MDA on a visual approach
Lemmen
The weather was 2000 overcast and the field elevation was 825'. I was
going GPS direct at 4000. About 15 miles out I asked for lower so that I
could do a visual approach. I was cleared down to 2700 and I broke out of
the overcast and landed visualy. My question is how low could I have gone
if the clouds would have be lower or how low of a ceiling can there be and
still land visually?
Chad Lemmen
lem...@aol.com
Marc Saegesser
Visual approaches don't have an MDA. To fly into an airport
without an instrument approach you must be able to descend to the
airport in VFR conditions from the minimum IFR altitude. That
altitude is specified in 91.177. To paraphrase: on an airway the
minimum altitude is the MEA. If a MOCA is specified you can descend
to that altitude when you are withing 22nm of the VOR. If you are
receiving RADAR vectors the minimum altitude is the MVA, which you
probably don't know, but he controller does. If you are flying off a
published IFR route the minimum alitude is 1000' above the highest
obstacle within 4nm of the course to be flown. In mountainous areas
the altitude increases to 2000' above the highest obstacle withing
4nm.
Since you were GPS direct you weren't on an airway so there was no MEA or
MOCA. If you were getting vectored you could ask the controller how low
he can take you down. Otherwise the MEF on a sectional chart is a good place
to find an altitude that is 1000' feet above the terain.
--
Marc Saegesser
m...@genesis.mcs.com
Alex Schwassmann
lem...@aol.com (Lemmen) wrote in article
<316m5d$6...@search01.news.aol.com> concerning "MDA on a visual approach":
Le> Last week I flew into an airport that didn't have an instrument approach.
Le> The weather was 2000 overcast and the field elevation was 825'. I was
Le> going GPS direct at 4000. About 15 miles out I asked for lower so that I
Le> could do a visual approach. I was cleared down to 2700 and I broke out of
Le> the overcast and landed visualy. My question is how low could I have gone
Le> if the clouds would have be lower or how low of a ceiling can there be and
Le> still land visually?
I'm not entirely sure I understand your situation. You were IFR
flying to a VFR airport, so you would have had to cancel IFR
anyway to land. A "visual approach" is still technically an IFR
approach (with the pilot maintaining own separation to obstacles
and other aircraft), so a visual appraoch into a VFR aerodrome is
simply not possible.
You ask how low you could have gone if the clouds had been lower.
Not any lower at all, as this is subject to a clearance by ATC.
The controller determines the lowest usable IFR altitude for you.
On airways, its the MEA (minimum enroute altitude), off airways
it's the M(R)VA (minimum radar vectoring altitude) which is
displayed on the controllers' radar screen. Both minimum altitude
are established using the legal requirements for obstacle
clearance under IFR (which vary from country to country).
Bottom line: as long as you're IFR, stick to what the controller
assigns to you (being a sensible person, s/he will usually assign the
lowest possible IFR altitude as soon as traffic permits). Once
you've cancelled IFR (or fly a visual approach at an IFR equipped
airport), you can fly any altitude you wish as long as you comply
with mimimum safe height requirements for VFR flights (one could
argue that you are not required to do so since they may be
disregarded for takeoff and landing purposes).
... Alex
Alexander Schwaszmann // EMail: ALEX_SCH...@aworld.aworld.de
my personal opinions ... \X/ ATC Germany - EDDL APP/TWR
Ron Natalie
flying to a VFR airport, so you would have had to cancel IFR
anyway to land. A "visual approach" is still technically an IFR
approach (with the pilot maintaining own separation to obstacles
and other aircraft), so a visual appraoch into a VFR aerodrome is
simply not possible.
Maybe not in Germany, but it's done all the time in the US. You don't
have to cancel IFR to land even on CAVU days (though it's sometimes a
good idea).
-Ron
Dave Allen
: Hi folks,
: I'm not entirely sure I understand your situation. You were IFR
: flying to a VFR airport, so you would have had to cancel IFR
: anyway to land. A "visual approach" is still technically an IFR
: approach (with the pilot maintaining own separation to obstacles
: and other aircraft), so a visual appraoch into a VFR aerodrome is
: simply not possible.
Actually, over here it is. Visual approaches are given to IFR flights landing
at non-instrument-approach airports, and one need not cancel until on the
ground. And one can file IFR to a "VFR" airport if one gives an alternate
(regardless of the weather).
Otherwise, yes. If you're receiving radar vectors, the min altitude is the
MVA, which the radar folks will clear you to. If you don't break out into VFR
conditions for the visual, then you're off to your alternate with an instrument
approach. Happens to me fairly often, as home field has no approaches, but
COS nearby has ILS. Remember, no contact approaches (ie 1mi vis, clear of
clouds, airport not in sight) to airports without instrument approaches.
Only visual approaches (ie VFR viz and cloud separation at the time and
place where the clearance is requested/accepted and airport in sight).
A good review of visual vs contact approaches in IFR Refresher (Aug?), except
they said airport had to be in sight for contact. I don't think so.
dave allen - Fly because you love it.
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
The concept of a visual approach is different according to the FAA and
ICAO.
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: l...@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN Fax: +46 8 751 72 30
Eric G. Schmenk
> [snip] so a visual appraoch into a VFR aerodrome is
> simply not possible.
>
>Maybe not in Germany, but it's done all the time in the US. You don't
>have to cancel IFR to land even on CAVU days (though it's sometimes a
>good idea).
