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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Continuing past the MAP, KSUN, Hailey Idaho
Opinions please:
Hailey Idaho, KSUN, daytime, ndb dme approach (circling only minima), map is 5.3 nm back from threshhold, minima are 8000 ft (2681) and 5 miles, with "fly visual to airport" annotation. 1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's, in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you cannot see the airport? 2. What would be the legality of deciding just prior to the map that you've just enough visibility and ceiling for vfr, though well below the 5 sm in the approach visibility minimums, and continuing vfr until the field is in site, and landing? Assume that frequency congestion did not allow you time to cancel ifr. Stan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions please:
Never been known to withhold them. Hailey Idaho, KSUN, daytime, ndb dme approach (circling only minima), map is 5.3 nm back from threshhold, minima are 8000 ft (2681) and 5 miles, with "fly visual to airport" annotation. 1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's, in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you cannot see the airport? You can fly (keep the dirty side down and navigate) visually without seeing the airport. 2. What would be the legality of deciding just prior to the map that you've just enough visibility and ceiling for vfr, though well below the 5 sm in the approach visibility minimums, and continuing vfr until the field is in site, and landing? Assume that frequency congestion did not allow you time to cancel ifr. I do not take "fly visual" to be "fly under VFR". On the approach you are still under instrument flight RULES and the airspace is still protected from other IFR aircraft. You are not required to cancel IFR to "fly visual to the airport". You remain IFR until you land, or (at the pilot's option) have actual VFR conditions that continue to the airport. Jose -- Money: What you need when you run out of brains. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Interesting question, but the MAP is the MAP and if you do not have the
airport in site then you must go missed. You could cancel IFR or request a contact approach but you can't just decide to "go vfr". You can't cancel unless you meet the VFR cloud requirements. You should be darn sure that you will be able to find the airport because maneuvering at KSUN in murky weather is hazardous. There is never much frequency congestion at KSUN when it is IFR. It is one in and one out with additional arrivals stacked in the hold at HLE. While holding, they are talking to Salt Lake Center. Mike MU-2 wrote in message ... Opinions please: Hailey Idaho, KSUN, daytime, ndb dme approach (circling only minima), map is 5.3 nm back from threshhold, minima are 8000 ft (2681) and 5 miles, with "fly visual to airport" annotation. 1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's, in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you cannot see the airport? 2. What would be the legality of deciding just prior to the map that you've just enough visibility and ceiling for vfr, though well below the 5 sm in the approach visibility minimums, and continuing vfr until the field is in site, and landing? Assume that frequency congestion did not allow you time to cancel ifr. Stan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's,
in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you cannot see the airport? You can fly (keep the dirty side down and navigate) visually without seeing the airport. Just to clarify myself, you do need to see some part of the airport to continue. It doesn't have to be the threshold. Jose -- Money: What you need when you run out of brains. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
This is the provision of TERPs being used:
"This subparagraph does not apply to a procedure where the MAP is more that 2 statute miles from the airport and the procedure is noted, 'Fly visual to airport' in which case the required visibility shall be at least 2 miles, but not less than the visibility specified in Table 6." Most of the time, the folks who design IAP have not used the "at least 2 miles" to mean "2 miles is good enough;" instead they make the visibility value in statute miles not less than the distance from the MAP to the runway threshold (straight-in) or nearest portion of a landing surface (circling only). Take KTVL as an example. Having said that, the instructions for the procedures specialist to fill out the 8260-3/5 states: "k. When the missed approach point is more than 2 SM from the airport, use: 'Chart planview and profile notes: Fly visual to airport, 220° - 2.5 miles.' " This seems to support using 2 miles, not 5 miles. This stuff is not black and white like we all would like it to be. Those who take the conservative approach feel that the required visual cues set forth in 91.175 still apply when this note is used; others do not. And, it's never been set forth in any policy statement. So, bottom line: as a pilot you are the person ultimately on the hook. The conservative bet would be see one of the 91.175-mandated visual references prior to passing the MAP. wrote: Opinions please: Hailey Idaho, KSUN, daytime, ndb dme approach (circling only minima), map is 5.3 nm back from threshhold, minima are 8000 ft (2681) and 5 miles, with "fly visual to airport" annotation. 1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's, in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you cannot see the airport? 2. What would be the legality of deciding just prior to the map that you've just enough visibility and ceiling for vfr, though well below the 5 sm in the approach visibility minimums, and continuing vfr until the field is in site, and landing? Assume that frequency congestion did not allow you time to cancel ifr. Stan |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I wonder if the scheduled airlines that come in to KSUN have private
approaches. But regardless, I am sure they have special "balked landing" procedures because if you are close, flying the charted missed doesn't always work. This is the kind of stuff that caused the crash of the jet at Aspen. I'm with Mike here. At any rate, I'd have to KNOW that I could make it to proceed. No maybes. And seeing the ground but not seeing the airport wouldn't be enough. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Doug wrote: I wonder if the scheduled airlines that come in to KSUN have private approaches. But regardless, I am sure they have special "balked landing" procedures because if you are close, flying the charted missed doesn't always work. This is the kind of stuff that caused the crash of the jet at Aspen. I'm with Mike here. At any rate, I'd have to KNOW that I could make it to proceed. No maybes. And seeing the ground but not seeing the airport wouldn't be enough. I've never heard of any specials for that airport. The terrain is pretty dicy close in |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The airlines go to Twin Falls when the weather is below minimiums. I don't
think that they have special minimiums like at Reno. Mike MU-2 "Doug" wrote in message oups.com... I wonder if the scheduled airlines that come in to KSUN have private approaches. But regardless, I am sure they have special "balked landing" procedures because if you are close, flying the charted missed doesn't always work. This is the kind of stuff that caused the crash of the jet at Aspen. I'm with Mike here. At any rate, I'd have to KNOW that I could make it to proceed. No maybes. And seeing the ground but not seeing the airport wouldn't be enough. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Jose" wrote in message =
. com... 1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the = FAR's, in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map = you cannot see the airport? =20 You can fly (keep the dirty side down and navigate) visually without = seeing the airport.=20 =20 Just to clarify myself, you do need to see some part of the airport to = continue. It doesn't have to be the threshold. =20 Jose --=20 It's been a couple of years since I've been to KSUN, but from my = recollection, if you don't see the threshold, you won't see anything else of that = airport, either. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mike, Tim's post implies you don't have to go missed at the map if you
don't have the airport in site. The far's say to follow the approach plate, which says to fly visual. Of course, the approach requires 5 sm visibility, so you need to have that too. Stan On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:56:43 GMT, "Mike Rapoport" wrote: Interesting question, but the MAP is the MAP and if you do not have the airport in site then you must go missed. You could cancel IFR or request a contact approach but you can't just decide to "go vfr". You can't cancel unless you meet the VFR cloud requirements. You should be darn sure that you will be able to find the airport because maneuvering at KSUN in murky weather is hazardous. There is never much frequency congestion at KSUN when it is IFR. It is one in and one out with additional arrivals stacked in the hold at HLE. While holding, they are talking to Salt Lake Center. Mike MU-2 wrote in message .. . Opinions please: Hailey Idaho, KSUN, daytime, ndb dme approach (circling only minima), map is 5.3 nm back from threshhold, minima are 8000 ft (2681) and 5 miles, with "fly visual to airport" annotation. 1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's, in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you cannot see the airport? 2. What would be the legality of deciding just prior to the map that you've just enough visibility and ceiling for vfr, though well below the 5 sm in the approach visibility minimums, and continuing vfr until the field is in site, and landing? Assume that frequency congestion did not allow you time to cancel ifr. Stan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|