Continuing past the MAP, KSUN, Hailey Idaho

Opinions please:

Hailey Idaho, KSUN, daytime, ndb dme approach (circling only minima),
map is 5.3 nm back from threshhold, minima are 8000 ft (2681) and 5
miles, with "fly visual to airport" annotation.

1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's,
in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you
cannot see the airport?

2. What would be the legality of deciding just prior to the map that
you've just enough visibility and ceiling for vfr, though well below
the 5 sm in the approach visibility minimums, and continuing vfr until
the field is in site, and landing? Assume that frequency congestion
did not allow you time to cancel ifr.

Stan

Opinions please:

Never been known to withhold them.

Hailey Idaho, KSUN, daytime, ndb dme approach (circling only minima),
map is 5.3 nm back from threshhold, minima are 8000 ft (2681) and 5
miles, with "fly visual to airport" annotation.

1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's,
in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you
cannot see the airport?

You can fly (keep the dirty side down and navigate) visually without
seeing the airport.

2. What would be the legality of deciding just prior to the map that
you've just enough visibility and ceiling for vfr, though well below
the 5 sm in the approach visibility minimums, and continuing vfr until
the field is in site, and landing? Assume that frequency congestion
did not allow you time to cancel ifr.

I do not take "fly visual" to be "fly under VFR". On the approach you
are still under instrument flight RULES and the airspace is still
protected from other IFR aircraft. You are not required to cancel IFR
to "fly visual to the airport". You remain IFR until you land, or (at
the pilot's option) have actual VFR conditions that continue to the
airport.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's,
in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you
cannot see the airport?

You can fly (keep the dirty side down and navigate) visually without seeing the airport.

Just to clarify myself, you do need to see some part of the airport to
continue. It doesn't have to be the threshold.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message =
. com...
1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the =
FAR's,
in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map =
you
cannot see the airport?
=20
You can fly (keep the dirty side down and navigate) visually without =
seeing the airport.=20
=20
Just to clarify myself, you do need to see some part of the airport to =

continue. It doesn't have to be the threshold.
=20
Jose
--=20

It's been a couple of years since I've been to KSUN, but from my =
recollection,
if you don't see the threshold, you won't see anything else of that =
airport, either.

Interesting question, but the MAP is the MAP and if you do not have the
airport in site then you must go missed. You could cancel IFR or request a
contact approach but you can't just decide to "go vfr". You can't cancel
unless you meet the VFR cloud requirements. You should be darn sure that
you will be able to find the airport because maneuvering at KSUN in murky
weather is hazardous. There is never much frequency congestion at KSUN when
it is IFR. It is one in and one out with additional arrivals stacked in the
hold at HLE. While holding, they are talking to Salt Lake Center.

Mike
MU-2

wrote in message
...
Opinions please:

Hailey Idaho, KSUN, daytime, ndb dme approach (circling only minima),
map is 5.3 nm back from threshhold, minima are 8000 ft (2681) and 5
miles, with "fly visual to airport" annotation.

1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's,
in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you
cannot see the airport?

2. What would be the legality of deciding just prior to the map that
you've just enough visibility and ceiling for vfr, though well below
the 5 sm in the approach visibility minimums, and continuing vfr until
the field is in site, and landing? Assume that frequency congestion
did not allow you time to cancel ifr.

Stan

I wonder if the scheduled airlines that come in to KSUN have private
approaches. But regardless, I am sure they have special "balked
landing" procedures because if you are close, flying the charted missed
doesn't always work. This is the kind of stuff that caused the crash of
the jet at Aspen. I'm with Mike here. At any rate, I'd have to KNOW
that I could make it to proceed. No maybes. And seeing the ground but
not seeing the airport wouldn't be enough.

