Circle to Land @ KRBG

Jim Macklin wrote:
The FAA will establish controlled airspace as part of the
authorization of an IAP. The FAA must have control of
airspace in order to issue a clearance, Class G does not
meet that requirement.

We seem to have a problem, my experience is just what I've
said...
8,000 hours;FAR 141 former chief flight instructor, FAR 135
Director of Operations, single-pilot IFR in all models King
Air 90 ,200 and 300 and other ASEL/AMEL Beech aircraft.
Gold Seal CFI ASMEI. No violations.

What do you have? What do you think I'm fibbing about?


I've met a lot (too many, actually) pilots who have similar such
credentials and, alas, who never really mastered some of the finer
points of airspace.

EVERY IAP at a CLass E airport (excepting those with Class E surface
areas) that has a MDA or DA with a HAT (or HAA for circling) of less
than 700 feet has some portion of the final approach and missed approach
segments in Glass G airspace.

You are correct in that ATC cannot issue IFR clearances in Class G
airspace. But, when you are cleared for an approach to an airport with
an MDA or DA well below Class E airspace, you are not yet in Class G
airspace, thus the clearance is proper. It is up to you to not descend
below the floor of Class E airspace in the final approach segment, if
you choose to remain in Class E airspace. That is not a concern for ATC.

OTOH, if you are issued a departure clearance from such an airport, it
will contain the caveat "...upon entering controlled airspace.." because
you are in Class G airspace when issued the departure clearance.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Jose" wrote in message
t...

I'm just curious - have you ever learned from these discussions?


Probably. I engage in a lot of discussions here so chances are I've learned
something I hadn't known before through them but I can't recall any specific
example off the top of my head.


I have the same problem. I like to think I am perfect but I carry the
baggage of knowing I was wrong one time in my life; that was the time I
thought I was wrong when actually I was right.

Roy Smith wrote:

Sam Spade wrote:

Gary Drescher wrote:


So seeing and avoiding during an instrument approach does not amount to some
sort of IFR-VFR hybrid. Rather, it is just IFR.

--Gary



Then, there is a TCAS RA during IMC. The IFR track, whether it be a
route or a terminal procedure, must be compromised to the extent
necessary to resolve the RA.


Yikes! I hope the TCAS processors are terrain aware.

Does TCAS give track instructions? I though all RA's were either
"climb now" or "descend now".

The TCAS processors certainly aren't terrain aware, but the TAWS is. On
an instrument approach or departure procedure, descent is not an option.
With an aircraft in approach or landing configuration the only option
might be to turn away from the conflict.

No doubt, it can get a bit ugly. Hopefully, if it's IMC the alert won't
occur during a departure or approach.

yep
"Sam Spade" wrote in message
news:dyP%f.34407$bm6.1633@fed1read04...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| The FAA will establish controlled airspace as part of
the
| authorization of an IAP. The FAA must have control of
| airspace in order to issue a clearance, Class G does not
| meet that requirement.
|
| We seem to have a problem, my experience is just what
I've
| said...
| 8,000 hours;FAR 141 former chief flight instructor, FAR
135
| Director of Operations, single-pilot IFR in all models
King
| Air 90 ,200 and 300 and other ASEL/AMEL Beech aircraft.
| Gold Seal CFI ASMEI. No violations.
|
| What do you have? What do you think I'm fibbing about?
|
|
| I've met a lot (too many, actually) pilots who have
similar such
| credentials and, alas, who never really mastered some of
the finer
| points of airspace.
|
| EVERY IAP at a CLass E airport (excepting those with Class
E surface
| areas) that has a MDA or DA with a HAT (or HAA for
circling) of less
| than 700 feet has some portion of the final approach and
missed approach
| segments in Glass G airspace.
|
| You are correct in that ATC cannot issue IFR clearances in
Class G
| airspace. But, when you are cleared for an approach to an
airport with
| an MDA or DA well below Class E airspace, you are not yet
in Class G
| airspace, thus the clearance is proper. It is up to you
to not descend
| below the floor of Class E airspace in the final approach
segment, if
| you choose to remain in Class E airspace. That is not a
concern for ATC.
|
| OTOH, if you are issued a departure clearance from such an
airport, it
| will contain the caveat "...upon entering controlled
airspace.." because
| you are in Class G airspace when issued the departure
clearance.

"Jose" wrote in message
news
How is that following IFR (Instrument flight rules) and VFR (visual
flight rules) at the same time?

I suppose it's not, really. VFR is a set of rules (altitudes,
visibilities and cloud clearances) designed around that principle, to make
it reasonable to do. You are right, they cannot technically both be
followed at the same time.

I think what Jim is getting at:

If the weather was as good as you say, there is no prohibition on
operating under IFR and VFR at the same time

is that one can, while remaining on an IFR flight plan, circle to land via
a VFR traffic pattern if the weather would permit ordinary VFR traffic to
do that. He appears to claim (and I find reasonable) that this would not
violate the "circling to the {whatever} prohibited".

I suppose the FAA might differ, which raises the question - when you
maneuver under an IFR flight plan at the end of an approach that is not
straight in, is it always considered "circling" even if the maneuvering is
well above the MDA and within the VFR traffic pattern?

Any cases to support supporting the prohibition?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.


Well said, Jose.

Al

Roy Smith wrote:
In article kUM%f.29991$bm6.27382@fed1read04,
Sam Spade wrote:

Jim Macklin wrote:


5-4-24. Contact Approach

2. The reported ground visibility at the destination
airport is at least 1 statute mile.


Reported ground visibility is what matters to ATC.

Even then ATC is under no obligation to grant your request for a contact
approach. It depends upon the overall traffic picture and controller
workload.


Does it depend on whether the controller has dimples on his butt?

The gentleman makes it sound like a contact approach is a given if the
pilot wants it. What part of that don't you understand?

"Jose" wrote in message
news

I suppose it's not, really. VFR is a set of rules (altitudes,
visibilities and cloud clearances) designed around that principle, to make
it reasonable to do. You are right, they cannot technically both be
followed at the same time.


Well, they cannot both be followed while on approach, that's why I made the
distinction. But there is one situation where they can be followed
simultaneously. If you're on a VFR-on-top clearance FAR 91.179, an
Instrument Flight Rule, requires compliance with FAR 91.159, a Visual Flight
Rule.



I think what Jim is getting at:

If the weather was as good as you say, there is no prohibition on
operating under IFR and VFR at the same time

is that one can, while remaining on an IFR flight plan, circle to land via
a VFR traffic pattern if the weather would permit ordinary VFR traffic to
do that. He appears to claim (and I find reasonable) that this would not
violate the "circling to the {whatever} prohibited".

I suppose the FAA might differ, which raises the question - when you
maneuver under an IFR flight plan at the end of an approach that is not
straight in, is it always considered "circling" even if the maneuvering is
well above the MDA and within the VFR traffic pattern?

Any cases to support supporting the prohibition?


None that I'm aware of. I don't see how it could become an issue.