Contact approach question

wrote:

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:45:57 -0700, Newps wrote:



wrote:


Newps wrote:


This happens all the time here. East half of the airport, including the
ASOS, is 0/0. West half is clear and a million.. No contact approach
allowed. Better off to do an instrument approach and just break it off
as soon as you receive the clearance. Ask for the full approach if it
will take you near or over the airport and then just break off and land
if you can get an approach and landing clearance. Nothing says you have
to actually go out and do the approach.


Once a clearance for an approach is issued, the pilot is bound by the
appropriate segments of the approach (Part 97) and the applicable parts of
91.175. Any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
legal no-no.


Baloney. Once I'm in a position to fly visually to the airport/runway I
can do just that.


that's not what this says, I don't think:

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports.

Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when an instrument
letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each person operating an
aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, shall use a
standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for the airport in
part 97 of this chapter.

Your reading is correct. The regulation is quite clear.

Paul Tomblin wrote:

In a previous article, said:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:45:57 -0700, Newps wrote:
wrote:
Once a clearance for an approach is issued, the pilot is bound by the
appropriate segments of the approach (Part 97) and the applicable parts of
91.175. Any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
^^^^^^^^^^^^
legal no-no.

Baloney. Once I'm in a position to fly visually to the airport/runway I
can do just that.

that's not what this says, I don't think:

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports.

Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when an instrument
letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each person operating an
aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, shall use a
standard instrument approach procedure prescribed for the airport in
part 97 of this chapter.

I don't see anything there that prohibits you from cancelling IFR when you
have sufficient visibility and cloud clearance to operate under VFR.

You can cancel when the reported ground visibility and your observed flight
visibility permit. Then, none of 91.175 has any application from that point on.
(you can't cancel in Class A airspace but that has no application to 91.175 in any
case.)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Paul Tomblin" wrote in message
...

I don't see anything there that prohibits you from cancelling IFR when you
have sufficient visibility and cloud clearance to operate under VFR.


Nope. But if you can operate under VFR an instrument letdown wouldn't be
necessary.

True, provided you cancel, or receive a clearance for a contact or visual
approach. Otherwise you must fly the IAP regardless of how good the weather
might be (VMC, not VFR).

Newps wrote:

Paul Tomblin wrote:

You
see, I didn't know if when you can see the runway and everything between
you and it, you can use a contact approach and/or cancel and land VFR
regardless of whether the tower is reporting IFR visibilities.

No you cannot. If the field is IFR you must land under IFR, you may not
cancel. At a towered airport there's really no reason to cancel. You
may not get a contact approach either as that requires a mile vis. The
instrument approach merely puts you in a position to see the runway. At
some airports, the one I work at is one, we get conditions due to local
terrain where one half the airport is 0/0. The other half is clear and
a million. Legally you need an instrument approach to land. However
there's no reason to fly an extra 10-20 miles after receipt of said
clearance before landing. Once you have the runway in sight you proceed
visually to your runway. Very simple.

Not unless you cancel, or receive an amended clearance for a visual or contact
approach.

wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:48:17 -0800, Ron Garret
wrote:

Simple, but illegal. You can only descend below minimums once you have
the field in sight AND you're on the final approach segment (and, if you
really want to pick nits, have reached DH or MDA)

Actually, you need the runway environment in sight.

And I would find it interesting to know how one descends below the DA
or MDA without first reaching them.

One of the enforcement charges against the fired NWA crew that landed at the
USAF base in Rapid City, SD, when they were cleared for a VOR approach to the
civil airport was just that. And, the visibility was severe VMC.

Ron Garret wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:41:36 -0800, Ron Garret
wrote:

In article .com,
wrote:

My source is 121.651.

Why would you use an airline regulation for a general aviation
discussion on a general aviation newsgroup?

Because I was confused. Make that 91.175.

"... when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each
person operating an aircraft ... shall use a standard instrument
approach procedure ..."

I suppose this is somewhat open to interpretation, but personally, I
wouldn't want to be standing in front of the NTSB board trying to make
the case that chopping power at 3000 feet over the airport and landing
is "using a standard instrument approach procedure."

rg


Probably true.

