Charted Visual Flight Procedures

An airline pilot of my acquaintance related about accepting a charted
visual flight procedure into Reno, part of which involves intercepting
a localizer course. He said they were IMC at the time.

My understanding is that the aircraft must reporting seeing a landmark
or preceding aircraft before clearance for this charted visual flight
procedure will be given.

Any thoughts about whether my acquaintance acted properly?

Scott Draper wrote:

An airline pilot of my acquaintance related about accepting a charted
visual flight procedure into Reno, part of which involves intercepting
a localizer course. He said they were IMC at the time.

My understanding is that the aircraft must reporting seeing a landmark
or preceding aircraft before clearance for this charted visual flight
procedure will be given.

Any thoughts about whether my acquaintance acted properly?

ATC would love to make those CVFPs quasi-instrument approach procedures.
Nonetheless, they are a chart to help a pilot fly by reference to
landmarks and perhaps assisted by hav aids to visually navigate to the
landing runway.

If your aquaintance accepted a turn onto the localizer into a position
inconsistent with vectors-to-final for the ILS/LOC approach, he bought
into a practice that will further erode the system and is certainly not
"legal" (although what's legal with ATC moving traffic only comes to head
when there is either a documented loss of separation, a major incident, or
an accident.

On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:18:27 GMT, Scott Draper
wrote:

An airline pilot of my acquaintance related about accepting a charted
visual flight procedure into Reno, part of which involves intercepting
a localizer course. He said they were IMC at the time.

My understanding is that the aircraft must reporting seeing a landmark
or preceding aircraft before clearance for this charted visual flight
procedure will be given.

Any thoughts about whether my acquaintance acted properly?


Is a CVFP in Part 97?



Sec. 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(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.

================
Is a CVFP in Part 97?
================

Not that I can tell.

================
Sec. 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.
================

One potential loophole is " Unless otherwise authorized by the
Administrator", the same escape clause for vectors to final, visual
and contact approaches.

Another out is that as long as the aircraft maintains the 91.177
obstacle clearances, there is arguably no "letdown" in progress. ATC
can tell you to intercept a radial and give you a descent, but I infer
that isn't a "letdown" until descending below the 91.177 altitudes.

The above seems unlikely, given the terrain in the area.

============================
If your aquaintance accepted a turn onto the localizer into a position
inconsistent with vectors-to-final for the ILS/LOC approach,
============================

I'm not sure which visual he shot, but the one for 16L/R uses the ILS
for the 16R for course guidance. There is no ILS for 34L/R.

My acquaintance said that his FO exclaimed "Can we do that?" when
given the CVFP, so I would guess that there was not the slight
appearance of a vector to final for the ILS, if there was one for that
runway.

I called Reno approach and spoke with a controller. He agreed that
there are no circumstances in which the pilot should be in IMC on this
approach.

"Scott Draper" wrote in message
...

An airline pilot of my acquaintance related about accepting a charted
visual flight procedure into Reno, part of which involves intercepting
a localizer course. He said they were IMC at the time.

My understanding is that the aircraft must reporting seeing a landmark
or preceding aircraft before clearance for this charted visual flight
procedure will be given.

Any thoughts about whether my acquaintance acted properly?


That would require knowing how your acquaintance had acted. Was he issued
the clearance without reporting a charted landmark in sight? You say he was
in IMC at the time the clearance was issued, but that doesn't necessarily
preclude the sighting of a landmark.



FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 7. Visual

Section 4. Approaches

7-4-5. CHARTED VISUAL FLIGHT PROCEDURES (CVFP). USA/USN NOT APPLICABLE

Clear an aircraft for a CVFP only when the following conditions are met:

a. There is an operating control tower.

b. The published name of the CVFP and the landing runway are specified in
the approach clearance, the reported ceiling at the airport of intended
landing is at least 500 feet above the MVA/MIA, and the visibility is 3
miles or more, unless higher minimums are published for the particular CVFP.

c. When using parallel or intersecting/converging runways, the criteria
specified in para 7-4-4, Approaches to Multiple Runways, are applied.

d. An aircraft not following another aircraft on the approach reports
sighting a charted visual landmark, or reports sighting a preceding aircraft
landing on the same runway and has been instructed to follow that aircraft.

PHRASEOLOGY-
(Ident) CLEARED (name of CVFP) APPROACH.

"Scott Draper" wrote in message
...

I called Reno approach and spoke with a controller. He agreed that
there are no circumstances in which the pilot should be in IMC on this
approach.


How about clouds?

wrote:

On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:18:27 GMT, Scott Draper
wrote:

An airline pilot of my acquaintance related about accepting a charted
visual flight procedure into Reno, part of which involves intercepting
a localizer course. He said they were IMC at the time.

My understanding is that the aircraft must reporting seeing a landmark
or preceding aircraft before clearance for this charted visual flight
procedure will be given.

Any thoughts about whether my acquaintance acted properly?

Is a CVFP in Part 97?

No. They are neither issued under Part 97 nor are they designed by the
folks who design instrument procedures. They are an air traffic device.



Sec. 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(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.

===================
How about clouds?
===================

Don't you think that the normal requirement of "clear of clouds",
which applies to a normal visual approach would also apply to a
"charted" visual approach?

"Scott Draper" wrote in message
...
===================
How about clouds?
===================

Don't you think that the normal requirement of "clear of clouds",
which applies to a normal visual approach would also apply to a
"charted" visual approach?


Yes I do, but one can be "clear of clouds" and still be in IMC in controlled
airspace.