I wonder if you two are getting caught up in a difference of terminology.
In the U.S., one says an airport is "VFR" if it has VMC conditions, and
IFR if it is below IFR minimums. In Germany, perhaps a "VFR airodome" is
an airport without IFR approaches, so an IFR approach would therefore not
be allowed. Would someone familiar with Germany verify this?
BTW, I *think* I remember that you can't fly a visual approach to an
airport without a published approach procedure, but I am not sure.
One more thing to review!
Eric.
PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)
!Hi folks,
!
!lem...@aol.com (Lemmen) wrote in article
!<316m5d$6...@search01.news.aol.com! concerning "MDA on a visual approach":
!
!Le! Last week I flew into an airport that didn't have an instrument approach.
!Le! The weather was 2000 overcast and the field elevation was 825'. I was
!Le! going GPS direct at 4000. About 15 miles out I asked for lower so that I
!Le! could do a visual approach. I was cleared down to 2700 and I broke out of
!Le! the overcast and landed visualy. My question is how low could I have gone
!Le! if the clouds would have be lower or how low of a ceiling can there be and
!Le! still land visually?
!
!I'm not entirely sure I understand your situation. You were IFR
!flying to a VFR airport, so you would have had to cancel IFR
!anyway to land. A "visual approach" is still technically an IFR
!approach (with the pilot maintaining own separation to obstacles
!and other aircraft), so a visual appraoch into a VFR aerodrome is
!simply not possible.
Interesting. I file IFR to an airport without an approach all the
time and the system is happy to accept it. When approaching the
airport the controller asks if I am familiar with cancellation
procedures -- cancel in the air or call us on the ground at
telephone number. I then get told to expect a visual approach
to the airport, no traffic or weather information available.
Seems I am doing something that is `impossible'.
Oh well, `If it is stupid and works, it ain't stupid'.
Dave Rogers
William LeFebvre
Alex Schwassmann <ALEX_SCH...@AWORLD.aworld.de> wrote:
>I'm not entirely sure I understand your situation. You were IFR
>flying to a VFR airport, so you would have had to cancel IFR
>anyway to land. A "visual approach" is still technically an IFR
>approach (with the pilot maintaining own separation to obstacles
>and other aircraft), so a visual appraoch into a VFR aerodrome is
>simply not possible.
Maybe not in Germany, but it is perfectly legal in the US. You are
allowed to file and fly IFR all the way to an airport which has no
approach provided that you can descend from the MVA or the MEA of a
nearby airway to the airport in VFR conditions. I.e.: a visual
approach. But if you're still in the clouds at MEA or MVA, or
technically if you are less tha 500 feeet below the clouds, then
you cannot accept a visual approach to the airport. And since
the airport has no instrument approach, you must proceed elsewhere.
William LeFebvre
Decision and Information Sciences
Argonne National Laboratory
lefe...@dis.anl.gov
Ron Natalie
time and the system is happy to accept it.
Yep, the US FAR's are ripe with special cases for destination (and
alternate even) airports without instrument approach procedures.
-Ron
Rick Hulse
>If I understand it correctly, a "visual approach" can only be authorized at
>an airport with a published IAP. Since the original poster said that the
>destination had none (if I remember right), then Alex is right in that the
>pilot had to be in VFR conditions at the MIA and cancel IFR to proceed
>lower.
That's the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard. If you had any
intelligence at all, you would know that it's a contact approach that
can not be authorized unless there is a published IAP. A visual approach
has no such limitation. SHEEESH! Get some remedial training. You
obviously don't remember a thing you've ever been taught.
By the way, the part about needing to be VFR and that legally the visual
approach described in the scenario could not have been used was perfectly
accurate and beautifully written, IMHO.
(Figured I'd cash in on flaming this post before anyone else had all
the fun :-) ).
Rick
Rick Hulse
If I understand it correctly, a "visual approach" can only be authorized at
an airport with a published IAP. Since the original poster said that the
destination had none (if I remember right), then Alex is right in that the
pilot had to be in VFR conditions at the MIA and cancel IFR to proceed
lower.
Something that hasn't been mentioned yet (or maybe it has and I just don't
remember) is that the scenario given did not allow the pilot to cancel IFR
since minimum cloud separation was not obtainable at the MIA. Airport
elevation: 825; ceiling: 2000; last IFR altitude (don't know if this is
the MIA): 2700. Since the ceiling would be 2825 MSL (825+2000) then assuming
other than class G airspace, the MIA would have to be at most 2325 in order
to stay 500' below the ceiling. If 2700 was the MIA, then this pilot was
*legally* out of luck. If not, he should have requested lower before proceeding
VFR.
Rick
Harlo Peterson
In article <325tif$k...@hacgate2.hac.com>, rh...@atc-1s.hac.com (Rick Hulse) writes...
>Something that hasn't been mentioned yet (or maybe it has and I just don't
>remember) is that the scenario given did not allow the pilot to cancel IFR
>since minimum cloud separation was not obtainable at the MIA. Airport
>elevation: 825; ceiling: 2000; last IFR altitude (don't know if this is
>the MIA): 2700. Since the ceiling would be 2825 MSL (825+2000) then assuming
>other than class G airspace, the MIA would have to be at most 2325 in order
>to stay 500' below the ceiling. If 2700 was the MIA, then this pilot was
>*legally* out of luck. If not, he should have requested lower before proceeding
>VFR.
