News

When I was doing my instrument and multi-engine training, we did a lot of circle to land approaches.  As a student, I could never figure out why these types of approaches would ever be practical when you could an approach straight in to another runway.  But, as a good student, I never asked my instructors the purpose of them, I just did them to the best of my ability.

Now, having been flying in the IFR system for almost a decade, I’m finally beginning to fully understand the practical purpose of a circle to land approach.  I have actually elected to do an approach where I had to circle to land on several occasions in actual IMC conditions.

One important note to remember on circle to land approaches is that the minimum descent altitude (MDA) is always higher than on a straight in approach.  The reason for this is that you are basically joining the pattern for a different runway and you have to be able to visually keep yourself clear of towers and other obstacles.  So, you need a higher visibility and a higher ceiling than if you were just lining up to come straight in.

Here are a couple of practical circumstances where it would make sense to do a circle to land approach.

Airports with only 1 straight in approach

This one is easy.  There are a number of airports scattered around the US that have only 1 straight in instrument approach published for it.  Around my part of Texas, the first one that pops into my mind is the RNAV 31 at T85 in Yoakum, TX.  Most of the year, the prevailing wind is out of the south, so 13 is the favored runway at T85.  During the winter is when most of the IMC weather happens in South Texas, so that is why the approach is for 31.

Of course, especially this year during the summer, there are some IMC days where an approach to T85 would be necessary.  When there is a strong wind out of the south, landing on 31 is impractical, so a pilot would fly the approach to 31, then circle to land on 13.

Approaching from the opposite direction

Take a look at the RNAV 19 at KBMQ, Burnet, TX.  The two initial approach fixes (IAF) are IXANY and JIBAJ.  If a flight is approaching BMQ from the west or north, this is an easy approach to join.  If a flight is coming from Austin (directly the the east and a little south) or San Antonio (almost directly south), it would be a bit of extra flying to get configured properly for the approach.  Especially coming from Austin, because the degree of turn to join at JIBAJ wouldn’t make the approach practical.

Well, how about vectors?  Unfortunately, Houston Center doesn’t have this approach depicted so vectors aren’t a possibility.  Center can give you vectors north to make the angle a little easier to join at JIBAJ, but they can’t vector you onto the approach.

Direct DLORA to join is another option, but again, if you are approaching from the southeast, the angle is wrong.

Insert the RNAV 01 approach with a circle to land.  AMUSE is right on V163, so it’s really easy to join the approach there coming from the south.  Coming from Austin, joining the approach at SUBIE works out great. Fly down to the MDA, join the left downwind for 19, and everyone is happy.

VOR Circle to Land Approaches

Every instrument pilot has had an instructor “force” them to do a VOR A or VOR B approach and no one enjoys them.  I personally think they are good practice.  With the number of RNAV systems and RNAV approaches out there, though, VOR approaches are becoming a bit archaic.

They do have a place in this discussion, though.  A VOR approach is given an A or B designation when the angle of the final approach course is greater than 30 degrees to the runway (VOR A KLZZ), or the final approach course is lined up with the runway, but the MDA is too high to practically descend and land (VOR A KGRK or the VOR/DME C KASE).

So, there are practical uses for a Circle to Land approach.  The next time you do some IMC work with an instructor, ask him/her if you can include one.

The massive storms that rolled through the Austin Bergstrom and San Antonio areas last Friday not only put a dent in the landscape, they put a dent in the skies too.

The Austin Bergstrom (KAUS) control tower suffered significant flood damage Friday.  6 inches of rainfall in an hour caused water to come pouring into the first floor of the tower, flooding the radar room and knocking out the power.  This led to transmission outages for the tower, ground control, clearance delivery and the ATIS.  Similar to the Chicago Center fire last year (though this was a much smaller section of airspace), the area normally controlled by Austin Approach was replaced by a big, gaping radar hole.

By 8:45am on Friday morning, the Austin Bergstrom airport actually closed.  One runway eventually opened back up Friday afternoon, but massive delays and cancellations had already taken place.  All the ILS approaches were down and Houston Center had taken over the airspace normally occupied by Austin Approach control.

A temporary, emergency tower vehicle was brought in by the FAA (it’s essentially an RV with communications and a giant window) by the end of the weekend.  All arrivals and departures were restricted to 17L and 35R.

