I was checking out the Flightaware app this afternoon and saw flight paths for 2 flights that, around the same longitude, one more north than the other, did a loop in what otherwise would have been a straight line to the airport.

I don't look too much, but had never seen that before. Why would a plane do that? Is that too many planes were bunched together and they needed to space them out a bit?

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SKW4766

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/WEN3104

The were both in a hold.....could be any number of reasons, weather, traffic spacing....

There are so many holding pattern flights all over the place everyday in the world. I have been in real flight a couple of times.

Q

Airplanes can't slow down (much). So if you need one to delay, you fly it in a circle. Sometimes multiple times if you need to delay longer.

I used to work in an office pretty much right under the approach to MHR, approximately 10 miles from the airport. I got into the habit of looking up as I was walking out to my car at the end of the day, and sometimes I was rewarded with the sight of a UPS or ABX Air freighter flying over my head. One day years ago I looked up and saw one such plane (An ABX Air 762 if I remember correctly), but it seemed much higher than usual. Just as I was thinking that the plane started to turn and flew in a circle directly above me, while at the same time descending to an altitude I was more accustomed to seeing at that point in the approach. So that could be another reason; maybe they needed more time to get down to the proper altitude during their approach.

Probably traffic.

Instead of circles ATC can have aircraft do a number of wide S turns to increase separation from traffic ahead.

As already noted, apart from standard holding patterns at airports like LHR, there can be various reasons for this. I was on a flight into EMA when our plane did a 360 to avoid a potentially nasty bit of weather.

Recently I was inbound to BHX on EI when the plane did a go-round. I knew what was going on but my wife nearly had a panic attack until I assured her. In that case the captain thought we were too close to traffic in front. I think a better planned 360 to keep separation would have helped my wife's nerves.

Whenever I look at FR24, especially in the evening, I see aircraft destined for SEA to do wide S turns or circles right about the PDX area. Seems SEA is over capacity and has to slow down traffic a bit.

Lol this forum. The speculation is wild.

Approaches have circling minimums. Most airports only have one precision approach, if any at all. If the aircraft isn't equipped for a given approach, such as a glide-slope inop they will fly a downwind approach (maybe VOR, GPS, ADF) to circling minimums and circle to land. If they can't "get the flag" at the FAF on a precision approach they might have to circle to land from another approach with lower minimums as opposed to just flying the localizer. Its all extremely situational dependent.

Other times the PIC will need to maintain currency, selecting an unusual (ADF, VOR, LOC) or off wind approach and fly it to circling mins.

DocLightning wrote:

Airplanes can't slow down (much). So if you need one to delay, you fly it in a circle. Sometimes multiple times if you need to delay longer.

Airplanes can slow down quite a bit. Jets will generally stay 200knots until the IAF, slowing to final config speed before starting down from the FAF, it makes the workload easier and sliding into a slower approach category can lower your minimums. With vectors to final so commonplace at Bravo/Charlie airports it's extremely rare to hold, or even have a fix to hold off of on an approach to a major airport. Exceptions to this are capacity constrained airports like JFK/LGA and LHR.

DCA will use circling to increase its arrival rate. Aircraft will be cleared for the visual to runway 1, then cleared to circle and land on runway 33, which allows the tower to launch a departure off runway 1 while landing on 33.

Those aren't hold loops. Hold loops have wings level twice in so the path would look like a horse racing track. They may have been something else but not holds.

These are hold loops:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL9 ... /KSFO/EGLL
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL9 ... /KSFO/EGLL

atypical wrote:

Those aren't hold loops. Hold loops have wings level twice in so the path would look like a horse racing track. They may have been something else but not holds.

I don't know what their name is but they are done on approach to delay the arrival. I've been in one on an A380, which was kinda neat.

There is more than one way to "hold" an airplane. Often ATC just gives you vectors. i.e your present heading is 360 and ATC gives you "turn right 360".

Also, sometimes you only do the hold entry so depending on the entry you might not ever get established in the race track.

Technically, there is no requirement to hold in a race track pattern at all...only to remain in the holding protected airspace. A pilot could do figure 8's over the holding fix if they chose to.

Varsity1 wrote:

Lol this forum. The speculation is wild.

