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
  #1  
Old April 9th 04, 07:31 PM
O. Sami Saydjari
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Going for the Visual"

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

  #2  
Old April 9th 04, 07:44 PM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
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?


It's pretty common to request a visual approach. It's usually the
simpliest and quickest way to get to the airport, if the weather
conditions allow it.

Is it the norm if ceilings are above MSA?


The MSA has little to do with it. The MSA is an emergency altitude with
no regulatory meaning (at least in the US). What's important is that
you've got the weather minimums for a visual approach (1000 & 3) and
that ATC can issue you a clearance to descend low enough that you can
see the airport (or the aircraft you're following).
  #3  
Old April 9th 04, 07:58 PM
O. Sami Saydjari
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Is it the norm if ceilings are above MSA?



The MSA has little to do with it. The MSA is an emergency altitude with
no regulatory meaning (at least in the US). What's important is that
you've got the weather minimums for a visual approach (1000 & 3) and
that ATC can issue you a clearance to descend low enough that you can
see the airport (or the aircraft you're following).


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.

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

-Sami

  #4  
Old April 9th 04, 08:14 PM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"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.


If you get as low as the controller can get you and you still can't see
the airport. Just say something like, "negative contact, request ILS"
and the controller will give you a new clearance for the instrument
approach.

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?


That sounds like one reasonable way of doing it. Of course, it pays to
get whatever weather info is available. If there's an AWOS/ASOS that's
reporting 1500 overcast and the controller says he can only get you down
to 2000, there's not much point.

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?


It's not the job of the controller to tell you what to do. You make
requests and as long as he's able to, he'll issue you clearances.

If you're north of the airport and instrument approach is the ILS-36,
you've got to go over the top of the airport to get to the appoach.
Assuming no conflicting traffic, you could ask the controller to vector
you onto downwind for 36 at the MIA to see if you can see the runway.
If you do, you can request the visual (or contact) right then and there.
If you don't see anything, you just keep going out to the IAF and fly
the approach normally.

On the other hand, if you're already pretty much lined up for an
instrument approach, you really don't gain anything by asking for a
visual.
  #5  
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.

  #6  
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
  #7  
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?


  #8  
Old April 11th 04, 06:05 PM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
Right. The operational altitude is really MVA, which is not available
to you.


Why would the MVA not be available to him?


Because AFAIK the MVA charts are not published anywhere pilots can get
them. I've seen some individual uncontrolled copies floating around,
but these are not really reliable because they have no expiration date
and changes are not NOTAM'd.

Michael
  #9  
Old April 10th 04, 08:52 AM
Brien K. Meehan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message ...

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


I know you're referring to a navaid-based approach, but to be clear, a
visual approach is also an IFR approach.

Just trying
to see how the transition from "going for visual" to "err, no can
do...need an instrument" happens.


You're going at it backwards.

You don't take a visual approach until you're sure you can find the
airport visually.

(Similarly, you don't cancel IFR to land at an uncontrolled field
until you're sure you can land in VMC.)

It's very unusual, and not a good idea, to accept or request a visual
approach if you're not already sure you can make it.
  #10  
Old April 10th 04, 03:14 PM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Brien K. Meehan wrote:


You're going at it backwards.

You don't take a visual approach until you're sure you can find the
airport visually.


You don't accept a visual until you can actually see the aiport. You
can be vectored for a visual because you don't yet see the airport but
reasonably expect you might if you can get closer.



It's very unusual, and not a good idea, to accept or request a visual
approach if you're not already sure you can make it.


No it's not. There's no reason to be sure you'll get the visual to
request to go have a look see at the MVA. If you see the airport then
you can have the visual, if you don't then you'll do another approach.

 




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 04:30 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.