Due to the radar outage, I heard there was as much as a 4 hour delay even for planes coming into Austin Bergstrom from Dallas, and that was in VMC conditions on Sunday and Monday.  Tuesday and Wednesday brought IMC conditions which only enhanced the delays.

The latest news is that Austin Approach will be opening back up, but in a satellite base in San Antonio.  The Austin controllers will be using the SAT radar room and will be receiving their radar picture via satellite.  The approach frequencies should be up and running today or tomorrow.  The Austin Bergstrom tower is up and running and most of the ILS approaches are operational at this point.

In the meantime, expect delays going in and out of Austin.  If you don’t have to get to AUS, EDC, or GTU, you’re better off delaying a day or two until Austin Approach is back up and running.

Most pilots have seen the Icon A5 light sport amphibious aircraft.  It’s a neat design that can land on water or on a runway.  The high wing design with a pusher prop has foldable wings that allow it to be put on a trailer and towed behind a vehicle, allowing it to be offloaded at boat ramps (it also begs the question can you wakeboard behind it?).

Apparently, not all non-pilots know about the Icon A5.  Last week, one landed in the water near a beach in Southern California, but most of the beach goers and local authorities believed it had crash landed in the water.  Emergency crews were dispatched, but everyone was surprised when the two occupants crawled out on the wings, had a cup of coffee, and took back off.

You can read the full article on the Flying Magazine’s website.

One evening this summer, my wife and I were flying down the southern shore of Long Island in my father’s E33 Bonanza. We enjoyed the sunset as we flew westbound and our plan was to fly the New York Hudson corridor, where we would arrive just after dark. As we approached New York’s airspace, two voices in my head started having a debate.

The first voice said: “You should turn on your landing light when you get to New York to make the airplane more visible.”

The other voice said: “That’s true, but I bet you’ll burn the landing light out”

Well, as it turned out, both voices were right. My landing light fired right up when I needed it to fly the Hudson, but when it came time to land back home I had no such luck. Unfortunately, this was not the first time that I had been given the chance to practice my blackout landings. This Bonanza model has only one landing/ taxi light which is mounted in the lower cowling behind the propeller. This location is less than ideal because the filament in the bulb is fragile and can be damaged by engine vibration.

We landed uneventfully and after putting the airplane away, I decided it was time to look into upgrading the lighting to something a little more modern. I was unsure of my options, but seeing as the airplane needed a replacement bulb regardless, it seemed like a good opportunity to make a change.

After doing a little reading, I learned that HID or LED landing lights would be the best solution to my problem. I was familiar with LED aircraft lights, but had never heard of HID before.

Here is what I learned:

HID Landing Lights

HID, or High Intensity Discharge landing lights, create light by arcing electricity through a sealed gas capsule. They are brighter than LED and traditional incandescent, and the light created more closely resembles the look and feel of sunlight. HID installations require a ballast to carefully regulate the flow of electricity to the gas capsule and also require a “warm up” period after being turned on in order to reach their full brightness.

Fitting an aircraft with HID landing lights tends to be more expensive and time consuming than installing an LED light and would likely require involvement by an A&P/ IA. However, if you want the brightest light available, HID is probably the best bet.

Pros

• Brighter, more natural looking light
• Draws less power than standard bulbs
• Long bulb life
• Does not generate much heat

Cons

• More expensive than other lighting options
• Lights must “warm up” after being turned on
• Cannot be pulsed easily
• Cost/complexity of installations

LED Landing Lights

LED, or Light Emitting Diode landing lights, have no filament and work by moving electricity through diodes which are connected into a circuit. These lights have become very popular for many uses due to their simplicity, low cost, and brightness.

While not as bright as HID light, the LED lights require no “warm up period” and can be easily pulsed. LED lights draw much less power from the aircraft’s electrical system than traditional bulbs and boast incredible life length. LED bulb installation is very simple and can often serve as a direct replacement for the original lights.

Pros

• Instant light (no warm up)
• Incredible life length (>5,000 hours)
• Low Cost
• Simplicity of installation
• Can be pulsed easily
• Low power draw

Cons

• Not as bright as HID lighting

After weighing the options, I decided to replace the incandescent bulb in the Bonanza with an LED bulb. I read the reviews online and talked to some of my friends who work in aviation and eventually decided on the Lycoming Alphabeam. The Alphabeam is FAA/PMA approved and is available through Aircraft Spruce and other aviation parts vendors. The bulb cost around 250-300 dollars and I was able to install it as a direct replacement for our old light. All I had to do was take the old one out, put the new one in, and make a logbook entry.