Approaches have circling minimums. Most airports only have one precision approach, if any at all. If the aircraft isn't equipped for a given approach, such as a glide-slope inop they will fly a downwind approach (maybe VOR, GPS, ADF) to circling minimums and circle to land. If they can't "get the flag" at the FAF on a precision approach they might have to circle to land from another approach with lower minimums as opposed to just flying the localizer. Its all extremely situational dependent.

Other times the PIC will need to maintain currency, selecting an unusual (ADF, VOR, LOC) or off wind approach and fly it to circling mins.

This has nothing to do with a "circling approach".....

atypical wrote:

Those aren't hold loops. Hold loops have wings level twice in so the path would look like a horse racing track. They may have been something else but not holds.

These are hold loops:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL9 ... /KSFO/EGLL
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL9 ... /KSFO/EGLL

Both spots are holding points on the arrivals into YYC, no they're not actual text book holds but they aren't always. More then likely it was an instruction to make a 360 at the point to give a little spacing....

This is pretty much normal everyday operations at airports everywhere....

Thanks kindly, everyone. Good discussion and I learned a lot from it. Much appreciated.

Whiteguy wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

Lol this forum. The speculation is wild.

Approaches have circling minimums. Most airports only have one precision approach, if any at all. If the aircraft isn't equipped for a given approach, such as a glide-slope inop they will fly a downwind approach (maybe VOR, GPS, ADF) to circling minimums and circle to land. If they can't "get the flag" at the FAF on a precision approach they might have to circle to land from another approach with lower minimums as opposed to just flying the localizer. Its all extremely situational dependent.

Other times the PIC will need to maintain currency, selecting an unusual (ADF, VOR, LOC) or off wind approach and fly it to circling mins.

This has nothing to do with a "circling approach".....

Do yourself a favor and google "circling approach."

@ Varsity or anyone else familiar with this issue - that's something I asked myself but never wanted to start a thread for this particular question:

how do you line up aircraft during final approach under consideration of the different landing speeds of different airliners. Is there a minimum landing speed considering the "fastest aircraft ", i.e. the one with the highest necessary landing speed?

That's a question that comes to my mind whenever I see several aircraft perfectly lined up on final approach to FRA. A brief reply would be highly appreciated.

Varsity1 wrote:

Whiteguy wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

Lol this forum. The speculation is wild.

Approaches have circling minimums. Most airports only have one precision approach, if any at all. If the aircraft isn't equipped for a given approach, such as a glide-slope inop they will fly a downwind approach (maybe VOR, GPS, ADF) to circling minimums and circle to land. If they can't "get the flag" at the FAF on a precision approach they might have to circle to land from another approach with lower minimums as opposed to just flying the localizer. Its all extremely situational dependent.

Other times the PIC will need to maintain currency, selecting an unusual (ADF, VOR, LOC) or off wind approach and fly it to circling mins.

This has nothing to do with a "circling approach".....

Do yourself a favor and google "circling approach."

Ha ha, I'm well aware what a circling approach is and it has nothing to do with what the original poster was asking about the 2 aircraft that are in brief holds....

And what is "get the flag"?

You do not do a circling approach to get lower minimums. Minimums for s circling approach are always higher as it is a visual maneuver....

Passedv1 wrote:

There is more than one way to "hold" an airplane. Often ATC just gives you vectors. i.e your present heading is 360 and ATC gives you "turn right 360".

Also, sometimes you only do the hold entry so depending on the entry you might not ever get established in the race track.

Technically, there is no requirement to hold in a race track pattern at all...only to remain in the holding protected airspace. A pilot could do figure 8's over the holding fix if they chose to.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

No, a pilot could NOT do "figure 8's." Holds are not protected areas for the pilot to meander in. Holds are specific things. Most of all, hold patterns are published. (Example: http://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/ ... g_0109.jpg)

The outbound leg of the hold pattern is 1 minute, this is why it has the appearance of a racetrack.

The tower will indicate "hold as published" or issue instructions. The minimal instructions for an unpublished hold are:

Altitude
Waypoint or fix
Radial or inbound direction

Unless ATC indicates otherwise the outbound leg will be 1 minute.

