Opinions please:

Hailey Idaho, KSUN, daytime, ndb dme approach (circling only minima),
map is 5.3 nm back from threshhold, minima are 8000 ft (2681) and 5
miles, with "fly visual to airport" annotation.

1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's,
in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you
cannot see the airport?

2. What would be the legality of deciding just prior to the map that
you've just enough visibility and ceiling for vfr, though well below
the 5 sm in the approach visibility minimums, and continuing vfr until
the field is in site, and landing? Assume that frequency congestion
did not allow you time to cancel ifr.

Stan

> Opinions please:

Never been known to withhold them. :)

> Hailey Idaho, KSUN, daytime, ndb dme approach (circling only minima),
> map is 5.3 nm back from threshhold, minima are 8000 ft (2681) and 5
> miles, with "fly visual to airport" annotation.
>
> 1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's,
> in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you
> cannot see the airport?

You can fly (keep the dirty side down and navigate) visually without
seeing the airport.

> 2. What would be the legality of deciding just prior to the map that
> you've just enough visibility and ceiling for vfr, though well below
> the 5 sm in the approach visibility minimums, and continuing vfr until
> the field is in site, and landing? Assume that frequency congestion
> did not allow you time to cancel ifr.

I do not take "fly visual" to be "fly under VFR". On the approach you
are still under instrument flight RULES and the airspace is still
protected from other IFR aircraft. You are not required to cancel IFR
to "fly visual to the airport". You remain IFR until you land, or (at
the pilot's option) have actual VFR conditions that continue to the
airport.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Interesting question, but the MAP is the MAP and if you do not have the
airport in site then you must go missed. You could cancel IFR or request a
contact approach but you can't just decide to "go vfr". You can't cancel
unless you meet the VFR cloud requirements. You should be darn sure that
you will be able to find the airport because maneuvering at KSUN in murky
weather is hazardous. There is never much frequency congestion at KSUN when
it is IFR. It is one in and one out with additional arrivals stacked in the
hold at HLE. While holding, they are talking to Salt Lake Center.

Mike
MU-2

> wrote in message
...
> Opinions please:
>
> Hailey Idaho, KSUN, daytime, ndb dme approach (circling only minima),
> map is 5.3 nm back from threshhold, minima are 8000 ft (2681) and 5
> miles, with "fly visual to airport" annotation.
>
> 1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's,
> in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you
> cannot see the airport?
>
> 2. What would be the legality of deciding just prior to the map that
> you've just enough visibility and ceiling for vfr, though well below
> the 5 sm in the approach visibility minimums, and continuing vfr until
> the field is in site, and landing? Assume that frequency congestion
> did not allow you time to cancel ifr.
>
> Stan

>> 1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's,
>> in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you
>> cannot see the airport?
>
> You can fly (keep the dirty side down and navigate) visually without seeing the airport.

Just to clarify myself, you do need to see some part of the airport to
continue. It doesn't have to be the threshold.

Jose
--
Money: What you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

This is the provision of TERPs being used:

"This subparagraph does not apply to a procedure where the MAP is more
that 2 statute miles from the airport and the procedure is noted, 'Fly
visual to airport' in which case the required visibility shall be at least
2 miles, but not less than the visibility specified in Table 6."

Most of the time, the folks who design IAP have not used the "at least 2
miles" to mean "2 miles is good enough;" instead they make the visibility
value in statute miles not less than the distance from the MAP to the
runway threshold (straight-in) or nearest portion of a landing surface
(circling only). Take KTVL as an example.

Having said that, the instructions for the procedures specialist to fill
out the 8260-3/5 states:

"k. When the missed approach point is more than 2 SM from the airport,
use: 'Chart planview and profile notes: Fly visual to airport, 220° - 2.5
miles.' "

This seems to support using 2 miles, not 5 miles. This stuff is not black
and white like we all would like it to be.

Those who take the conservative approach feel that the required visual
cues set forth in 91.175 still apply when this note is used; others do
not. And, it's never been set forth in any policy statement.

