Thoughts on this approach?

Saturday was my first night IFR cross country. I was flying right seat in
a 172SP with an instructor on the left. The flight was from KHHR Hawthorne
CA to Bermuda Dunes. All was well and as expected until Palm Springs
approach. They vectored us to a point south of the VOR-C approach approx 4
miles from the VOR at 4000. We were not established on the final approach
course. Then I got "cleared for the visual".

Airport elevation is 73', meaning that a ridiculous descent of 1150 ft/min
at 90 kts would have been required to get to the MDA of 920 at the MAP if
we had been flying the VOR-C.

What was I expected to do here? I have an instrument rating but only 150
hours so I don't have much experience. I expect an instrument approach,
even a visual, to allow me to make a landing using a normal descent rate
and not have to make laps in the pattern to descend.

What happens if you refuse a visual approach?

You can refuse a visual approach, and be cleared for the IAP if you so
desire. However, in this case it seems you were able to accept the
visual approach, but you would have needed to maneuver for the
approach. The good news here is that when you're cleared for a visual,
you are permitted to do whatever you need to do to make a landing.
There was nothing requiring you to go straight in, not circle, etc.

Lynne

"Yossarian" wrote:

Situational awareness is your responsibility. Think ahead; if you feel
you're going to be too high too close to the airport, ask for lower.
You may not get it, so you should also be thinking of what you'll do if
you don't.

In the case you described, you were cleared to make whatever maneuvers
were necessary to land; that's what "cleared for the visual" means. But
if I was going to do something unusual like do a 360 to lose altitude,
I'd let the controller know.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Yossarian" wrote in message
. 97.142...

Saturday was my first night IFR cross country. I was flying right seat in
a 172SP with an instructor on the left. The flight was from KHHR
Hawthorne
CA to Bermuda Dunes. All was well and as expected until Palm Springs
approach. They vectored us to a point south of the VOR-C approach approx
4
miles from the VOR at 4000. We were not established on the final approach
course. Then I got "cleared for the visual".


Had you reported the field in sight?



Airport elevation is 73', meaning that a ridiculous descent of 1150 ft/min
at 90 kts would have been required to get to the MDA of 920 at the MAP if
we had been flying the VOR-C.


But you weren't flying the VOR-C, you were flying a visual. Right? The VOR
is the FAF and the VOR is 8.9 miles from the runway threshold. If you were
still four miles outside the VOR you were 12.9 miles from the runway 28
threshold. At 90 knots GS that's a descent rate of just 460 fpm all the
way to touchdown.



What was I expected to do here? I have an instrument rating but only 150
hours so I don't have much experience. I expect an instrument approach,
even a visual, to allow me to make a landing using a normal descent rate
and not have to make laps in the pattern to descend.


It looks like a normal descent rate to me, based on your description. In
fact, it's a rather shallow descent.



What happens if you refuse a visual approach?


You usually get an SIAP.

Dan Luke wrote:

Situational awareness is your responsibility. Think ahead; if you feel
you're going to be too high too close to the airport, ask for lower.
You may not get it, so you should also be thinking of what you'll do if
you don't.

When I transitioned from a C172 to a Bonanza with it much faster cruise
speed, this point was drilled into my head by the previous owner of the
aircraft and the instructor who endorsed me.

Using 500 fpm as a guide, I now always calculate in minutes at what point I
would like to begin a descent to the IAF, glideslope intercept, traffic
pattern altitude, or in the case of a visual approach, the runway. If I
don't hear from ATC prior to reaching that point, I request lower.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Dan Luke wrote:

Situational awareness is your responsibility. Think ahead; if you feel
you're going to be too high too close to the airport, ask for lower.
You may not get it, so you should also be thinking of what you'll do if
you don't.

When I transitioned from a C172 to a Bonanza with it much faster cruise
speed, this point was drilled into my head by the previous owner of the
aircraft and the instructor who endorsed me.

Quite so.

In fact, EVERYTHING you do when transitioning to HP aircraft has to be
thought out much further in advance.

Analogy: When taking the Bondurant High Speed Driving Course the instructor
said, "Now you're driving 120 instead of 60, so you're twice as fast, but
you need to be thinking four times as far ahead." He also said (withour
reference) that the average driver on the highways is looking no more than
100 feet ahead.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:



Had you reported the field in sight?




no




Airport elevation is 73', meaning that a ridiculous descent of 1150
ft/min at 90 kts would have been required to get to the MDA of 920 at
the MAP if we had been flying the VOR-C.


But you weren't flying the VOR-C, you were flying a visual. Right?
The VOR is the FAF and the VOR is 8.9 miles from the runway threshold.
If you were still four miles outside the VOR you were 12.9 miles from
the runway 28 threshold. At 90 knots GS that's a descent rate of
just 460 fpm all the way to touchdown.


Sorry, I was unclear. I meant 4 miles from the VOR, but on the airport
side, i.e. about 4 miles from the airport.

"Yossarian" wrote in message
. 97.142...

no


Interesting. One must report the field before a visual approach clearance
can be issued.



Sorry, I was unclear. I meant 4 miles from the VOR, but on the airport
side, i.e. about 4 miles from the airport.


Which way were you headed at that time?

Yossarian wrote:
Saturday was my first night IFR cross country. I was flying right seat in
a 172SP with an instructor on the left. The flight was from KHHR Hawthorne
CA to Bermuda Dunes. All was well and as expected until Palm Springs
approach. They vectored us to a point south of the VOR-C approach approx 4
miles from the VOR at 4000. We were not established on the final approach
course. Then I got "cleared for the visual".

Airport elevation is 73', meaning that a ridiculous descent of 1150 ft/min
at 90 kts would have been required to get to the MDA of 920 at the MAP if
we had been flying the VOR-C.

What was I expected to do here?

Navigate to the airport visually and land. The required descent rate
really doesn't matter much on a visual. You're free to maneuver as
necessary to manage the descent (S-turns, spiral down, whatever).

If you felt you could not do that (i.e. could not remain visual), you
should refuse the clearance, "unable visual approach".

I have an instrument rating but only 150 hours so I don't have much
experience. I expect an instrument approach, even a visual, to
allow me to make a landing using a normal descent rate and not have
to make laps in the pattern to descend.

No such requirement on a visual.

What happens if you refuse a visual approach?

They give you another approach. Typically, you would indicate which
approach you wanted when you turned down the visual.

Yossarian wrote:

Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:


Had you reported the field in sight?


no

That is strange. You have to call the airport in sight before ATC can
clear you for a visual approach. Perhaps you don't remember this exchange
occurring (CFI did it for you)?

Based on my experiences flying in the Northeast US, I have learned to
request the approach I desire when I first check in with the ATC facility
that controls the approaches for my destination airport, unless the weather
is really low and every aircraft is flying the ILS. This saves a second
exchange with ATC to state my intentions that would occur otherwise.

It seems to me that ATC and perhaps most airline pilots prefer the visual
approach since it offers more liberties in traffic spacing and results in a
quicker method for aircraft to land. If I do not request an approach and
the weather allows, ATC will almost always include "expect the visual
approach" upon initial contact.



--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----