But the issue was with the other wording, i. e., "when an instrument
letdown...is necessary".

I think some folks were saying that if the airport was in sight, an
"instrument letdown" is not necessary, even if ATC cannot approve a
visual or contact approach.

Hm, sounds pretty dubious to me. The very fact that you need an IFR
clearance to land seems to me to be de facto evidence that an instrument
letdown is "necessary". But be that as it may, 91.173 says:

"No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR
unless that person has --

(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and

(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance."

and 91.123 says:

"When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may
deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an
emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and
collision avoidance system resolution advisory."

So if the tower clears you for the VOR-A approach you'd better fly the
VOR-A approach even if you can see the runway throughout the whole
procedure turn.

rg

Right. When on an IFR flight plan an instrument letdown (arcane language,
goes to show how old some of this stuff is) is necessary because that is the
clearance you have received from ATC. ATC can offer a visual and often does,
whether permitting, but that is their only tool to attempt to improve traffic
flow under VMC, and the pilot can decline, thus retaining the requirment to
fly the full approach.

Newps wrote:

wrote:
Never would have thought of this, but it seems plausible enough, now
that you mention it.

Although there is a regulation that says that the pilot is required to
use a prescribed "instrument letdown" when cleared for an approach,
or something like that.

I wonder, would this be a violation of that?

The approach gets you into conditions to land visually. Nowhere does it
say you have to fly any part of the actual approach. Obviously you'll
need to make sure ATC knows what you're doing.

From the AIM:

e. Except when being radar vectored to the final approach course, when
cleared for a specifically prescribed IAP; i.e., "cleared ILS runway one
niner approach" or when "cleared approach" i.e., execution of any procedure
prescribed for the airport, pilots shall execute the entire procedure
commencing at an IAF or an associated feeder route as described on the IAP
chart unless an appropriate new or revised ATC clearance is received, or the
IFR flight plan is canceled.

wrote in message ...

I'd say it should read "any short-cut without a revised clearance or a
cancellation is a legal no-no."


But, ATC is not authorized to issue an initial or revised clearance to
short-cut any required segment of an instrument approach procedure except
for
radar vectors provided in accordance with 7110.65P, 5-9-1.


If in VMC the pilot can cancel IFR and discontinue the SIAP. If conditions
permit a contact approach the pilot can request one, receive a revised
clearance, and discontinue the SIAP.

wrote in message ...

True, provided you cancel, or receive a clearance for a contact or visual
approach. Otherwise you must fly the IAP regardless of how good the
weather
might be (VMC, not VFR).


A visual approach is not an option when an instrument letdown is necessary.

Ron Garret wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:41:36 -0800, Ron Garret
wrote:


In article .com,
wrote:


My source is 121.651.

Why would you use an airline regulation for a general aviation
discussion on a general aviation newsgroup?

Because I was confused. Make that 91.175.

"... when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each
person operating an aircraft ... shall use a standard instrument
approach procedure ..."

I suppose this is somewhat open to interpretation, but personally, I
wouldn't want to be standing in front of the NTSB board trying to make
the case that chopping power at 3000 feet over the airport and landing
is "using a standard instrument approach procedure."

rg


Probably true.

But the issue was with the other wording, i. e., "when an instrument
letdown...is necessary".

I think some folks were saying that if the airport was in sight, an
"instrument letdown" is not necessary, even if ATC cannot approve a
visual or contact approach.


Hm, sounds pretty dubious to me. The very fact that you need an IFR
clearance to land seems to me to be de facto evidence that an instrument
letdown is "necessary". But be that as it may, 91.173 says:


"No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR
unless that person has --

(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and

(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance."


and 91.123 says:

"When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may
deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an
emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and
collision avoidance system resolution advisory."


So if the tower clears you for the VOR-A approach you'd better fly the
VOR-A approach even if you can see the runway throughout the whole
procedure turn.

I agree. However, almost always I call the runway in sight and the
response is "cleared for the visual." Then we're all happy as well as
legal.

However, this might not be possible in the situation that started this
thread.



Matt