Circle to land question

While your logic is sound for the second argument, MBO has an instrument
approach and it underlies Jackson's Class C airspace. I don't have a
sectional for that area, but I'll bet the Class E goes to 700' above surface
at the airport. The sectional may also show that MBO is actually in or
partially in the surface to 4000AGL Class C airspace since it is so close to
Jackson. If that is the case, then the viz and cloud clearance requirements
would preclude that VFR traffic from LEGALLY operating.

Sooo... any Jackson pilot know what Jackson approach expects?



In my opinion, there are two issues here. One is regulatory:

================================================== ==============
§ 91.126 Operating on or in the vicinity of an airport in Class G
airspace.

snip
================================================

Sure, the situation could "require" that you make a turn to the right; or
you could get "authorized" by ATC; but you might have to justify your
decision if you felt that it was "required", especially if you did so
without authorization, and there was some incident.

The second (and probably more important) issue has to do with avoiding
possible VFR traffic in the area/pattern that is executing normal left
hand
traffic. I believe KMBO is Class G below 700'. If so, the VFR minima are
1 mile/clear of clouds. There certainly could be VFR traffic operating
to/from the airport legally in the Class G with 900/5 weather.

I've done that myself going from a water takeoff to a land airport (KLCI)
served by instrument approaches under conditions similar to what you
describe. All legal. I don't know if seaplanes are allowed on the
reservoir to the east of your airport, but that might be one source of VFR
traffic other than folk in the pattern.

Best,

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 17:10:18 -0400, "Paul Lynch" wrote:

The sectional may also show that MBO is actually in or
partially in the surface to 4000AGL Class C airspace since it is so close to
Jackson. If that is the case, then the viz and cloud clearance requirements
would preclude that VFR traffic from LEGALLY operating.

I reviewed data prior to MY posting which indicates the contrary to your
assumption.

With regard to your specific statement regarding the CCA, over MBO the
floor of the CCA is at 1700'MSL (or 1374' AGL).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 21:49:45 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Fri, 13 May 2005 17:10:18 -0400, "Paul Lynch" wrote:

The sectional may also show that MBO is actually in or
partially in the surface to 4000AGL Class C airspace since it is so close to
Jackson. If that is the case, then the viz and cloud clearance requirements
would preclude that VFR traffic from LEGALLY operating.

I reviewed data prior to MY posting which indicates the contrary to your
assumption.

With regard to your specific statement regarding the CCA, over MBO the
floor of the CCA is at 1700'MSL (or 1374' AGL).

Ron,

You are correct, in that MBO is not in Charlie airspace.

There is plenty of room to maneuver south of MBO to land without entering
the inner ring of Charlie airspace.

Even though there is a wind sock at the boat yard off the reservoir, to my
knowledge, there are no sea planes based in the reservoir, so I doubt that
I would find VFR traffic in the pattern when ceilings are 900 feet. Of
course, anything is possible!

Since the airspace would be all mine for an IFR arrival, and winds would be
prevailing out of the north, Jackson approach would expect me to land on
35.

I **wouldn't think** JAN Approach would care how I maneuvered to get to 35,
whether I entered downwind or improvise my own right hand pattern.

I just want to be sure I am "procedurally correct" without having the need
to "deviate from FARS" and making a PIC decision should a right hand
pattern be warranted when breaking out midfield on the VOR alpha at MBO.

The regulations do state left hand patterns (Thanks Ron for posting), so I
just wonder how others would handle this circle to land procedure with
winds prevailing out of the north?

I am aware, that I can deviate from FARS as warranted in the interest of
safety to the flight but would rather not exercise that right, but do it
right in the first place.

Allen

On Sat, 14 May 2005 08:55:03 -0500, A Lieberman
wrote:

Since the airspace would be all mine for an IFR arrival,

The point I was trying to make is that that is not necessarily the case.
ATC will separate you from other IFR traffic, but they have NO
responsibility to separate you from VFR traffic.

I **wouldn't think** JAN Approach would care how I maneuvered to get to 35

I'd agree with that. But that does not make it safe or legal.

I doubt that I would find VFR traffic in the pattern when ceilings are 900 feet.
Of course, anything is possible!

Since VFR traffic can legally be in the pattern in that airspace with
weather at 900/5, you only have to be wrong once to have a really bad day.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have legally flown to a similar
airport in similar weather, VFR. I have also seen, at my home airport,
powered parachutes in the pattern and the vicinity at a few hundred feet
AGL.

My preference on a circling approach is to always fly a left hand pattern.
If there is some safety reason to execute a right hand pattern (or if the
airport has right traffic), then I will fly a right hand pattern.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 13:28:40 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

My preference on a circling approach is to always fly a left hand pattern.
If there is some safety reason to execute a right hand pattern (or if the
airport has right traffic), then I will fly a right hand pattern.

Hi Ron,

I really appreciate your input. Let me ask you this question as I really
learn from others....

Seeing how the VOR Alpha approach leads you into the airport, and if you
reached midfield at minimums, how would you execute the landing for runway
35 if you don't execute a right hand pattern?