So, bottom line: as a pilot you are the person ultimately on the hook.
The conservative bet would be see one of the 91.175-mandated visual
references prior to passing the MAP.


wrote:

> Opinions please:
>
> Hailey Idaho, KSUN, daytime, ndb dme approach (circling only minima),
> map is 5.3 nm back from threshhold, minima are 8000 ft (2681) and 5
> miles, with "fly visual to airport" annotation.
>
> 1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's,
> in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you
> cannot see the airport?
>
> 2. What would be the legality of deciding just prior to the map that
> you've just enough visibility and ceiling for vfr, though well below
> the 5 sm in the approach visibility minimums, and continuing vfr until
> the field is in site, and landing? Assume that frequency congestion
> did not allow you time to cancel ifr.
>
> Stan

I wonder if the scheduled airlines that come in to KSUN have private
approaches. But regardless, I am sure they have special "balked
landing" procedures because if you are close, flying the charted missed
doesn't always work. This is the kind of stuff that caused the crash of
the jet at Aspen. I'm with Mike here. At any rate, I'd have to KNOW
that I could make it to proceed. No maybes. And seeing the ground but
not seeing the airport wouldn't be enough.

Doug wrote:

> I wonder if the scheduled airlines that come in to KSUN have private
> approaches. But regardless, I am sure they have special "balked
> landing" procedures because if you are close, flying the charted missed
> doesn't always work. This is the kind of stuff that caused the crash of
> the jet at Aspen. I'm with Mike here. At any rate, I'd have to KNOW
> that I could make it to proceed. No maybes. And seeing the ground but
> not seeing the airport wouldn't be enough.

I've never heard of any specials for that airport. The terrain is pretty
dicy close in

The airlines go to Twin Falls when the weather is below minimiums. I don't
think that they have special minimiums like at Reno.

Mike
MU-2


"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>I wonder if the scheduled airlines that come in to KSUN have private
> approaches. But regardless, I am sure they have special "balked
> landing" procedures because if you are close, flying the charted missed
> doesn't always work. This is the kind of stuff that caused the crash of
> the jet at Aspen. I'm with Mike here. At any rate, I'd have to KNOW
> that I could make it to proceed. No maybes. And seeing the ground but
> not seeing the airport wouldn't be enough.
>

"Jose" > wrote in message =
. com...
>>> 1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the =
FAR's,
>>> in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map =
you
>>> cannot see the airport?
>>=20
>> You can fly (keep the dirty side down and navigate) visually without =
seeing the airport.=20
>=20
> Just to clarify myself, you do need to see some part of the airport to =

> continue. It doesn't have to be the threshold.
>=20
> Jose
> --=20

It's been a couple of years since I've been to KSUN, but from my =
recollection,
if you don't see the threshold, you won't see anything else of that =
airport, either.

Mike, Tim's post implies you don't have to go missed at the map if you
don't have the airport in site. The far's say to follow the approach
plate, which says to fly visual. Of course, the approach requires 5
sm visibility, so you need to have that too.

Stan
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:56:43 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>Interesting question, but the MAP is the MAP and if you do not have the
>airport in site then you must go missed. You could cancel IFR or request a
>contact approach but you can't just decide to "go vfr". You can't cancel
>unless you meet the VFR cloud requirements. You should be darn sure that
>you will be able to find the airport because maneuvering at KSUN in murky
>weather is hazardous. There is never much frequency congestion at KSUN when
>it is IFR. It is one in and one out with additional arrivals stacked in the
>hold at HLE. While holding, they are talking to Salt Lake Center.
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>
> wrote in message
...
>> Opinions please:
>>
>> Hailey Idaho, KSUN, daytime, ndb dme approach (circling only minima),
>> map is 5.3 nm back from threshhold, minima are 8000 ft (2681) and 5
>> miles, with "fly visual to airport" annotation.
>>
>> 1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's,
>> in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you
>> cannot see the airport?
>>
>> 2. What would be the legality of deciding just prior to the map that
>> you've just enough visibility and ceiling for vfr, though well below
>> the 5 sm in the approach visibility minimums, and continuing vfr until
>> the field is in site, and landing? Assume that frequency congestion
>> did not allow you time to cancel ifr.
>>
>> Stan
>

Thanks, Tim. I think this answers all questions.
This approach gives us a good "stumper" question.

Are you always required to commence a missed approach at the missed
approach point if you don't have the field in site?

