CAAP 178-1(1)

Civil Aviation
Advisory Publication Non-Precision Approaches
October 2004

This publication is advisory References

only. It consolidates • AIP Australia
information on the relevant
• Regulation 178 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR)
regulatory requirements
relating to the subject for • CASR Part 173 Instrument Flight Procedure Design
ease of reference. It is • CASR Part 139 Aerodromes
intended to aid in the • ICAO Procedures for Air Navigation — Air Operations DOC
understanding of and 8168-OPS/611 Volume 1 – Flight Procedures
compliance with regulatory • ICAO Procedures for Air Navigation — Air Operations DOC
requirements. 8168-OPS/611 Volume II – Construction of Visual and
Instrument Flight Procedures
Always read this advice in
conjunction with the • CAAP 89P–1 Non-precision approach runways – Aerodrome
appropriate regulations. standards considerations
• CAAP 179A – 1 Guidelines for Navigation using GNSS

Who this CAAP is intended to assist

• Pilots and operators of aircraft using non-precision approach
Contents... procedures (NPA)

Abbreviations 2 • Individuals and organisations conducting flight crew training

1. Introduction 3 • Aerodrome operators

2. General 4
Why this CAAP was written
3. Runway approaches 7
• The purpose of this publication is to provide guidance on the
4. Circling approaches 10 conduct of NPAs and compile the relevant requirements,
5. DME or GPS standards and practices in one document
Arrivals 11 • This publication also provides information on changes to
6. The visual segment 13 NPA design and charting
7. Helicopter
procedures 17 Status of this CAAP
This is the second issue of CAAP 178-1.

For further information

For further information contact your local CASA office or CASA
Operations and Flight Crew Licensing Standards, Canberra.

October 2004
2 CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches

ABBREVIATIONS

AGL Above ground level

AMSL Above mean sea level
APV Approach with Vertical Guidance
AWIB Automatic Weather Information Broadcast
AWS Automatic Weather Stations
CAR Civil Aviation Regulation 1988
CASR Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 1998
CFIT Controlled flight into terrain
DA Decision altitude
DAP Departure and approach procedures
DH Decision height
DME Distance Measuring equipment
EMS Emergency Medical Service
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System
GPS Global Positioning System
HLS Helicopter landing site
IAL Instrument approach & landing chart
IAP Instrument approach plate
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation
LLZ Localizer
MAPt Missed approach point
MDA Minimum Descent Altitude
NDB Non-directional beacon
NPA Non-precision approach
OLS Obstacle limitation surface
PA Precision approach
PANS-OPS Procedures for Air Navigation ICAO Doc 8168
PAPI Precision approach path indicator
RNAV Area Navigation
TSO Technical Standard Order
T-VASIS “T” Visual approach slope indicator system
VAA-H Visual approach area-helicopter
VHF Very high frequency
VNAV Vertical navigation
VOR VHF Omni directional radio range

October 2004
CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches 3

1. Introduction 1.1 RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

Aeronautical Information Publication Australia

AIP ENR Section 1.5 contains the rules and procedures for
instrument approach procedures including non-precision
approach procedures.

ICAO Procedures for Air Navigation — Air Operations, DOC

8168-OPS/611

This document is commonly referred to as PANS-OPS and

contains the criteria used in the design of instrument approaches
in Australia. Volume I – Flight Procedures is published for the
information of pilots and aircraft operators. Volume II is
intended for use by persons engaged in the design of instrument
flight procedures.

CASR Part 173 Instrument Flight Procedure Design Manual of

Standards (MOS)

CASR Part 173 regulates the design of instrument flight

procedures. Additional rules for the design of instrument
procedures are contained in the CASR Part 173 MOS in cases
where rules differ from or are additional to those contained in
PANS-OPS.

CASR Part 139 Aerodromes

The standards for aerodromes that are serviced by NPAs are

contained in CASR Part 139 MOS.

October 2004
4 CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches

2. General 2.1 WHAT IS A NON-PRECISION APPROACH?

The term NPA has been traditionally used to describe an

instrument approach procedure other than a precision approach.
Precision approach systems currently in general use are ILS
(Instrument Landing System) and MLS (Microwave Landing
System).

