At our home field, KRBG, Roseburg, Oregon, we use left traffic for both ends
of our RWY 34-16. The approach procedures cite "Circling east of the rwy
34-16 centerline not authorized". What do I do when I break out, and have
to "circle west of the centerline for RWY 16", while VFR traffic is flying
the normal left traffic(east of centerline) for RWY16?

Al

On 04/12/06 13:31, Al wrote:
> At our home field, KRBG, Roseburg, Oregon, we use left traffic for both ends
> of our RWY 34-16. The approach procedures cite "Circling east of the rwy
> 34-16 centerline not authorized". What do I do when I break out, and have
> to "circle west of the centerline for RWY 16", while VFR traffic is flying
> the normal left traffic(east of centerline) for RWY16?
>
> Al
>
>

That is interesting. At a typical airport, the circling minimums are below
the TPA altitude, so you probably would not be circling in IFR conditions
while VFR aircraft are flying within the traffic pattern.

However, in looking at the information for your airport, the TPA is 1500 MSL
(971 AGL) while the circling minimum (for category A) is 2600 MSL (1740 MSL if
you use DME) - which is higher than the TPA.

I can understand why the circling minimums might be higher than the normal TPA
(they need to provide 1000' of obstacle clearance out to a defined radius,
etc.) but don't know what the answer is in this case.

I can see why they don't let you circle east: There's a tower sitting at
1873 MSL, which must not be in the way for the standard VFR pattern.

I will be very interested to see what others have to say about this.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Al wrote:
> At our home field, KRBG, Roseburg, Oregon, we use left traffic for both ends
> of our RWY 34-16. The approach procedures cite "Circling east of the rwy
> 34-16 centerline not authorized". What do I do when I break out, and have
> to "circle west of the centerline for RWY 16", while VFR traffic is flying
> the normal left traffic(east of centerline) for RWY16?

I don't claim to be an expert on this subject, but what the heck this is usenet.

I'd say the statement on the chart about circling east not authorized, which is
regulatory, trumps the VFR traffic pattern, which is AFAIK not regulatory, but a
matter of custom established by the airport management.

That's my analysis, what's urinalysis?

Dave

"Al" > wrote in message
...
>
> At our home field, KRBG, Roseburg, Oregon, we use left traffic for both
> ends of our RWY 34-16. The approach procedures cite "Circling east of the
> rwy 34-16 centerline not authorized". What do I do when I break out, and
> have to "circle west of the centerline for RWY 16", while VFR traffic is
> flying the normal left traffic(east of centerline) for RWY16?
>

See and avoid them.

IFR circling minimums are based on aircraft speed grouping,
A-E, the radius of turn sets the area that must be surveyed
and protected and the highest obstacles in the sector
determine the MDA. If you're at MDA with IMC you can't see
and avoid obstacles, but there should be no VFR traffic
either.

IFR circling requires that you keep the runway in sight,
other than during turns or an occasional cloud. Exactly how
you circle is totally up to the PIC, you can think of a
teardrop or a full pattern, what ever keeps you at the MDA
and gets you to the runway.

If you're practicing in VMC, then you should break off the
approach and join a normal pattern. It is also a good idea
to be as well lighted as possible and use any available ATC
resource. This applies to any airport, not just the KRBG
airport.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Al" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > At our home field, KRBG, Roseburg, Oregon, we use left
traffic for both
| > ends of our RWY 34-16. The approach procedures cite
"Circling east of the
| > rwy 34-16 centerline not authorized". What do I do when
I break out, and
| > have to "circle west of the centerline for RWY 16",
while VFR traffic is
| > flying the normal left traffic(east of centerline) for
RWY16?
| >
|
| See and avoid them.
|
|

In a previous article, "Al" > said:
>At our home field, KRBG, Roseburg, Oregon, we use left traffic for both ends
>of our RWY 34-16. The approach procedures cite "Circling east of the rwy
>34-16 centerline not authorized". What do I do when I break out, and have
>to "circle west of the centerline for RWY 16", while VFR traffic is flying
>the normal left traffic(east of centerline) for RWY16?