Ans: NO, not for KSUN

stan

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:15:03 -0800, wrote:

>This is the provision of TERPs being used:
>
>"This subparagraph does not apply to a procedure where the MAP is more
>that 2 statute miles from the airport and the procedure is noted, 'Fly
>visual to airport' in which case the required visibility shall be at least
>2 miles, but not less than the visibility specified in Table 6."
>
>Most of the time, the folks who design IAP have not used the "at least 2
>miles" to mean "2 miles is good enough;" instead they make the visibility
>value in statute miles not less than the distance from the MAP to the
>runway threshold (straight-in) or nearest portion of a landing surface
>(circling only). Take KTVL as an example.
>
>Having said that, the instructions for the procedures specialist to fill
>out the 8260-3/5 states:
>
>"k. When the missed approach point is more than 2 SM from the airport,
>use: 'Chart planview and profile notes: Fly visual to airport, 220° - 2.5
>miles.' "
>
>This seems to support using 2 miles, not 5 miles. This stuff is not black
>and white like we all would like it to be.
>
>Those who take the conservative approach feel that the required visual
>cues set forth in 91.175 still apply when this note is used; others do
>not. And, it's never been set forth in any policy statement.
>
>So, bottom line: as a pilot you are the person ultimately on the hook.
>The conservative bet would be see one of the 91.175-mandated visual
>references prior to passing the MAP.
>
>
wrote:
>
>> Opinions please:
>>
>> Hailey Idaho, KSUN, daytime, ndb dme approach (circling only minima),
>> map is 5.3 nm back from threshhold, minima are 8000 ft (2681) and 5
>> miles, with "fly visual to airport" annotation.
>>
>> 1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's,
>> in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you
>> cannot see the airport?
>>
>> 2. What would be the legality of deciding just prior to the map that
>> you've just enough visibility and ceiling for vfr, though well below
>> the 5 sm in the approach visibility minimums, and continuing vfr until
>> the field is in site, and landing? Assume that frequency congestion
>> did not allow you time to cancel ifr.
>>
>> Stan

I am looking at the plate and I can see the notation "Fly Visual to Airport"
and, I admit, I had not noticed this before. It seems odd and leaves
questions unanswered. What should one do if you are flying visual past the
MAP and can't see the airport? Does the visibility have to extend 5sm in
all directions?

Mike
MU-2


> wrote in message
...
> Mike, Tim's post implies you don't have to go missed at the map if you
> don't have the airport in site. The far's say to follow the approach
> plate, which says to fly visual. Of course, the approach requires 5
> sm visibility, so you need to have that too.
>
> Stan
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:56:43 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
>>Interesting question, but the MAP is the MAP and if you do not have the
>>airport in site then you must go missed. You could cancel IFR or request
>>a
>>contact approach but you can't just decide to "go vfr". You can't cancel
>>unless you meet the VFR cloud requirements. You should be darn sure that
>>you will be able to find the airport because maneuvering at KSUN in murky
>>weather is hazardous. There is never much frequency congestion at KSUN
>>when
>>it is IFR. It is one in and one out with additional arrivals stacked in
>>the
>>hold at HLE. While holding, they are talking to Salt Lake Center.
>>
>>Mike
>>MU-2
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>> Opinions please:
>>>
>>> Hailey Idaho, KSUN, daytime, ndb dme approach (circling only minima),
>>> map is 5.3 nm back from threshhold, minima are 8000 ft (2681) and 5
>>> miles, with "fly visual to airport" annotation.
>>>
>>> 1. Since 5.3 nm is just over 6 sm, is this not contrary to the FAR's,
>>> in that you can fly visual to the airport, even though at the map you
>>> cannot see the airport?
>>>
>>> 2. What would be the legality of deciding just prior to the map that
>>> you've just enough visibility and ceiling for vfr, though well below
>>> the 5 sm in the approach visibility minimums, and continuing vfr until
>>> the field is in site, and landing? Assume that frequency congestion
>>> did not allow you time to cancel ifr.
>>>
>>> Stan
>>
>

Mike, my old aim pilot/controller glossary for Visibility, flight
visibility, "average forward horizontal distance". So, you can
continue past the map if you have 5 sm visibility, even if the airport
is not in sight.

If you're past the missed app point at ksun, then it's just like
you're circling past the map on some circling app. No longer 200 feet
per nm protection, or no longer on the safe missed approach segment,
depending on the action the pilot takes

Stan

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 01:48:30 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>I am looking at the plate and I can see the notation "Fly Visual to Airport"
>and, I admit, I had not noticed this before. It seems odd and leaves
>questions unanswered. What should one do if you are flying visual past the
>MAP and can't see the airport? Does the visibility have to extend 5sm in
>all directions?
>
>Mike
>MU-2
>