An NPA is characterized by a Minimum Descent Altitude

(MDA), a Missed Approach Point (MAPt) and a lack of electronic
vertical course guidance, and may use any of a number of
navigation systems for course guidance including NDB, VOR,
LLZ or RNAV.

NPAs are designed to permit safe descent to a Minimum Descent

Altitude (MDA), and further descent must not be made unless
the pilot is able to proceed visually. Unlike a Decision Altitude
(DA) associated with a precision approach, where loss of height
during the initial stage of a missed approach is taken into
account, obstacle clearance is not assured if descent below the
MDA occurs, and pilots need to ensure that descent is arrested
prior to reaching the MDA.

Non-precision approaches terminate in a visual segment that

may provide for:

• a “straight-in” landing, or

• a circling approach that requires manoeuvring to align

the aircraft with the landing runway, or

• a visual leg from a point where the MDA is reached to

the circling area of the aerodrome.

Note: New instrument approach procedures are in the process of

development, which have characteristics that are not
necessarily associated with either non-precision or precision
approaches. Additionally aircraft equipment and piloting
techniques can be used to permit many approaches to be flown
in a manner similar to an ILS and some operators are now
describing approaches as either “ILS” or “non-ILS” rather than
non-precision or precision.

It is expected that the terms non-precision and precision will

eventually lose their significance and a review of terminology is
currently being considered within ICAO.

October 2004
CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches 5

However, as the classification of approaches is not yet resolved,

in this CAAP the term NPA and the general application of the
term are retained.

2.2 VERTICAL NAVIGATION

Non-precision approaches are designed as a series of decreasing

minimum altitudes to a minimum descent altitude (MDA). A fix
is located at each point at which critical obstacles have been
passed by an adequate margin, and it is safe to continue descent
to the next safe altitude.

In the past NPAs have commonly been flown as a series of

descending steps conforming to the minimum published
altitudes. This technique is colloquially referred to as the “dive
and drive” method. Unfortunately many Controlled Flight into
Terrain (CFIT) accidents have been attributed to this technique,
due to human errors such as descending before a step is reached
or failing to arrest descent. In addition the aircraft’s descent is
more difficult to manage due to changes in airspeed, rate of
descent, and configuration.

Australian NPAs are now published with a constant angle

approach path, which clears all minimum altitudes, and
facilitates the use of a stabilized descent technique. This method
of promulgation is now the standard adopted for Australian non-
precision approach procedures and the constant angle stabilized
approach technique is the recommended flight technique for all
aircraft.

Figure 1 shows an example of an NPA profile.

Figure 1 – Typical Constant Angle Approach Profile

October 2004
6 CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches

2.3 WHAT’S A PROCEDURE ALTITUDE?

AIP defines procedure altitude as follows:

Procedure Altitude: A specified altitude, flown operationally at

or above the minimum altitude and established to accommodate
a stabilized descent at a prescribed descent gradient/angle in
the intermediate/final approach segment.

The term procedure altitude is used to identify that an altitude is

promulgated to facilitate flying the procedure. This is in contrast
to segment minimum safe altitudes that provide minimum
obstacle clearance. The procedure altitude is therefore a
recommended level, and an aircraft is not required to maintain
the procedure altitude, unless instructed by ATC. A procedure
altitude will always be at or above the minimum altitude for
obstacle clearance.

Procedure altitudes are shown on the profile diagram at the

commencement of the procedure and at each fix or significant
point on the approach.

2.4 WHAT ARE THE SHADED AREAS ON THE PROFILE DIAGRAM

OF AN NPA?

At each stage of a non-precision approach a segment minimum safe

altitude, depicted as a “not below altitude” (e.g. 1700) identifies
the lowest altitude that provides the required obstacle clearance.
ICAO has identified that many CFIT accidents have occurred
because pilots did not possess good situational awareness in
regard to terrain beneath the approach flight path. Australian
charts are shaded beneath the segment minimum safe altitude to
graphically illustrate the presence of obstacles or terrain to aid
vertical situational awareness.

