On the most recent Pilots Audio Update, the narrator was talking about a
time when fog covered half the airport, but he could see the runway he was
going to land on, but because the control tower was on the foggy half of
the airport, they wouldn't approve a visual approach. He was being
vectored all around, and thought it ironic that he never lost sight of the
runway. Could he had gotten a contact approach if he'd asked for it?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Can't get out of 'vi'? Common problem. Don't worry, I'm here to help. Just
log in as root and type "init 0". It works for pretty much any problem you
might have with Linux. No, no, no. Thank /you/. -- Mikey Raeder

Sure. The onus is on the pilot to navigate to the runway using terrain
features, etc. I don't think that a request for a contact approach would
ever be denied.

Bob Gardner

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> On the most recent Pilots Audio Update, the narrator was talking about a
> time when fog covered half the airport, but he could see the runway he was
> going to land on, but because the control tower was on the foggy half of
> the airport, they wouldn't approve a visual approach. He was being
> vectored all around, and thought it ironic that he never lost sight of the
> runway. Could he had gotten a contact approach if he'd asked for it?
>
> --
> Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
> Can't get out of 'vi'? Common problem. Don't worry, I'm here to help.
> Just
> log in as root and type "init 0". It works for pretty much any problem
> you
> might have with Linux. No, no, no. Thank /you/. -- Mikey Raeder

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> On the most recent Pilots Audio Update, the narrator was talking about a
> time when fog covered half the airport, but he could see the runway he was
> going to land on, but because the control tower was on the foggy half of
> the airport, they wouldn't approve a visual approach. He was being
> vectored all around, and thought it ironic that he never lost sight of the
> runway. Could he had gotten a contact approach if he'd asked for it?
>

He could if the reported ground visibility was at least one mile and an
instrument approach procedure for the airport had been published and was
functioning.

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sure. The onus is on the pilot to navigate to the runway using terrain
> features, etc. I don't think that a request for a contact approach would
> ever be denied.
>

If the reported ground visibility is less than one mile or no operating
instrument approach procedure exists for the airport a contact approach must
be denied.

This happens all the time here. East half of the airport, including the
ASOS, is 0/0. West half is clear and a million.. No contact approach
allowed. Better off to do an instrument approach and just break it off
as soon as you receive the clearance. Ask for the full approach if it
will take you near or over the airport and then just break off and land
if you can get an approach and landing clearance. Nothing says you have
to actually go out and do the approach.




Paul Tomblin wrote:
> On the most recent Pilots Audio Update, the narrator was talking about a
> time when fog covered half the airport, but he could see the runway he was
> going to land on, but because the control tower was on the foggy half of
> the airport, they wouldn't approve a visual approach. He was being
> vectored all around, and thought it ironic that he never lost sight of the
> runway. Could he had gotten a contact approach if he'd asked for it?
>

My bad...I thought that flight visibility prevailed. Answered without
bothering to research.


Bob

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Sure. The onus is on the pilot to navigate to the runway using terrain
>> features, etc. I don't think that a request for a contact approach would
>> ever be denied.
>>
>
> If the reported ground visibility is less than one mile or no operating
> instrument approach procedure exists for the airport a contact approach
> must be denied.
>

Bob Gardner > wrote:
> Sure. The onus is on the pilot to navigate to the runway using terrain
> features, etc. I don't think that a request for a contact approach would
> ever be denied.

There are certainly reasons for a contact approach to be denied
(conflict with other traffic, for example). I think what you're
trying to say is that ATC won't try to second-guess that you have the
required visibility if you make the approach.

> wrote in message
...
>
> Conflict with what other traffic?
>
> ATC doesn't need to second guess anything. The required visibility is
> reported visibility, not flight visibility.
>

Actually, it's both.

Newps wrote:

> This happens all the time here. East half of the airport, including the
> ASOS, is 0/0. West half is clear and a million.. No contact approach
> allowed. Better off to do an instrument approach and just break it off
> as soon as you receive the clearance. Ask for the full approach if it
> will take you near or over the airport and then just break off and land
> if you can get an approach and landing clearance. Nothing says you have
> to actually go out and do the approach.

Once a clearance for an approach is issued, the pilot is bound by the
appropriate segments of the approach (Part 97) and the applicable parts of
91.175. Any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
legal no-no.

> wrote in message
...
>
> Never would have thought of this, but it seems plausible enough, now
> that you mention it.
>
> Although there is a regulation that says that the pilot is required to
> use a prescribed "instrument letdown" when cleared for an approach,
> or something like that.
>
> I wonder, would this be a violation of that?
>

No. That regulation begins with "Unless otherwise authorized by the
Administrator", and FAR Part 1 defines "Administrator" as "the Federal
Aviation Administrator or any person to whom he has delegated his authority
in the matter concerned."

> wrote in message
...
>
> Not to issue the clearance, it isn't.
>

Correct.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> This happens all the time here. East half of the airport, including the
> ASOS, is 0/0. West half is clear and a million.. No contact approach
> allowed. Better off to do an instrument approach and just break it off as
> soon as you receive the clearance. Ask for the full approach if it will
> take you near or over the airport and then just break off and land if you
> can get an approach and landing clearance. Nothing says you have to
> actually go out and do the approach.
>

Actually, something does say that; FAR 91.123(a).

In article >,
> wrote:
>On 17 Jan 2005 17:07:57 -0500, (Roy Smith) wrote:
>
>>Bob Gardner > wrote:
>>> Sure. The onus is on the pilot to navigate to the runway using terrain
>>> features, etc. I don't think that a request for a contact approach would
>>> ever be denied.
>>
>>There are certainly reasons for a contact approach to be denied
>>(conflict with other traffic, for example). I think what you're
>>trying to say is that ATC won't try to second-guess that you have the
>>required visibility if you make the approach.
>
>
>Conflict with what other traffic?
>
>ATC doesn't need to second guess anything. The required visibility is
>reported visibility, not flight visibility.

Yeah, I should have looked that up before I posted. Sorry.

> wrote in message
...
>
> Where is the "otherwise authorized"?
>

In the regulation you referred to.


>
> Newps suggested that the pilot accept an approach clearance, and then
> simply break it off and land without executing it, if I understand him
> correctly.
>

Newps is wrong.


>
> An intriguing idea, to be sure, but presumably the approach controller
> only authorized the procedure which he cleared the pilot to execute,
> and which the pilot then circumvented.
>
> Seems like a possible violation to me.
>

It is, see my response to Newps.

wrote:

> any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
> legal no-no.

should read "any 'short-cut' without either a contact, visual....

> wrote in message
...
>
> What the hell are you saying here?
>
> . I suggested that it would be a violation, and you replied with
> this:
>
> "No. That regulation begins with "Unless otherwise authorized by the
> Administrator", and FAR Part 1 defines "Administrator" as "the Federal
> Aviation Administrator or any person to whom he has delegated his
> authority in the matter concerned." "
>

A contact approach is not a violation of the regulation [FAR 91.175(a)]
requiring a standard instrument approach procedure because that regulation
begins with the proviso "Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator",
and FAR Part 1 defines "Administrator" as "the Federal Aviation
Administrator or any person to whom he has delegated his authority in the
matter concerned", such as ATC in this case.

> wrote in message ...
>
>> any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
>> legal no-no.
>
> should read "any 'short-cut' without either a contact, visual....
>

I'd say it should read "any short-cut without a revised clearance or a
cancellation is a legal no-no."

On 1/17/05 3:06 PM, in article , "Newps"
> wrote:

> This happens all the time here. East half of the airport, including the
> ASOS, is 0/0. West half is clear and a million.. No contact approach
> allowed. Better off to do an instrument approach and just break it off
> as soon as you receive the clearance. Ask for the full approach if it
> will take you near or over the airport and then just break off and land
> if you can get an approach and landing clearance. Nothing says you have
> to actually go out and do the approach.
>
>
This doesn't seem like a prudent thing to do. If 1/2 of the airport is
obscured, how would you know that the rest wouldn't fog up in less time than
it took to land? IMHO, it would be best to fly the published approach and be
ready to go missed.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

> This doesn't seem like a prudent thing to do. If 1/2 of the airport is
> obscured, how would you know that the rest wouldn't fog up in less time
than
> it took to land? IMHO, it would be best to fly the published approach and
be
> ready to go missed.

I tend to agree, although there may be a situation where you're vectored
directly overhead the airport but the procedure may take you several miles
out and back...just in time for the airport to fog over completely.

wrote:
> Never would have thought of this, but it seems plausible enough, now
> that you mention it.
>
> Although there is a regulation that says that the pilot is required to
> use a prescribed "instrument letdown" when cleared for an approach,
> or something like that.
>
> I wonder, would this be a violation of that?




The approach gets you into conditions to land visually. Nowhere does it
say you have to fly any part of the actual approach. Obviously you'll
need to make sure ATC knows what you're doing.

wrote:

>
> Newps wrote:
>
>
>>This happens all the time here. East half of the airport, including the
>>ASOS, is 0/0. West half is clear and a million.. No contact approach
>>allowed. Better off to do an instrument approach and just break it off
>>as soon as you receive the clearance. Ask for the full approach if it
>>will take you near or over the airport and then just break off and land
>>if you can get an approach and landing clearance. Nothing says you have
>>to actually go out and do the approach.
>
>
> Once a clearance for an approach is issued, the pilot is bound by the
> appropriate segments of the approach (Part 97) and the applicable parts of
> 91.175. Any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
> legal no-no.


