IAP through class G

"Gary Drescher" wrote:
it does seem to me that the safety of being in controlled
airspace during the approach until below the MDA would outweigh the
usefulness of being able to fly VFR under a 700' ceiling (especially at HIE,
surrounded by hills and mountains).

To the IFR pilot, I'm sure having protection from those annoying VFR
types seems more important. But, the VFR guy who wants to practice
touch-and-goes from a 500 AGL pattern (or maybe even makes a living
crop-dusting, or doing pipeline patrol, or flying a med-evac chopper)
might feel differently.

It all depends upon your point of view, I guess. Nobody's forcing you
to fly into that airport in weather conditions you feel are unsafe.
Nobody's forcing you to use the MDA that's published on the chart.
Break off the approach at 700 AGL if you don't see the ground by then.
Sure, you give up a bit of operational flexibility, but you gain safety.
The choice is yours.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message news:roy-
To the IFR pilot, I'm sure having protection from those annoying VFR
types seems more important.

Well, I'm a VFR type most of the time. But yes, I see your point.

--Gary

But, the VFR guy who wants to practice
touch-and-goes from a 500 AGL pattern (or maybe even makes a living
crop-dusting, or doing pipeline patrol, or flying a med-evac chopper)
might feel differently.

It all depends upon your point of view, I guess. Nobody's forcing you
to fly into that airport in weather conditions you feel are unsafe.
Nobody's forcing you to use the MDA that's published on the chart.
Break off the approach at 700 AGL if you don't see the ground by then.
Sure, you give up a bit of operational flexibility, but you gain safety.
The choice is yours.

"Barry" wrote in message ...
Pilots should be aware that HIE is not at all unusual in this regard -
it's
very common to have an MDA below 700 AGL with no surface Class E.

Yup. I think this would be useful to mention in the instrument-flying
curriculum. I don't recall my CFII ever bringing it up, nor seeing it in the
FAA's Instrument Flying Handbook or Jepp's Instrument/Commercial Manual. Of
course, it's deducible from a combination of approach plates, sectional
charts, and basic piloting knowledge--but it seems important enough and
unobvious enough to warrant an explicit warning.

On the other hand, I don't recall reading of any collisions due to MDAs
below Class E, so perhaps it's not much of a problem.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:xzISc.134889$eM2.67516@attbi_s51...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Controlled airspace at the surface requires surface weather observations
and
radio communications capability with ATC down to the runway surface.

HIE has both ASOS and a clearance deliveray frequency. I guess they just
want to be able to do pattern work or scud-running under a 700' ceiling.


Apparently establishing a Class E surface area has not been deemed to be in
the public interest.

It's in my book, Gary. .

Bob Gardner

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:VFLSc.135572$eM2.22431@attbi_s51...
"Barry" wrote in message
...
Pilots should be aware that HIE is not at all unusual in this regard -
it's
very common to have an MDA below 700 AGL with no surface Class E.

Yup. I think this would be useful to mention in the instrument-flying
curriculum. I don't recall my CFII ever bringing it up, nor seeing it in
the
FAA's Instrument Flying Handbook or Jepp's Instrument/Commercial Manual.
Of
course, it's deducible from a combination of approach plates, sectional
charts, and basic piloting knowledge--but it seems important enough and
unobvious enough to warrant an explicit warning.

On the other hand, I don't recall reading of any collisions due to MDAs
below Class E, so perhaps it's not much of a problem.

--Gary

"Bob Gardner" wrote in message
...
It's in my book, Gary. .

Cool.

--Gary

Bob Gardner

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
news:VFLSc.135572$eM2.22431@attbi_s51...
"Barry" wrote in message
...
Pilots should be aware that HIE is not at all unusual in this regard -
it's
very common to have an MDA below 700 AGL with no surface Class E.