If ATC is just giving vectors then it isn't a hold. Sometimes ATC will put AC in a hold that never makes a complete circuit however if they know it will be that short they will use other methods to separate traffic.

atypical wrote:

Passedv1 wrote:

There is more than one way to "hold" an airplane. Often ATC just gives you vectors. i.e your present heading is 360 and ATC gives you "turn right 360".

Also, sometimes you only do the hold entry so depending on the entry you might not ever get established in the race track.

Technically, there is no requirement to hold in a race track pattern at all...only to remain in the holding protected airspace. A pilot could do figure 8's over the holding fix if they chose to.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

No, a pilot could NOT do "figure 8's." Holds are not protected areas for the pilot to meander in. Holds are specific things. Most of all, hold patterns are published. (Example: http://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/ ... g_0109.jpg)

The outbound leg of the hold pattern is 1 minute, this is why it has the appearance of a racetrack.

The tower will indicate "hold as published" or issue instructions. The minimal instructions for an unpublished hold are:

Altitude
Waypoint or fix
Radial or inbound direction

Unless ATC indicates otherwise the outbound leg will be 1 minute.

If ATC is just giving vectors then it isn't a hold. Sometimes ATC will put AC in a hold that never makes a complete circuit however if they know it will be that short they will use other methods to separate traffic.

I'm pretty sure you meant 1 minute inbound legs.


My example and how I used it here are not in the context that it usually comes up so it came out wrong.

My point with my original statement is usually to emphasize that the point of a hold is to remain within the protected airspace established by the clearence...even if it means you end up doing figure eights to do it. <--- this i know is an exageration, but was just pushing back against some previous posters that were saying that the tracks linked weren't holds because the racetrack wasn't quite the same, etc.

If the winds are strong enough you can easily get blown out of the protected airspace. You are expected to maneuver as needed. You aren't always in radar contact for the controller to hold your hand.

Passedv1 wrote:

I'm pretty sure you meant 1 minute inbound legs.

Nope, the outbound leg is the only part that is timed in a hold. The end of the inbound leg is marked by the holding fix at which you start the outbound turn, so no need to time that leg.

Passedv1 wrote:

I'm pretty sure you meant 1 minute inbound legs.

My example and how I used it here are not in the context that it usually comes up so it came out wrong.

My point with my original statement is usually to emphasize that the point of a hold is to remain within the protected airspace established by the clearence...even if it means you end up doing figure eights to do it. <--- this i know is an exageration, but was just pushing back against some previous posters that were saying that the tracks linked weren't holds because the racetrack wasn't quite the same, etc.

If the winds are strong enough you can easily get blown out of the protected airspace. You are expected to maneuver as needed. You aren't always in radar contact for the controller to hold your hand.

Fair enough. BTW, sorry if I came off a bit harsh.

So it is 1 minute outbound. That is to make the leg is long enough on the inbound to confirm that the aircraft is on the correct radial. Also note that several aircraft are expected to use the same hold pattern at different altitudes. Making sure everyone is on the same basic path (particularly the inbound) is key to allowing several aircraft descending at the same time as other aircraft are cleared to land. It is important to make sure aircraft are not arriving at fix/waypoint from different directions because in the unintended event two aircraft are at the same altitude they are less likely to collide.

Outside of landing when an aircraft is cleared to a fix or waypoint en route hold patterns are standard procedure if ATC has provided no further instructions once that point is reached.

I have flown a couple of holds in an analog instrument simulator and it is a lot harder than it looks. The turns are timed to make sure that the inbound radial gets nailed however it doesn't take a lot of wind abeam to really mess with your timing. Turning into the wind becomes longer fast and with crab turning with the wind can get really tight.

In the UK, particularly around London, aircraft hold in racetrack patterns with one to three minute legs. They are then cleared to leave the hold by turning on a vector, all the way round, a complete 360.

This allows further descent and speed loss and clears the level above for other arrivals. In bad weather, AC can hold in their current position to avoid, or make left hand patterns away from the normal holds.

Just to clear up some of the confusion, courtesy of DOC 8168:

A standard holding pattern below 14.000 ft is with right turns and 1 minute timing. Above 14.000 ft timing is 1:30. Other holds can be devised (including some with DME distances rather than timings), but in that case the differences must be stated.

