An airline pilot of my acquaintance related about accepting a charted
visual flight procedure into Reno, part of which involves intercepting
a localizer course. He said they were IMC at the time.

My understanding is that the aircraft must reporting seeing a landmark
or preceding aircraft before clearance for this charted visual flight
procedure will be given.

Any thoughts about whether my acquaintance acted properly?

Scott Draper wrote:

> An airline pilot of my acquaintance related about accepting a charted
> visual flight procedure into Reno, part of which involves intercepting
> a localizer course. He said they were IMC at the time.
>
> My understanding is that the aircraft must reporting seeing a landmark
> or preceding aircraft before clearance for this charted visual flight
> procedure will be given.
>
> Any thoughts about whether my acquaintance acted properly?

ATC would love to make those CVFPs quasi-instrument approach procedures.
Nonetheless, they are a chart to help a pilot fly by reference to
landmarks and perhaps assisted by hav aids to visually navigate to the
landing runway.

If your aquaintance accepted a turn onto the localizer into a position
inconsistent with vectors-to-final for the ILS/LOC approach, he bought
into a practice that will further erode the system and is certainly not
"legal" (although what's legal with ATC moving traffic only comes to head
when there is either a documented loss of separation, a major incident, or
an accident.

On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:18:27 GMT, Scott Draper
> wrote:

>An airline pilot of my acquaintance related about accepting a charted
>visual flight procedure into Reno, part of which involves intercepting
>a localizer course. He said they were IMC at the time.
>
>My understanding is that the aircraft must reporting seeing a landmark
>or preceding aircraft before clearance for this charted visual flight
>procedure will be given.
>
>Any thoughts about whether my acquaintance acted properly?


Is a CVFP in Part 97?



Sec. 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(a) Instrument approaches to civil airports.
Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when an
instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each person
operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United
States, shall use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed
for the airport in part 97 of this chapter.

================
Is a CVFP in Part 97?
================

Not that I can tell.

================
Sec. 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.
================

One potential loophole is " Unless otherwise authorized by the
Administrator", the same escape clause for vectors to final, visual
and contact approaches.

Another out is that as long as the aircraft maintains the 91.177
obstacle clearances, there is arguably no "letdown" in progress. ATC
can tell you to intercept a radial and give you a descent, but I infer
that isn't a "letdown" until descending below the 91.177 altitudes.

The above seems unlikely, given the terrain in the area.

============================
If your aquaintance accepted a turn onto the localizer into a position
inconsistent with vectors-to-final for the ILS/LOC approach,
============================

I'm not sure which visual he shot, but the one for 16L/R uses the ILS
for the 16R for course guidance. There is no ILS for 34L/R.

My acquaintance said that his FO exclaimed "Can we do that?" when
given the CVFP, so I would guess that there was not the slight
appearance of a vector to final for the ILS, if there was one for that
runway.

I called Reno approach and spoke with a controller. He agreed that
there are no circumstances in which the pilot should be in IMC on this
approach.

"Scott Draper" > wrote in message
...
>
> An airline pilot of my acquaintance related about accepting a charted
> visual flight procedure into Reno, part of which involves intercepting
> a localizer course. He said they were IMC at the time.
>
> My understanding is that the aircraft must reporting seeing a landmark
> or preceding aircraft before clearance for this charted visual flight
> procedure will be given.
>
> Any thoughts about whether my acquaintance acted properly?
>

That would require knowing how your acquaintance had acted. Was he issued
the clearance without reporting a charted landmark in sight? You say he was
in IMC at the time the clearance was issued, but that doesn't necessarily
preclude the sighting of a landmark.



FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 7. Visual

Section 4. Approaches

7-4-5. CHARTED VISUAL FLIGHT PROCEDURES (CVFP). USA/USN NOT APPLICABLE

Clear an aircraft for a CVFP only when the following conditions are met:

a. There is an operating control tower.

b. The published name of the CVFP and the landing runway are specified in
the approach clearance, the reported ceiling at the airport of intended
landing is at least 500 feet above the MVA/MIA, and the visibility is 3
miles or more, unless higher minimums are published for the particular CVFP.

c. When using parallel or intersecting/converging runways, the criteria
specified in para 7-4-4, Approaches to Multiple Runways, are applied.

d. An aircraft not following another aircraft on the approach reports
sighting a charted visual landmark, or reports sighting a preceding aircraft
landing on the same runway and has been instructed to follow that aircraft.