2.5 CAN I DESCEND TO THE MINIMUM SEGMENT ALTITUDE

INSTEAD OF FOLLOWING THE CONSTANT ANGLE APPROACH
PATH?

Yes. Obstacle clearance is provided at or above the segment

minimum safe altitude (shaded areas). The constant angle
vertical approach path is the recommended flight path designed
to enable a stabilized descent.

2.6 WHAT IS THE MINIMUM DESCENT ALTITUDE (MDA)?

The MDA is the lowest altitude that can be used in IMC. Flight
below the MDA reduces the clearance above obstacles and is not
permitted in IMC.

October 2004
CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches 7

The published MDA may include an allowance for barometric

error, depending upon the location and the availability of an
actual aerodrome barometric pressure. Instrument approach
charts identify when an allowance is added to the MDA, by use
of a shaded minima box or by publishing an additional MDA.

Where a 24-hour air traffic service is available the published

MDA normally is based on the use of the local aerodrome QNH
as reported by ATC and no allowance is added to the MDA.

At other aerodromes, an allowance of 100ft is included in the

published MDA to provide for the accuracy of a forecast
aerodrome QNH. If an actual aerodrome QNH is available (e.g.
AWIS) the 100ft tolerance for forecasting accuracy is not required
and the MDA may be adjusted accordingly.

Where a forecast QNH (TAF) is not available and Area QNH is

used the allowance of 100ft may be insufficient to take into
account the forecasting tolerance and the pilot must add 50ft to
the published MDA.

2.7 WHAT ALLOWANCE SHOULD BE MADE FOR WIND?

Timing specified for holding and approach procedures includes

an allowance for adverse winds. Pilots should not rely solely
upon the design allowances and adjustment should be made for
known or estimated winds to ensure that the aircraft remains
within the design obstacle protection area, and to facilitate the
successful completion of the approach within normal operating
limits.

2.8 CAN I USE A VNAV SYSTEM TO FLY THE APPROACH?

A variety of certified or approved vertical navigation systems are

available, or are expected to become available. However, at
present NPAs in Australia are not designed to provide obstacle
clearance solely by use of a vertical navigation system (VNAV).

Until NPAs are designed to provide obstacle clearance based on

VNAV tolerances, any published altitude limitations must
continue to be observed. Provided all such requirements are
monitored and met, a VNAV system may be used to assist in
flying a stabilized approach.

October 2004
8 CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches

2.9 CAN I FLY AN RNAV APPROACH?

Yes. At present the only Area Navigation (RNAV) instrument

approach procedures available in Australia are based on GPS.
These procedures, commonly referred to as a GPS/NPA, from
th
25 November 2004 will be identified on approach charts as
RNAV(GNSS) approaches. Aircraft equipped with TSO C129a or
other approved GNSS systems may conduct RNAV(GNSS)
approaches. Not all aircraft fitted with GPS (including FMC
equipped aircraft) are approved for approach operations and
pilots should determine the operational approvals applicable to
each aircraft type.

Although many aircraft fitted with modern Flight Management

Computer (FMC) systems have the capability to fly other
approach procedures using RNAV, including procedures based
on conventional navigation aids, the use of RNAV in place of the
ground-based aid is not approved in Australia.

An RNAV system may also be used to assist in flying a

conventional approach. However, it is necessary for the
navigation system upon which the procedure is based to be
monitored (NDB, VOR, etc) to ensure that the obstacle clearance
requirements of the approach are met, and that the procedure is
flown within the tolerances of the navigation system on which
the procedure is based.

3. Straight-in 3.1 WHAT IS A STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH ?

approaches
A non-precision approach that is aligned with a suitable runway
may permit an aircraft that becomes visual at or above the MDA
to continue descent and land “straight-in”. This is commonly
referred to as a straight-in or runway approach.

Approaches where the final approach course is not suitably

aligned with a landing runway, or where the runway does not
meet the required standard, will terminate at a circling MDA
from which some manoeuvring is normally required before the
aircraft can conduct further descent.

A straight-in approach is identified by the use of the runway

direction in the title, e.g. RWY 14 NDB, and may be also be
annotated in the minima box. e.g. by the letters S-I (straight-in).