The solution to this is special VFR - 1 mile vis and clear of the clouds
while in controlled airspace - transitioning to normal vfr when below
controlled airspace - also 1 mile vis and clear of the clouds.
The reason for the cloud clearance requirements for normal VFR in controlled
airpace is to keep you from hitting IFR traffic. This is not a concern if
you are are IFR or special VFR as the controller is responsible for
separation from IFR traffic.
A visual approach from MIA while IFR is effectively the same as you would
get if you requested a special VFR clearance to get to the airport from the
same point. I treat them the synonomous and don't worry about the normal
VFR cloud clearance requirements as their purpose is served in other ways,
--
Harlo Peterson Digital Equipment Corporation
harlo.p...@cxo.mts.dec.com 305 Rockrimmon Blvd South (CXO3-1/E9)
719-592-5124 Colorado Springs, CO 80919-2398
Ron Natalie
while in controlled airspace - transitioning to normal vfr when below
controlled airspace - also 1 mile vis and clear of the clouds.
Eh? Below what controlled airspace? Special VFR is only available in
areas where the controlled airspace goes all the way to the ground.
Special VFR would certainly work at MIA because it's certainly Class
D (or at worst class E to the ground).
-Ron
Phil Kellman
!lem...@aol.com (Lemmen) wrote in article
!<316m5d$6...@search01.news.aol.com! concerning "MDA on a visual approach":
!
!Le! Last week I flew into an airport that didn't have an instrument
approach.
!Le! The weather was 2000 overcast and the field elevation was 825'. I was
!Le! going GPS direct at 4000. About 15 miles out I asked for lower so
that I
!Le! could do a visual approach. I was cleared down to 2700 and I broke
out of
!Le! the overcast and landed visualy. My question is how low could I have
gone
!Le! if the clouds would have be lower or how low of a ceiling can there be
and
!Le! still land visually?
In article <325tif$k...@hacgate2.hac.com>, rh...@atc-1s.hac.com (Rick Hulse)
wrote:
> In article 325mne...@topaz.sensor.com, r...@topaz.sensor.com (Ron Natalie) writes:
> > I'm not entirely sure I understand your situation. You were IFR
> > flying to a VFR airport, so you would have had to cancel IFR
> > anyway to land. A "visual approach" is still technically an IFR
> > approach (with the pilot maintaining own separation to obstacles
> > and other aircraft), so a visual appraoch into a VFR aerodrome is
> > simply not possible.
> >
...
>
> Something that hasn't been mentioned yet (or maybe it has and I just don't
> remember) is that the scenario given did not allow the pilot to cancel IFR
> since minimum cloud separation was not obtainable at the MIA. Airport
> elevation: 825; ceiling: 2000; last IFR altitude (don't know if this is
> the MIA): 2700. Since the ceiling would be 2825 MSL (825+2000) then assuming
> other than class G airspace, the MIA would have to be at most 2325 in order
> to stay 500' below the ceiling. If 2700 was the MIA, then this pilot was
> *legally* out of luck. If not, he should have requested lower before proceeding
> VFR.
>
After 9 entries on this topic, only a fool would jump in here, especially
without reviewing the FARs. So here goes. First, as already pointed out,
when cleared for the visual approach under IFR, you are still IFR. Memory,
and implications of what others have said, tells me that a visual approach
is authorized only when conditions at the airport are VFR. Here's the
confusion (I think): The requirement that the field be VFR does not
translate into the requirement that YOU be VFR (in terms of cloud
clearances). The pilot did nothing wrong in accepting a visual approach
under IFR without having VFR cloud clearances. Of course, you cannot cancel
IFR if you do not have VFR cloud clearances.
Back to the original question: How low could the pilot go on the visual to
get out of the clouds? Answer: Not below the altitude given in the
clearance (2700 feet in this example). Lowest possible altitude to go down
and hunt for the airport would be the lowest the controller could give you
(probably minimum vectoring altitude). But there is no issue of how low
you can go on a visual approach to get out of the clouds and look for the
airport. In my experience (translation: I haven't double-checked the
FARs), you cannot be cleared for the visual approach until you report the
airport in sight. And you can't leave your last assigned altitude until
you've been cleared for the approach. Assuming this is true, that's why
there is no MDA on a visual approach.
--
Phil Kellman ||
Kel...@cognet.ucla.edu || [
<N759NA=>
|| [
||
Harlo Peterson
I did some checking using my Summit Aviation CD. (great product)
I could find no reference to visual or contact approaches in FAR 91.*. The
only relevant regulations I found were:
|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.
|
| [rest of 91.175 deleted]
|
|91.177 Minimum altitudes for IFR operations.
|(a) Operation of aircraft at minimum altitudes.
| Except when necessary for takeoff or landing,
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| no person may operate an aircraft under IFR below -
| (1) The applicable minimum altitudes prescribed in Parts 95 and 97 of
| this chapter; or
| (2) If no applicable minimum altitude is prescribed in those parts -
| (i) In the case of operations over an area designated as a mountainous
| area in part 95, an altitude of 2,000 feet above the highest
| obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from
| the course to be flown; or
| (ii) In any other case, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest
| obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from
| the course to be flown.
|
| However, if both a MEA and a MOCA are prescribed for a particular route or
| route segment, a person may operate an aircraft below the MEA down to, but
| not below, the MOCA, when within 22 nautical miles of the VOR concerned
| (based on the pilot's reasonable estimate of that distance).
|
| [91.177(b) deleted]
Part 95 describes airways; part 97 describes standard instrument approach
procedures.