Doug wrote:

I wonder if the scheduled airlines that come in to KSUN have private
approaches. But regardless, I am sure they have special "balked
landing" procedures because if you are close, flying the charted missed
doesn't always work. This is the kind of stuff that caused the crash of
the jet at Aspen. I'm with Mike here. At any rate, I'd have to KNOW
that I could make it to proceed. No maybes. And seeing the ground but
not seeing the airport wouldn't be enough.

I've never heard of any specials for that airport. The terrain is pretty
dicy close in

The airlines go to Twin Falls when the weather is below minimiums. I don't
think that they have special minimiums like at Reno.

Mike
MU-2


"Doug" wrote in message
oups.com...
I wonder if the scheduled airlines that come in to KSUN have private
approaches. But regardless, I am sure they have special "balked
landing" procedures because if you are close, flying the charted missed
doesn't always work. This is the kind of stuff that caused the crash of
the jet at Aspen. I'm with Mike here. At any rate, I'd have to KNOW
that I could make it to proceed. No maybes. And seeing the ground but
not seeing the airport wouldn't be enough.

Mike, Tim's post implies you don't have to go missed at the map if you
don't have the airport in site. The far's say to follow the approach
plate, which says to fly visual. Of course, the approach requires 5
sm visibility, so you need to have that too.

Stan
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:56:43 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

Interesting question, but the MAP is the MAP and if you do not have the
airport in site then you must go missed. You could cancel IFR or request a
contact approach but you can't just decide to "go vfr". You can't cancel
unless you meet the VFR cloud requirements. You should be darn sure that
you will be able to find the airport because maneuvering at KSUN in murky
weather is hazardous. There is never much frequency congestion at KSUN when
it is IFR. It is one in and one out with additional arrivals stacked in the
hold at HLE. While holding, they are talking to Salt Lake Center.

Mike
MU-2

wrote in message
.. .
Opinions please:

Hailey Idaho, KSUN, daytime, ndb dme approach (circling only minima),
map is 5.3 nm back from threshhold, minima are 8000 ft (2681) and 5
miles, with "fly visual to airport" annotation.

1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's,
in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you
cannot see the airport?

2. What would be the legality of deciding just prior to the map that
you've just enough visibility and ceiling for vfr, though well below
the 5 sm in the approach visibility minimums, and continuing vfr until
the field is in site, and landing? Assume that frequency congestion
did not allow you time to cancel ifr.

Stan

I am looking at the plate and I can see the notation "Fly Visual to Airport"
and, I admit, I had not noticed this before. It seems odd and leaves
questions unanswered. What should one do if you are flying visual past the
MAP and can't see the airport? Does the visibility have to extend 5sm in
all directions?

Mike
MU-2


wrote in message
...
Mike, Tim's post implies you don't have to go missed at the map if you
don't have the airport in site. The far's say to follow the approach
plate, which says to fly visual. Of course, the approach requires 5
sm visibility, so you need to have that too.

Stan
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:56:43 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

Interesting question, but the MAP is the MAP and if you do not have the
airport in site then you must go missed. You could cancel IFR or request
a
contact approach but you can't just decide to "go vfr". You can't cancel
unless you meet the VFR cloud requirements. You should be darn sure that
you will be able to find the airport because maneuvering at KSUN in murky
weather is hazardous. There is never much frequency congestion at KSUN
when
it is IFR. It is one in and one out with additional arrivals stacked in
the
hold at HLE. While holding, they are talking to Salt Lake Center.

Mike
MU-2

wrote in message
. ..
Opinions please:

Hailey Idaho, KSUN, daytime, ndb dme approach (circling only minima),
map is 5.3 nm back from threshhold, minima are 8000 ft (2681) and 5
miles, with "fly visual to airport" annotation.

1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's,
in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you
cannot see the airport?

2. What would be the legality of deciding just prior to the map that
you've just enough visibility and ceiling for vfr, though well below
the 5 sm in the approach visibility minimums, and continuing vfr until
the field is in site, and landing? Assume that frequency congestion
did not allow you time to cancel ifr.

Stan