The 1 minute is without wind, and should therefore be compensated for according to the conditions (head- or tailwind component).

The outbound timing shall begin at wings-level or abeam the fix, whichever comes later.

Turns should be rate 1 or 25 degrees bank, whichever is less. But again, compensation for wind should be applied to avoid drifting out of the protected area.

It is the pilots responsibility to maintain the track. There is only obstacle protection inside a certain area, blunder out of the holding area and the 5 mile buffer area, then you risk hitting something hard.



BTW, I find them super easy to fly out in the real world. It is very satisfying to watch your good attempts on flightradar24

VSMUT wrote:

BTW, I find them super easy to fly out in the real world. It is very satisfying to watch your good attempts on flightradar24

You're one of THOSE people. I make up the other side of the bell curve here I guess. I do have a question, are you flying the patterns digitally? If so how good do you think you would do on an IFR C150 with original instrumentation? I haven't been current in a while but the digital stuff out there seems to make IFR significantly easier. Or is that a false impression I have?

atypical wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

BTW, I find them super easy to fly out in the real world. It is very satisfying to watch your good attempts on flightradar24

You're one of THOSE people. I make up the other side of the bell curve here I guess. I do have a question, are you flying the patterns digitally? If so how good do you think you would do on an IFR C150 with original instrumentation? I haven't been current in a while but the digital stuff out there seems to make IFR significantly easier. Or is that a false impression I have?

It makes IFR an order of magnitude easier. Flying with Garmin 1000 instrumentation in a light prop vs steam gauges is like flying in a completely different aircraft. Maintaining situational awareness is a piece of cake compared to mentally integrating a bunch of different and small gauges.

Some interesting responses in this thread.

To the OP - I've always known those maneuvers as orbits in this part of the world. You may get asked to "conduct one left hand orbit" to delay arrival without entering a formal holding procedure. Or you may request one to lose height if you're too far above profile. I've done both in turboprops, never in jets.

Vectors are not holding.

Yes, it matters "how" you hold. ICAO and/or your approach charts are very specific on this. Outbound time/distance, direction of turn and maximum holding speeds are all very clearly specified.

atypical wrote:

You're one of THOSE people. I make up the other side of the bell curve here I guess. I do have a question, are you flying the patterns digitally? If so how good do you think you would do on an IFR C150 with original instrumentation? I haven't been current in a while but the digital stuff out there seems to make IFR significantly easier. Or is that a false impression I have?

The majority of my experience is with old-fashioned steam gauges and stop-watches on Cessna 172s and PA-28-161s, so the only problem with doing it on a Cessna 150 would be learning to fly the -150 itself

During the IR/ME part of the flight schooling I flew on a pair of old PA-34s that had been retrofitted with two Aspen digital screens. I felt that it was much easier with the original instruments, but then I also felt that the Aspen screens were way too messy. Too much information on a much too little screen, with horrible resolution too. Among other problems, it was difficult to precisely follow or even set the heading bug precisely. In turbulence you could have problems reading the tiny numbers. It did however calculate the ground-speed, track, and wind which was really useful, removing a lot of the MDR stuff.

I have also done it on a 737NG simulator and during my ATR type rating course, and there we just flipped on the auto-pilot or manually followed the flight-director. The instrumentation was significantly better than on the PA-34 though. I suspect that the new Garmin G1000 equipped aircraft are also very easy to do it in, but I have never had the fortune to try one of those

N14AZ wrote:

how do you line up aircraft during final approach under consideration of the different landing speeds of different airliners. Is there a minimum landing speed considering the "fastest aircraft ", i.e. the one with the highest necessary landing speed?

That's a question that comes to my mind whenever I see several aircraft perfectly lined up on final approach to FRA. A brief reply would be highly appreciated.

Did you ever get an answer to your question? I can't find one on this thread.

There was a comment recently from a DHC-8 driver who was asked if he had any trouble integrating his STOL aircraft into a typical LHR approach pattern. I cannot recall his actual response but basically he had no trouble; he just came in a bit faster than normal, and lost any extra speed just before reaching the runway. Remember, some aircraft types can engage reverse pitch (propellors) or reverse thrust (jets) whilst still in flight.
e.g. Concorde, Trident, DC-8, Il-62, Tu-154, and of course various military types such as C-130, C-17
I do accept it might not be to everyone's taste in the cockpit, and more than a little disturbing for the pax in the back.