I take the above to authorize a descent from the minimum instrument
altitudes described in parts 95, 97 or 91.177(a)(2) when required to land
the aircraft. For a visual approach, part 97 does not apply so the aircraft
can't descend from the MIA until it is necessary for landing. The aircraft
remains under IFR (91.177 is an IFR) until landing so VFR cloud clearance
requirements are irrelevant All instrument approaches require the runway
to be visible at some point on the approach - the visual approach requires
it to be visible without requiring an instrument letdown.
The airmans information manual section 5-57 goes into a lot more detail on
the visual approach. In summary it says that
- a visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes a
pilot to proceed visually to the airport
- the pilot must have either the airport or the preceding identified aircraft
in sight
- reported weather must be 1000 and 3 or, if no reported weather, reasonable
assurance 1000 and 3 exist - pilot reports can be used for this. If the
pilot is at the normal IFR altitude >=1000' AGL and sees the airport >=3
miles away, then pilot can report better than 1000 and 3 at the airport
- compliance with FAR 91.155 (basic VFR weather minimums) is not required
- a visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach
segment
- authorization to conduct a visual approach is an IFR authorization and
does not alter IFR flight plan cancellation responsibility
- visual approaches can be made to airports without weather observers,
without a tower and/or without IAPs.
To answer the original question: the MDA for a visual approach is the
minimum instrument altitude as defined in 91.177. Descent cannot occur, as
is true in all MDAs, until necessary for landing.
Julian Scarfe
l...@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) wrote:
>
> The concept of a visual approach is different according to the FAA and
> ICAO.
> --
Could you summarize the ICAO concept for us? (Still haven't got hold of
PANS-OPS!).
Thanks
Julian Scarfe
ja...@cus.cam.ac.uk
Chris Floyd
(Harlo Peterson) writes concerning requirements for a visual approach:
[stuff deleted]
>The aircraft
>remains under IFR (91.177 is an IFR) until landing so VFR cloud clearance
>requirements are irrelevant.
[more stuff deleted]
>The airmans information manual section 5-57 goes into a lot more detail on
>the visual approach. In summary it says that
[several items deleted]
>- compliance with FAR 91.155 (basic VFR weather minimums) is not required
[rest of items and more stuff deleted]
Harlo's post gave a nice summary, but I think is incorrect in saying that
there is no requirement to BE in legal VFR conditions to accept a visual
approach. The following (1994) AIM excerpts say otherwise:
From 5-58c:
"Pilot acceptance of a visual approach clearance or a pilot's request for a
visual approach will indicate to ATC that the pilot can comply with FAR 91.
155." I take that to mean immediately upon acceptance of the clearance, not
after a grace period allowing the pilot to descend to legal clearance below
the cloud base.
From 5-81a "Pilot--":
"3. After being cleared for a visual approach, proceeds ..., remaining in
VFR at all times."
and
"5. Advise ATC immediately if you ... encounter less than basic VFR weather
conditions."
From 5-81b "Controller--":
"3. Does not clear an aircraft for a visual approach unless the aircraft is
and can remain in VFR conditions."
Harlo's post seemed so complete and and mostly so correct that I was
surprised to find that he had contradicted the AIM on this one crucial
point. Harlo, do see a way of interpreting the above excerpts as consistent
with your original position denying a requirement to be in legal basic VFR
conditions to accept a visual approach?
Chris Floyd
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
In article <LHE.94Au...@anhur.sics.se>,
l...@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson) wrote:
>
> The concept of a visual approach is different according to the FAA and
> ICAO.
> --
Could you summarize the ICAO concept for us? (Still haven't got hold of
PANS-OPS!).
It's not in PANS-OPS. I would guess it is in PANS-RAC, which I don't
have. Anyway, the Jeppesen chart glossary (p. 34) sums it up:
"VISUAL APPROACH (ICAO) - An approach by an IFR flight when either part
or all of an instrument approach procedure is not completed and the
approach is executed in visual reference to terrain."
Although it is not spelled out, the major differences compared to a
FAA visual approach is that:
- VMC is not needed. E.g. Sweden permits visual approaches down to 800 m
visibility.
- IFR separation is provided by ATC, unless an aircraft has reported the
preceding aircraft in sight and has accepted own separation.
Julian Scarfe
wrote:
>
> Harlo's post gave a nice summary, but I think is incorrect in saying that
> there is no requirement to BE in legal VFR conditions to accept a visual
> approach. The following (1994) AIM excerpts say otherwise:
>
> From 5-58c:
> "Pilot acceptance of a visual approach clearance or a pilot's request for a
> visual approach will indicate to ATC that the pilot can comply with FAR 91.
> 155." I take that to mean immediately upon acceptance of the clearance, not
> after a grace period allowing the pilot to descend to legal clearance below
> the cloud base.
I try to avoid wading into an argument about the FARs because they've
never concerned me much; but it strikes me that the requirement to be 500
below a layer of cloud when accepting a visual approach is impractical.