Baloney. Once I'm in a position to fly visually to the airport/runway I
can do just that.
>

Wizard of Draws wrote:


>>
>
> This doesn't seem like a prudent thing to do. If 1/2 of the airport is
> obscured, how would you know that the rest wouldn't fog up in less time than
> it took to land? IMHO, it would be best to fly the published approach and be
> ready to go missed.

Local experience. Due to our location on top of some high terrain when
we get fog we often have only half the airport 0/0. The other half
literally is clear and a million. A VFR pilot can be stuck on the
ground seeing his destination 60 miles away but behind you less than a
1/4 mile no approach short of an autoland will get you in.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:44:40 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>> Never would have thought of this, but it seems plausible enough, now
>> that you mention it.
>>
>> Although there is a regulation that says that the pilot is required to
>> use a prescribed "instrument letdown" when cleared for an approach,
>> or something like that.
>>
>> I wonder, would this be a violation of that?
>
>
>
>
>The approach gets you into conditions to land visually. Nowhere does it
>say you have to fly any part of the actual approach. Obviously you'll
>need to make sure ATC knows what you're doing.


Nowhere?

How abou this:?

(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.

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:45:57 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>
>>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This happens all the time here. East half of the airport, including the
>>>ASOS, is 0/0. West half is clear and a million.. No contact approach
>>>allowed. Better off to do an instrument approach and just break it off
>>>as soon as you receive the clearance. Ask for the full approach if it
>>>will take you near or over the airport and then just break off and land
>>>if you can get an approach and landing clearance. Nothing says you have
>>>to actually go out and do the approach.
>>
>>
>> Once a clearance for an approach is issued, the pilot is bound by the
>> appropriate segments of the approach (Part 97) and the applicable parts of
>> 91.175. Any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
>> legal no-no.
>
>
>Baloney. Once I'm in a position to fly visually to the airport/runway I
>can do just that.
>>


that's not what this says, I don't think:

(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.

In a previous article, said:
>(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.

If you can see the runway and can land without violating VFR cloud
separation rules, then the instrument letdown is no longer necessary, so
this clause shouldn't apply, right?

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
For their next act, they'll no doubt be buying a firewall running under NT,
which makes about as much sense as building a prison out of meringue.
-- Tanuki

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:49:20 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, said:
>>(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.
>
>If you can see the runway and can land without violating VFR cloud
>separation rules, then the instrument letdown is no longer necessary, so
>this clause shouldn't apply, right?


I would say not right.

Under the circumstances we are discussing, the airfield is IFR,
therefore, presumably, an "instrument letdown" is required, although I
suppose that language can be reasonably argued to mean that IMC
conditions exist.

It's an interesting proposition, I think.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:49:20 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, said:
>>(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.
>
>If you can see the runway and can land without violating VFR cloud
>separation rules, then the instrument letdown is no longer necessary, so
>this clause shouldn't apply, right?


The other thing, I think, is that under the circumstances we are
discussing, the pilot is cleared for a particular instrument approach.

Since he has not been "otherwise authorized", presumably he would be
in violation for deviating from an IFR clearance, if he just went off
and flew his own home-made procedure.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:49:20 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, said:
>>(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.
>
>If you can see the runway and can land without violating VFR cloud
>separation rules, then the instrument letdown is no longer necessary, so
>this clause shouldn't apply, right?



Then, there's this language about maintaining altitude on an approach
until established on a segment, and throughout all segments:

(i) Operations on unpublished routes and use of radar in instrument
approach procedures. When radar is approved at certain locations for
ATC purposes, it may be used not only for surveillance and precision
radar approaches, as applicable, but also may be used in conjunction
with instrument approach procedures predicated on other types of radio
navigational aids. Radar vectors may be authorized to provide course
guidance through the segments of an approach to the final course or
fix. When operating on an unpublished route or while being radar
vectored, the pilot, when an approach clearance is received, shall, in
addition to complying with §91.177, maintain the last altitude
assigned to that pilot until the aircraft is established on a segment
of a published route or instrument approach procedure unless a
different altitude is assigned by ATC. After the aircraft is so
established, published altitudes apply to descent within each
succeeding route or approach segment unless a different altitude is
assigned by ATC. Upon reaching the final approach course or fix, the
pilot may either complete the instrument approach in accordance with a
procedure approved for the facility or continue a surveillance or
precision radar approach to a landing.

In a previous article, said:
>On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:49:20 +0000 (UTC),
>(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>>If you can see the runway and can land without violating VFR cloud
>>separation rules, then the instrument letdown is no longer necessary, so
>>this clause shouldn't apply, right?
>
>
>The other thing, I think, is that under the circumstances we are
>discussing, the pilot is cleared for a particular instrument approach.
>
>Since he has not been "otherwise authorized", presumably he would be
>in violation for deviating from an IFR clearance, if he just went off
>and flew his own home-made procedure.

We were talking about cancelling the IFR clearance and proceeding VFR when
you piped up with this "you've got to fly the instrument procedure"
business. He's not flying a "home-made procedure", he's proceeding VFR.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Alright. Talk. Don't make me reach over there and pull your still-pumping
heart out from the gaping hole you used to call a chest whilst breaking
your sternum and playing air guitar with your ribcage. -- Tai

In a previous article, said:
>On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:45:57 -0700, Newps > wrote:
wrote:
>>> Once a clearance for an approach is issued, the pilot is bound by the
>>> appropriate segments of the approach (Part 97) and the applicable parts of
>>> 91.175. Any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> legal no-no.
>>
>>Baloney. Once I'm in a position to fly visually to the airport/runway I
>>can do just that.
>
>that's not what this says, I don't think:
>
>(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.

I don't see anything there that prohibits you from cancelling IFR when you
have sufficient visibility and cloud clearance to operate under VFR.






--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I would like to shake the hand of the man who first decided that e-mail
clients should run arbitrary programs. Then I'd like to stir, blend and
puree his hand. -- J. D. Baldwin

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:53:32 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>We were talking about cancelling the IFR clearance and proceeding VFR when
>you piped up with this "you've got to fly the instrument procedure"
>business. He's not flying a "home-made procedure", he's proceeding VFR.


That's not what I recall.

The original post started thusly:

"On the most recent Pilots Audio Update, the narrator was talking
about atime when fog covered half the airport, but he could see the
runway he wasgoing to land on, but because the control tower was on
the foggy half ofthe airport, they wouldn't approve a visual approach.
He was beingvectored all around, and thought it ironic that he never
lost sight of therunway. Could he had gotten a contact approach if
he'd asked for it?"

In other words, the field is IFR.

Newps then suggested that one could get an instrument approach and
then cut it short and land under IFR..).

I don't see where anyone suggested he land VFR. He can't.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:55:41 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, said:
>>On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:45:57 -0700, Newps > wrote:
wrote:
>>>> Once a clearance for an approach is issued, the pilot is bound by the
>>>> appropriate segments of the approach (Part 97) and the applicable parts of
>>>> 91.175. Any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> legal no-no.
>>>
>>>Baloney. Once I'm in a position to fly visually to the airport/runway I
>>>can do just that.
>>
>>that's not what this says, I don't think:
>>
>>(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.
>
>I don't see anything there that prohibits you from cancelling IFR when you
>have sufficient visibility and cloud clearance to operate under VFR.


you can. But you can't land at an airport that's reporting IFR
conditions.

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't see anything there that prohibits you from cancelling IFR when you
> have sufficient visibility and cloud clearance to operate under VFR.
>

Nope. But if you can operate under VFR an instrument letdown wouldn't be
necessary.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I don't see anything there that prohibits you from cancelling IFR when
you
> > have sufficient visibility and cloud clearance to operate under VFR.
> >
>
> Nope. But if you can operate under VFR an instrument letdown wouldn't be
> necessary.

Paul stated "canceling when you have sufficient visibility..." which
indicates a change in status/condition/visibility (at the point visibility
becomes adequate). Your reply infers that there was adequate visibility
prior to that.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Paul stated "canceling when you have sufficient visibility..." which
> indicates a change in status/condition/visibility (at the point visibility
> becomes adequate).
>

Paul wasn't following the thread very closely. The message he responded to
stated "when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary". As I
said, if you can operate under VFR an instrument letdown wouldn't be
necessary.


>
>Your reply infers that there was adequate visibility prior to that.
>

No, you're inferring.

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>> Paul stated "canceling when you have sufficient visibility..." which
>> indicates a change in status/condition/visibility (at the point visibility
>> becomes adequate).
>Paul wasn't following the thread very closely. The message he responded to
>stated "when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary". As I
>said, if you can operate under VFR an instrument letdown wouldn't be
>necessary.