Below are some pictures of the installation:

Last weekend I finally had an opportunity to take the airplane out after dark and see how the new light compared to the old one. I am pleased to say that it did a wonderful job and exceeded my expectations.

If you are interested in seeing a side by side comparison of the different lighting options, a quick Google search should provide what you are looking for. In my own experience, I would say that the LED light was brighter than the old light and did a very good job illuminating the taxiway and runway. It was extremely nice not to be concerned that my light wouldn’t work as I was setting up for landing at an unfamiliar field after dark. I also enjoyed feeling that I had the option to leave it on during climb and cruise in order to increase my visibility to other aircraft.

Many models of aircraft have multiple landing/ taxi lights installed which greatly reduces the likelihood of having to land without one. In our case, spending the extra money to upgrade to the LED bulb made sense because of the desire for increased reliability. If you are looking for a relatively inexpensive way to upgrade your airplane, LED or HID lighting may be something to consider.

Andrew Robinson is a 135 Charter Pilot and flight instructor who lives with his wife and 2 daughters in Pennsylvania.  He flies Pilatus PC-12s and instructs in Beechcraft Bonanzas.

Picking up an IFR clearance at first can seem very simple.  But, when taking off from an untowered field, especially if a pilot is based at a towered airport, it can be a little more complex.  Based at an untowered field?  The towered procedures are a little more streamlined, but still different.

Towered Airports

Class B or Class C

At Class B or Class C airports, there is a dedicated frequency to get an IFR clearance and VFR departure instructions called Clearance Delivery.  It is published in the airport facilities directory as well as most approach plates.  Before you call Clearance Delivery, get the ATIS and tell the controller you have it as well as where you are located on the airport.

Class D

Some Class D airports have a Clearance Delivery frequency (see KADS, Addison, TX), but for the most part, you’ll get your IFR clearance on the Ground frequency.  If there is a dedicated Clearance Delivery frequency, the ATIS will specify whether or not to get your clearance on it or on ground control.

Class D towers are only part time towers, usually closing between 7pm and 10pm local time, depending on how busy the airspace is.  These airports usually have published Clearance Delivery frequencies to contact either the local approach control or center to pick up an IFR clearance on the ground.  They will be published on approach plates and in the A/FD.

Untowered Airports

Class E

There are a number of Class E airports that are Class E all the way down to the surface (see KLFK, Angelina County).  At these airports, there will either be a Clearance Delivery frequency or you call on the Center or Approach frequency to get your clearance (at KLFK, you call Center as there is no Clearance Delivery frequency.  At Temple, KTPL, there is a published Clearance Delivery frequency which you would be talking to Grey Approach).

Class G

There are two ways to pick up an IFR clearance at a Class G airport, one typically a little safer than the other.

The first option is to take off and maintain VFR while calling Center or Approach control.  They will give you your clearance making you IFR and allowing you to enter the clouds.  This option can be unsafe depending on the terrain surrounding the airport and how low the ceiling is.  If the ceiling is overcast at 1,000, you can legally remain VFR in Class G airspace at 500 AGL, but that isn’t the safest option and you might not be able to raise ATC at that altitude.

The second, and safer option, is to call on the phone.  Flight Service has a nationwide Clearance Delivery phone number that every pilot should have saved in their contacts (888-766-8267).  Typically, you want to wait to call them until after you are done with your runup because they only give you a five or ten minute window to get off the ground.  With bluetooth equipped headsets, this usually isn’t a problem.

Be prepared when calling Clearance Delivery on the phone to wait a few minutes.  Us pilots aren’t good at being patient sometimes, but the FSS has to call Center on the phone to get your clearance and release and this can take a few minutes.  Be prepared for that going in and just be patient.  Remember, this is the safer option!

There are a handful of Class G airports around the US that have a GCO, a Ground Communications Outlet. With a GCO, you tune up the frequency, then click the mic 4 times to talk to ATC or 6 times to talk to FSS.  Each mic click must be at least one second, so if you click the mic too quickly, it won’t work.

At certain airports that are underlying an approach control’s airspace, you can actually call the TRACON directly and get your clearance from them (5C1, the Boerne Stage Airport, for example.  San Antonio approach is the controlling agency and you can call them directly to pick up your clearance).  It’s a good practice to get the TRACON phone number and save that in your contacts as well.