A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Going for the Visual"



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 9th 04, 08:53 PM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



O. Sami Saydjari wrote:



So, my question becomes, at what point do you abort the attempt to go
visual and transition to an IFR approach.


When you are over the airport and can't see it.


Say, you have a GPS and ATC
cleared you down to 2000 ft AGL and you are 10 miles from the airport.
Do you continue at that altitude to the airport until you are right on
top of it (controller permitting), notice that you are still not out of
the clouds, and then ask for an IFR approach at that point?


Yes.


Just trying
to see how the transition from "going for visual" to "err, no can
do...need an instrument" happens. Does the controller force the
decision at some distance out?


He may if there is other traffic. If you are the only one and therefore
aren't causing delays for anybody I'll drive you right to the airport,
if you call it in sight then you can have the visual, if not you'll do
an instrument approach.

  #12  
Old April 9th 04, 08:58 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Newps" wrote in message
news7Ddc.110245$JO3.77994@attbi_s04...

While the 1000/3 applies because you have to have VFR to get a
visual the ceiling needs to be higher than that because there are no
MVA's that are even as low as 1000 feet. So practically speaking
the ceiling needs to be higher than the MVA for that area.


An aircraft can sight the field through a broken layer and be cleared for a
visual approach.


  #13  
Old April 9th 04, 09:14 PM
Bob Gardner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have heard rumors for years that the feds were going to eliminate MSAs
because pilots persist in trying to make them part of IFR procedures. Hasn't
happened yet, and the misunderstanding is still around.

Bob Gardner

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...
A while back, I was with an experienced pilot, IMC, descending to land
at my home airport. The airport is not in an environment where ATC will
give vectors to final. As we approached, ATC asked which approach we
wanted. He said that he was "going for the visual." The ceilings were
right at the Minimum Safe altitude (MSA)--3000. I think ATC said that we
could descend to 3000 and report airport in sight.

Is this request of "going for the visual" usual?

Is it the norm if ceilings are above MSA?

-Sami
N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III



  #14  
Old April 9th 04, 09:57 PM
Ben Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article 7vDdc.810$nK1.8649@attbi_s54,
Bob Gardner wrote:
I have heard rumors for years that the feds were going to eliminate MSAs
because pilots persist in trying to make them part of IFR procedures. Hasn't
happened yet, and the misunderstanding is still around.


I've never really looked at them. I lump them in with information like
"200' unlit tower 2 miles from the airport". When it becomes a factor
I'm in much bigger trouble than a bit of obstruction info is going to
fix!

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/
  #15  
Old April 9th 04, 10:24 PM
Andrew Sarangan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bob Gardner" wrote in
news:7vDdc.810$nK1.8649@attbi_s54:

I have heard rumors for years that the feds were going to eliminate
MSAs because pilots persist in trying to make them part of IFR
procedures. Hasn't happened yet, and the misunderstanding is still
around.

Bob Gardner


I like the MSA because it gives me an idea of what the terrain is like.
We had this discussion before, but no one has given a good reason what
exactly is wrong with the MSA. It gives you 1000' obstacle clearance,
which is exactly what you need for IFR (except in mountainous areas).
Someone pointed out that MSA is not an IFR procedure because the AIM says
it is for emergency use only. Someone else said it was because MSA is not
measured to the same precision as other altitudes. Fine, but if the FAA
is going as far as eliminating it, there must be something more to this
than that. Has there ever been an accident or violation as a result of a
pilot using the MSA?

  #16  
Old April 9th 04, 10:30 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote
OK. It just happened, in this case, that ATC was able to let us go down
to what was coincidentally that MSA for the area.


Right. The operational altitude is really MVA, which is not available
to you. It could be a lot lower. Right off, I can think of some
airports where it is 1400 ft lower, because the obstructions that
drive the MSA are over 20 miles from the airport.

So, my question becomes, at what point do you abort the attempt to go
visual and transition to an IFR approach.


That's your decision as PIC.

Say, you have a GPS and ATC
cleared you down to 2000 ft AGL and you are 10 miles from the airport.
Do you continue at that altitude to the airport until you are right on
top of it (controller permitting), notice that you are still not out of
the clouds, and then ask for an IFR approach at that point?