That was precisely the point I was trying to make, since somebody else
brought up the "when an instrument letdown ... is necessary" as a reason
why one *couldn't* cancel IFR once you were on an approach.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
If netcat is compiled with -DGAPING_SECURITY_HOLE, the -e argument
specifies a program to exec after making or receiving a successful
connection. -- netcat README file

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> That was precisely the point I was trying to make, since somebody else
> brought up the "when an instrument letdown ... is necessary" as a reason
> why one *couldn't* cancel IFR once you were on an approach.
>

Well, you failed.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Paul stated "canceling when you have sufficient visibility..." which
> > indicates a change in status/condition/visibility (at the point
visibility
> > becomes adequate).
> >
>
> Paul wasn't following the thread very closely. The message he responded
to
> stated "when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary". As I
> said, if you can operate under VFR an instrument letdown wouldn't be
> necessary.

Let's see: The message he responded to stated "when an instrument letdown to
a civil airport is necessary". Are you saying the gist of the thread was
the opposite of this?

> >Your reply infers that there was adequate visibility prior to that.
> >
>
> No, you're inferring.

I'm trying to figure out why he's addressing an instrument letdown being
necessary and your addressing visual letdown.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
said:
> >"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Paul stated "canceling when you have sufficient visibility..." which
> >> indicates a change in status/condition/visibility (at the point
visibility
> >> becomes adequate).
> >Paul wasn't following the thread very closely. The message he responded
to
> >stated "when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary". As
I
> >said, if you can operate under VFR an instrument letdown wouldn't be
> >necessary.
>
> That was precisely the point I was trying to make, since somebody else
> brought up the "when an instrument letdown ... is necessary" as a reason
> why one *couldn't* cancel IFR once you were on an approach.
>
Seems obvious to me. Why is McNicoll changing the context 180 degrees?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > That was precisely the point I was trying to make, since somebody else
> > brought up the "when an instrument letdown ... is necessary" as a reason
> > why one *couldn't* cancel IFR once you were on an approach.
> >
>
> Well, you failed.

The only failure was your change in context.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Let's see: The message he responded to stated "when an instrument letdown
> to
> a civil airport is necessary". Are you saying the gist of the thread was
> the opposite of this?
>

No.


>
> I'm trying to figure out why he's addressing an instrument letdown being
> necessary and your addressing visual letdown.
>

It's the other way round.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Seems obvious to me. Why is McNicoll changing the context 180 degrees?
>

Seems you and Paul made the same mistake.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> The only failure was your change in context.
>

That didn't happen.

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:29:58 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >
>>> > Paul stated "canceling when you have sufficient visibility..." which
>>> > indicates a change in status/condition/visibility (at the point
>>visibility
>>> > becomes adequate).
>>> >
>>>
>>> Paul wasn't following the thread very closely. The message he responded
>>to
>>> stated "when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary". As
>>> I
>>> said, if you can operate under VFR an instrument letdown wouldn't be
>>> necessary.
>>
>>Let's see: The message he responded to stated "when an instrument letdown
>>to
>>a civil airport is necessary". Are you saying the gist of the thread was
>>the opposite of this?
>>
>>> >Your reply infers that there was adequate visibility prior to that.
>>> >
>>>
>>> No, you're inferring.
>>
>>I'm trying to figure out why he's addressing an instrument letdown being
>>necessary and your addressing visual letdown.
>
>
> Because the original post described a situation which required an
> instrument letdown, namely landing under IFR.
>

He's got it backward. It was I that addressed an instrument letdown being
necessary and Paul that addressed a visual letdown.

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
> wrote in message
>> Because the original post described a situation which required an
>> instrument letdown, namely landing under IFR.
>He's got it backward. It was I that addressed an instrument letdown being
>necessary and Paul that addressed a visual letdown.

No, I was *asking* a question, not stating something was possible. You
see, I didn't know if when you can see the runway and everything between
you and it, you can use a contact approach and/or cancel and land VFR
regardless of whether the tower is reporting IFR visibilities. But while
I got an answer about the contact approach thing, I never got an answer
about cancelling. Instead of an answer, all I get is people quoting rules
without explaining how they are relevant to the question. Which is par
for the course around here, it seems.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Just another organic pain collector racing to oblivion

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, I was *asking* a question, not stating something was possible.
>

Which question? I believe you asked several.


>
> You see, I didn't know if when you can see the runway and everything
> between
> you and it, you can use a contact approach and/or cancel and land VFR
> regardless of whether the tower is reporting IFR visibilities.
>

You can use a contact approach whenever the required conditions are met.
Seeing the runway is not one of the required conditions, by the way. Are
you asking if one can cancel IFR and land VFR when it's below VFR minima?
No, one cannot do that.


>
> But while I got an answer about the contact approach thing, I never got an
> answer
> about cancelling. Instead of an answer, all I get is people quoting rules
> without explaining how they are relevant to the question. Which is par
> for the course around here, it seems.
>

Perhaps nobody understood you were asking such a basic question. You can
cancel IFR whenever you are in VFR conditions. You cannot cancel IFR and
proceed VFR when you are in IFR conditions.

Paul Tomblin wrote:

>
>
> We were talking about cancelling the IFR clearance and proceeding VFR when
> you piped up with this "you've got to fly the instrument procedure"
> business. He's not flying a "home-made procedure", he's proceeding VFR.

Nope, can't do that, the field is IFR.

Paul Tomblin wrote:

You
> see, I didn't know if when you can see the runway and everything between
> you and it, you can use a contact approach and/or cancel and land VFR
> regardless of whether the tower is reporting IFR visibilities.

No you cannot. If the field is IFR you must land under IFR, you may not
cancel. At a towered airport there's really no reason to cancel. You
may not get a contact approach either as that requires a mile vis. The
instrument approach merely puts you in a position to see the runway. At
some airports, the one I work at is one, we get conditions due to local
terrain where one half the airport is 0/0. The other half is clear and
a million. Legally you need an instrument approach to land. However
there's no reason to fly an extra 10-20 miles after receipt of said
clearance before landing. Once you have the runway in sight you proceed
visually to your runway. Very simple.

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> You
> > see, I didn't know if when you can see the runway and everything between
> > you and it, you can use a contact approach and/or cancel and land VFR
> > regardless of whether the tower is reporting IFR visibilities.
>
> No you cannot. If the field is IFR you must land under IFR, you may not
> cancel. At a towered airport there's really no reason to cancel. You
> may not get a contact approach either as that requires a mile vis. The
> instrument approach merely puts you in a position to see the runway. At
> some airports, the one I work at is one, we get conditions due to local
> terrain where one half the airport is 0/0. The other half is clear and
> a million. Legally you need an instrument approach to land. However
> there's no reason to fly an extra 10-20 miles after receipt of said
> clearance before landing.

There is if you want to keep your ticket.

> Once you have the runway in sight you proceed
> visually to your runway. Very simple.

Simple, but illegal. You can only descend below minimums once you have
the field in sight AND you're on the final approach segment (and, if you
really want to pick nits, have reached DH or MDA). If you're on an IFR
clearance, busting minimums is busting minimums even if you and the
airport you're heading to and everything in between is CAVU.

rg

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 21:09:57 -0700, Newps > wrote:

> Legally you need an instrument approach to land. However
>there's no reason to fly an extra 10-20 miles after receipt of said
>clearance before landing. Once you have the runway in sight you proceed
>visually to your runway. Very simple.

As it has been pointed out, there is a reason to fly those extra 10-20
miles, unless you have been otherwise authorized to not do so.

There are regulations that require it.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:48:17 -0800, Ron Garret >
wrote:

>Simple, but illegal. You can only descend below minimums once you have
>the field in sight AND you're on the final approach segment (and, if you
>really want to pick nits, have reached DH or MDA)


Actually, you need the runway environment in sight.

And I would find it interesting to know how one descends below the DA
or MDA without first reaching them.

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> said:
> wrote in message
>>> Because the original post described a situation which required an
>>> instrument letdown, namely landing under IFR.
>>He's got it backward. It was I that addressed an instrument letdown being
>>necessary and Paul that addressed a visual letdown.
>
> No, I was *asking* a question, not stating something was possible. You
> see, I didn't know if when you can see the runway and everything between
> you and it, you can use a contact approach and/or cancel and land VFR
> regardless of whether the tower is reporting IFR visibilities. But while
> I got an answer about the contact approach thing, I never got an answer
> about cancelling. Instead of an answer, all I get is people quoting rules
> without explaining how they are relevant to the question.

Paul, the pertinent regulation is 91.155 [Basic VFR weather minimums] (d):
"Except as provided in §91.157 [SVFR] of this part, no person may take off
or land an aircraft, or enter the traffic pattern of an airport, under VFR,
within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C,
Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport-(1) Unless ground
visibility at that airport is at least 3 statute miles; or (2) If ground
visibility is not reported at that airport, unless flight visibility during
landing or takeoff, or while operating in the traffic pattern is at least 3
statute miles."

We are addressing a situation in which the tower reports a ground visibility
of less than 3 sm. If you cancel IFR, then you are VFR. 91.155d1 says you
can't land VFR (except in Class G) with ground visibility of less than 3sm.
We are addressing an airport with a tower, so it is not Class G. Therefore,
if you cancel IFR, you cannot land.