Note: Refer also to special procedures applying to helicopter

approaches in Section 7.

October 2004
CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches 9

3.2 WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF A STRAIGHT-IN

APPROACH?

It is commonly acknowledged that runway approaches are much

safer than circling approaches. In Australia, instrument
approach procedures are designed as straight-in approaches
wherever possible.

3.3 WHY AREN’T ALL APPROACHES STRAIGHT-IN APPROACHES?

In order for the aircraft to be able to safely land straight-in, the

pilot needs to be able, at or before reaching the MDA, to sight the
runway, align the aircraft with the centerline, and continue
descent without significant changes to the descent rate, while
visually avoiding any terrain in the runway approach area. In
many cases a straight-in approach also permits a lower MDA but
this also limits the amount of time and distance available to the
pilot to complete the visual segment of the approach.

Therefore the approach alignment, descent gradient, runway

dimensions and runway approach surfaces all need to meet
appropriate standards. Where these standards can be met, a
runway approach will be designed, but in those cases where it is
not possible to comply with the standards only a circling
approach is published.

3.4 WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS REQUIRED FOR THE

PUBLICATION OF A RUNWAY APPROACH?

Alignment. To avoid the necessity to conduct turns close to the

ground, the alignment of the final approach course needs to be
closely aligned to the runway centreline. PANS-OPS design
rules permit the final approach course to intersect the extended
runway centerline at an angle up to 30° for Category A/B
procedures and at up to 15° for Category C/D. The final
approach course also needs to intersect the extended runway
centerline at a sufficient distance from the threshold to allow a
turn onto the runway heading to be completed safely.

Note: Instrument approach procedures are designed to accommodate

varying aircraft performance by the use of an Aircraft
Performance Category based upon approach speed. Approach
procedures in Australia are designed for Category A, B, C & D.
Category A applies to aircraft with low approach speeds, and
each successive category applies to aircraft with higher
approach speed. A separate Category H applies to approaches
designed for use by helicopters only. Refer AIP ENR 1.5

October 2004
10 CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches

Descent gradient. For an approach to be safe the descent

gradient should be neither too steep, nor too shallow. A steep
approach requires high rates of descent which can result in
inadvertent descent below critical altitudes. An approach that is
too shallow can also increase risk. Straight-in approach
procedures are normally designed with a 3° (5.2%/320 ft per
NM) gradient, but where necessary this may be increased to a
maximum of 3.72° for Cat A/B procedures or 3.5° for Cat C/D.
A descent gradient of less than 3° is not normally published.

Runway Standards. Runways serving straight-in approaches

need to be of adequate dimensions to enable an aircraft to land
after becoming visual at the MDA and must provide adequate
clearance from obstacles on the visual segment of the approach
path. Runways that conform to these standards are termed non-
precision approach runways (NPA runways). Runways that do
not meet these standards may conform to a lesser standard
suitable for VFR or circling IFR approaches and are referred to as
non-instrument runways.

In Australia runway standards are contained in the CASR Part

139 MOS. These standards are based on ICAO Annex 14
requirements modified to meet Australian circumstances.

Obstacle Limitation Surfaces (OLS). Runway standards

incorporate a set of surfaces surrounding an aerodrome referred
to as the OLS. Critical to the safe conduct of a straight-in
approach is the surface immediately below the approach path.
For straight-in non-precision approaches, the Australian
standard specifies an approach surface gradient of 3.33% along
the final approach flight path and obstacles in this area should
not be permitted above the approach surface. In cases where this
is not possible and obstacles penetrate the approach surface an
assessment of risk is required. Where obstacles are assessed to
constitute an unacceptable risk, they may be required to be
removed unless the risk can be mitigated by other means such as
lighting and marking. Where penetrating obstacles cannot be
removed or the risk reduced to an acceptable level, a straight-in
approach is not published.

Note: For details on OLS dimensions refer to CASR Part 139 MOS.