There are only three basic reasons for staying in visual conditions at any time:
1) To avoid exceeding the capabilities of the pilot (no problem here --
the pilot's instrument rated anyway).
2) To avoid hitting other aircraft (again no problem as the aircraft
conducting the approach remains under IFR and is separated from other IFR
flights)
3) To avoid flight into terrain or obstructions (so, fair enough to ask
for a minimum visibility to be maintained, but how many mountains have you
seen hiding in a layer 300 feet *above* you ;-)
The 500 feet below limit is a good idea from the point of view of (2) and
maybe (1) as well. Seems odd that you could accept such a visual approach
from 200 feet below the layer in class B, but not in C,D,E.
[I'm not commenting on whether it's legal or not, only on whether the law
makes sense]
Julian Scarfe
ja...@cus.cam.ac.uk
Harlo Peterson
>In article <32f6eo$o...@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> pete...@specxn.enet.dec.com
>(Harlo Peterson) writes concerning requirements for a visual approach:
>Harlo's post gave a nice summary, but I think is incorrect in saying that
>there is no requirement to BE in legal VFR conditions to accept a visual
>approach. The following (1994) AIM excerpts say otherwise:
You don't have the latest AIM - Major changes to the sections you quote
below occurred on April 28, 1994.
>From 5-58c:
>"Pilot acceptance of a visual approach clearance or a pilot's request for a
>visual approach will indicate to ATC that the pilot can comply with FAR 91.
>155." I take that to mean immediately upon acceptance of the clearance, not
>after a grace period allowing the pilot to descend to legal clearance below
>the cloud base.
>
>From 5-81a "Pilot--":
>"3. After being cleared for a visual approach, proceeds ..., remaining in
>VFR at all times."
>and
>"5. Advise ATC immediately if you ... encounter less than basic VFR weather
>conditions."
>
>From 5-81b "Controller--":
>"3. Does not clear an aircraft for a visual approach unless the aircraft is
>and can remain in VFR conditions."
>
>Harlo's post seemed so complete and and mostly so correct that I was
>surprised to find that he had contradicted the AIM on this one crucial
>point. Harlo, do see a way of interpreting the above excerpts as consistent
>with your original position denying a requirement to be in legal basic VFR
>conditions to accept a visual approach?
On April 28, 1994 AIM sections 5.57, 5.80 (were .58 and .81) and other
related sections were rewritten to change the cloud clearance requirements
from basic VFR to clear ot the clouds. You are quoting from the previous
version. It specifically changed the requirement to conform to 91.155 to a
statement explicitely exempting compliance with 91.155. 91.155 is the VFR
cloud clearance requirements.
I included excerpts from the new AIM sections below for those people that
don't have an AIM subscription or the July 94 Summit Aviation CDROM.
5-57. VISUAL APPROACH
{New-94-4 Revised April 28, 1994}
a. A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes a
pilot to proceed visually to the airport. The pilot must have either the
airport or the preceding identified aircraft in sight. This approach must be
authorized and controlled by the appropriate air traffic control facility.
Reported weather at the airport must have a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and
visibility 3 miles or greater. ATC may authorize this type approach when it
will be operationally beneficial. Compliance with FAR 91.155 is not required.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
b. OPERATING TO AN AIRPORT WITHOUT WEATHER REPORTING SERVICE: ATC will
advise the pilot when weather is not available at the destination airport. ATC
may initiate a visual approach provided there is a reasonable assurance that
weather at the airport is a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3
miles or greater (for example, area weather reports, PIREPS, etc.).
e. A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach
segment. If a go-around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at
controlled airports will be issued an appropriate
advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft
are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as
possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft is expected to
remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
clearance. Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these
circumstances.
5-80. VISUAL APPROACH
{New-94-4 Revised April 28, 1994.}
3. The pilot must, at all times, have either the airport or the
preceding aircraft in sight. After being cleared for a visual
approach, proceed to the airport in a normal manner or follow the
preceding aircraft. Remain clear of clouds while conducting a visual
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
approach.
5. Advise ATC immediately if the pilot is unable to continue following
the preceding aircraft, cannot remain clear of clouds, or lose sight
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of the airport.
b. Controller -
{New-94-4 Revised 1994.}
1. Do not clear an aircraft for a visual approach unless reported
weather at the airport is ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and
visibility is 3 miles or greater. When weather is not available for
the destination airport, inform the pilot and do not initiate a
visual approach to that airport unless there is reasonable assurance
that descent and flight to the airport can be made in VFR conditions.
[this conflicts with above ------------------------------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^]
6. When weather is available for the destination airport, do not
initiate a vector for a visual approach unless the reported ceiling
at the airport is 500 feet or more above the MVA and visibility
3 miles or more. If vectoring weather minima are not available
but weather at the airport is ceiling at or above 1,000 feet
and visibility of 3 miles or greater, visual approaches may still
be conducted.
Phil Fernandez
>A visual approach from MIA while IFR is effectively the same as you would
>get if you requested a special VFR clearance to get to the airport from the
>same point. I treat them the synonomous and don't worry about the normal
>VFR cloud clearance requirements as their purpose is served in other ways,
I don't think so:
1) Special VFR is only available in the cylinder defined by the
surface area of the airport controlled airspace (e.g., Class D or E
surface area, extended upward). Visual approaches clearances are
frequently given well outside the airport controlled airspace surface
area, where Special VFR is, by definition, impossible. (Ref FAR
91.157).