--Gary

In a previous article, "Gary Drescher" > said:
>Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport-(1) Unless ground
>visibility at that airport is at least 3 statute miles; or (2) If ground
>visibility is not reported at that airport, unless flight visibility during
>landing or takeoff, or while operating in the traffic pattern is at least 3
>statute miles."

Ah, there's the missing piece of the puzzle. I thought that flight
visibility was all that mattered - I don't know why, but I'd forgotten
that ground visibility applied to part 91.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I'm sorry, your missile just caused a General Protection error.
Your General is no longer protected."
-- Nicholas Avernal, on Windows for Weapons

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
said:
> > wrote in message
> >> Because the original post described a situation which required an
> >> instrument letdown, namely landing under IFR.
> >He's got it backward. It was I that addressed an instrument letdown
being
> >necessary and Paul that addressed a visual letdown.
>
> No, I was *asking* a question, not stating something was possible.

Makes you wonder if someone really read the question or if, instead, they
shot off their mouth to show how smart they are.

> You
> see, I didn't know if when you can see the runway and everything between
> you and it, you can use a contact approach and/or cancel and land VFR
> regardless of whether the tower is reporting IFR visibilities.

And that question was pretty plainly stated/asked.

> But while
> I got an answer about the contact approach thing, I never got an answer
> about cancelling. Instead of an answer, all I get is people quoting rules
> without explaining how they are relevant to the question. Which is par
> for the course around here, it seems.

Seems many people can't comprehend the meaning of "context" or "changing
context", McNicholls being a primary offender. His knowledge of the rules is
superior, and he's normally be an outstanding resource, but he's lost when
the context changes and he can't read from a script. Typical bureaucrat.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

In article >,
wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:48:17 -0800, Ron Garret >
> wrote:
>
> >Simple, but illegal. You can only descend below minimums once you have
> >the field in sight AND you're on the final approach segment (and, if you
> >really want to pick nits, have reached DH or MDA)
>
>
> Actually, you need the runway environment in sight.

I was using "field" as colloquial shorthand for "runway environment."
Yes, that is necessary, but it is not sufficient. And if you want to
dispute that would you please cite the relevant FAR? My source is
121.651.

> And I would find it interesting to know how one descends below the DA
> or MDA without first reaching them.

You'll have to take that up with the FAA. It seemed like an odd
requirement to me to, but that's what the regs say.

rg

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> We are addressing an airport with a tower, so it is not Class G.

Are you sure about that? When US airspace was reclassified a bit over ten
years ago there were a few airports with control towers but without Control
Zones. These airports did not get Class D airspace because they had no
controlled airspace at the surface. Those that I was personally familiar
with have had surface areas established since then and it became Class D
airspace.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Seems many people can't comprehend the meaning of "context" or "changing
> context", McNicholls being a primary offender. His knowledge of the rules
> is
> superior, and he's normally be an outstanding resource, but he's lost when
> the context changes and he can't read from a script. Typical bureaucrat.
>

And there are those that simply can't grasp what they read, like you for one
example.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> We are addressing an airport with a tower, so it is not Class G.
>
> Are you sure about that? When US airspace was reclassified a bit over ten
> years ago there were a few airports with control towers but without
> Control Zones. These airports did not get Class D airspace because they
> had no controlled airspace at the surface. Those that I was personally
> familiar with have had surface areas established since then and it became
> Class D airspace.
>

There is still one that I know of, KLCQ.

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>>
>> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> We are addressing an airport with a tower, so it is not Class G.
>>
>> Are you sure about that? When US airspace was reclassified a bit over
>> ten years ago there were a few airports with control towers but without
>> Control Zones. These airports did not get Class D airspace because they
>> had no controlled airspace at the surface. Those that I was personally
>> familiar with have had surface areas established since then and it became
>> Class D airspace.
>
> There is still one that I know of, KLCQ.

Interesting. I knew about towered airports in Class E, but I hadn't realized
there are towered Class G airports too.

So if you're on an instrument approach to KLCQ, and you have VMC in flight
between you and the airport, but the reported ground visibility is zero
because part of the airport is in fog (but the runway you're landing on is
clear), then is it legal to cancel IFR and land? Nothing in 91.155d applies
to an airport in Class G, even with a tower.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> Interesting. I knew about towered airports in Class E, but I hadn't
> realized there are towered Class G airports too.
>

A towered airport in a Class E surface area is a temporary situation.


>
> So if you're on an instrument approach to KLCQ, and you have VMC in flight
> between you and the airport, but the reported ground visibility is zero
> because part of the airport is in fog (but the runway you're landing on is
> clear), then is it legal to cancel IFR and land?
>

Yes, if you have at least one mile flight visibility and remain clear of
clouds, that would be legal. But why cancel IFR?


>
> Nothing in 91.155d applies to an airport in Class G, even with a tower.
>

Of course not, FAR 91.155(d) pertains to operations in a surface area.

Y'All,
The 2004 Instrument Procedures Handbook (FAA-H-8261-1)
in Chapter Five covers very well the requirements for contact
approaches both to be authorized and flown on Page 5-41

I have faced such a situation going into Monterey, CA it was not a problem
after I requested a contact approach.

Gene Whitt

"Gene Whitt" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> Y'All,
> The 2004 Instrument Procedures Handbook (FAA-H-8261-1)
> in Chapter Five covers very well the requirements for contact
> approaches both to be authorized and flown on Page 5-41
>
> I have faced such a situation going into Monterey, CA it was not a problem
> after I requested a contact approach.
>

What situation did you face?

> My source is 121.651.

Why would you use an airline regulation for a general aviation
discussion on a general aviation newsgroup?

In article . com>,
wrote:

> > My source is 121.651.
>
> Why would you use an airline regulation for a general aviation
> discussion on a general aviation newsgroup?

Because I was confused. Make that 91.175.

"... when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each
person operating an aircraft ... shall use a standard instrument
approach procedure ..."

I suppose this is somewhat open to interpretation, but personally, I
wouldn't want to be standing in front of the NTSB board trying to make
the case that chopping power at 3000 feet over the airport and landing
is "using a standard instrument approach procedure."

rg

"Typical bureaucrat". That's Steve, driving a desk all day responding to
multitudes of newsgroups all on government time.

oneatcer

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> said:
> > > wrote in message
> > >> Because the original post described a situation which required an
> > >> instrument letdown, namely landing under IFR.
> > >He's got it backward. It was I that addressed an instrument letdown
> being
> > >necessary and Paul that addressed a visual letdown.
> >
> > No, I was *asking* a question, not stating something was possible.
>
> Makes you wonder if someone really read the question or if, instead, they
> shot off their mouth to show how smart they are.
>
> > You
> > see, I didn't know if when you can see the runway and everything between
> > you and it, you can use a contact approach and/or cancel and land VFR
> > regardless of whether the tower is reporting IFR visibilities.
>
> And that question was pretty plainly stated/asked.
>
> > But while
> > I got an answer about the contact approach thing, I never got an answer
> > about cancelling. Instead of an answer, all I get is people quoting
rules
> > without explaining how they are relevant to the question. Which is par
> > for the course around here, it seems.
>
> Seems many people can't comprehend the meaning of "context" or "changing
> context", McNicholls being a primary offender. His knowledge of the rules
is
> superior, and he's normally be an outstanding resource, but he's lost when
> the context changes and he can't read from a script. Typical bureaucrat.
>
>
> --
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>
>
>

In article >,
wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:41:36 -0800, Ron Garret >
> wrote:
>
> >In article . com>,
> > wrote:
> >
> >> > My source is 121.651.
> >>
> >> Why would you use an airline regulation for a general aviation
> >> discussion on a general aviation newsgroup?
> >
> >Because I was confused. Make that 91.175.
> >
> >"... when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each
> >person operating an aircraft ... shall use a standard instrument
> >approach procedure ..."
> >
> >I suppose this is somewhat open to interpretation, but personally, I
> >wouldn't want to be standing in front of the NTSB board trying to make
> >the case that chopping power at 3000 feet over the airport and landing
> >is "using a standard instrument approach procedure."
> >
> >rg
>
>
> Probably true.
>
> But the issue was with the other wording, i. e., "when an instrument
> letdown...is necessary".
>
> I think some folks were saying that if the airport was in sight, an
> "instrument letdown" is not necessary, even if ATC cannot approve a
> visual or contact approach.

Hm, sounds pretty dubious to me. The very fact that you need an IFR
clearance to land seems to me to be de facto evidence that an instrument
letdown is "necessary". But be that as it may, 91.173 says:


"No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR
unless that person has --

(a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and

(b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance."


and 91.123 says:

"When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may
deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an
emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and
collision avoidance system resolution advisory."


So if the tower clears you for the VOR-A approach you'd better fly the
VOR-A approach even if you can see the runway throughout the whole
procedure turn.

rg

MY Bad,
Mixed up two different flights and situations. One was SVFR from
the Spreckles Sugar plant and Monterey with 400' ceiling. whet we went in
SVFR

Other was Contact where we had to change runways to maintain
cloud clearance.

