. I imagine that such a procedure probably doesn't make too much sense at a busy airport like Honolulu in the first place, but this aside: ProATC-X has some flaws, but overall it does a good job. Would you have done any different? Aside from requesting a different approach, but I thought it fun to do that, and it certainly was. And isn't this, ehm, too dangerous to do it with passengers inside?

Completely agree with what had been previously said that this approach is not dangerous at all.

However, there won't be that many of these types of approach left now with the increasing acceptance on conducting the RNP AR approaches all over the world. 

 

Based on my real life experience to conducting similar type of approaches on the 773/ER here is my little strategy:

At 1500ft over DYDRA, you have about 5nm to go, so it is actually quite a relax visual segment even for the 773ER at ~150kts Vapp. 

There are numerous ways of doing it, drawing a 3nm ring for a height check would help.

To do visual manoeuvre like this what I would normally do is to go on Google Earth to draw a ground track of what I think I would fly, and take note at the ground features which I will be aiming for, see the imagine from the link below.

https://ibb.co/iGZnYF

Basically, after reaching DYDRA at 1500ft, you have around 4.5nm to go, and if you use VNAV from LEHUA to DYDRA, VNAV already give you a 3 deg descent profile which is a big help*.

Some other VOR/LDA approaches i.e. CRI 13L/R approach in JFK, LDA 22/23 in HND (RJTT) will position the airplane below profile, and the pilot had to fly a shallower descent at MDA or sometimes had to level off in order to bring the airplane back to a normal descent glide path, this had led to a few too high / too low profiles events, because most line pilots rarely do this type of approaches, and it does requires a lot of preflight preparation (which Flight sim and PMDG777 comes in handy). 

Therefore all you need to do as you approach DYDRA is 1) disconnect the Autopilot, 2) maintain the V/S ~700-800fpm vary with your Ground speed, 3) point the nose towards the middle of the sand island (you can perhaps aim at the car park). 

As you approach the southern shore (but not over it, otherwise you will overshoot big time) of the sand island make the final turn, which should happen at an altitude about ~700-800ft, begin the turn to left and set 12-15 Deg AOB initially, use the PAPI for vertical guidance in the turn and on final.

There are two little islands between the runway threshold and the Sand island, do not let the airplane over shoot the southern shore line of the little island located just the left of the Sand Island in the turn.  

At this particular example, you may also either put in the waypoint of IBICU and NALII from the RNP approach to help to fly the ground track accurately. But I will be mainly looking outside the window and follow the ground features. 

The way the FBW is programmed on the PMDG 777 make is quite hard to maintain a constant v/s as you roll in and roll out of the turn, so you may be struggle a bit initially which is normal. The real airplane is much easier. 

This approach will surely make you feel like a pilot again, I always remember what I was told ages ago by a training captain who said: "A visual segment on a big jet is a precision manoeuvre, prior planning is always required"

What needs to be careful though is the Minima from the chart, from the charts I have for CAT D airplane (i.e. 777) the minima of the chart is 1400ft at 3sm. 

However to comfortably do this approach in real life, you will probably need to 5nm vis and 1600ft ceiling.  Anything below that I would personally do the LOC or RNP. 

Hope you will have fun at it. Cheers. 

 

**sorry I missed you wanted to land on 26R.... my plan was based on 26L. but you may use similar method to find your way into 26R. happy landing 

https://ibb.co/dga5Lv

 

 

 

---

[pilot87 12]

Hi Rich,

I only mentioned the RNP arrival as you said there was no other approach for that runway. The FAA have it published on their website which can be found here (also on Flight Aware that provide FAA charts) and it's also in the Navigraph subscription (Runway 26L, 04R and 08L). The charts have a requirement for special authorisation so perhaps Foreflight don't include it in their subscription?

I'm not on the PSX forum so I'm not up with that discussion but for what it's worth, this Boeing document suggests it is possible to conduct an RNP arrival in the 747 however there are some adjustments that need to be made by interested operators. Doesn't look overly complicated but obviously comes down to the cost vs. benefit discussion.

 

 

[richjb2 195]

1 hour ago, pilot87 said:

Hi Rich,

I only mentioned the RNP arrival as you said there was no other approach for that runway. The FAA have it published on their website which can be found here (also on Flight Aware that provide FAA charts) and it's also in the Navigraph subscription (Runway 26L, 04R and 08L). The charts have a requirement for special authorisation so perhaps Foreflight don't include it in their subscription?