PHRASEOLOGY-
(Ident) CLEARED (name of CVFP) APPROACH.

"Scott Draper" > wrote in message
...
>
> I called Reno approach and spoke with a controller. He agreed that
> there are no circumstances in which the pilot should be in IMC on this
> approach.
>

How about clouds?

wrote:

> On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:18:27 GMT, Scott Draper
> > wrote:
>
> >An airline pilot of my acquaintance related about accepting a charted
> >visual flight procedure into Reno, part of which involves intercepting
> >a localizer course. He said they were IMC at the time.
> >
> >My understanding is that the aircraft must reporting seeing a landmark
> >or preceding aircraft before clearance for this charted visual flight
> >procedure will be given.
> >
> >Any thoughts about whether my acquaintance acted properly?
>
> Is a CVFP in Part 97?

No. They are neither issued under Part 97 nor are they designed by the
folks who design instrument procedures. They are an air traffic device.

>
>
> Sec. 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.
>
> (a) Instrument approaches to civil airports.
> Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, when an
> instrument letdown to a civil airport is necessary, each person
> operating an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United
> States, shall use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed
> for the airport in part 97 of this chapter.

===================
How about clouds?
===================

Don't you think that the normal requirement of "clear of clouds",
which applies to a normal visual approach would also apply to a
"charted" visual approach?

"Scott Draper" > wrote in message
...
> ===================
> How about clouds?
> ===================
>
> Don't you think that the normal requirement of "clear of clouds",
> which applies to a normal visual approach would also apply to a
> "charted" visual approach?
>

Yes I do, but one can be "clear of clouds" and still be in IMC in controlled
airspace.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> "Scott Draper" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ===================
> > How about clouds?
> > ===================
> >
> > Don't you think that the normal requirement of "clear of clouds",
> > which applies to a normal visual approach would also apply to a
> > "charted" visual approach?
> >
>
> Yes I do, but one can be "clear of clouds" and still be in IMC in
controlled
> airspace.

According to the strict definition, yes, you are correct. However, it would
be my guess that the vast majority of pilots use "in IMC" to means "in the
clouds" etc.

Hilton

"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> According to the strict definition, yes, you are correct. However, it
> would
> be my guess that the vast majority of pilots use "in IMC" to means "in the
> clouds" etc.
>

Then the vast majority of pilots use the term incorrectly.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> Then the vast majority of pilots use the term incorrectly.

Errr...as one of the "vast majority" would you clarify for me the
difference? Do you mean that the strict definition of IMC is "less than
VFR" ?

Antoñio

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
...
>
> Errr...as one of the "vast majority" would you clarify for me the
> difference? Do you mean that the strict definition of IMC is "less than
> VFR" ?
>

Yes.


From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

IMC- (See INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS.)

INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS- Meteorological conditions expressed in
terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minima
specified for visual meteorological conditions.

On Thu, 05 May 2005 00:23:18 -0700, Antoñio
> wrote:

>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>>
>> Then the vast majority of pilots use the term incorrectly.
>
>Errr...as one of the "vast majority" would you clarify for me the
>difference? Do you mean that the strict definition of IMC is "less than
>VFR" ?
>
>Antoñio


I believe, when all is said and done, IMC refers to the meterological
conditions where one must operate under IFR, and VMC refers to the
conditions where one may operate under VFR.

Therefore a given visibility/cloud clearance condition could be
either, depending on the class of airspace one happens to be in.

wrote:

> I believe, when all is said and done, IMC refers to the meterological
> conditions where one must operate under IFR, and VMC refers to the
> conditions where one may operate under VFR.
>
> Therefore a given visibility/cloud clearance condition could be
> either, depending on the class of airspace one happens to be in.

I agree with all you have said with one minor nit-pic on your word
"must"...

If the conditions are tecnically IMC one can still operate under Special
VFR which is a VFR operation. I vaguely recall there also may be
specific conditions within class G airspace where IMC allows for VFR
operations.

Antonio

On Thu, 05 May 2005 13:08:22 -0700, Antoñio
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> I believe, when all is said and done, IMC refers to the meterological
>> conditions where one must operate under IFR, and VMC refers to the
>> conditions where one may operate under VFR.
>>
>> Therefore a given visibility/cloud clearance condition could be
>> either, depending on the class of airspace one happens to be in.
>
>I agree with all you have said with one minor nit-pic on your word
>"must"...
>
>If the conditions are tecnically IMC one can still operate under Special
>VFR which is a VFR operation. I vaguely recall there also may be
>specific conditions within class G airspace where IMC allows for VFR
>operations.
>
>Antonio


I'd agree that the special VFR is a hybrid.