Gene

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Never would have thought of this, but it seems plausible enough, now
> > that you mention it.
> >
> > Although there is a regulation that says that the pilot is required to
> > use a prescribed "instrument letdown" when cleared for an approach,
> > or something like that.
> >
> > I wonder, would this be a violation of that?
> >
>
> No. That regulation begins with "Unless otherwise authorized by the
> Administrator", and FAR Part 1 defines "Administrator" as "the Federal
> Aviation Administrator or any person to whom he has delegated his authority
> in the matter concerned."

Where the regulations intend to give ATC authority to provide exceptions, it
states "unless otherwise authorized by ATC."

Where it states "unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator" delegation
has to be affirmed by some policy document or other formal agreement.

In the area of instrument approach procedures the Administrator has formally
delegated the authority to pilots to deviate from the requirements of a Part 95
SIAP:

1. Contact approaches provided the policy conditions and limitations set forth
are observed.

2. Visual approaches provided the policy conditions and limitations set forth
are observed.

3. Special instrument approach procedures, authorized for an operator by
operations specifications or a letter or agreement.

4. SAAAR Part 95 procedures, such as Category II and III, and soon-to-be SAAAR
RNP RNAV instrument approach procedures.

Of the foregoing, ATC has the ability to initiate only the visual approach.

I know; you know all of this but others may not.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >> any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
> >> legal no-no.
> >
> > should read "any 'short-cut' without either a contact, visual....
> >
>
> I'd say it should read "any short-cut without a revised clearance or a
> cancellation is a legal no-no."

But, ATC is not authorized to issue an initial or revised clearance to
short-cut any required segment of an instrument approach procedure except for
radar vectors provided in accordance with 7110.65P, 5-9-1.

Newps wrote:

> wrote:
>
> >
> > Newps wrote:
> >
> >
> >>This happens all the time here. East half of the airport, including the
> >>ASOS, is 0/0. West half is clear and a million.. No contact approach
> >>allowed. Better off to do an instrument approach and just break it off
> >>as soon as you receive the clearance. Ask for the full approach if it
> >>will take you near or over the airport and then just break off and land
> >>if you can get an approach and landing clearance. Nothing says you have
> >>to actually go out and do the approach.
> >
> >
> > Once a clearance for an approach is issued, the pilot is bound by the
> > appropriate segments of the approach (Part 97) and the applicable parts of
> > 91.175. Any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
> > legal no-no.
>
> Baloney. Once I'm in a position to fly visually to the airport/runway I
> can do just that.
> >

Balony back. You cannot unless you cancel, or obtain a clearance for a visual or
contact. Please cite the authority for deviating from the requirements of Part 95
to do what you say you can do.

wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:45:57 -0700, Newps > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Newps wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>This happens all the time here. East half of the airport, including the
> >>>ASOS, is 0/0. West half is clear and a million.. No contact approach
> >>>allowed. Better off to do an instrument approach and just break it off
> >>>as soon as you receive the clearance. Ask for the full approach if it
> >>>will take you near or over the airport and then just break off and land
> >>>if you can get an approach and landing clearance. Nothing says you have
> >>>to actually go out and do the approach.
> >>
> >>
> >> Once a clearance for an approach is issued, the pilot is bound by the
> >> appropriate segments of the approach (Part 97) and the applicable parts of
> >> 91.175. Any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
> >> legal no-no.
> >
> >
> >Baloney. Once I'm in a position to fly visually to the airport/runway I
> >can do just that.
> >>
>
> that's not what this says, I don't think:
>
> (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.

Your reading is correct. The regulation is quite clear.

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, said:
> >On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:45:57 -0700, Newps > wrote:
> wrote:
> >>> Once a clearance for an approach is issued, the pilot is bound by the
> >>> appropriate segments of the approach (Part 97) and the applicable parts of
> >>> 91.175. Any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>> legal no-no.
> >>
> >>Baloney. Once I'm in a position to fly visually to the airport/runway I
> >>can do just that.
> >
> >that's not what this says, I don't think:
> >
> >(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.
>
> I don't see anything there that prohibits you from cancelling IFR when you
> have sufficient visibility and cloud clearance to operate under VFR.

You can cancel when the reported ground visibility and your observed flight
visibility permit. Then, none of 91.175 has any application from that point on.
(you can't cancel in Class A airspace but that has no application to 91.175 in any
case.)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I don't see anything there that prohibits you from cancelling IFR when you
> > have sufficient visibility and cloud clearance to operate under VFR.
> >
>
> Nope. But if you can operate under VFR an instrument letdown wouldn't be
> necessary.

True, provided you cancel, or receive a clearance for a contact or visual
approach. Otherwise you must fly the IAP regardless of how good the weather
might be (VMC, not VFR).

Newps wrote:

> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> You
> > see, I didn't know if when you can see the runway and everything between
> > you and it, you can use a contact approach and/or cancel and land VFR
> > regardless of whether the tower is reporting IFR visibilities.
>
> No you cannot. If the field is IFR you must land under IFR, you may not
> cancel. At a towered airport there's really no reason to cancel. You
> may not get a contact approach either as that requires a mile vis. The
> instrument approach merely puts you in a position to see the runway. At
> some airports, the one I work at is one, we get conditions due to local
> terrain where one half the airport is 0/0. The other half is clear and
> a million. Legally you need an instrument approach to land. However
> there's no reason to fly an extra 10-20 miles after receipt of said
> clearance before landing. Once you have the runway in sight you proceed
> visually to your runway. Very simple.

Not unless you cancel, or receive an amended clearance for a visual or contact
approach.

wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:48:17 -0800, Ron Garret >
> wrote:
>
> >Simple, but illegal. You can only descend below minimums once you have
> >the field in sight AND you're on the final approach segment (and, if you
> >really want to pick nits, have reached DH or MDA)
>
> Actually, you need the runway environment in sight.
>
> And I would find it interesting to know how one descends below the DA
> or MDA without first reaching them.

One of the enforcement charges against the fired NWA crew that landed at the
USAF base in Rapid City, SD, when they were cleared for a VOR approach to the
civil airport was just that. And, the visibility was severe VMC.

Ron Garret wrote:

> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:41:36 -0800, Ron Garret >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article . com>,
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> > My source is 121.651.
> > >>
> > >> Why would you use an airline regulation for a general aviation
> > >> discussion on a general aviation newsgroup?
> > >
> > >Because I was confused. Make that 91.175.
> > >
> > >"... when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each
> > >person operating an aircraft ... shall use a standard instrument
> > >approach procedure ..."
> > >
> > >I suppose this is somewhat open to interpretation, but personally, I
> > >wouldn't want to be standing in front of the NTSB board trying to make
> > >the case that chopping power at 3000 feet over the airport and landing
> > >is "using a standard instrument approach procedure."
> > >
> > >rg
> >
> >
> > Probably true.
> >
> > But the issue was with the other wording, i. e., "when an instrument
> > letdown...is necessary".
> >
> > I think some folks were saying that if the airport was in sight, an
> > "instrument letdown" is not necessary, even if ATC cannot approve a
> > visual or contact approach.
>
> Hm, sounds pretty dubious to me. The very fact that you need an IFR
> clearance to land seems to me to be de facto evidence that an instrument
> letdown is "necessary". But be that as it may, 91.173 says:
>
> "No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR
> unless that person has --
>
> (a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and
>
> (b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance."
>
> and 91.123 says:
>
> "When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may
> deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an
> emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and
> collision avoidance system resolution advisory."
>
> So if the tower clears you for the VOR-A approach you'd better fly the
> VOR-A approach even if you can see the runway throughout the whole
> procedure turn.
>
> rg

Right. When on an IFR flight plan an instrument letdown (arcane language,
goes to show how old some of this stuff is) is necessary because that is the
clearance you have received from ATC. ATC can offer a visual and often does,
whether permitting, but that is their only tool to attempt to improve traffic
flow under VMC, and the pilot can decline, thus retaining the requirment to
fly the full approach.

Newps wrote:

> wrote:
> > Never would have thought of this, but it seems plausible enough, now
> > that you mention it.
> >
> > Although there is a regulation that says that the pilot is required to
> > use a prescribed "instrument letdown" when cleared for an approach,
> > or something like that.
> >
> > I wonder, would this be a violation of that?
>
> The approach gets you into conditions to land visually. Nowhere does it
> say you have to fly any part of the actual approach. Obviously you'll
> need to make sure ATC knows what you're doing.

From the AIM:

e. Except when being radar vectored to the final approach course, when
cleared for a specifically prescribed IAP; i.e., "cleared ILS runway one
niner approach" or when "cleared approach" i.e., execution of any procedure
prescribed for the airport, pilots shall execute the entire procedure
commencing at an IAF or an associated feeder route as described on the IAP
chart unless an appropriate new or revised ATC clearance is received, or the
IFR flight plan is canceled.