If there is VFR traffic in the pattern, cancel IFR and join the pattern.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I find your lack of clue...disturbing" - SithAdmin Vader.

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> If there is VFR traffic in the pattern, cancel IFR and join the pattern.
>

What if that's not permitted?

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
news:1144875293.509478@sj-nntpcache-5...
> I'd say the statement on the chart about circling east not authorized,
> which is regulatory, trumps the VFR traffic pattern, which is AFAIK not
> regulatory, but a matter of custom established by the airport management.

FAR 91.126b "Direction of turns: When approaching to land at an airport
without an operating control tower in Class G airspace-(1) Each pilot of an
airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the airport
displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that turns
should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all turns to
the right."

The same requirement is imposed (except when ATC says otherwise) for Class
E, D, C, and B by 91.127, 91.129, 91.130, and 91.131.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> FAR 91.126b "Direction of turns: When approaching to land at an airport
> without an operating control tower in Class G airspace-(1) Each pilot of
> an airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left unless the
> airport displays approved light signals or visual markings indicating that
> turns should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must make all
> turns to the right."
>
> The same requirement is imposed (except when ATC says otherwise) for Class
> E, D, C, and B by 91.127, 91.129, 91.130, and 91.131.
>

The exception is just "unless otherwise authorized or required".

In a previous article, "Steven P. McNicoll" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> If there is VFR traffic in the pattern, cancel IFR and join the pattern.
>What if that's not permitted?

Forgive my ignorance, but if there is VFR traffic in the pattern, why
would cancelling IFR not be permitted?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Frankly, your argument wouldn't float were the sea composed of
mercury.
-- Biff

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Forgive my ignorance, but if there is VFR traffic in the pattern, why
> would cancelling IFR not be permitted?
>

Company policy.

> Forgive my ignorance, but if there is VFR traffic in the pattern, why
> would cancelling IFR not be permitted?

Ops specs? VFR traffic is illegally flying in what is really IFR
conditions (not likely for a towered airport though)? Funny airspace
(such as the FRZ or DC ADIZ, where cancelling might be problematic,
though it might not be)

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

There are no instrument approaches in Class G



"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
| "Dave Butler" > wrote in message
| news:1144875293.509478@sj-nntpcache-5...
| > I'd say the statement on the chart about circling east
not authorized,
| > which is regulatory, trumps the VFR traffic pattern,
which is AFAIK not
| > regulatory, but a matter of custom established by the
airport management.
|
| FAR 91.126b "Direction of turns: When approaching to land
at an airport
| without an operating control tower in Class G airspace-(1)
Each pilot of an
| airplane must make all turns of that airplane to the left
unless the airport
| displays approved light signals or visual markings
indicating that turns
| should be made to the right, in which case the pilot must
make all turns to
| the right."
|
| The same requirement is imposed (except when ATC says
otherwise) for Class
| E, D, C, and B by 91.127, 91.129, 91.130, and 91.131.
|
| --Gary
|
|

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:q4j%f.3072$8q.974@dukeread08...
>
> There are no instrument approaches in Class G
>

There are many instrument approaches in Class G airspace.

Instrument approaches are published for Class B,C,D and E
airspace. An instrument approach requires controlled
airspace and traffic separation. Class G is uncontrolled
and although there may be a Class G airport, the instrument
approach is conducted in the Class E over laid above the
Class G.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:q4j%f.3072$8q.974@dukeread08...
| >
| > There are no instrument approaches in Class G
| >
|
| There are many instrument approaches in Class G airspace.
|
|

Class G VFR weather minumum during day time is 1sm visibility and clear
of clouds. At KRBG it's actually lower than the instrument approach
minimum.

If IFR all the way to the ground, then the circle to land should be
done according to the restriction of the IAP.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:G%j%f.3074$8q.2429@dukeread08...
>
> Instrument approaches are published for Class B,C,D and E
> airspace. An instrument approach requires controlled
> airspace and traffic separation. Class G is uncontrolled
> and although there may be a Class G airport, the instrument
> approach is conducted in the Class E over laid above the
> Class G.
>

Many of them are also conducted in Class G airspace. Do you hold an
instrument rating?