There are no noise sensitive areas, nor any unusual considerations around
MBO.

Allen

On Sat, 14 May 2005 16:05:26 -0500, A Lieberman
wrote:

On Sat, 14 May 2005 13:28:40 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

My preference on a circling approach is to always fly a left hand pattern.
If there is some safety reason to execute a right hand pattern (or if the
airport has right traffic), then I will fly a right hand pattern.

Hi Ron,

I really appreciate your input. Let me ask you this question as I really
learn from others....

Seeing how the VOR Alpha approach leads you into the airport, and if you
reached midfield at minimums, how would you execute the landing for runway
35 if you don't execute a right hand pattern?

There are no noise sensitive areas, nor any unusual considerations around
MBO.

Allen

It's good that you describe a specific approach, because all of these sorts
of questions depend critically on the approach one is flying.

For the KMBO VOR-A approach, the missed approach point is at MAFCA which is
west of the runway. When I reached MAFCA, if I had the field in sight, the
runway would be ahead of me, and crossing my flight path. So I would turn
right to enter the left downwind, and fly a normal left handed pattern.
If, at MAFCA, I did not have the runway in sight, I would be executing a
missed approach.

In addition to the above considerations, there is also the fact that the
minimum visibility for this approach (for a Category A a/c) is one mile.
MAFCA is only 1000' from the runway. If I do not pick up the runway prior
to MAFCA, it is likely I will not have the required visibility to make the
approach. (Not definite, as there could be an obstruction to visibility
that clears up directly over the airport). So it is likely that if I just
barely see the airport upon reaching the MAP, I'll have to execute a "miss"
anyway.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 18:07:04 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

In addition to the above considerations, there is also the fact that the
minimum visibility for this approach (for a Category A a/c) is one mile.
MAFCA is only 1000' from the runway. If I do not pick up the runway prior
to MAFCA, it is likely I will not have the required visibility to make the
approach. (Not definite, as there could be an obstruction to visibility
that clears up directly over the airport). So it is likely that if I just
barely see the airport upon reaching the MAP, I'll have to execute a "miss"
anyway.

Thanks Ron!

You did clear up one thing. I was thinking that 5.0 DME was mid field for
MBO, when in reality it is MAFCA.

Duhh, read the chart Allen.....

If you are interested,
http://www.archive.org/details/ALieb...pproachintoMBO is the
actual approach. I took a VFR pilot friend up who had never been in IMC.
File is 40 meg. For my DSL, it takes 2 1/2 minutes to download.

This was the first time I did it by myself down this close to minimums.
Ceilings were right at 1000, and visibility was about 2 miles below the
ceiling. I broke out 4.8 DME from the JAN VOR.

Couple of things to note...

Below NAV one, I have a "digital" VOR. It tells me what radial I am on
when I switch it from NAV1 or NAV2. I can tell it to indicate to or from
the VOR. So, you can see, I was as close as I can be on that 137 radial.

I overshot final, as I didn't take into account the tail wind on my turn to
base. I had a 40 knot tail wind!

Surface winds were 21 gusting to 29 knots, so I did a no flaps landing.

I have done the approach with my instructor 2 other times right at minimums
in my IFR training, and when we broke out, it was right at mid field, which
maybe because of my prior experiences had in my mind that mid field was
MAFCA for my missed approaches. On these two approaches we used 17.

There was one other lesson, where we did a missed approach for the real
deal, as ceilings dropped below minimums after we left.

I have noticed in my experiences that the ceilings tend to be a little
higher east of the field. Probably the reservoir has something to do with
that, though I don't know for sure.

Allen

Lighten up man. I stated I did not have the sectional and you never stated
that it was under the C airspace.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 May 2005 17:10:18 -0400, "Paul Lynch" wrote:

The sectional may also show that MBO is actually in or
partially in the surface to 4000AGL Class C airspace since it is so close
to
Jackson. If that is the case, then the viz and cloud clearance
requirements
would preclude that VFR traffic from LEGALLY operating.

I reviewed data prior to MY posting which indicates the contrary to your
assumption.

With regard to your specific statement regarding the CCA, over MBO the
floor of the CCA is at 1700'MSL (or 1374' AGL).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 18:15:48 -0400, "Paul Lynch" wrote:

Lighten up man. I stated I did not have the sectional and you never stated
that it was under the C airspace.

Sorry about that. After I typed and hit send I realized it sounded
harsh. And I did not intend that. Usually I check my posts for that sort
of thing, but I was in a hurry.




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

No problem. I may be oversensitive from some other newsgroups where the
shotguns are always out and blasting away!


"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 May 2005 18:15:48 -0400, "Paul Lynch" wrote:

Lighten up man. I stated I did not have the sectional and you never
stated
that it was under the C airspace.

Sorry about that. After I typed and hit send I realized it sounded
harsh. And I did not intend that. Usually I check my posts for that sort
of thing, but I was in a hurry.




Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)