> wrote in message ...
>>
>> I'd say it should read "any short-cut without a revised clearance or a
>> cancellation is a legal no-no."
>>
>
> But, ATC is not authorized to issue an initial or revised clearance to
> short-cut any required segment of an instrument approach procedure except
> for
> radar vectors provided in accordance with 7110.65P, 5-9-1.
>

If in VMC the pilot can cancel IFR and discontinue the SIAP. If conditions
permit a contact approach the pilot can request one, receive a revised
clearance, and discontinue the SIAP.

> wrote in message ...
>
> True, provided you cancel, or receive a clearance for a contact or visual
> approach. Otherwise you must fly the IAP regardless of how good the
> weather
> might be (VMC, not VFR).
>

A visual approach is not an option when an instrument letdown is necessary.

Ron Garret wrote:

> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:41:36 -0800, Ron Garret >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article . com>,
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>My source is 121.651.
>>>>
>>>>Why would you use an airline regulation for a general aviation
>>>>discussion on a general aviation newsgroup?
>>>
>>>Because I was confused. Make that 91.175.
>>>
>>>"... when an instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each
>>>person operating an aircraft ... shall use a standard instrument
>>>approach procedure ..."
>>>
>>>I suppose this is somewhat open to interpretation, but personally, I
>>>wouldn't want to be standing in front of the NTSB board trying to make
>>>the case that chopping power at 3000 feet over the airport and landing
>>>is "using a standard instrument approach procedure."
>>>
>>>rg
>>
>>
>>Probably true.
>>
>>But the issue was with the other wording, i. e., "when an instrument
>>letdown...is necessary".
>>
>>I think some folks were saying that if the airport was in sight, an
>>"instrument letdown" is not necessary, even if ATC cannot approve a
>>visual or contact approach.
>
>
> Hm, sounds pretty dubious to me. The very fact that you need an IFR
> clearance to land seems to me to be de facto evidence that an instrument
> letdown is "necessary". But be that as it may, 91.173 says:
>
>
> "No person may operate an aircraft in controlled airspace under IFR
> unless that person has --
>
> (a) Filed an IFR flight plan; and
>
> (b) Received an appropriate ATC clearance."
>
>
> and 91.123 says:
>
> "When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may
> deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an
> emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and
> collision avoidance system resolution advisory."
>
>
> So if the tower clears you for the VOR-A approach you'd better fly the
> VOR-A approach even if you can see the runway throughout the whole
> procedure turn.

I agree. However, almost always I call the runway in sight and the
response is "cleared for the visual." Then we're all happy as well as
legal.

However, this might not be possible in the situation that started this
thread.



Matt

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:18:41 -0800, wrote:

>> "When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in command may
>> deviate from that clearance unless an amended clearance is obtained, an
>> emergency exists, or the deviation is in response to a traffic alert and
>> collision avoidance system resolution advisory."
>>
>> So if the tower clears you for the VOR-A approach you'd better fly the
>> VOR-A approach even if you can see the runway throughout the whole
>> procedure turn.
>>
>> rg
>
>Right. When on an IFR flight plan an instrument letdown (arcane language,
>goes to show how old some of this stuff is) is necessary because that is the
>clearance you have received from ATC. ATC can offer a visual and often does,
>whether permitting, but that is their only tool to attempt to improve traffic
>flow under VMC, and the pilot can decline, thus retaining the requirment to
>fly the full approach.


Well, the contact approach is another tool, they just can't offer it.

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:14:22 -0800, wrote:

>
>
wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:48:17 -0800, Ron Garret >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Simple, but illegal. You can only descend below minimums once you have
>> >the field in sight AND you're on the final approach segment (and, if you
>> >really want to pick nits, have reached DH or MDA)
>>
>> Actually, you need the runway environment in sight.
>>
>> And I would find it interesting to know how one descends below the DA
>> or MDA without first reaching them.
>
>One of the enforcement charges against the fired NWA crew that landed at the
>USAF base in Rapid City, SD, when they were cleared for a VOR approach to the
>civil airport was just that. And, the visibility was severe VMC.
>


Just what? No runway in sight?

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:08:12 -0800, wrote:

>
>
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
>> In a previous article, said:
>> >On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:45:57 -0700, Newps > wrote:
>> wrote:
>> >>> Once a clearance for an approach is issued, the pilot is bound by the
>> >>> appropriate segments of the approach (Part 97) and the applicable parts of
>> >>> 91.175. Any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >>> legal no-no.
>> >>
>> >>Baloney. Once I'm in a position to fly visually to the airport/runway I
>> >>can do just that.
>> >
>> >that's not what this says, I don't think:
>> >
>> >(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.
>>
>> I don't see anything there that prohibits you from cancelling IFR when you
>> have sufficient visibility and cloud clearance to operate under VFR.
>
>You can cancel when the reported ground visibility and your observed flight
>visibility permit. Then, none of 91.175 has any application from that point on.
>(you can't cancel in Class A airspace but that has no application to 91.175 in any
>case.)


You can cancel any time you are operating in VFR conditions. Ground
visibility may or may not have something to do with that.

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 06:11:42 GMT, "Gene Whitt" >
wrote:

>MY Bad,
>Mixed up two different flights and situations. One was SVFR from
>the Spreckles Sugar plant and Monterey with 400' ceiling. whet we went in
>SVFR
>
>Other was Contact where we had to change runways to maintain
>cloud clearance.
>
>Gene
>


SVFR with a 400' ceiling? Is that legal?

> wrote in message
...
>
> SVFR with a 400' ceiling? Is that legal?
>

By itself, yes. But extended flight under a solid 400' ceiling will likely
require a violation of FAR 91.119

In article >, wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Never would have thought of this, but it seems plausible enough, now
> > > that you mention it.
> > >
> > > Although there is a regulation that says that the pilot is required to
> > > use a prescribed "instrument letdown" when cleared for an approach,
> > > or something like that.
> > >
> > > I wonder, would this be a violation of that?
> > >
> >
> > No. That regulation begins with "Unless otherwise authorized by the
> > Administrator", and FAR Part 1 defines "Administrator" as "the Federal
> > Aviation Administrator or any person to whom he has delegated his authority
> > in the matter concerned."
>
> Where the regulations intend to give ATC authority to provide exceptions, it
> states "unless otherwise authorized by ATC."
>
> Where it states "unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator" delegation
> has to be affirmed by some policy document or other formal agreement.
>
> In the area of instrument approach procedures the Administrator has formally
> delegated the authority to pilots to deviate from the requirements of a Part
> 95
> SIAP:
>
> 1. Contact approaches provided the policy conditions and limitations set
> forth
> are observed.
>
> 2. Visual approaches provided the policy conditions and limitations set forth
> are observed.
>
> 3. Special instrument approach procedures, authorized for an operator by
> operations specifications or a letter or agreement.
>
> 4. SAAAR Part 95 procedures, such as Category II and III, and soon-to-be
> SAAAR
> RNP RNAV instrument approach procedures.
>
> Of the foregoing, ATC has the ability to initiate only the visual approach.
>
> I know; you know all of this but others may not.

Yes, but don't forget the situation that started this thread: the tower
is fogged in and calling zero vis. They cannot issue a contact approach
even if one is requested. You cannot land VFR or SVFR. I don't have
time to look it up right now, but it seems highly dubious to me that
they could or would issue a visual approach clearance under such
circumstances.

rg

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >>
> >> I'd say it should read "any short-cut without a revised clearance or a
> >> cancellation is a legal no-no."
> >>
> >
> > But, ATC is not authorized to issue an initial or revised clearance to
> > short-cut any required segment of an instrument approach procedure except
> > for
> > radar vectors provided in accordance with 7110.65P, 5-9-1.
> >
>
> If in VMC the pilot can cancel IFR and discontinue the SIAP. If conditions
> permit a contact approach the pilot can request one, receive a revised
> clearance, and discontinue the SIAP.

Read me previous messages: I said that contacts, visuals, and cancellations
were the only exceptions to a full approach (or 7110.65, 5-9-1 vectors to
final).

wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:14:22 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:48:17 -0800, Ron Garret >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Simple, but illegal. You can only descend below minimums once you have
> >> >the field in sight AND you're on the final approach segment (and, if you
> >> >really want to pick nits, have reached DH or MDA)
> >>
> >> Actually, you need the runway environment in sight.
> >>
> >> And I would find it interesting to know how one descends below the DA
> >> or MDA without first reaching them.
> >
> >One of the enforcement charges against the fired NWA crew that landed at the
> >USAF base in Rapid City, SD, when they were cleared for a VOR approach to the
> >civil airport was just that. And, the visibility was severe VMC.
> >
>
> Just what? No runway in sight?

I haven't seen the case, but that would be the "umbrella" charge, plus descending
before being a position to make a normal descent.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > True, provided you cancel, or receive a clearance for a contact or visual
> > approach. Otherwise you must fly the IAP regardless of how good the
> > weather
> > might be (VMC, not VFR).
> >
>
> A visual approach is not an option when an instrument letdown is necessary.