2) Special VFR is only available with a specific ATC clearance. I
don't think you'll be able to find any reference to support your
assertion that "cleared for the visual approach" can be interpreted as
a special VFR clearance.
3) If we're tired of this "do it yourself" interpretatation, we can
just read the AIM for a clear answer on this: "Pilot acceptance of a
visual approach clearance or a pilot's request for a visual approach
will indicate to ATC that the pilot can comply with FAR 91.155". FAR
91.155 is the definition of *basic* VFR weather minimums.
pmf
--
pp-asmel-ia
mooney n5632j
Harlo Peterson
In article <1994Aug14.1...@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us>,
ph...@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez) writes...
>In article <32dljg$l...@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com>
> pete...@specxn.enet.dec.com (Harlo Peterson) writes:
>>A visual approach from MIA while IFR is effectively the same as you would
>>get if you requested a special VFR clearance to get to the airport from the
>>same point. I treat them the synonomous and don't worry about the normal
>>VFR cloud clearance requirements as their purpose is served in other ways,
>
>I don't think so:
>
>1) Special VFR is only available in the cylinder defined by the
>surface area of the airport controlled airspace (e.g., Class D or E
>surface area, extended upward). Visual approaches clearances are
>frequently given well outside the airport controlled airspace surface
>area, where Special VFR is, by definition, impossible. (Ref FAR
>91.157).
Correct
>2) Special VFR is only available with a specific ATC clearance. I
>don't think you'll be able to find any reference to support your
>assertion that "cleared for the visual approach" can be interpreted as
>a special VFR clearance.
AIM 5-57 and AIM Glossary: It is effectively the same - see below.
>
>3) If we're tired of this "do it yourself" interpretatation, we can
>just read the AIM for a clear answer on this: "Pilot acceptance of a
>visual approach clearance or a pilot's request for a visual approach
>will indicate to ATC that the pilot can comply with FAR 91.155". FAR
>91.155 is the definition of *basic* VFR weather minimums.
An even clearer answer is obtained if you read the current issue of the AIM,
not an old one.
5-57. VISUAL APPROACH
{New-94-4 Revised April 28, 1994}
a. A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes a
pilot to proceed visually to the airport. The pilot must have either the
airport or the preceding identified aircraft in sight. This approach must be
authorized and controlled by the appropriate air traffic control facility.
Reported weather at the airport must have a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and
visibility 3 miles or greater. ATC may authorize this type approach when it
will be operationally beneficial. Compliance with FAR 91.155 is not required.
******************************************
PILOT/CONTROLLER GLOSSARY
Visual Approach - {New-94-2 Revised April 28, 1994}
An approach conducted on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan which
authorizes the pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the
airport. The pilot must, at all times, have either the airport or the
preceding aircraft in sight. This approach must be authorized and under
the control of the appropriate air traffic control facility. Reported
weather at the airport must be ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and
visibility of 3 miles or greater.
(See [ICAO] Visual Approach)
{Beginning of old text revised April 28, 1994}
{ An approach wherein an aircraft on an IFR flight plan, operating in
{ VFR conditions under the control of an air traffic control facility
{ and having an air traffic control authorization, may proceed to the
{ airport of destination in VFR conditions. (See [ICAO] Visual Approach)
{End of old text}
Phil Fernandez
>|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.
>|
>can't descend from the MIA until it is necessary for landing. The aircraft
>remains under IFR (91.177 is an IFR) until landing so VFR cloud clearance
>requirements are irrelevant All instrument approaches require the runway
>to be visible at some point on the approach - the visual approach requires
>it to be visible without requiring an instrument letdown.
Well, if an instrument letdown is not *necessary*, then by definition
basic VFR weather minimums obtain, and therefore *I* conclude that
basic VFR is required for a visual approach.
This point might be argued for a visual approach to an airport with a
published IAP, but it is clear-cut for a visual approach to an airport
with no IAP. FAR 91.169(c)(2) states: "If no instrument approach
procedure has been published in part 97 of this chapter for that
airport, the the ceiling and visibility minimums are those allowing
descent from the MEA, approach, and landing under basic VFR." Stated
otherwise, "a visual approach to an airport with no IAP requires
basic VFR weather."
>The airmans information manual section 5-57 goes into a lot more detail on
>the visual approach. In summary it says that
>...
>- compliance with FAR 91.155 (basic VFR weather minimums) is not required
Could you please post an explicit citation for this statement? I
don't find this in the AIM; in fact, I find the exact opposite.
pmf
Harlo Peterson
In article <1994Aug17.0...@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us>,
ph...@xymox.palo-alto.ca.us (Phil Fernandez) writes...
>In article <32f6eo$o...@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> pete...@specxn.enet.dec.com
> (Harlo Peterson) writes:
>>|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.
>>|
>>...
>>can't descend from the MIA until it is necessary for landing. The aircraft
>>remains under IFR (91.177 is an IFR) until landing so VFR cloud clearance
>>requirements are irrelevant All instrument approaches require the runway
>>to be visible at some point on the approach - the visual approach requires
>>it to be visible without requiring an instrument letdown.
>
>Well, if an instrument letdown is not *necessary*, then by definition
>basic VFR weather minimums obtain, and therefore *I* conclude that
>basic VFR is required for a visual approach.