Here is a short AW&S video using RNP with a curved approach. Nice in the cockpit shots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygv7DyKH_e4
Or search You Tube for "In the cockpit with Air New Zealand"

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

how do you line up aircraft during final approach under consideration of the different landing speeds of different airliners. Is there a minimum landing speed considering the "fastest aircraft ", i.e. the one with the highest necessary landing speed?

That's a question that comes to my mind whenever I see several aircraft perfectly lined up on final approach to FRA. A brief reply would be highly appreciated.

Did you ever get an answer to your question? I can't find one on this thread.

There was a comment recently from a DHC-8 driver who was asked if he had any trouble integrating his STOL aircraft into a typical LHR approach pattern. I cannot recall his actual response but basically he had no trouble; he just came in a bit faster than normal, and lost any extra speed just before reaching the runway. Remember, some aircraft types can engage reverse pitch (propellors) or reverse thrust (jets) whilst still in flight.
e.g. Concorde, Trident, DC-8, Il-62, Tu-154, and of course various military types such as C-130, C-17
I do accept it might not be to everyone's taste in the cockpit, and more than a little disturbing for the pax in the back.

Pretty sure most aircraft flying into places like FRA won't use reverse thrust to do such a thing. A commonly used method is to use speed control all along the arrival and approach. This way you get a nice line up, ATC will tell you what speed to fly that maintains enough separation without creating too big gaps between them. One that we get quite often is 210-180kts to intercept the localizer and 160 on the glide until passing 4nm on the ILS to land, after that you will reduce to your final approach speed, which differs from type to type and is also dependent on weight, weather and landing configuration. Also, once at final approach speed I don't think the difference in speeds are huge so it's unlikely you'll catch up on the guy/girl ahead of you, but ATC will keep an eye on that as well. I've never heard of an aircraft wanting to loose speed 'just' before reaching the runway, this would create an unstable approach and a Go Around will (must) be flown. This is the case in Europe anyway, not sure how things are done in other areas.

VSMUT wrote:

Passedv1 wrote:

I'm pretty sure you meant 1 minute inbound legs.

Nope, the outbound leg is the only part that is timed in a hold. The end of the inbound leg is marked by the holding fix at which you start the outbound turn, so no need to time that leg.

The AIM states that the inbound leg is flown at 1 minute (1 1/2 minutes abode 14000) with the timing of the outbound leg adjusted so that the inbound leg is flown at the correct time. The reason for that is because the inbound leg has a defined end point.

ICAO versus FAA holding is where you time—inbound on the FAA rule, outbound on the ICAO.

GF

737tanker wrote:

The AIM states that the inbound leg is flown at 1 minute (1 1/2 minutes abode 14000) with the timing of the outbound leg adjusted so that the inbound leg is flown at the correct time. The reason for that is because the inbound leg has a defined end point.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

ICAO versus FAA holding is where you time—inbound on the FAA rule, outbound on the ICAO.

GF

How on earth do you Americans do a holding pattern like that? Seems like a mess to perform in the cockpit. How do you know when to turn inbound in order to achieve the required timing?!?

VSMUT wrote:

737tanker wrote:

The AIM states that the inbound leg is flown at 1 minute (1 1/2 minutes abode 14000) with the timing of the outbound leg adjusted so that the inbound leg is flown at the correct time. The reason for that is because the inbound leg has a defined end point.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

ICAO versus FAA holding is where you time—inbound on the FAA rule, outbound on the ICAO.

GF

How on earth do you Americans do a holding pattern like that? Seems like a mess to perform in the cockpit. How do you know when to turn inbound in order to achieve the required timing?!?

In a calm wind situation the outbound leg would be a minute just like the inbound leg. If the inbound leg took 45 seconds (due to a tailwind) then you do the outbound leg for 1 minute and 15 seconds.

737tanker wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

737tanker wrote:

The AIM states that the inbound leg is flown at 1 minute (1 1/2 minutes abode 14000) with the timing of the outbound leg adjusted so that the inbound leg is flown at the correct time. The reason for that is because the inbound leg has a defined end point.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

ICAO versus FAA holding is where you time—inbound on the FAA rule, outbound on the ICAO.

