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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Newps" wrote in message news7Ddc.110245$JO3.77994@attbi_s04... While the 1000/3 applies because you have to have VFR to get a visual the ceiling needs to be higher than that because there are no MVA's that are even as low as 1000 feet. So practically speaking the ceiling needs to be higher than the MVA for that area. An aircraft can sight the field through a broken layer and be cleared for a visual approach. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I have heard rumors for years that the feds were going to eliminate MSAs
because pilots persist in trying to make them part of IFR procedures. Hasn't happened yet, and the misunderstanding is still around. Bob Gardner "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message ... A while back, I was with an experienced pilot, IMC, descending to land at my home airport. The airport is not in an environment where ATC will give vectors to final. As we approached, ATC asked which approach we wanted. He said that he was "going for the visual." The ceilings were right at the Minimum Safe altitude (MSA)--3000. I think ATC said that we could descend to 3000 and report airport in sight. Is this request of "going for the visual" usual? Is it the norm if ceilings are above MSA? -Sami N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In article 7vDdc.810$nK1.8649@attbi_s54,
Bob Gardner wrote: I have heard rumors for years that the feds were going to eliminate MSAs because pilots persist in trying to make them part of IFR procedures. Hasn't happened yet, and the misunderstanding is still around. I've never really looked at them. I lump them in with information like "200' unlit tower 2 miles from the airport". When it becomes a factor I'm in much bigger trouble than a bit of obstruction info is going to fix! -- Ben Jackson http://www.ben.com/ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Bob Gardner" wrote in
news:7vDdc.810$nK1.8649@attbi_s54: I have heard rumors for years that the feds were going to eliminate MSAs because pilots persist in trying to make them part of IFR procedures. Hasn't happened yet, and the misunderstanding is still around. Bob Gardner I like the MSA because it gives me an idea of what the terrain is like. We had this discussion before, but no one has given a good reason what exactly is wrong with the MSA. It gives you 1000' obstacle clearance, which is exactly what you need for IFR (except in mountainous areas). Someone pointed out that MSA is not an IFR procedure because the AIM says it is for emergency use only. Someone else said it was because MSA is not measured to the same precision as other altitudes. Fine, but if the FAA is going as far as eliminating it, there must be something more to this than that. Has there ever been an accident or violation as a result of a pilot using the MSA? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
No way of knowing. If there had been an accident, a contributing factor
would be "improper IFR" with no details. Bob Gardner "Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message . 158... "Bob Gardner" wrote in news:7vDdc.810$nK1.8649@attbi_s54: I have heard rumors for years that the feds were going to eliminate MSAs because pilots persist in trying to make them part of IFR procedures. Hasn't happened yet, and the misunderstanding is still around. Bob Gardner I like the MSA because it gives me an idea of what the terrain is like. We had this discussion before, but no one has given a good reason what exactly is wrong with the MSA. It gives you 1000' obstacle clearance, which is exactly what you need for IFR (except in mountainous areas). Someone pointed out that MSA is not an IFR procedure because the AIM says it is for emergency use only. Someone else said it was because MSA is not measured to the same precision as other altitudes. Fine, but if the FAA is going as far as eliminating it, there must be something more to this than that. Has there ever been an accident or violation as a result of a pilot using the MSA? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Alot of how it goes depends on the recent trends, are they getting in,
where are they cancelling, or are they cancelling after landing. If they arent breaking out until 1,000' below our MIA (Minimum IFR Altitude, similar to MVA, but not MSA), it's kind of pointless to bother with a Visual. If someone wants to try anyway, and if there's not a line of others behind them, I'll let them try. But if they get right up on the airport and then decide they want that ILS I suggested after all, it's the back of the line. Visuals are great, but make sure you can maintain visual with the airport. Chris "O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message ... 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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 11:33:20 -0700, Jim Weir wrote:
I don't know about the rest of ye all, but the real world out here is to be vectored as low as the controller can give you, get the airport in sight, and "cancelling IFR". That way the 1000 & 3 does not apply. Jim Yes, but you have to maintain VMC, whereas on a visual approach under IFR, that is not a requirement, so long as you maintain the field in sight. In other words, you don't have to maintain VFR cloud clearance requirements while enroute from your present position to the field. Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
Night over water | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 43 | March 4th 04 01:13 AM |
Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 45 | November 20th 03 05:20 AM |
Visual Appr. | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | September 17th 03 08:36 PM |