I'm not on the PSX forum so I'm not up with that discussion but for what it's worth, this Boeing document suggests it is possible to conduct an RNP arrival in the 747 however there are some adjustments that need to be made by interested operators. Doesn't look overly complicated but obviously comes down to the cost vs. benefit discussion.

 

 

Thanks for the link to the Boeing Aero article.  That's a great summary of RNP qualifications. Looks like there is a solution for 744. 

The RNP AR IAPs for 26L, 04R and 08L are public procedure and can be flown by any operator with standard RNP AR approval.  There is no RNP AR approach to 26R, which is what Lars was trying to land on, for whatever reason. 

There are a few RNP AR specials that are developed by an airline for which special approval has to be granted by the State authority.  For example, Alaska Airlines has their own special RNP approaches at PAJN. These were developed using their proprietary criteria or through mitigations to the US TERPS criteria that was found acceptable to FAA and meet an equivalent level of safety. Depending on whether the operator makes the "special" available to other operators determines its availability.  These procedures are not standard instrument approach procedures and will not be published on FAA's website or included in chart subscription services like Jeppesen or Lido (Lido is Navgraph's source) without the operator proving that they are authorized, usually by the operator furnishing them a copy of their OpSpec/LOA.  I was just curious if there is a special RNP to runway 26R.     

Rich Boll

[pilot87 12]

No problems - I also found a Honeywell newsletter that briefly mentioned the ability to conduct RNP operations with newer FMS software versions. It was very limited though so I didn't include that.

9 hours ago, richjb2 said:

The RNP AR IAPs for 26L, 04R and 08L are public procedure and can be flown by any operator with standard RNP AR approval.  There is no RNP AR approach to 26R, which is what Lars was trying to land on, for whatever reason. 

Ah ok - that was my fault: I misread the OP's post and thought he was referring to 26L. 

10 hours ago, richjb2 said:

There are a few RNP AR specials that are developed by an airline for which special approval has to be granted by the State authority.  For example, Alaska Airlines has their own special RNP approaches at PAJN. These were developed using their proprietary criteria or through mitigations to the US TERPS criteria that was found acceptable to FAA and meet an equivalent level of safety. Depending on whether the operator makes the "special" available to other operators determines its availability.  

I was aware of that. There was a thread in the NGX sub-forum from someone whom I believe is a current Alaska Airlines pilot who had created and offered the RNP approaches into PAJN. I read an Emirates media release sometime ago when RNP was brand new that they had an authorisation from the UAE GCAA to create their own procedures. I'm also aware that Qantas create their own charts (but I'm not sure if they use data provided from elsewhere or create their own procedures).

 

10 hours ago, richjb2 said:

These procedures are not standard instrument approach procedures and will not be published on FAA's website or included in chart subscription services like Jeppesen or Lido (Lido is Navgraph's source) without the operator proving that they are authorized, usually by the operator furnishing them a copy of their OpSpec/LOA.

Not sure if you are aware that Navigraph are in the process of updating their chart apps and are returning to Jeppesen data. Interestingly too, whilst the chart data was provided by Lido it appears as though the FMS data was actually still Jeppesen.

10 hours ago, richjb2 said:

I was just curious if there is a special RNP to runway 26R. 

There well may be an airline created one, but not that I'm aware of. Based on observations it looks like it landing 26R would be extremely rare so it's probably not worth the effort/money in creating the approach. 

Thanks for the feedback though - I can obviously only give information within the context of Australian rules and regulations. I'm aware of some subtle and significant differences between Australian and US regulations so it's great to hear the confirmation from someone who flies in that environment. As I said earlier, I'm fascinated by the differences in the rules and regulations between two countries that are quite similar and both being ICAO signatories. Not to mention that Australia does not certify aircraft instead relying on the FAA certifications.

[CaptainLars 21]

Thank you very much to all of you for your very insightful responses and sorry for the little delay. I'm glad to hear that my "approach" to this approach was on the right track.

I understand that this type of approach is normally to be avoided, since there are easier approaches to fly. Thankfully, it's a simulation, and my only driving force to do this approach was that I wanted to.

 

Quote

1. The distance you have to remain within for CAT D on this approach is 2.3 NN since this approach is designed to the old US. TERPS circling protected airspace standard.  If the Circling minima had a negative "C" icon, then you can use the larger circling radii . 

[...]

3. The preferred method is draw the circling CAR rings around the runway thresholds using the FIX Page.  Enter "RW26L" and  "RW26R" on the two FIX  pages and enter a "/2.3", assuming CAT D minima, for each for each fix to draw circle around each threshold that will give you a good MAP view of the circling protected airspace during your base to final visual segment.