In class G, however, there is no such duality, as far as I know. If
you have one mile, you can operate VFR and therefore are in VMC.

I think.

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
...
>
> I agree with all you have said with one minor nit-pic on your word
> "must"...
>
> If the conditions are tecnically IMC one can still operate under Special
> VFR which is a VFR operation.
>

Special VFR is available only in a surface area.


>
> I vaguely recall there also may be specific conditions within class G
> airspace where IMC allows for VFR operations.
>

There are no such conditions, but VFR minimums can be as low as one mile
visibility and clear of clouds for airplanes in Class G airspace.

wrote:

>
> I'd agree that the special VFR is a hybrid.
>
> In class G, however, there is no such duality, as far as I know. If
> you have one mile, you can operate VFR and therefore are in VMC.

Yes...you are right. I was thinking of the standard 1000ft/3mi VMC
definintion that exists in the majority of controlled airspace.

Antonio

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Antoñio" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I agree with all you have said with one minor nit-pic on your word
>>"must"...
>>
>>If the conditions are tecnically IMC one can still operate under Special
>>VFR which is a VFR operation.
>>
>
>
> Special VFR is available only in a surface area.

Correct. Why do you mention it?

>>I vaguely recall there also may be specific conditions within class G
>>airspace where IMC allows for VFR operations.
>>
>
>
> There are no such conditions, but VFR minimums can be as low as one mile
> visibility and clear of clouds for airplanes in Class G airspace.

You are right. (See my post above)

Antonio
>
>

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
...
>
> Correct. Why do you mention it?
>

For clarity.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Antoñio" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Correct. Why do you mention it?
>>
>
>
> For clarity.
>

I am sorry but I am not sure of what you are attempting to express. Your
mention of Special VFR being available only in a surface area did not,
in my opinion, logically follow the discussion of my comments (and the
resulting responses) to the following comments made by cfeyeye...

"I believe, when all is said and done, IMC refers to the meterological
conditions where one must operate under IFR, and VMC refers to the
conditions where one may operate under VFR."

I stated:
>If the conditions are tecnically IMC one can still operate under
>Special VFR which is a VFR operation.

And you responded:
"Special VFR is available only in a surface area."

I do not understand the relevance to your mention of *where* special VFR
was made available. So I ask again (so as not to miss the point of your
post): Why did you mention it?

Antonio

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am sorry but I am not sure of what you are attempting to express. Your
> mention of Special VFR being available only in a surface area did not, in
> my opinion, logically follow the discussion of my comments (and the
> resulting responses) to the following comments made by cfeyeye...
>
> "I believe, when all is said and done, IMC refers to the meterological
> conditions where one must operate under IFR, and VMC refers to the
> conditions where one may operate under VFR."
>
> I stated:
> >If the conditions are tecnically IMC one can still operate under Special
> >VFR which is a VFR operation.
>
> And you responded:
> "Special VFR is available only in a surface area."
>
> I do not understand the relevance to your mention of *where* special VFR
> was made available. So I ask again (so as not to miss the point of your
> post): Why did you mention it?
>

Because it was not clear that you understood that Special VFR was available
only in a Surface Area. You went on to say that you thought there may be
"specific conditions within class G airspace where IMC allows for VFR
operations", so it was clear that you did not have a proper understanding of
this issue in general.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Antoñio" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Errr...as one of the "vast majority" would you clarify for me the
> > difference? Do you mean that the strict definition of IMC is "less than
> > VFR" ?
> >
>
> Yes.
>
> From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:
>
> IMC- (See INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS.)
>
> INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS- Meteorological conditions expressed in
> terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minima
> specified for visual meteorological conditions.

VMC is not necessarily VFR, and varies with the nature of the IFR operation. In
the case of a visual approach, charted or not VMC means clear of the coulds and
not less than 3 s.m flight visibility.