Runway and Runway Strip Width. A pilot conducting a

straight-in NPA after sighting the runway has limited time and
distance in which to align the aircraft for landing, and the
runway strip width must be enough to ensure that a safe landing
can be made. For runways with strip width less than 300m the
MDA is raised slightly to allow additional time and distance for
manoeuvring to align the aircraft with the runway. Where the

October 2004
CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches 11

strip width does not meet the minimum standard, a straight-in

landing minimum is not published.

3.5 IF I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE WIND IS CAN I DESCEND TO

THE STRAIGHT-IN MDA?

Yes, but you need to consider the possibility that you might need
to circle and it may be advisable to limit descent to the circling
MDA. In most cases the landing MDA is lower than the circling
MDA, and if descent is continued to the lower altitude a circling
approach may not be possible. Pilots should not commit to a
straight in landing unless they can be satisfied that wind
conditions are suitable.

Windsocks, even if located near the threshold of the landing

runway, can be difficult to interpret until late on final approach
especially in poor visibility or at night, and should not be relied
upon. In many cases windsocks are located near the centre of the
aerodrome which reduces their visibility.

Automatic Weather Stations (AWS) have been installed by the

Bureau of Meteorology at most aerodromes served by instrument
approaches, but many of those installations are not equipped
with VHF broadcast facilities. The cost of adding VHF capability
is quite low and operators can arrange with the Bureau of
Meteorology for a VHF broadcast facility to be installed.
(Normally the cost of installation is borne by the operator).

An Automatic Weather Information System (AWIS) facility

broadcasting on VHF provides a very good source of wind
information. In addition, where the published minimum altitude
is based on a forecast aerodrome QNH, an AWIB enables the
published minimum altitude to be reduced by 100ft.

3.6 WHY IS THE VISIBILITY FOR A STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH

USUALLY GREATER THAN FOR CIRCLING?

In order for a successful straight-in approach and landing to be

conducted, the pilot of an aircraft conducting a runway approach
must be able to see the runway prior to or on reaching the MDA.
The visibility published on Australian charts is determined by
calculating the distance from the runway threshold to the point
on a normal 3° descent path at which the MDA is intercepted. A
margin of 160m is added to that distance to allow visual
reference to a reasonable amount of runway. Visibility for a
straight-in approach therefore varies only with the height of the
MDA above the runway.

October 2004
12 CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches

Visibility for circling operations varies with aircraft category. It

is based on the radius of turn that an aircraft in each category
would require in adverse wind conditions to manoeuvre from a
downwind position to align with the landing runway.

4. Circling approaches 4.1 WHEN IS A CIRCLING APPROACH PUBLISHED?

A circling MDA will normally be shown for a straight-in

approach procedure to permit circling to other runways,
however where all the requirements for a runway approach
cannot be met, only a circling approach is published.

In some cases, although the final approach course may be

runway-aligned, other factors will preclude the authorisation of a
straight-in approach. Those factors may include:

• Final approach course not within the alignment criteria

• Final approach gradient too steep
• Obstacles above the 3.33% OLS
• Runway not surveyed to the required standard
• Aerodrome status. (Certified and registered aerodromes
are operated under rules that require regular safety
inspections, reporting of aerodrome serviceability/status,
and the monitoring of obstacles.)

4.2 HOW ARE CIRCLING ONLY APPROACHES IDENTIFIED?

An NPA that only provides for a circling procedure is identified

in the title by reference to the navigation system only. (e.g. NDB)
Where more than one circling approach procedure is published
at an aerodrome, the procedures title includes a suffix using
letters from the beginning of the alphabet. e.g. NDB A, VOR B.

For RNAV procedures the suffix may also be used to indicate the
direction of the final leg to aid in pilot orientation. For example,
RNAV(GNSS) E indicates an approach from an easterly direction.
The letters N, S, E, and W are used as the suffix in these cases.

4.3 VISUAL LEGS

In rare cases a procedure may specify descent to a position

outside the circling area, and require that a visual leg be flown
from that position to establish the aircraft within the circling
area. In such cases obstacle clearance on the visual leg is the
responsibility of the pilot and the visual leg must be flown clear

October 2004
CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches 13

of cloud and in sight of ground or water in conditions meeting

specified altitude and visibility.

