Would you ever be directed into the traffic pattern while approaching an
airport for landing IFR? That is, would you be told to make right/left
downwind or right/left traffic for landing? If so, what's the procedure?

I was under the impression that, if you are IFR, you will be given specific
instructions up until you actually have the field in sight, which means that,
if you are truly to enter the pattern, ATC would first verify that you have
the field in sight, then say something like "cleared for the visual approach"
(?).

I guess I'm confused about the conditions under which you'd be left up to your
own discretion for altitude and heading under IFR during an approach.

On Jul 26, 12:13*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Would you ever be directed into the traffic pattern while approaching an
> airport for landing IFR? *That is, would you be told to make right/left
> downwind or right/left traffic for landing? *If so, what's the procedure?
>
> I was under the impression that, if you are IFR, you will be given specific
> instructions up until you actually have the field in sight, which means that,
> if you are truly to enter the pattern, ATC would first verify that you have
> the field in sight, then say something like "cleared for the visual approach"
> (?).
>
> I guess I'm confused about the conditions under which you'd be left up to your
> own discretion for altitude and heading under IFR during an approach.

Uncontrolled fields are "uncontrolled". You'd be cleared for the
approach (instrument or visual (or contact I suppose), and then told
you were free to use the advisory frequency. Approach/Center
controllers wouldn't care what pattern entry (downwind/base/final) you
would use or anything else.

9 times out of 10 (with vectoring) its been a straight in approach for
whatever airport im heading for based on surface winds etc. I've never
gotten an "enter left downind".

Some VATSIM controller tell you how to enter the pattern? ;-)

Now a controlled field will tell you how to enter their pattern in
accordance with whatever's going on.

All that being said, its best to use the pattern appropriate for an
airport to avoid running into VFR traffic. Just because you are on an
IFR flight plan doesn't mean that you can ignore the VFR traffic
around you.

Brian
N9093K

bdl writes:

> Uncontrolled fields are "uncontrolled". You'd be cleared for the
> approach (instrument or visual (or contact I suppose), and then told
> you were free to use the advisory frequency. Approach/Center
> controllers wouldn't care what pattern entry (downwind/base/final) you
> would use or anything else.

This was a Class B, though. And yes, it was on VATSIM, with a trainee
controller. I was simply told to make right traffic as I entered the Bravo at
8000 (field elevation 1800). In the past I've always been given vectors and
altitudes until I confirm that I have the field in sight, at which point I'm
cleared for a visual approach (without any mention of pattern). It seemed odd
that I'd be cut loose for the approach in a pattern in Bravo airspace, while
still at 8000. But I didn't really know if the controller was doing something
wrong or if this was just something new that I hadn't experienced before while
IFR.

> 9 times out of 10 (with vectoring) its been a straight in approach for
> whatever airport im heading for based on surface winds etc. I've never
> gotten an "enter left downind".
>
> Some VATSIM controller tell you how to enter the pattern? ;-)

Yup.

> Now a controlled field will tell you how to enter their pattern in
> accordance with whatever's going on.
>
> All that being said, its best to use the pattern appropriate for an
> airport to avoid running into VFR traffic. Just because you are on an
> IFR flight plan doesn't mean that you can ignore the VFR traffic
> around you.

I've been cleared for a visual approach (said exactly that way "cleared for
the visual approach") in the past after being descended to a few thousand feet
above the field and while moving roughly in a downwind pattern, but only after
I've confirmed that I have the field in sight. So this procedure mystified
me.

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> I've been cleared for a visual approach (said exactly that way "cleared for
> the visual approach") in the past after being descended to a few thousand feet
> above the field and while moving roughly in a downwind pattern, but only after
> I've confirmed that I have the field in sight. So this procedure mystified
> me.

How did you do that when you don't have a airman's certificate? ...some
flight simulator game?

Sam Spade > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>
>> I've been cleared for a visual approach (said exactly that way
>> "cleared for the visual approach") in the past after being descended
>> to a few thousand feet above the field and while moving roughly in a
>> downwind pattern, but only after I've confirmed that I have the field
>> in sight. So this procedure mystified me.
>
> How did you do that when you don't have a airman's certificate?
> ...some flight simulator game?
>

Anthony only flies MSFS and uses VATSIM. He has deluded himself into
thinking he is a pilot from his vast experience with those games.

Benjamin Dover wrote:
> Sam Spade > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I've been cleared for a visual approach (said exactly that way
>>>"cleared for the visual approach") in the past after being descended
>>>to a few thousand feet above the field and while moving roughly in a
>>>downwind pattern, but only after I've confirmed that I have the field
>>>in sight. So this procedure mystified me.
>>
>>How did you do that when you don't have a airman's certificate?
>>...some flight simulator game?
>>
>
>
> Anthony only flies MSFS and uses VATSIM. He has deluded himself into
> thinking he is a pilot from his vast experience with those games.
>

He probably knows all about thunderstorm avoidance, too. And, icy
winter runways, etc, and ad nasueum.

Maybe he can tell us all about his RNP SAAAR (excuese me, "SA" in
ICAO-speak) qualifications and vast operating experience.

Sam Spade > wrote:

> Maybe he can tell us all about his RNP SAAAR (excuese me, "SA" in
> ICAO-speak) qualifications and vast operating experience.

It's actually "AR" in ICAO-speak!

There's a distinction between being "IFR" and "IMC".

IFR just means you're flying under controller direction for separation
purposes. If the field is visual but with low clouds, you'll usually
get a straight in approach, but if that lines up with a downwind
runway, ATC may authorize a "circle to land" approach. Once you're
flying visually, you have to fit into the ongoing pattern. If the
field is controlled, that means tower direction and you typically call
tower 5 miles out. If the field is uncontrolled, you call the local
CTAF when ATC turns you loose to do that and then if the field is
under VFR rules you have to fit into the existing traffic flow.

paul kgyy wrote:
>
> There's a distinction between being "IFR" and "IMC".
>
> IFR just means you're flying under controller direction for separation
> purposes.
>

IFR means you're flying under Instrument Flight Rules, you can do that in
IMC in Class G airspace without controller direction for separation
purposes.