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:G%j%f.3074$8q.2429@dukeread08...
> Class G is uncontrolled
> and although there may be a Class G airport, the instrument
> approach is conducted in the Class E over laid above the
> Class G.

How is that relevant to this discussion? The post you replied to quoted a
FAR about traffic patterns at Class G airports, regardless of the airspace
above.

--Gary

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Eje%f.3046$8q.2907@dukeread08...
>
> If you're practicing in VMC, then you should break off the
> approach and join a normal pattern.
>

That may not be an option.

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Instrument approaches are published for Class B,C,D and E
> airspace. An instrument approach requires controlled
> airspace and traffic separation. Class G is uncontrolled
> and although there may be a Class G airport, the instrument
> approach is conducted in the Class E over laid above the
> Class G.
>
>
At uncontrolled airports instrument approaches are typically not
contained entirely within controlled airspace. Check some of them out
against a sectional and that will become apparent.

Where the feds considered it essential to have the entire procedure
contained within controlled airspace, they establish a Class E surface
area. Class E surface areas are unusual.

Al wrote:

> At our home field, KRBG, Roseburg, Oregon, we use left traffic for both ends
> of our RWY 34-16. The approach procedures cite "Circling east of the rwy
> 34-16 centerline not authorized". What do I do when I break out, and have
> to "circle west of the centerline for RWY 16", while VFR traffic is flying
> the normal left traffic(east of centerline) for RWY16?
>
> Al
>
>
If the weather is VFR you are well-advised to take this into
consideration at an uncontrolled airport. If feasible you should stop
descent at pattern altitude and join the established VFR traffic pattern.

If the weather is below VFR then you are *required* to adhere to the
IAP's requirements as to circle-to-land.

Thanks for your comments, let me amend the original post.

The conditions that brought this up were:

1500' ovc, 5 miles, wind 160 @ 15 gusting to 20 Rainshowers & Terrain all
quadrants.

The aircraft was a 90 series King Air on a GPS-B approach

Seattle Center on the #1 comm, and lost comm due to terrain below 3000msl.

Unicom on the #2 comm, and listening to VFR traffic from 4 airports while
above 2500', and 2 airports(Roseburg & Felt) when below 2500msl.

To cancel IFR, it is either by phone on the ground, or by RCO to FSS.
Obviously no radar.

The King air broke out about 2 south of the airport, with a touch and go
C-172(with a bad radio), & an RV6 in left traffic for 16.

The King air driver said he was unable to cancel, and felt obligated to
comply with the published procedure.
He also said that due to rainshowers, he was unable to keep the traffic in
sight.

Class "E" airspace starts at 700' AGL over the airport & conditions were
VFR.




Jim Mackin said: "There are no instrument approaches in Class G" and for the
most part I agree. In this case you are in class E until below 700' agl.
However, even there you are still operating under IFR. You do not need to
maintain the required VFR cloud clearance, and you may operate at less than
3 miles. At the same time, you are mixing with VFR traffic.


Steven P. McNicoll said "See and avoid them.", and I wholeheartedly agree,
with the caveat, "if you can".


Al CFIAMI





"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:0Xt%f.14252$bm6.10450@fed1read04...
> Al wrote:
>
>> At our home field, KRBG, Roseburg, Oregon, we use left traffic for both
>> ends of our RWY 34-16. The approach procedures cite "Circling east of the
>> rwy 34-16 centerline not authorized". What do I do when I break out, and
>> have to "circle west of the centerline for RWY 16", while VFR traffic is
>> flying the normal left traffic(east of centerline) for RWY16?
>>
>> Al
>>
>>
> If the weather is VFR you are well-advised to take this into consideration
> at an uncontrolled airport. If feasible you should stop descent at
> pattern altitude and join the established VFR traffic pattern.
>
> If the weather is below VFR then you are *required* to adhere to the IAP's
> requirements as to circle-to-land.

