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

Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 18th 03, 05:09 PM
Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

EDR wrote:
Hilton wrote:

John Clonts wrote:
I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
(Fredericksburg Texas):


http://www.myairplane.com/databases/.../T82_vd_gA.pdf

At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766

AGL"),

This was (one of) your (almost) fatal mistake. At 2460' and 3 miles

out,
you probably were not at 766 AGL. The 766 you see is NOT AGL as you

would
first think. The 766' is the altitude above the airport elevation (for

a
circling approach). Note that 1694 + 766 = 2460.

It's probable that a lot of instrument pilots do not know this.


Let's pick nits...
Is it
Height Above Aerodrome?
or
Height Above Threshhold?


My point wasn't nitpicking. My point was that at 3 miles out there could be
a little hill that reduces the 766 to less. This becomes very significant
when there are hills on the approach and you think you're at 2000' AGL e.g.
4000 (2000) when actual AGL is significantly less. By saying "airport
elevation" I wasn't picking nits, just being correct since it was a circling
approach.

Hilton


  #12  
Old November 18th 03, 05:51 PM
John Clonts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s52...
When you are cleared for the VOR-A you are expected to fly the
profile....fly at the MDA and not a foot lower to the missed approach

point
or until you see the runway environment as defined in 91.175.


So, once I saw the runway environment (and kept it in sight), I was ok to
descend a hundred feet, fly a couple more miles, fly the pattern, and land,
right?

When you see
the airport, you should real quick ask for a contact approach...then you

can
follow ground reference and altitude is not a factor.


Or (if I had been in class G, below 700' agl) cancel IFR "real quick"? Does
ATC have to hear me and respond, or is my call "into the blind" sufficient?


Thanks!
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ


  #13  
Old November 18th 03, 05:52 PM
John Clonts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"David Brooks" wrote in message
...
"Newps" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s03...


Bob Gardner wrote:

When you are cleared for the VOR-A you are expected to fly the
profile....fly at the MDA and not a foot lower to the missed approach

point
or until you see the runway environment as defined in 91.175. When you

see
the airport, you should real quick ask for a contact approach...then

you
can
follow ground reference and altitude is not a factor.


Ah, bull****. He had the runway in sight, descended and landed. What's
the problem?


It depends on the missing information in the phrase:

I descend 166 feet and am able to remain just under the cloud deck


John, if this had actually happened, could you see the runway all the time
during that descent?


Yes i did. And then flew the pattern and landed, with the runway clearly in
sight at all times.

Thanks!
John


  #14  
Old November 18th 03, 06:01 PM
John Clonts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Hilton" wrote in message
ink.net...
John Clonts wrote:
I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
(Fredericksburg Texas):

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/.../T82_vd_gA.pdf

At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766

AGL"),

This was (one of) your (almost) fatal mistake. At 2460' and 3 miles out,
you probably were not at 766 AGL. The 766 you see is NOT AGL as you would
first think. The 766' is the altitude above the airport elevation (for a
circling approach). Note that 1694 + 766 = 2460.


I did realize this. In fact that's why I put quotation marks around the
"766 AGL". Maybe I should have written it: 766 "AGL".

Thanks for your reply though.

The gist of my question involves either or both of these aspects:

1) Does "having the runway environment in sight...make a normal landing"
in 91.175 mean its ok to descend below MDA, fly a couple more miles to the
airport and then fly the pattern (circle to land), as long as the runway is
still in sight.

2) Once I get to class G airspace on my approach and am clear of clouds in
1 mi vis, can I then descend below MDA by doing something like declaring

myself visual, contact, or canceled IFR.

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ


  #15  
Old November 18th 03, 06:01 PM
Marco Leon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I thought the whole reason for a steep-as-reasonable descent profile during
a non-precision approach was so that if the airport/runway environment is in
sight before the MAP, you can take advantage of it and land. If you are
forced to fly not a foot lower to the missed, then therefore you can not
take advantage of the early sighting of the airport. In other words, after
arriving at the MDA and you have the runway environment in sight AND you see
you're about to enter the cloud bases again, then you therefore "must" enter
the cloud bases because you're not at the MAP yet? Then the only way to
descend is to request and get cleared for a Contact Approach?

I may be misunderstanding the situation but that's how I read your
explanation. It would seem to me that Contact Approaches would be much more
common than they are and I'd read about them more often in the various IFR
mags that I read.

Regards,

Marco


"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s52...
When you are cleared for the VOR-A you are expected to fly the
profile....fly at the MDA and not a foot lower to the missed approach

point
or until you see the runway environment as defined in 91.175. When you see
the airport, you should real quick ask for a contact approach...then you

can
follow ground reference and altitude is not a factor.

Bob Gardner

"John Clonts" wrote in message
.. .
I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
(Fredericksburg Texas):

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/.../T82_vd_gA.pdf

At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766

AGL"),
mostly in a 700 foot overcast. Through a break in the clouds I clearly

see
the airport-- the visibility is about 7 miles.