You could do that. Sometimes it even works. Cloud bases are often
ragged. Or you could tell him that you're still in solid IMC and need
the approach. Your call.

Just trying
to see how the transition from "going for visual" to "err, no can
do...need an instrument" happens. Does the controller force the
decision at some distance out?


That all depends on the MVA boundaries, traffic, etc. For example,
I'm familiar with one field where the MVA is 1700 MSL from one
direction, 2000 from another, and the dividing line seems to be about
a mile from the field. As a result, if you approach from the right
direction, you can get a descent to 1700 - but if you don't get the
airport in sight in a timely manner, you get a climb which essentially
destroys any chance of doing the visual.

In general, the controller will prefer you do the visual if he has a
preference at all - it's less work than vectoring you to final, ties
up less airspace, gets you out of his hair quicker, etc. The only
time a controller doesn't want you to do the visual is if he thinks
you won't get in.

Michael
  #17  
Old April 9th 04, 10:36 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Michael" wrote in message
m...

Right. The operational altitude is really MVA, which is not available
to you.


Why would the MVA not be available to him?


  #18  
Old April 10th 04, 12:16 AM
Bob Gardner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No way of knowing. If there had been an accident, a contributing factor
would be "improper IFR" with no details.

Bob Gardner

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
. 158...
"Bob Gardner" wrote in
news:7vDdc.810$nK1.8649@attbi_s54:

I have heard rumors for years that the feds were going to eliminate
MSAs because pilots persist in trying to make them part of IFR
procedures. Hasn't happened yet, and the misunderstanding is still
around.

Bob Gardner


I like the MSA because it gives me an idea of what the terrain is like.
We had this discussion before, but no one has given a good reason what
exactly is wrong with the MSA. It gives you 1000' obstacle clearance,
which is exactly what you need for IFR (except in mountainous areas).
Someone pointed out that MSA is not an IFR procedure because the AIM says
it is for emergency use only. Someone else said it was because MSA is not
measured to the same precision as other altitudes. Fine, but if the FAA
is going as far as eliminating it, there must be something more to this
than that. Has there ever been an accident or violation as a result of a
pilot using the MSA?



  #19  
Old April 10th 04, 12:19 AM
SeeAndAvoid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alot of how it goes depends on the recent trends, are they getting in,
where are they cancelling, or are they cancelling after landing.
If they arent breaking out until 1,000' below our MIA (Minimum
IFR Altitude, similar to MVA, but not MSA), it's kind of pointless
to bother with a Visual.
If someone wants to try anyway, and if there's not a line of others
behind them, I'll let them try. But if they get right up on the airport
and then decide they want that ILS I suggested after all, it's the back
of the line.
Visuals are great, but make sure you can maintain visual with
the airport.
Chris

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...
A while back, I was with an experienced pilot, IMC, descending to land
at my home airport. The airport is not in an environment where ATC will
give vectors to final. As we approached, ATC asked which approach we
wanted. He said that he was "going for the visual." The ceilings were
right at the Minimum Safe altitude (MSA)--3000. I think ATC said that we
could descend to 3000 and report airport in sight.

Is this request of "going for the visual" usual?

Is it the norm if ceilings are above MSA?

-Sami
N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III



  #20  
Old April 10th 04, 04:01 AM
Ron Rosenfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 11:33:20 -0700, Jim Weir wrote:

I don't know about the rest of ye all, but the real world out here is to be
vectored as low as the controller can give you, get the airport in sight, and
"cancelling IFR". That way the 1000 & 3 does not apply.

Jim


Yes, but you have to maintain VMC, whereas on a visual approach under IFR,
that is not a requirement, so long as you maintain the field in sight. In
other words, you don't have to maintain VFR cloud clearance requirements
while enroute from your present position to the field.


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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? John Clonts Instrument Flight Rules 81 March 20th 04 03:34 PM
Night over water Stuart King Instrument Flight Rules 43 March 4th 04 02:13 AM
Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach John Clonts Instrument Flight Rules 45 November 20th 03 06:20 AM
Visual Appr. Stuart King Instrument Flight Rules 15 September 17th 03 08:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.