Depends on how you define "when necessary," Steve. The FAA postion is that
"when necessary" is when the pilot is on an IFR flight plan and has not
received a clearance for a visual or contact, regardless of weather
conditions. It's in the AIM that I cited to someone else here.

wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:08:12 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Paul Tomblin wrote:
> >
> >> In a previous article, said:
> >> >On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:45:57 -0700, Newps > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >> >>> Once a clearance for an approach is issued, the pilot is bound by the
> >> >>> appropriate segments of the approach (Part 97) and the applicable parts of
> >> >>> 91.175. Any "short cut" with either a contact, visual, or cancellation is a
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >>> legal no-no.
> >> >>
> >> >>Baloney. Once I'm in a position to fly visually to the airport/runway I
> >> >>can do just that.
> >> >
> >> >that's not what this says, I don't think:
> >> >
> >> >(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.
> >>
> >> I don't see anything there that prohibits you from cancelling IFR when you
> >> have sufficient visibility and cloud clearance to operate under VFR.
> >
> >You can cancel when the reported ground visibility and your observed flight
> >visibility permit. Then, none of 91.175 has any application from that point on.
> >(you can't cancel in Class A airspace but that has no application to 91.175 in any
> >case.)
>
> You can cancel any time you are operating in VFR conditions. Ground
> visibility may or may not have something to do with that.

If it's reported and you're going to land at that airport served by the IAP, then it's
pertinent. Otherwise, it's not.

> wrote in message ...
>
> Read me previous messages: I said that contacts, visuals, and
> cancellations
> were the only exceptions to a full approach (or 7110.65, 5-9-1 vectors to
> final).
>

So the point of your previous message was solely to agree with mine?

> wrote in message ...
>
> Depends on how you define "when necessary," Steve.
>

I use the standard dictionary definitions.

Steven,
Once I have established 'intent to land' I have never had a problem
even at 200'

My home field Concord CA gets plenty of avection fog every summer and the
LDA has a 380' minimum as lowest IFR altitude
I get in SVFR about twice a summer when IFR can't.
Gene Whitt
>
> By itself, yes. But extended flight under a solid 400' ceiling will
> likely require a violation of FAR 91.119
>

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > Read me previous messages: I said that contacts, visuals, and
> > cancellations
> > were the only exceptions to a full approach (or 7110.65, 5-9-1 vectors to
> > final).
> >
>
> So the point of your previous message was solely to agree with mine?

Could be, or could not be. You have developed to an art form the obtuse.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > Depends on how you define "when necessary," Steve.
> >
>
> I use the standard dictionary definitions.

Good for you. Nonetheless, you don't set policy for the FAA. Those who do
have kept the context going quite nicely by placing in the AIM the FAA
definition of "when necessary."

It sounds like you have little regard for those folks in DC who write ATC
policy. That doesn't seem real healthy for a working controller.

wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:11:04 -0800, wrote:
>
> >> You can cancel any time you are operating in VFR conditions. Ground
> >> visibility may or may not have something to do with that.
> >
> >If it's reported and you're going to land at that airport served by the IAP, then it's
> >pertinent. Otherwise, it's not.
> >
>
> Like I said...

Yes, that is what you said. But, it was quite Steve-like, in that the practical aspect of
the thread was landing at the airport that has the pertinant SIAP; and that means there is
reported ground visibility.

> wrote in message ...
>
> Could be, or could not be. You have developed to an art form the obtuse.
>

If you don't know what your point is you can hardly expect anyone else to
see it.

> wrote in message ...
>
> Good for you. Nonetheless, you don't set policy for the FAA.
>

Who does?


>
> Those who do have kept the context going quite nicely by placing in the
> AIM the FAA
> definition of "when necessary."
>

Where does the FAA define "when necessary"? The AIM is not regulatory.


>
> It sounds like you have little regard for those folks in DC who write ATC
> policy. That doesn't seem real healthy for a working controller.
>

No doubt it seems that way to those without a good knowledge of ATC.

"Gene Whitt" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Once I have established 'intent to land' I have never had a problem
> even at 200'
>

I establish "intent to land" with every takeoff.


>
> My home field Concord CA gets plenty of avection fog every summer and the
> LDA has a 380' minimum as lowest IFR altitude
> I get in SVFR about twice a summer when IFR can't.
>

If you can do that without overflying a congested area or operating closer
than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure, fine. If you
can't do that then you're in violation of FAR 91.119. The exception is
"when necessary for takeoff or landing", not "when necessary to remain clear
of clouds".

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > Could be, or could not be. You have developed to an art form the obtuse.
> >
>
> If you don't know what your point is you can hardly expect anyone else to
> see it.

Right, Steve.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > Good for you. Nonetheless, you don't set policy for the FAA.
> >
>
> Who does?
>
> >
> > Those who do have kept the context going quite nicely by placing in the
> > AIM the FAA
> > definition of "when necessary."
> >
>
> Where does the FAA define "when necessary"? The AIM is not regulatory.
>
> >
> > It sounds like you have little regard for those folks in DC who write ATC
> > policy. That doesn't seem real healthy for a working controller.
> >
>
> No doubt it seems that way to those without a good knowledge of ATC.

That would include most controllers these days who don't understand squat about
instrument approach procedures, and how to provide clearances for RNAV
approaches.

wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:03:40 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:11:04 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >> You can cancel any time you are operating in VFR conditions. Ground
> >> >> visibility may or may not have something to do with that.
> >> >
> >> >If it's reported and you're going to land at that airport served by the IAP, then it's
> >> >pertinent. Otherwise, it's not.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Like I said...
> >
> >Yes, that is what you said. But, it was quite Steve-like, in that the practical aspect of
> >the thread was landing at the airport that has the pertinant SIAP; and that means there is
> >reported ground visibility.
> >
>
> "Steve-like"? Really?
>
> In your response, you mentioned cancelling in Class A airspace. It
> would seem from that you were talking more generally than landing at
> the airport that has the pertinent SIAP.
>
> But perhaps you were only being "Tim-like".

The Class A reference was an "and by the way."

This is what is so crappy about this anonymous, unmoderated group. More often than not it
reduces to crap.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>> Once I have established 'intent to land' I have never had a problem
>> even at 200'
>>
>
> I establish "intent to land" with every takeoff.

Hee-hee!

Good one.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:04:35 -0800, wrote:

>That would include most controllers these days who don't understand squat about
>instrument approach procedures, and how to provide clearances for RNAV
>approaches.


I don't know if I'd say "most", but it certainly is "many".

Just a week or two ago I had to debate the controller about a
procedure as I was flying it. The controller later came back on and
apologized, but it hppens more often than it should.

Another situation involved a former student who was severely
reprimanded by the controller for flying the procedure as it was
charted. A letter to his facitlity also resulted in a (written)
apology, and it was clear from the letter that they had discovered
that the controller in question was not the only one who did not
understasnd what he was doing.

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 05:06:01 -0800, wrote:

>> >Yes, that is what you said. But, it was quite Steve-like, in that the practical aspect of
>> >the thread was landing at the airport that has the pertinant SIAP; and that means there is
>> >reported ground visibility.
>> >
>>
>> "Steve-like"? Really?
>>
>> In your response, you mentioned cancelling in Class A airspace. It
>> would seem from that you were talking more generally than landing at
>> the airport that has the pertinent SIAP.
>>
>> But perhaps you were only being "Tim-like".
>
>The Class A reference was an "and by the way."
>
>This is what is so crappy about this anonymous, unmoderated group. More often than not it
>reduces to crap.


Agree. Often the degeneration starts with personal phrases like
being "Steve-like". (Not that I'm against some good old personal
sparring now and then).

However, in this case, my post was only meant to clarify.

> wrote in message
...
>
> Agree. Often the degeneration starts with personal phrases like
> being "Steve-like".
>

How can degeneration start with a compliment?

> wrote in message ...
>
> That would include most controllers these days who don't understand squat
> about
> instrument approach procedures, and how to provide clearances for RNAV
> approaches.
>

Well, it would certainly include many controllers, what is your evidence
that it would include most?

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> > > wrote in message
...
> > >
> > > Good for you. Nonetheless, you don't set policy for the FAA.
> > >
> >
> > Who does?
> >
> > >
> > > Those who do have kept the context going quite nicely by placing in
the
> > > AIM the FAA
> > > definition of "when necessary."
> > >
> >
> > Where does the FAA define "when necessary"? The AIM is not regulatory.
> >
> > >
> > > It sounds like you have little regard for those folks in DC who write
ATC
> > > policy. That doesn't seem real healthy for a working controller.
> > >
> >
> > No doubt it seems that way to those without a good knowledge of ATC.
>
> That would include most controllers these days who don't understand squat
about
> instrument approach procedures, and how to provide clearances for RNAV
> approaches.
>

Gee, ya think we have a procedures training problem in ATC-land? I sure do!
Too bad we are so short staffed on the line that we don't have time for
procedures training. We're too busy working too much traffic with too few
people while simultaneosly trying to field the latest and greatest gee-wiz
people-replacing maximum-efficiency ATC gizmo. Little wonder many of us
don't have a clue! IAP's are the least of our worries (but the among the
greatest of yours, considering that almost every person killed in aviation
dies when an airplane strikes the ground....)