5. DME or GPS Arrivals 5.1 IS A GPS OR DME ARRIVAL AN NPA?

Yes. A DME or GPS arrival is a procedure unique to Australia

that provides a non-precision approach to a circling minimum.
A DME or GPS arrival is designed using the same criteria as used
in conventional NPA design.

5.2 WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT A DME OR GPS ARRIVAL?

DME or GPS arrivals are normally designed to permit descent

from the en-route phase without the need to locate the aircraft
overhead the navigation aid or conduct a sector entry. Entry to
the procedure is often available from any direction but
commonly is limited to sectors or specific tracks. Where sectors
are promulgated, an aircraft can be manoeuvred to intercept any
particular track, provided this is done prior to reaching the Final
Approach Fix (FAF). This procedure enables an arriving aircraft
to be positioned on a convenient track for subsequent circuit
entry or a straight-in approach, but prior to reaching the FAF the
aircraft must be established on the final approach course and
from the FAF the aircraft speed must be established within the
range of speeds specified for the final leg.

5.3 WHERE IS THE FAF ON A DME OR GPS ARRIVAL?

The FAF is annotated on the approach chart, except for some

procedures designed to old criteria. In such cases the final
approach commences at 10 DME/GPS.

5.4 HOW ARE DME OR GPS ARRIVALS CHARTED?

The charting of DME or GPS arrivals varies between chart

suppliers but in general they have usually been shown as series
of descending steps on particular tracks or within a specified
sector.

October 2004
14 CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches
GPS ARRIVAL PROCEDURES
SOMEWHERE, NSW (YSMW)

GPS REFERENCE WAYPOINT SMW NDB

SMW
NDB

ALL TRACKS

TO

SMW NDB

Figure 2 - Example of New Format DME or GPS Arrival Chart

AIP/DAP DME and GPS arrival charts are being progressively

redrawn in a format similar to normal NPA charts, and
incorporating a constant approach path. The constant approach
path is designed to provide a 3° constant angle approach where
possible, and terminating at a circling MDA within the circling
area (Refer Fig 2).

5.5 CAN I USE GPS FOR TRACK GUIDANCE ON A GPS ARRIVAL?

No. GPS arrivals are designed using the navigation tolerances

applicable to the ground-based aid (NDB or VOR). These
tolerances include allowances for the accuracy of the navigation
aid and piloting accuracy.

6. The visual segment 6.1 WHEN MAY I DESCEND BELOW THE MDA?

Descent below the MDA may be made when visual contact is

made with the runway or runway environment (i.e. the runway
threshold or approach lighting or other markings identifiable
with the runway) and kept in sight during the subsequent
approach and landing. The approach procedure may support a
straight-in visual segment or a “circle-to-land” procedure may be
required.

6.2 STRAIGHT-IN APPROACH

If the NPA is a runway approach and, at an altitude above the

straight-in MDA, you have the runway in sight and the required

October 2004
CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches 15

visibility you may continue descent. In doing so you must

nevertheless be sure that obstacles in the approach path are
avoided. Protection from obstacles beneath the approach path is
aided by aerodrome design standards, including Obstacle
Limitation Surfaces (OLS). Aerodrome standards, based on
ICAO Annex 14 and modified to suit Australian operating
conditions, are published in CASR Part 139 Manual of Standards.

Aerodrome standards supporting a straight-in non-precision

approach provide for an OLS beneath the final approach, which
is surveyed to identify obstacles above a 3.33% gradient from the
end of the runway strip.

The approach OLS 3.3% surface provides a buffer to a normal 3-

degree (5.2%) approach path. Obstacles penetrating above the
OLS that may be considered a hazard to an aircraft conducting a
visual approach will be marked and/or lit, unless removed.
Other precautions such as installing visual approach guidance
(PAPI or T-VASIS) may also be used.

Figure 3 - Approach Obstacle Limitation Surface

It will be safe to continue on a visual descent below the MDA,

provided the approach path of the aircraft is consistent with the
protection afforded by runway standards. If an aircraft is flown
below a normal (3 degree) approach then the safety margin
between the aircraft and obstacles beneath the approach is
reduced.