> wrote in message ...
>
> VMC is not necessarily VFR, and varies with the nature of the IFR
> operation. In
> the case of a visual approach, charted or not VMC means clear of the
> coulds and
> not less than 3 s.m flight visibility.
>

Where'd you get that idea?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Antoñio" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I am sorry but I am not sure of what you are attempting to express. Your
>>mention of Special VFR being available only in a surface area did not, in
>>my opinion, logically follow the discussion of my comments (and the
>>resulting responses) to the following comments made by cfeyeye...
>>
>>"I believe, when all is said and done, IMC refers to the meterological
>>conditions where one must operate under IFR, and VMC refers to the
>>conditions where one may operate under VFR."
>>
>>I stated:
>>
>>>If the conditions are tecnically IMC one can still operate under Special
>>>VFR which is a VFR operation.
>>
>>And you responded:
>>"Special VFR is available only in a surface area."
>>
>>I do not understand the relevance to your mention of *where* special VFR
>>was made available. So I ask again (so as not to miss the point of your
>>post): Why did you mention it?
>>
>
>
> Because it was not clear that you understood that Special VFR was available
> only in a Surface Area. You went on to say that you thought there may be
> "specific conditions within class G airspace where IMC allows for VFR
> operations", so it was clear that you did not have a proper understanding of
> this issue in general.
>
>

You left out the "I vaguely recall..." part of the quote but, no biggie,
I see now where you are coming from.

Antonio

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
...
>
> You left out the "I vaguely recall..." part of the quote but, no biggie,

I left nothing out of the material I quoted. If you review your message
you'll see that what appears between my quotation marks is exactly what you
wrote.


>
> I see now where you are coming from.
>

Good.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Antoñio" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>You left out the "I vaguely recall..." part of the quote but, no biggie,
>
>
> I left nothing out of the material I quoted. If you review your message
> you'll see that what appears between my quotation marks is exactly what you
> wrote.
>
>
>
>>I see now where you are coming from.
>>
>
>
> Good.
>
>
<Yawn> I think I'm gonna go see what's on the tube...

"Antoñio" > wrote in message
...
>
> <Yawn> I think I'm gonna go see what's on the tube...
>

I suggest something simple.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Antoñio" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>><Yawn> I think I'm gonna go see what's on the tube...
>>
>
>
> I suggest something simple.
>

Ahhh..Stephenator! How nice to see you breaking out of
passive-agressive, frustrated unappreciated genius government worker,
I'll show those idiots by going into knowledgeable esoteric semi-troll
mode; to actually form a complete, and unambiguous (though not
uncharacteristic) sentence! ;-)

Antonio

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > VMC is not necessarily VFR, and varies with the nature of the IFR
> > operation. In
> > the case of a visual approach, charted or not VMC means clear of the
> > coulds and
> > not less than 3 s.m flight visibility.
> >
>
> Where'd you get that idea?

Where I'd get what idea?

Antoñio wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > "Antoñio" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >><Yawn> I think I'm gonna go see what's on the tube...
> >>
> >
> >
> > I suggest something simple.
> >
>
> Ahhh..Stephenator! How nice to see you breaking out of
> passive-agressive, frustrated unappreciated genius government worker,
> I'll show those idiots by going into knowledgeable esoteric semi-troll
> mode; to actually form a complete, and unambiguous (though not
> uncharacteristic) sentence! ;-)
>
> Antonio

That sums it up quite well.

> wrote in message ...
>
> Where I'd get what idea?
>

That VMC varies with the nature of an IFR operation. VMC just means
meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from
cloud, and ceiling equal to or better than specified minima which vary with
the class of airspace. Whether an operation is conducted under VFR or IFR
has nothing to do with it.

Well, I'm certainly glad you guys CLEARED up that ambiguious issue?
I've forgotten, can ATC issue this procedure if the aircraft is in IMC
or not???? And if ATC issues it erroneously, and the pilot accepts it,
who is at fault? And what am I supposed to say, as a pilot, if ATC
issues it and I don't want to accept it? "Unable, request IFR
approach?" or something like that?

Sounds like someone should file one of those NASA forms, as the powers
that be need to know this is going on.

My take on it, is if I am below the Inititial Approach Fix minimum
altitude, I need to be on an IFR approach if I do not have the
visibility to accept a Visual Approach. That's what I am comfortable
with as a pilot. (Except Contact Approach or Special VFR, which still
require some visibility). Certainly, if I'm in a cloud and below the
IAF I need to be on an IFR approach.

Doug > wrote:
> Well, I'm certainly glad you guys CLEARED up that ambiguious issue?
> I've forgotten, can ATC issue this procedure if the aircraft is in IMC
> or not????