Added to this ***complete*** lack of recurrent procedures training, there
are quite a few "trained to succeed" equal-opportunity controllers who don't
even know what an airplane looks like. Rather than being terminated for
failing to check out in the max amount of hours, they get certified to make
the face of ATC look like the face of America (and to avoid an EEOC
hearing). Most of them can't even read a plate. Half of them can't even
get to work on time. They're too busy meeting with their career counselor
seeking a way up the corporate ladder to the RO or into a staff job.

It helps little that our "leaders" in FAA management are there because they
have risen to the level of their incompetence, see above. Almost to a man
or a woman, career service AT managers are in air traffic management because
they sucked badly as controllers. That's goes from flow control to the
basic first level supervisor all the way up to the Crystal Palace in DC. It
helps even less that "controllers" occupying staff jobs like "Procedures
Specialist" aren't filling that 530 billet because they are the best or the
brightest, but rather because they are either scared to work traffic or
because they are dangerous when working traffic. Hell, we've got so many
cowards and fools in Air Traffic doing management and staff jobs that we've
run out of room in the offices and they're spilling out into trailers.

These are the AT folks who are supposed to be approving TERPS stuff and
*coordinating* it with the people keying the mic. That coordination has
been discombobulated for years now. As all of these new IAP's magically
appear in each new 56-day cycle, air traffic controllers fall farther and
farther behind on the safety curve. In my facility, our area airspace and
procedures "Specialist" hasn't worked airplanes since 1993. He hasn't
cleared a single aircraft for approach in over a decade. His boss hasn't
cleared one in 15 years. Neither man even possesses a current medical.
What in the hell does either man, either "controller" (ya, right) know about
ATC clearances or TERPS? Nada. Neither knows shinola about how any given
IAP fits into the fabric of the ATC sector they are supposed to be
"supporting". All they want to do is their 8.5 hours and head home with
their six figure salary. A few more years of riding a desk and they can
hang up the ties and head for the links every day. They've read about GPS
and RNAV approaches, but hey, that's what we pay those controllers to figure
out, right? Not our problem, now who brought the donughts?

The real ****er to me is that TERPS folks who create these procedures don't
even seem to attempt to coordinate new IAP's with front line controllers.
The Regions (or "Service Areas" as they are now called in the Newspeak of
the present "performance" based operation) just seem to plop new IAP's
willy-nilly in the NAS, or else change vital components of existing IAP's
without notice *and without input* from the guys and gals who will be
controlling the procedure. They don't consider the ATC part of it, things
like traffic, frequency coverage, sector boundaries, etc. The whole chain
of command seems to expect that the effected controllers will somehow
magically acquire technical proficiency *after* an IAP is published or
modified. Heck, they even seem to believe that controllers will magically
aquire knowledge of any changes or newly published procedure. Because of
the utter lack of support from above, I force myself to check the plates
every cycle because it is the only way I can discover a new IAP or change to
existing one *before* I might kill someone with a bad clearance. Sure would
be nice to get a head's up what is new and what has changed. Better yet, it
would be nice to get a little training when a new procedure gets plopped
down in my airspace. At least that way I'd know about it before some pilot
asked for a clearance to fly it.

No wonder we controllers don't understand squat about instrument approach
procedures or how to provide clearances for RNAV approaches. The entire
training and support mechanism has run off the rails and no one holding down
a desk in the Great Oz above has even noticed...

Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> It helps little that our "leaders" in FAA management are there because
> they
> have risen to the level of their incompetence, see above. Almost to a man
> or a woman, career service AT managers are in air traffic management
> because
> they sucked badly as controllers.
>

That's not rising to your level of incompetence, that's moving beyond it.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
. net:

> That's not rising to your level of incompetence, that's moving beyond
> it.

Precisely the definition of a successful bureaucrat.

I had an unusual occurrence the other night. I was inbound to KGLS from
offshore on a medevac flight, using a Lifeguard callsign. The GLS
weather was 1/4 mile, VV001, and I was talking to ZHU. The controller
finally figured out where I was, and gave me radar contact about 30 miles
south. Generally we get turned over to approach at about 20 miles, but
that night we got nothing, other than asking if we had the GLS weather,
which we already had. Finally at about 5 miles from the airport I called
and gave my position, and inquired about the approach. After some ers,
ums, etc, I got "maintain 2000 until established, cleared for the
approach". I was surprised, but we started setting up for the full
approach instead of the vectors we generally get. Just as we were about
to cross the VOR, center came back and cancelled the approach clearance
and told us to contact approach. Approach seemed to be a little
surprised at what was going on, but we got vectors, and flew the approach
successfully. This isn't a new approach, but perhaps a new center
controller, who apparently didn't know that HOU approach owned that
airspace. Odd, and I must say unusual.

There seems to be some friction within ZHU, because one faction wants us
on a local altimeter setting out over the Gulf of Mexico at lower
altitudes (generally below 5,000 ft) and another wants us on 29.92, and
we're caught in the middle. Management (our chief pilot and ZHU
supervisors) say local altimeter, but some of the controllers seem to
want to threaten violations for that, and the pilots just want to keep
their certificates clean. Don't play games, with us as the shuttlecock.

--
Regards,

Stan

"Stan Gosnell" > wrote in message
...
> I had an unusual occurrence the other night. I was inbound to KGLS from
> offshore on a medevac flight, using a Lifeguard callsign. The GLS
> weather was 1/4 mile, VV001, and I was talking to ZHU. The controller
> finally figured out where I was, and gave me radar contact about 30 miles
> south. Generally we get turned over to approach at about 20 miles, but
> that night we got nothing, other than asking if we had the GLS weather,
> which we already had. Finally at about 5 miles from the airport I called
> and gave my position, and inquired about the approach. After some ers,
> ums, etc, I got "maintain 2000 until established, cleared for the
> approach". I was surprised, but we started setting up for the full
> approach instead of the vectors we generally get.

I was just looking at the NACO chart for GLS ILS 13
(http://makeashorterlink.com/?I14153A5A). Curiously, there's no exemption
from the procedure turn, even for the feeder route from HUB to SWANE. So
should you fly from HUB to SWANE, make an uncharted procedure turn outbound,
then turn around and come back in? Or is there a chart error?

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
:

> I was just looking at the NACO chart for GLS ILS 13
> (http://makeashorterlink.com/?I14153A5A). Curiously, there's no
> exemption from the procedure turn, even for the feeder route from HUB
> to SWANE. So should you fly from HUB to SWANE, make an uncharted
> procedure turn outbound, then turn around and come back in? Or is
> there a chart error?

We use Jepp charts, and I left mine at work. ISTR a NoPT note coming
from HUB, but I couldn't swear to it. In the real world, you don't do a
procedure turn because you're always going to get vectors from Houston
Approach. We do procedure turns for practice, and sometimes ask for the
full procedure when coming from the Gulf, but coming from Hobby you'll
*always* be vectored. The GPS approaches have a Radar Required note.


--
Regards,

Stan

Stan Gosnell > wrote in
:

> We use Jepp charts, and I left mine at work. ISTR a NoPT note coming
> from HUB, but I couldn't swear to it. In the real world, you don't do
> a procedure turn because you're always going to get vectors from
> Houston Approach. We do procedure turns for practice, and sometimes
> ask for the full procedure when coming from the Gulf, but coming from
> Hobby you'll *always* be vectored. The GPS approaches have a Radar
> Required note.

I called my FO, who's still on hitch, and we discussed the plates. The
ILS13 transition has no NoPT notation, but interestingly the VOR 13 does.
The IAF for the VOR13 isn't SWANE, but it's very close to it. I have no
idea why one requires a procedure turn and the other doesn't. As I said
above, you'll always be on vectors anyway, so it's really a moot point.
Unless you request the full approach. ;-)

--
Regards,

Stan

Gary Drescher wrote:

> I was just looking at the NACO chart for GLS ILS 13
> (http://makeashorterlink.com/?I14153A5A). Curiously, there's no exemption
> from the procedure turn, even for the feeder route from HUB to SWANE. So
> should you fly from HUB to SWANE, make an uncharted procedure turn outbound,
> then turn around and come back in? Or is there a chart error?

Yes, make the procedure turn unless you're vectored to the final approach course.

What do you mean "uncharted"? There's a procedure turn barb on the chart.

There's a note "Procedure turn N/A for Cat E", so if you're Cat E you need to
have vactors for the final approach course, or use some other approach. Must be
some terrain or obstruction within the protected area for Cat E.

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1107182845.199592@sj-nntpcache-5...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> I was just looking at the NACO chart for GLS ILS 13
>> (http://makeashorterlink.com/?I14153A5A). Curiously, there's no exemption
>> from the procedure turn, even for the feeder route from HUB to SWANE. So
>> should you fly from HUB to SWANE, make an uncharted procedure turn
>> outbound, then turn around and come back in? Or is there a chart error?
>
> Yes, make the procedure turn unless you're vectored to the final approach
> course.
>
> What do you mean "uncharted"? There's a procedure turn barb on the chart.

For the inbound procedure turn, yes. The outbound turn would have to be
flown after reaching SWANE inbound.

I emailed NACO about this chart, and they replied promptly that the omission
of NoPT for the HUB feeder is indeed a chart error, and will be corrected in
the next revision.

--Gary