Instrument approaches that use distance measurement, either

DME or GPS, are provided with an altitude/distance table that
enables a constant angle approach to be flown. Provided, on
establishing visual contact, the aircraft continues a stabilized
descent to the runway, a safe margin above the approach OLS
will be maintained.

In recognition of the added safety afforded by straight-in

approaches, some NPAs without DME have been published as
straight-in approaches. (e.g. RWY 12 VOR). As an
altitude/distance scale is not available in those cases, the
distance and approach angle to the runway from the point at
which the pilot becomes visual will vary.

October 2004
16 CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches

Descent should not be continued below the MDA until the

aircraft is established on a safe approach path, in order to
ensure clearance from obstacles beneath the approach. This
may necessitate flying level at the MDA until a safe approach
angle to the runway is intercepted.

6.3 CIRCLING APPROACH

Circling approaches normally require manoeuvring to align the

aircraft with a suitable runway. Circling is a visual procedure
that can be very hazardous if not executed correctly.

Circling rules are published in AIP ENR 1.5 Section 1.7. These
rules have been developed as the result of many years’
experience, and if followed, enable the safe termination of an
instrument approach.

What is the circling area?

The circling area is an area bounded by arcs drawn from the

runway ends within which obstacle protection at the MDA of not
less than 300ft for CAT A/B and 400FT for Cat C/D is provided.
The size of the circling area is based on the maximum IAS
permitted for each aircraft Category. In order to maintain
obstacle protection the aircraft must be maintained within the
circling area by visual reference to the runway. The maximum
speeds are published in PANS-OPS and reproduced in the
Australian AIP in AIP ENR 1.15 Table 1.1

Category KIAS
A 100
B 135
C 180
D 205

Table 1 - Maximum circling IAS

By day, and complying with the rules for circling, a pilot may
elect to descend below the MDA, but in doing so must take
responsibility for obstacle clearance. As spot heights on IAL
charts do not necessarily indicate the highest terrain, or all
obstacles in the circling area, pilots should only exercise this
option when they are familiar with the terrain in the circling
area. Although instrument approach charts show significant
obstacles they do not provide detailed terrain information.
Without detailed local knowledge, it is generally a safer option to
utilize the obstacle protection afforded by remaining at the MDA.

October 2004
CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches 17

What is the purpose of a no-circling area?

The circling MDA is calculated by adding a minimum obstacle

clearance of 300ft (Cat A/B) or 400ft (Cat C/D) to the highest
obstacle in the circling area. In order to permit a lower MDA, a
no-circling area is sometimes published to eliminate obstacles in
part of the circling area. Provided a pilot avoids the no-circling
area, the required obstacle clearance applicable above all other
obstacles is maintained.

Within the no-circling area, as the required obstacle clearance at

the MDA is not provided, conditions need to be such that the
pilot can see and avoid obstacles. For that reason, circling should
not be conducted within the no-circling area unless by day and in
VMC.

In some cases the missed approach point is located within the no-
circling area, and a circling approach may not be possible if the
no-circling area is entered before reaching the missed approach
point. To avoid this limitation it is advisable to descend to the
MDA as early as possible to achieve visual contact before
entering the no-circling area.

Why are the rules different for day and night?

At night it may not be possible to maintain visual clearance from

obstacles even if those obstacles are lit or shown on instrument
approach charts. For this reason the rules for circling at night
require that the MDA is maintained until in a position where a
normal descent can be conducted, and the aerodrome Obstacle
Limitation Surfaces (OLS) are intended to enable a safe approach
to be conducted in those circumstances. (Refer AIP ENR 1.5 para
1.7.2). However the responsibility for maintaining adequate
obstacle clearance still remains with the pilot and caution should
be exercised. Descent should not be commenced or continued
until obstacles that may affect a safe visual approach from the
MDA are identified or passed.

Note: Aerodromes that are Certified or Registered are required under

CASR Part 139 to meet standards for the survey and monitoring
of Obstacle Limitation Surfaces. Aerodromes that are not
certified or registered (referred to currently as “unlicensed” and
under CASR Part 173 as “other” aerodromes) are not required
to meet OLS standards and pilots should ensure that they are
familiar with terrain in the circling area before conducting an
approach.