Yes, and I will stand by the statement, there are no IAP in
Class G, by definition of the airspace. There are IAP that
penetrate Class G at 1200 or 700 ft AGL.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:G%j%f.3074$8q.2429@dukeread08...
| >
| > Instrument approaches are published for Class B,C,D and
E
| > airspace. An instrument approach requires controlled
| > airspace and traffic separation. Class G is
uncontrolled
| > and although there may be a Class G airport, the
instrument
| > approach is conducted in the Class E over laid above the
| > Class G.
| >
|
| Many of them are also conducted in Class G airspace. Do
you hold an
| instrument rating?
|
|

You can always request a contact approach and fly any
altitude and path including the normal VFR pattern and still
be "on an IFR clearance." If you are working for an
operator who does not allow cancellation of IFR, then it is
up to the PIC to determine the method required to comply
with IAP and VFR traffic pattern. Read about a "contact
approach" and if you're making an approach that will require
circling, and there is VFR traffic, advise ATC that you will
be requesting a contact approach when you at in VMC
conditions.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:Eje%f.3046$8q.2907@dukeread08...
| >
| > If you're practicing in VMC, then you should break off
the
| > approach and join a normal pattern.
| >
|
| That may not be an option.
|
|

Transition areas at 700 feet, that means that VFR traffic
may be below a ceiling, true. But IAP are begun and
conducted in Class E (or higher) airspace. If a pilot is
not allowed by some company ops manual to cancel IFR [that
would not be an FAA approved 135 manual, 135 does require a
flight plan-VFR or IFR or other flight locating procedure].
If approaching an airport that is Class G at the surface,
use a back-up radio to monitor CTAF and you can expect ATC
to issue a clearance like this... Cleared for the approach,
frequency change approved to CTAF, report cancellation
[exact phraseology will vary].


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:bTt%f.14159$bm6.11550@fed1read04...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| > Instrument approaches are published for Class B,C,D and
E
| > airspace. An instrument approach requires controlled
| > airspace and traffic separation. Class G is
uncontrolled
| > and although there may be a Class G airport, the
instrument
| > approach is conducted in the Class E over laid above the
| > Class G.
| >
| >
| At uncontrolled airports instrument approaches are
typically not
| contained entirely within controlled airspace. Check some
of them out
| against a sectional and that will become apparent.
|
| Where the feds considered it essential to have the entire
procedure
| contained within controlled airspace, they establish a
Class E surface
| area. Class E surface areas are unusual.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:BNv%f.3146$8q.678@dukeread08...
>
> Yes, and I will stand by the statement, there are no IAP in
> Class G, by definition of the airspace. There are IAP that
> penetrate Class G at 1200 or 700 ft AGL.
>

There is nothing in the definition of Class G airspace that prevents having
IAPs in it. You cannot stand by your previous statement, "There are no
instrument approaches in Class G" airspace, and now acknowledge that there
are instrument approaches in Class G airspace.

Your knowledge level is far below what would be expected from someone with
the experience and ratings you claim to have. I think you're a fibber.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:4Tv%f.3147$8q.416@dukeread08...

> You can always request a contact approach and fly any
> altitude and path including the normal VFR pattern and still
> be "on an IFR clearance." If you are working for an
> operator who does not allow cancellation of IFR, then it is
> up to the PIC to determine the method required to comply
> with IAP and VFR traffic pattern. Read about a "contact
> approach" and if you're making an approach that will require
> circling, and there is VFR traffic, advise ATC that you will
> be requesting a contact approach when you at in VMC
> conditions.
>
>
> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P
>

5-4-23. Contact Approach

a. Pilots operating in accordance with an IFR flight plan, provided they are
clear of clouds and have at least 1 mile flight visibility and can
reasonably expect to continue to the destination airport in those
conditions, may request ATC authorization for a contact approach.

As I mentioned in the amendment to the OP, the King Air broke out at
2000msl, and from there had no comm with center. I think he was stuck with
the approach he was cleared for.