Yup. I think this would be useful to mention in the instrument-flying
curriculum. I don't recall my CFII ever bringing it up, nor seeing it in
the
FAA's Instrument Flying Handbook or Jepp's Instrument/Commercial Manual.
Of
course, it's deducible from a combination of approach plates, sectional
charts, and basic piloting knowledge--but it seems important enough and
unobvious enough to warrant an explicit warning.

On the other hand, I don't recall reading of any collisions due to MDAs
below Class E, so perhaps it's not much of a problem.

--Gary

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:44:02 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
wrote:

Thanks, perhaps I'll ask them. So far all of my IMC approaches have been to
Class B, C, or D airports, so I haven't been very concerned about this
issue. But it does seem to me that the safety of being in controlled
airspace during the approach until below the MDA would outweigh the
usefulness of being able to fly VFR under a 700' ceiling (especially at HIE,
surrounded by hills and mountains).

The majority of my instrument approaches during the past three or four
years have been to airports with MDA's in uncontrolled airspace.

As a matter of fact, yesterday I setting up for an approach into my home
base, with weather in this area no better than 900/2, and there was VFR
flight going on near an airport about twenty miles from my home base. It
happened to be a SAR mission at 500'.


--ron

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message news:VFLSc.135572$eM2.22431@attbi_s51...

On the other hand, I don't recall reading of any collisions due to MDAs
below Class E, so perhaps it's not much of a problem.

My CFII did bring the topic up once. I asked how he dealt with it. He
basically said, forget about it, there's three dozen things that
actually stand a chance of killing you, and this ain't on the list.

-cwk.

(C Kingsbury) wrote
On the other hand, I don't recall reading of any collisions due to MDAs
below Class E, so perhaps it's not much of a problem.

My CFII did bring the topic up once. I asked how he dealt with it. He
basically said, forget about it, there's three dozen things that
actually stand a chance of killing you, and this ain't on the list.

Yes - that was true as long as private IFR was a rare thing. Of
course by that logic, we don't really need to worry about collision in
IMC even without flight plans - and indeed that's about how it is in
the UK, and sure enough there haven't been any.

Now that we're encouraging everybody and his brother to get an
instrument rating and scud running has become a dirty word, this may
all change. I certainly warn my instrument students about the risk.

Michael

(Michael) wrote in message . com...
(C Kingsbury) wrote
On the other hand, I don't recall reading of any collisions due to MDAs
below Class E, so perhaps it's not much of a problem.

My CFII did bring the topic up once. I asked how he dealt with it. He
basically said, forget about it, there's three dozen things that
actually stand a chance of killing you, and this ain't on the list.

Yes - that was true as long as private IFR was a rare thing. Of
course by that logic, we don't really need to worry about collision in
IMC even without flight plans - and indeed that's about how it is in
the UK, and sure enough there haven't been any.

Now that we're encouraging everybody and his brother to get an
instrument rating and scud running has become a dirty word, this may
all change. I certainly warn my instrument students about the risk.

I think there's probably a very substantial geographic aspect to this
also.

My training and flying are all in the Northeast centered around
Boston, where local practices make this situation perhaps more
hypothetical than in other parts of the country. You just don't have
that many people flying 700', 500' patterns at fields with ILSs, and
odds are if you're trying to get somewhere and it's real soupy you'll
pick a field with an ILS, they're common enough out here that there's
usually one not too far away. And a lot of the time that'll be Class D
or C.

For that matter, GPS Direct sounds like a nice idea too, but out here
you fly airways if you're trying to get somewhere. Would be nice to
get a GX-50 so I could pitch that coffee grinder ADF contraption once
and for all, though.

The thing I find surprising is how many students take their tests with
10 hours of actual. I've got about 22 or so (out of 50ish hours
working on the ticket) and that's almost enough to make me comfortable
with the idea of "gentleman's IFR" where you've got maybe 1000-1500'
overcast and are on top at 2500-3000', which does actually describe
what we get a lot of the year. But I know when I do pass I will not be
going out on low days without you-know-who next to me. Maybe I'm just
lucky to have a CFII who enjoys working with students on low actual
days...

Best,
-cwk.