I descend 166 feet and am able to remain just under the cloud deck for

the
final three miles, fly the right hand pattern for runway 14 at 600 AGL,

and
land.

Was my descent to about 600 AGL (a) illegal because of 91.175c and/or

some
other FAR, or (b) legal because I have now in effect "converted" to a

visual
approach and/or am now in uncontrolled airspace (1 mile vis and clear

of
clouds).

Mind you I'm not saying I did this last Tuesday, but I might have

thought
about it if the conditions had been just so.

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ







Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
  #16  
Old November 18th 03, 06:02 PM
John Clonts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"JimBob" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Gardner" wrote in message

news:[email protected]_s52...
When you are cleared for the VOR-A you are expected to fly the
profile....fly at the MDA and not a foot lower to the missed approach

point
or until you see the runway environment as defined in 91.175. When you

see
the airport, you should real quick ask for a contact approach...then you

can
follow ground reference and altitude is not a factor.

Bob Gardner

"John Clonts" wrote in message
.. .
I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
(Fredericksburg Texas):


http://www.myairplane.com/databases/.../T82_vd_gA.pdf

At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766

AGL"),
mostly in a 700 foot overcast. Through a break in the clouds I

clearly
see
the airport-- the visibility is about 7 miles.
...

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ



The caviat here is you need to see the runway environment to be
allowed to descend, not just the airport.


Yes, I did. (Not much to this airport other than the runway!)

Thanks!
John


  #17  
Old November 18th 03, 06:20 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Clonts" wrote in message
.. .

I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
(Fredericksburg Texas):

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/.../T82_vd_gA.pdf

At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766

AGL"),
mostly in a 700 foot overcast. Through a break in the clouds I clearly

see
the airport-- the visibility is about 7 miles.

I descend 166 feet and am able to remain just under the cloud deck for the
final three miles, fly the right hand pattern for runway 14 at 600 AGL,

and
land.

Was my descent to about 600 AGL (a) illegal because of 91.175c and/or some
other FAR,


By "clearly see the airport" I assume you mean the runway, as that is about
the only item in FAR 91.175(c)(3) that would seem applicable to your
scenario. If you had it in sight prior to descending below the MDA and
while you were operating below the MDA you're in compliance with FAR
91.175(c).



or (b) legal because I have now in effect "converted" to a visual
approach and/or am now in uncontrolled airspace (1 mile vis and clear of
clouds).


Not sure what you're getting at here. A visual approach is an IFR procedure
and clearance for the VOR/DME approach does not authorize a visual approach.
You can of course cancel IFR whenever you're in VFR conditions and proceed
VFR to the field.


  #18  
Old November 18th 03, 06:26 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s52...

When you are cleared for the VOR-A you are expected to fly the
profile....fly at the MDA and not a foot lower to the missed approach

point
or until you see the runway environment as defined in 91.175. When you see
the airport, you should real quick ask for a contact approach...then you

can
follow ground reference and altitude is not a factor.


There isn't much to this airport other than the "runway environment". If
you have the runway environment in sight you can descend below the MDA and
there's no reason to ask for a contact approach.


  #19  
Old November 18th 03, 06:30 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Hilton" wrote in message
ink.net...

This was (one of) your (almost) fatal mistake. At 2460' and 3 miles out,
you probably were not at 766 AGL. The 766 you see is NOT AGL as you would
first think. The 766' is the altitude above the airport elevation (for a
circling approach). Note that 1694 + 766 = 2460.

It's probable that a lot of instrument pilots do not know this.


In this case he was probably more than 766 AGL. The FAF IBAVE is right on
the river, which is probably the lowest terrain nearby.


  #20  
Old November 18th 03, 06:31 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...

1. You cannot roll your own visual approach. You must have a clearance

and the
weather conditions must permit it, as per the guidance in the AIM.

2. What you did is more like a contact approach, which is different from a
visual approach, both, the distinctions of which are well documented and

should
be part of your instrument pilot knowledge base.

3. Eventually, such early departures from the IAP not only violate 91.175,

they
can eventually result in clipping a hilltop, tree, or tower.


Nothing in his statement suggests he departed from the IAP.


 




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
Question to the IFR Pilots Out There Cecil E. Chapman Instrument Flight Rules 90 November 21st 03 03:47 PM
DME req'd on ILS (not ILS-DME) approach? Don Faulkner Instrument Flight Rules 13 October 7th 03 03:54 AM
Which of these approaches is loggable? Paul Tomblin Instrument Flight Rules 26 August 16th 03 05:22 PM
Terminology of New WAAS, VNAV, LPV approach types Tarver Engineering Instrument Flight Rules 2 August 5th 03 03:50 AM
IR checkride story! Guy Elden Jr. Instrument Flight Rules 16 August 1st 03 09:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.