Al

The pilot may have been unfamiliar with uncontrolled
airports and contact approaches. Part 135 requires that an
active flight plan [ or other flight locating procedure] for
passenger carrying flights. A King Air 90 will normally fly
the approach at 120-140 KIAS, but can slow to 100 KIAS or
even a little less at light weights. The pilot should
inquire about alternate communications procedures at such
airports and switch to CTAF as soon as possible to announce
position and help with joining the pattern. The pilot could
advise ATC that the GPS approach would be flown into VMC and
then the approach would be complete as a contact approach,
which puts the flight path and altitudes at pilot's
discretion.

This is a high work-load for a single-pilot.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.





"Al" > wrote in message
...
| Thanks for your comments, let me amend the original
post.
|
| The conditions that brought this up were:
|
| 1500' ovc, 5 miles, wind 160 @ 15 gusting to 20
Rainshowers & Terrain all
| quadrants.
|
| The aircraft was a 90 series King Air on a GPS-B approach
|
| Seattle Center on the #1 comm, and lost comm due to
terrain below 3000msl.
|
| Unicom on the #2 comm, and listening to VFR traffic from 4
airports while
| above 2500', and 2 airports(Roseburg & Felt) when below
2500msl.
|
| To cancel IFR, it is either by phone on the ground, or by
RCO to FSS.
| Obviously no radar.
|
| The King air broke out about 2 south of the airport, with
a touch and go
| C-172(with a bad radio), & an RV6 in left traffic for 16.
|
| The King air driver said he was unable to cancel, and felt
obligated to
| comply with the published procedure.
| He also said that due to rainshowers, he was unable to
keep the traffic in
| sight.
|
| Class "E" airspace starts at 700' AGL over the airport &
conditions were
| VFR.
|
|
|
|
| Jim Mackin said: "There are no instrument approaches in
Class G" and for the
| most part I agree. In this case you are in class E until
below 700' agl.
| However, even there you are still operating under IFR. You
do not need to
| maintain the required VFR cloud clearance, and you may
operate at less than
| 3 miles. At the same time, you are mixing with VFR
traffic.
|
|
| Steven P. McNicoll said "See and avoid them.", and I
wholeheartedly agree,
| with the caveat, "if you can".
|
|
| Al CFIAMI
|
|
|
|
|
| "Sam Spade" > wrote in message
| news:0Xt%f.14252$bm6.10450@fed1read04...
| > Al wrote:
| >
| >> At our home field, KRBG, Roseburg, Oregon, we use left
traffic for both
| >> ends of our RWY 34-16. The approach procedures cite
"Circling east of the
| >> rwy 34-16 centerline not authorized". What do I do
when I break out, and
| >> have to "circle west of the centerline for RWY 16",
while VFR traffic is
| >> flying the normal left traffic(east of centerline) for
RWY16?
| >>
| >> Al
| >>
| >>
| > If the weather is VFR you are well-advised to take this
into consideration
| > at an uncontrolled airport. If feasible you should stop
descent at
| > pattern altitude and join the established VFR traffic
pattern.
| >
| > If the weather is below VFR then you are *required* to
adhere to the IAP's
| > requirements as to circle-to-land.
|
|

Al wrote:

> Thanks for your comments, let me amend the original post.
>
> The conditions that brought this up were:
>
> 1500' ovc, 5 miles, wind 160 @ 15 gusting to 20 Rainshowers & Terrain all
> quadrants.
>
> The aircraft was a 90 series King Air on a GPS-B approach
>
> Seattle Center on the #1 comm, and lost comm due to terrain below 3000msl.
>
> Unicom on the #2 comm, and listening to VFR traffic from 4 airports while
> above 2500', and 2 airports(Roseburg & Felt) when below 2500msl.
>
> To cancel IFR, it is either by phone on the ground, or by RCO to FSS.
> Obviously no radar.
>
> The King air broke out about 2 south of the airport, with a touch and go
> C-172(with a bad radio), & an RV6 in left traffic for 16.
>
> The King air driver said he was unable to cancel, and felt obligated to
> comply with the published procedure.
> He also said that due to rainshowers, he was unable to keep the traffic in
> sight.
>
> Class "E" airspace starts at 700' AGL over the airport & conditions were
> VFR.