Rich, thank you for the hint. I wasn't aware I could enter runway thresholds. The entry of a decimal fraction range like "/2.3" is impossible though for me, at least in combination with navaids and waypoints.

Quote

2.  Because this is a joint use airfield (Hickman AFB), the approach has CAT E minima.  You could use the MDA of 1500' with circling radii of 4.5 NM, if the weather permitted.  That's basically a VFR pattern.  You can always use the higher MDA and larger circling radii for the next higher approach category if the weather permit

I wasn't aware of this. Is this stated anywhere on the plate? What does the little inverted "D" in the lower left section mean?

 

Quote

**sorry I missed you wanted to land on 26R.... my plan was based on 26L. but you may use similar method to find your way into 26R. happy landing 

https://ibb.co/dga5Lv

Wing, thank you very much for the provided guide. I think that following the yellow line on your plan I'd be well out of the safe space. Perhaps I don't understand this correctly. I thought that for the circling part, I had to remain inside the specified safe space.

[Driverab330 74]

Yes you are right. That's why I said raise the weather minimum to 5-6nm /1600ft, then treat the rest of the visual segment after DYDRA as a visual approach. So that terrain is not an issue. 

otherwise the only way to do this is a very tight 1000ft circuit which involve a right turn to downwind of over 90 deg. 

This is obviously can be done but not recommended on a big airplane like this.

Also some airline has a policy which bans pilots from conducting circling approach, so people would have to use a term "visual approach" and raise the circuit height to 1500ft anyway and put the airplane outside TERPS circling protection area limit.

The only VOR-A which used to be regularly conducted by 747/777 was the one in RJTT (but not anymore), however in that approach the downwind turn was more of an oblique angle (<90deg) and there are circling lights on the ground for people to follow.  

 

I hope it helps to clear things a bit.  

[Driverab330 74]

sorry duplicated post, please delete. 

[CaptainLars 21]

18 hours ago, Driverab330 said:

Yes you are right. That's why I said raise the weather minimum to 5-6nm /1600ft, then treat the rest of the visual segment after DYDRA as a visual approach. So that terrain is not an issue. 

[...]

I hope it helps to clear things a bit.  

The problem is that I have no idea how or under what conditions I can "raise minima". I thought my aircraft has a certain category with certain minima, and that's it, so I'd like to learn.

[skelsey 765]

3 minutes ago, CaptainLars said:

The problem is that I have no idea how or under what conditions I can "raise minima". I thought my aircraft has a certain category with certain minima, and that's it, so I'd like to learn.

Yes it does. But the published minimum is just that - a minimum. There's nothing stopping you from using higher minima if you so desire, and indeed if you are out of practice and/or inexperienced etc you may well be well advised to add some height on top of any published MDA/DA to take this in to account (eg you might fly an IS to a 260ft DH  rather than 200. Obviously you cannot use lower minima than are published for your aircraft category.

The size of the circling area is determined by the radius of turn of the aeroplane, which is in turn a function of TAS and bank angle. This is why different aircraft approach categories exist: so that small, slow aircraft which require less room to manoeuvre aren't penalised by having to fly to minimums which take in to account obstacles they'd never get anywhere near.

The MDA is calculated to provide you with clearance above any obstacles in the circling area. This is why the MDA usually increases with aircraft category: slower aircraft have a smaller circling area within which obstacles need to be taken in to account, and as the radius of the circling area increases more obstacles fall within the area that needs to be taken in to account.

This means that if you choose to fly to CAT E minima you can take advantage of the larger circling area provided even though you are CAT D. You couldn't, however, choose to fly to CAT C minima instead.

Nor could you decide to arbitrarily raise your MDA and fly to a CAT E circling radius if no CAT E minima are published;  you have no way of knowing what obstacles may be lurking just outside the circling area if only CAT D obstacle clearance data is provided. However, you could choose any MDA you want above the published CAT D minima provided that you remain within the CAT D circling area.

Note that, as mentioned above, US TERPS circling minima (especially the old criteria) are calculated in a very different way to ICAO PANS-OPS circling minima: old TERPS uses a (ludicrously) small circling area which quite literally provides very little room for manoeuvre. New TERPS is better but still less than PANS-OPS.

Once you are visual with the runway (and can maintain visual contact with the runway) circling minima, areas etc go out the window (unless there is a published prescribed track to follow). You are, as mentioned above, at this point flying a visual approach and using your eyeballs to ensure that you don't fly in to a mountain. Just fly the aeroplane and land it.