ATC doesn't know if you're in IMC or not. They can make a good guess
based on the reported weather, but only you know for sure.

> And if ATC issues it erroneously, and the pilot accepts it,
> who is at fault?

You are. ATC may be too, if they issued it contrary to some rule that
bears on them, but that's not really your concern (or mine).

> And what am I supposed to say, as a pilot, if ATC issues it and I
> don't want to accept it? "Unable, request IFR approach?" or
> something like that?

Exactly. It might help to tell them what approach you want, "Unable
visual, request ILS".

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Well, I'm certainly glad you guys CLEARED up that ambiguious issue?
> I've forgotten, can ATC issue this procedure if the aircraft is in IMC
> or not????
>

Yes, as being in VMC when the clearance is issued is not one of the required
conditions.


>
> And if ATC issues it erroneously, and the pilot accepts it,
> who is at fault?
>

If ATC errs they are at fault.


>
> And what am I supposed to say, as a pilot, if ATC
> issues it and I don't want to accept it? "Unable, request IFR
> approach?" or something like that?
>

Yup.


>
> Sounds like someone should file one of those NASA forms, as the powers
> that be need to know this is going on.
>

Need to know what is going on?

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are. ATC may be too, if they issued it contrary to some rule that
> bears on them, but that's not really your concern (or mine).
>

How is the pilot at fault if ATC issues it erroneously?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > Where I'd get what idea?
> >
>
> That VMC varies with the nature of an IFR operation. VMC just means
> meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance from
> cloud, and ceiling equal to or better than specified minima which vary with
> the class of airspace. Whether an operation is conducted under VFR or IFR
> has nothing to do with it.

If I am flying a VOR approach to a Class D airport where the reported weather
is 800 overcast, visibility 2 miles, and the MDA is 700 feet HAT, minimum vis 1
mile, and I become clear clouds at 750 feet, HAT, I determine that my flight
visibility is 2.5 s.m., am I VMC or IMC as I pass through 400 feet, HAT, on
descent with all visual requirements of 91.175 being continuously met?

> wrote in message ...
>
> If I am flying a VOR approach to a Class D airport where the reported
> weather is 800 overcast, visibility 2 miles, and the MDA is 700 feet HAT,
> minimum vis 1 mile, and I become clear clouds at 750 feet, HAT, I
> determine
> that my flight visibility is 2.5 s.m., am I VMC or IMC as I pass through
> 400 feet,
> HAT, on descent with all visual requirements of 91.175 being continuously
> met?
>

IMC

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > If I am flying a VOR approach to a Class D airport where the reported
> > weather is 800 overcast, visibility 2 miles, and the MDA is 700 feet HAT,
> > minimum vis 1 mile, and I become clear clouds at 750 feet, HAT, I
> > determine
> > that my flight visibility is 2.5 s.m., am I VMC or IMC as I pass through
> > 400 feet,
> > HAT, on descent with all visual requirements of 91.175 being continuously
> > met?
> >
>
> IMC

hmmm...


INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS - Meteorological conditions expressed in
terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less than the minima
specified for visual meteorological conditions.

VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS - Meteorological conditions expressed in terms
of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling equal to or better than
specified minima.

According to those two definitions, taken in context, both IMC and VMC are
related to "specified minima." What's the definition of specified minima? In
my example, the minima specified under Part 97 for the hypothetical VOR
approach are 700 feet HAT, and visibility of 1 mile. Since my flight
conditions exceed those values seems like I am VMC, but not VFR.

> wrote in message ...
>
> hmmm...
>
>
> INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS - Meteorological conditions
> expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less
> than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions.
>
> VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS - Meteorological conditions expressed in
> terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling equal to or better
> than specified minima.
>
> According to those two definitions, taken in context, both IMC and VMC are
> related to "specified minima." What's the definition of specified minima?
> In my example, the minima specified under Part 97 for the hypothetical VOR
> approach are 700 feet HAT, and visibility of 1 mile. Since my flight
> conditions exceed those values seems like I am VMC, but not VFR.
>

The minima referred to are specified in FAR 91.155. To be VMC in Class D
airspace requires at least three miles visibility, distances from clouds of
at least 500 feet below, 1,000 feet above, and 2,000 feet horizontally, and
if a ceiling is present the ceiling must be not less than 1,000 feet.
You're confusing these with approach minima.

