Continuing past the MAP, KSUN, Hailey Idaho

This is the provision of TERPs being used:

"This subparagraph does not apply to a procedure where the MAP is more
that 2 statute miles from the airport and the procedure is noted, 'Fly
visual to airport' in which case the required visibility shall be at least
2 miles, but not less than the visibility specified in Table 6."

Most of the time, the folks who design IAP have not used the "at least 2
miles" to mean "2 miles is good enough;" instead they make the visibility
value in statute miles not less than the distance from the MAP to the
runway threshold (straight-in) or nearest portion of a landing surface
(circling only). Take KTVL as an example.

Having said that, the instructions for the procedures specialist to fill
out the 8260-3/5 states:

"k. When the missed approach point is more than 2 SM from the airport,
use: 'Chart planview and profile notes: Fly visual to airport, 220° - 2.5
miles.' "

This seems to support using 2 miles, not 5 miles. This stuff is not black
and white like we all would like it to be.

Those who take the conservative approach feel that the required visual
cues set forth in 91.175 still apply when this note is used; others do
not. And, it's never been set forth in any policy statement.

So, bottom line: as a pilot you are the person ultimately on the hook.
The conservative bet would be see one of the 91.175-mandated visual
references prior to passing the MAP.


wrote:

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

Thanks, Tim. I think this answers all questions.
This approach gives us a good "stumper" question.

Are you always required to commence a missed approach at the missed
approach point if you don't have the field in site?

Ans: NO, not for KSUN

stan

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:15:03 -0800, wrote:

This is the provision of TERPs being used:

"This subparagraph does not apply to a procedure where the MAP is more
that 2 statute miles from the airport and the procedure is noted, 'Fly
visual to airport' in which case the required visibility shall be at least
2 miles, but not less than the visibility specified in Table 6."

Most of the time, the folks who design IAP have not used the "at least 2
miles" to mean "2 miles is good enough;" instead they make the visibility
value in statute miles not less than the distance from the MAP to the
runway threshold (straight-in) or nearest portion of a landing surface
(circling only). Take KTVL as an example.

Having said that, the instructions for the procedures specialist to fill
out the 8260-3/5 states:

"k. When the missed approach point is more than 2 SM from the airport,
use: 'Chart planview and profile notes: Fly visual to airport, 220° - 2.5
miles.' "

This seems to support using 2 miles, not 5 miles. This stuff is not black
and white like we all would like it to be.

Those who take the conservative approach feel that the required visual
cues set forth in 91.175 still apply when this note is used; others do
not. And, it's never been set forth in any policy statement.

So, bottom line: as a pilot you are the person ultimately on the hook.
The conservative bet would be see one of the 91.175-mandated visual
references prior to passing the MAP.


wrote:

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