I interpreted "necessary" as in "required to find the runway". Being able to
see the runway at the MEA far enough away to navigate to it and land does not
by any definition I am familiar with imply a need for >3 miles vis and >500'
from the clouds. The cloud clearance requirements are to protect IFR traffic
from VFR traffic. This is not an issue if all the traffic is IFR in
controlled airspace as ATC is obligated to provide separation services to
all IFR traffic - even when that IFR traffic is not in IMC.
>This point might be argued for a visual approach to an airport with a
>published IAP, but it is clear-cut for a visual approach to an airport
>with no IAP. FAR 91.169(c)(2) states: "If no instrument approach
>procedure has been published in part 97 of this chapter for that
>airport, the the ceiling and visibility minimums are those allowing
>descent from the MEA, approach, and landing under basic VFR." Stated
>otherwise, "a visual approach to an airport with no IAP requires
>basic VFR weather."
You are quoting the section pertaining to alternate selection on a flight
plan - see quote in more context at end of this posting. It makes good sense
to select as your alternate an airport forecast to have good VFR if that
airport does not have an instrument approach. Your restatement at the end
of the paragraph does not follow given the context of alternate selection.
>
>>The airmans information manual section 5-57 goes into a lot more detail on
>>the visual approach. In summary it says that
>>...
>>- compliance with FAR 91.155 (basic VFR weather minimums) is not required
>
>Could you please post an explicit citation for this statement? I
>don't find this in the AIM; in fact, I find the exact opposite.
I have previously posted the full text of AIM manual section 5-57. You are
finding the exact opposite as you are looking at an older version of the
AIM. Section 5-57 (was 5-58) was amended April 28, 1994 and reads as I
stated "compliance with FAR 91.155 is not required".
---
91.169 IFR flight plan: Information required.
(c) IFR alternate airport weather minimums. Unless otherwise authorized by
the Administrator, no person may include an alternate airport in an IFR
flight plan unless current weather forecasts indicate that, at the
estimated time of arrival at the alternate airport, the ceiling and
visibility at that airport will be at or above the following alternate
airport weather minimums:
(1) If an instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97 of
this chapter for that airport, the alternate airport minimums
specified in that procedure or, if none are so specified, the
following minimums:
(i) Precision approach procedure: Ceiling 600 feet and visibility 2
statute miles.
(ii) Nonprecision approach procedure: Ceiling 800 feet and visibility
2 statute miles.
(2) If no instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97 of
this chapter for that airport, the ceiling and visibility minimums
are those allowing descent from the MEA, approach, and landing under
basic VFR.
Wayne Sweet
That is exactly right. A visual approach will not be given unless you state the airport is in sight. However
if you have ground contact and at least one mile visibility, you can request a contact approach. One would
be very foolish to do so at a strange airport.
John Stephens
Wayne Sweet <wsw...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
|> That is exactly right. A visual approach will not be given unless you state the airport is in sight. However
|> if you have ground contact and at least one mile visibility, you can request a contact approach. One would
|> be very foolish to do so at a strange airport.
No, you can't ask for a contact approach to an airport that does
not have an instrument approach. This whole thread had been about
a non-instrumnent-approach airport. In order to be released from
an instrument flight plan to land at an non-IFR-approach aiport,
you have to cancel IFR, and be in legal VFR conditions. At least
this is the way I understand the FARs.
As for a "VFR airport" in the traffic pattern, and within 1/2 mile
of the runway, it is permissable to operate with as little as 1
mile visibility and clear of clouds. If it is a Class D airport,
then Special VFR gives the same weather minima. In Class G
airspace, below 1200 AGL, the minima are 3 miles and clear of
clouds. The same in Class B.
Think I have this right -- if challenged, I guess I'll have to
scan my on-line copy of the FARs. [Please don't make me do this :-). ]
********************************************************************
* . *
* John Stephens ._______|_______. Montgomery County Airpark *
* COMM-ASEL \(*)/ ( GAI ) *
* C-172P N51078 o/ \o Gaithersburg, Maryland *
* *
********************************************************************
Harlo Peterson
In article <335idp$s...@access1.digex.net>, step...@access1.digex.net
(John Stephens) writes...
> In order to be released from
>you have to cancel IFR, and be in legal VFR conditions. At least
>this is the way I understand the FARs.
This is a bit misleading - it could be read to say that one is required to
cancel IFR to land at an airport without an instrument approach procedure.
You do not.
You have two legal options if you are IFR and wish to land at an airport
without an instrument approach procedure. 1) get to a location under IFR
where you are also legal to be VFR, cancel IFR, and proceed to the airport
VFR. 2) Ensure the airport is better than 1000' ceiling and greater than 3
miles vis, see the airport, request a visual approach then continue IFR but
clear of clouds on the visual approach. [ref: AIM with April '94 amendments
5-57].
PROF D. Rogers (EAS FAC)
!In article <3340ud$l...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com!,
!Wayne Sweet <wsw...@ix.netcom.com! wrote:
!|! That is exactly right. A visual approach will not be given unless you state the airport is in sight. However
!|! if you have ground contact and at least one mile visibility, you can request a contact approach. One would
!|! be very foolish to do so at a strange airport.
!
!No, you can't ask for a contact approach to an airport that does
!not have an instrument approach. This whole thread had been about
!a non-instrumnent-approach airport.