GF

j
How on earth do you Americans do a holding pattern like that? Seems like a mess to perform in the cockpit. How do you know when to turn inbound in order to achieve the required timing?!?

In a calm wind situation the outbound leg would be a minute just like the inbound leg. If the inbound leg took 45 seconds (due to a tailwind) then you do the outbound leg for 1 minute and 15 seconds.

So the first hold will always be off. Just as I thought, a mess.

Only in the GA/IFR training world, in practice every time I’ve been given a hold in the US it’s never been time based, even when they give published holds, the first thing that’s asked right after being given the hold clearance is, can we have 20/30 mile legs? Unless things are really messed up, the next transmission is usually, approved as requested and the controller is reissuing the amended hold clearance with the 20 or 30 mile legs. So you’re usually never holding on 1 minute legs (around 6-8 miles)


Once aircraft are in the terminal area, if spacing and separation is critical, the controller assigns everyone a speed to fly in approach.

In LA, the usually have everyone flying 280kts on the arrivals and then slowing them to 250kts on the 25L/24R final, then assigning 210 and 170kts as aircraft encroach in the separation minimums.

in Chicago, they space arrivals 3 miles apart at 170 kts, so sometimes when you’re in a line of arrivals on final at 30 miles out at 170 knots, it’s a really long drawn out slow approach.

VSMUT wrote:

737tanker wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

j
How on earth do you Americans do a holding pattern like that? Seems like a mess to perform in the cockpit. How do you know when to turn inbound in order to achieve the required timing?!?

In a calm wind situation the outbound leg would be a minute just like the inbound leg. If the inbound leg took 45 seconds (due to a tailwind) then you do the outbound leg for 1 minute and 15 seconds.

So the first hold will always be off. Just as I thought, a mess.

As opposed to ALL the legs being a mess because timing the outbound means the wind determines the size of the hold. Generally, one has an idea of the wind and shorten or lengthen the first outbound to make the first inbound pretty close to 1 minute. Try it at an intersection using two VORs, that interesting.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

737tanker wrote:

In a calm wind situation the outbound leg would be a minute just like the inbound leg. If the inbound leg took 45 seconds (due to a tailwind) then you do the outbound leg for 1 minute and 15 seconds.

So the first hold will always be off. Just as I thought, a mess.

As opposed to ALL the legs being a mess because timing the outbound means the wind determines the size of the hold. Generally, one has an idea of the wind and shorten or lengthen the first outbound to make the first inbound pretty close to 1 minute. Try it at an intersection using two VORs, that interesting.

Errr what? It is 1 minute outbound (or whatever the specific timing is) adjusted for wind component. The first legs are never going to be a mess using that method.

So, where in DoC 8168 does it say, for holds based on timing to shorten or lengthen the outbound leg? If a slow plane in a strong tailwind outbound for one minute, it might take two minutes inbound to the fix. So, you’re saying the outbound leg should be timed at 30” to make the inbound leg one minute, which, by the way is the FAA standard.

GF

Varsity1 wrote:

Lol this forum. The speculation is wild.

Approaches have circling minimums. Most airports only have one precision approach, if any at all. If the aircraft isn't equipped for a given approach, such as a glide-slope inop they will fly a downwind approach (maybe VOR, GPS, ADF) to circling minimums and circle to land. If they can't "get the flag" at the FAF on a precision approach they might have to circle to land from another approach with lower minimums as opposed to just flying the localizer. Its all extremely situational dependent.

Other times the PIC will need to maintain currency, selecting an unusual (ADF, VOR, LOC) or off wind approach and fly it to circling mins.

One thing you're correct about is the wild speculation here.
SOME approaches have circling minimums. You must fly in very remote areas as you don't see any ILS approaches.
What is a downwind approach with GS inop? Wouldn't a straight in LOC approach be preferred in this situation vs a circling approach?
What is "get the flag" on a precision approach?
What approach has lower minimums than a precision approach that allows circling?
Can you explain "off wind approach"? Can an ADF (you mean NDB right?), VOR, or LOC approach not have straight in minima? What does an "unusual" approach have to do with currency?