October 2004
18 CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches

Missed approach during circling

If visual reference is lost during circling, a missed approach must

be executed. However, as the position at which the missed
approach is initiated can be anywhere within the circling area,
and the aircraft may commence the missed approach from below
the MDA, the procedure designer has no means of designing a
single procedure that will ensure obstacle clearance in all cases.

In executing a missed approach from within the circling area, the

assumption is made that the area above the aerodrome is
generally free of hazardous obstacles and a climbing turn should
be made in that direction. Climb overhead the aerodrome should
be continued to a safe height and the aircraft then tracked to
establish flight on the published missed approach.

Why is a circling MDA published at some locations when the

final approach is runway aligned?

Final approach course alignment is only one of a number of

criteria that need to be met for a straight-in approach. Unless all
the requirements can be satisfied, only a circling MDA is
published.

Does that mean that a straight-in approach cannot be made in

those cases?

No. It means that the instrument approach procedure and/or

the runway approach surfaces do not meet all the associated
safety standards. If on becoming visual the pilot assesses that the
aircraft is in a suitable position to land straight-in, and the pilot is
considers that it is safe to do so, a straight-in approach can be
conducted provided the rules for circling are followed. Those
rules include the requirement to be established within the
circling area before leaving the MDA. (AIP ENR 1.5 Section 1.7).
If the decision is made to “circle” straight-in, the pilot should
take into account that the runway and the runway approach area
may not meet the standards for a straight-in approach and
caution should be exercised.

October 2004
CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches 19

7. Helicopter 7.1 WHAT APPROACHES CAN I FLY IN A HELICOPTER?

procedures
All fixed-wing Category A approaches can be flown by
appropriately equipped helicopters, provided the speeds flown
are within the Cat A range. The use of Vat is not applicable to
helicopters.

7.2 ARE HELICOPTER APPROACHES DIFFERENT TO FIXED WING

APPROACHES?

Approaches which are designated Cat H are designed to

different parameters and can only be flown by helicopters.
Helicopter approach procedures are designed to criteria that are
more appropriate to the flying speeds, performance, and
handling characteristics of helicopters. Differences include
increased maximum permissible approach gradients, shorter
segment lengths, and may include increased missed approach
gradients.

7.3 WHY AREN’T SOME HELICOPTER APPROACHES PUBLISHED

IN THE AIP/DAP?

Instrument approach procedures that are designed for

emergency medical services (EMS) approaches to helicopter
landing sites (HLS) are not published in the AIP/DAP. (These
operations are designated “specialised helicopter operations”
under CAR 178). Unlike fixed wing operations, which are
designed to terminate in a standard aerodrome environment,
EMS helicopter approaches deliver the aircraft to a point near a
helicopter landing site from which specific procedures are
needed for each approach to enable the visual segment to be
conducted safely. The CASR Part 173 Manual of Standards
requires a helicopter operator to publish in the company
operations manual specific operational procedures for each
approach and HLS.

7.4 WHAT IS THE VAA-H?

The VAA-H is an Australian concept devised to facilitate the

visual termination of a helicopter RNAV approach at an HLS,
and performs a similar function to the circling area at an
aerodrome.

The VAA-H provides obstacle clearance within an area 0.5 NM

either side of the nominal track from the MAPt to the HLS, and
relies upon visual navigation using key features or “lead-in
points” to navigate to the HLS so that continued flight past the
MAPt to the HLS is possible in visibility that may be as low as

October 2004
20 CAAP 178-1(1): Non-Precision Approaches

800m. Descent from the MDA is not permitted until the HLS is
sighted and a normal approach can be completed.

A particular feature of the VAA-H is that missed approach

obstacle protection is assured provided the missed approach is
commenced at the MDA from a position within the VAA-H. This
enables the helicopter to proceed past the MAPt in circumstances
where the successful completion of the visual segment is not
assured without compromising the safety of the missed
approach.

Bill McIntyre
Executive Manager
Aviation Safety Standards

October 2004