! In order to be released from
!an instrument flight plan to land at an non-IFR-approach aiport,
!you have to cancel IFR, and be in legal VFR conditions. At least
!this is the way I understand the FARs.
John, this is not so. You can execute a visual approach, which
is an IFR approach, to an airport without and IFR approach
and cancel IFR ON THE GROUND. Do it all the time.
Dave Rogers
Alex Schwassmann
lefe...@dis.anl.gov (William LeFebvre) wrote in article
<CuBqA...@mcs.anl.gov> concerning "Re: MDA on a visual approach":
WL> Maybe not in Germany, but it is perfectly legal in the US. You are
WL> allowed to file and fly IFR all the way to an airport which has no
WL> approach provided that you can descend from the MVA or the MEA of a
WL> nearby airway to the airport in VFR conditions. I.e.: a visual
WL> approach. But if you're still in the clouds at MEA or MVA, or
WL> technically if you are less tha 500 feeet below the clouds, then
WL> you cannot accept a visual approach to the airport. And since
WL> the airport has no instrument approach, you must proceed elsewhere.
Right, it looks like I'ver once again fallen into the trap of
transferring our regulations onto other states. Still, I may be
nitpicking here, but I think the US regulations are somewhat
dubious.
A visual approach is an IFR approach. But IFR approaches can only
be shot into IFR rated airfields. So if the airfield in question
is not rated to conduct IFR operations, you can't fly there IFR.
In Germany, the solution is such: You file IFR to a radio nav aid
in the vicinity of the VFR airfield, then cancel IFR before or
when reaching that nav aid and approach the airfield VFR. You're
conducting a visual approach in that you're flying with reference
to the ground and whatever, but you're NOT IFR anymore. So we
differentiate between the legally IFR "visual approach", which is
more of a legal term, and what us VFR buddies do everytime we
oland somewhere. Erm, I hope I haven't confused anyone ... :-))
... Alex
Alexander Schwaszmann // EMail: ALEX_SCH...@aworld.aworld.de
my personal opinions ... \X/ ATC Germany - EDDL APP/TWR
Harlo Peterson
In article <uW2wHM...@aw23.aworld.aworld.de>,
ALEX_SCH...@AWORLD.aworld.de (Alex Schwassmann) writes...
>Right, it looks like I'ver once again fallen into the trap of
>transferring our regulations onto other states.
I appreciate and enjoy your postings. I know what your perspective is and
I learn a lot because of the differences and similarities brought forward due
to what you say. If we don't see how things are done in different places we
all think we know universal truths instead of just regional variations.
> Still, I may be
>nitpicking here, but I think the US regulations are somewhat
>dubious.
Not dubious - just different. From a US perspective, most other country's
regulations seem unnecessarily restrictive in that we do not perceive an
safety benefit that balances the restrictions.
>A visual approach is an IFR approach. But IFR approaches can only
>be shot into IFR rated airfields. So if the airfield in question
>is not rated to conduct IFR operations, you can't fly there IFR.
>In Germany, the solution is such: You file IFR to a radio nav aid
>in the vicinity of the VFR airfield, then cancel IFR before or
>when reaching that nav aid and approach the airfield VFR. You're
>conducting a visual approach in that you're flying with reference
>to the ground and whatever, but you're NOT IFR anymore. So we
>differentiate between the legally IFR "visual approach", which is
>more of a legal term, and what us VFR buddies do everytime we
>oland somewhere. Erm, I hope I haven't confused anyone ... :-))
We in the US have the same option of getting to VFR conditions while IFR
then canceling IFR and proceeding VFR to landing. This is not a visual
approach, it is not an approach at all from an IFR sense.
The US does not directly have the concept of an IFR or VFR rated airfield.
Airports are classified as to whether or not they have instrument approach
and/or departure procedures, whether or not they have official weather
observers, types of emergency equipment and possibly some others things. I
guess an airfield with an instrument approach procedure, an official weather
observer and emergency equipment appropriate to the flights expected would
be what you would consider an IFR rated airfield.
Anyway US regulations make explicit distinctions between what you may or may
not do with respect to airport with/without IAPs and other regulations give
other rules with respect to weather observers/reports/forecasts for an
airport and other rules talk to required emergency facilities. There is no
single place where, if the airport has a certain set of attributes, it is
classified as an IFR airport and that classification invokes a unique set of
IFR airport rules. It is because of this that the US permits IFR flight to
what you would consider as "VFR airports". The set of regulations to be
followed is invoked directly by the actual set of attributes of the airport
and the flight resulting in a safe operation.
Julian Scarfe
ALEX_SCH...@AWORLD.aworld.de (Alex Schwassmann) wrote
about the German (ICAO?) "visual approach":
> A visual approach is an IFR approach. But IFR approaches can only
> be shot into IFR rated airfields. So if the airfield in question
> is not rated to conduct IFR operations, you can't fly there IFR.
> In Germany, the solution is such: You file IFR to a radio nav aid
> in the vicinity of the VFR airfield, then cancel IFR before or
> when reaching that nav aid and approach the airfield VFR.
Do I have to choose a nav aid, or can I pick a navaid+bearing+distance
so that I'm much closer to the VFR airport before I have to cancel IFR?
I know that sounds like hair-splitting, but it was a German AIS man who
rejected my VFR flight plan for having 35 minutes between waypoints :-)
Julian Scarfe
ja...@cus.cam.ac.uk