The DoD defines these a bit more clearly than the FAA:

INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
(DOD) Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance
from cloud, and ceiling; less than minimums specified for visual
meteorological conditions. Also called IMC. See also visual meteorological
conditions.



VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS

(DOD) Weather conditions in which visual flight rules apply; expressed in
terms of visibility, ceiling height, and aircraft clearance from clouds
along the path of flight. When these criteria do not exist, instrument
meteorological conditions prevail and instrument flight rules must be
complied with. Also called VMC. See also instrument meteorological
conditions.

Seems like the FAA needs to adopt the DOD definitions.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > hmmm...
> >
> >
> > INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS - Meteorological conditions
> > expressed in terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling less
> > than the minima specified for visual meteorological conditions.
> >
> > VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS - Meteorological conditions expressed in
> > terms of visibility, distance from cloud, and ceiling equal to or better
> > than specified minima.
> >
> > According to those two definitions, taken in context, both IMC and VMC are
> > related to "specified minima." What's the definition of specified minima?
> > In my example, the minima specified under Part 97 for the hypothetical VOR
> > approach are 700 feet HAT, and visibility of 1 mile. Since my flight
> > conditions exceed those values seems like I am VMC, but not VFR.
> >
>
> The minima referred to are specified in FAR 91.155. To be VMC in Class D
> airspace requires at least three miles visibility, distances from clouds of
> at least 500 feet below, 1,000 feet above, and 2,000 feet horizontally, and
> if a ceiling is present the ceiling must be not less than 1,000 feet.
> You're confusing these with approach minima.
>
> The DoD defines these a bit more clearly than the FAA:
>
> INSTRUMENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
> (DOD) Meteorological conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance
> from cloud, and ceiling; less than minimums specified for visual
> meteorological conditions. Also called IMC. See also visual meteorological
> conditions.
>
> VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
>
> (DOD) Weather conditions in which visual flight rules apply; expressed in
> terms of visibility, ceiling height, and aircraft clearance from clouds
> along the path of flight. When these criteria do not exist, instrument
> meteorological conditions prevail and instrument flight rules must be
> complied with. Also called VMC. See also instrument meteorological
> conditions.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> "Doug" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Well, I'm certainly glad you guys CLEARED up that ambiguious issue?
> > I've forgotten, can ATC issue this procedure if the aircraft is in IMC
> > or not????
> >
>
> Yes, as being in VMC when the clearance is issued is not one of the required
> conditions.

But, if the pilot cannot see the airport, or preceding aircraft (if applicable)
when the clearance is issued then he has the obligation to refuse the clearance
based on his inability to comply.

> wrote in message ...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Well, I'm certainly glad you guys CLEARED up that ambiguious issue?
>> > I've forgotten, can ATC issue this procedure if the aircraft is in IMC
>> > or not????
>> >
>>
>> Yes, as being in VMC when the clearance is issued is not one of the
>> required
>> conditions.
>>
>
> But, if the pilot cannot see the airport, or preceding aircraft (if
> applicable)
> when the clearance is issued then he has the obligation to refuse the
> clearance
> based on his inability to comply.
>

The pilot must make that report BEFORE clearance for a visual approach can
be issued. But the question you quoted above was asked about the charted
visual flight procedure at Reno, not about a visual approach in general.
With a CVFP the required report is not of the airport but of a charted
visual landmark. A pilot can be in IMC when he makes that report and be
cleared for the approach.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> >
> > If I am flying a VOR approach to a Class D airport where the reported
> > weather is 800 overcast, visibility 2 miles, and the MDA is 700 feet HAT,
> > minimum vis 1 mile, and I become clear clouds at 750 feet, HAT, I
> > determine
> > that my flight visibility is 2.5 s.m., am I VMC or IMC as I pass through
> > 400 feet,
> > HAT, on descent with all visual requirements of 91.175 being continuously
> > met?
> >
>
> IMC

Another thought to expand on my hypothetical stated above: Paragraph 251 of
TERPs deals with the obstacle clearance requirements for the visual segment of
the final approach segment; i.e. inside the DA point or inside the point where
descent is normally presumed to occur from MDA on a straight-in approach. The
title of the paragraph is Visual Segment of the Final Approach Segment.

That seems to support the fact that the FAA TERPS folks consider descent below
MDA or continuing of descent below DA to be a VMC flight operation.

This stuff perhaps is not as black and white as you seem to think it to be.