If the pilot cannot talk with ATC at an uncontrolled airport, and the
weather is VFR, even with the conditions you cited the pilot would be
well advised to enter the normal traffic pattern if it was safe to do
so. ATC couldn't care less. All they are looking for at this point is
a cancellation (when able) or report of a missed approach.

I note also that the chart shows a FSS frequency. The pilot could
cancel on that frequency and they have to accept the cancellation. Of
course, he has to inform them where he is and that is is IFR.

At a lot of locations like this the center tells the aircraft to report
on the ground or missing the approach to FSS. Apparently, the center
either doesn't have that procedure in place at this airport or the
controller felt it wasn't necessary. That, however, doesn't relieve the
pilot of the responsibility to establish relay communications through
the FSS when it is apparent that he can no longer communicate with the
center.

The "circle" can be done in many ways, the limitation on the
sector because of obstacle clearance not withstanding.

If the weather was as good as you say, there is no
prohibition on operating under IFR and VFR at the same time,
the approach clearance is a clearance to operate in the
protected airspace, just follow the IFR rules while in IMC
and when in VMC, fly safely.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Al" > wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:4Tv%f.3147$8q.416@dukeread08...
|
| > You can always request a contact approach and fly any
| > altitude and path including the normal VFR pattern and
still
| > be "on an IFR clearance." If you are working for an
| > operator who does not allow cancellation of IFR, then it
is
| > up to the PIC to determine the method required to comply
| > with IAP and VFR traffic pattern. Read about a "contact
| > approach" and if you're making an approach that will
require
| > circling, and there is VFR traffic, advise ATC that you
will
| > be requesting a contact approach when you at in VMC
| > conditions.
| >
| >
| > --
| > James H. Macklin
| > ATP,CFI,A&P
| >
|
| 5-4-23. Contact Approach
|
| a. Pilots operating in accordance with an IFR flight plan,
provided they are
| clear of clouds and have at least 1 mile flight visibility
and can
| reasonably expect to continue to the destination airport
in those
| conditions, may request ATC authorization for a contact
approach.
|
| As I mentioned in the amendment to the OP, the King Air
broke out at
| 2000msl, and from there had no comm with center. I think
he was stuck with
| the approach he was cleared for.
|
|
|
| Al
|
|

The FAA will establish controlled airspace as part of the
authorization of an IAP. The FAA must have control of
airspace in order to issue a clearance, Class G does not
meet that requirement.

We seem to have a problem, my experience is just what I've
said...
8,000 hours;FAR 141 former chief flight instructor, FAR 135
Director of Operations, single-pilot IFR in all models King
Air 90 ,200 and 300 and other ASEL/AMEL Beech aircraft.
Gold Seal CFI ASMEI. No violations.

What do you have? What do you think I'm fibbing about?


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:BNv%f.3146$8q.678@dukeread08...
| >
| > Yes, and I will stand by the statement, there are no IAP
in
| > Class G, by definition of the airspace. There are IAP
that
| > penetrate Class G at 1200 or 700 ft AGL.
| >
|
| There is nothing in the definition of Class G airspace
that prevents having
| IAPs in it. You cannot stand by your previous statement,
"There are no
| instrument approaches in Class G" airspace, and now
acknowledge that there
| are instrument approaches in Class G airspace.
|
| Your knowledge level is far below what would be expected
from someone with
| the experience and ratings you claim to have. I think
you're a fibber.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:4Tv%f.3147$8q.416@dukeread08...
>
> You can always request a contact approach and fly any
> altitude and path including the normal VFR pattern and still
> be "on an IFR clearance."
>

Well, you can always request a contact approach, but you can't always get
one. Clearance for a contact approach requires a reported ground visibility
of at least one mile. Not all airports have weather reporting.


>
> If you are working for an
> operator who does not allow cancellation of IFR, then it is
> up to the PIC to determine the method required to comply
> with IAP and VFR traffic pattern.
>

Compliance with the "VFR traffic pattern" is not required in this case.
Review the regulation, before you get to " make all turns of that airplane
to the left", you have "unless otherwise authorized or required." If you're
on the VOR-A and intend to land on runway 16 compliance with the restriction
on circling east of the runway will require turns to the right

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Wmx%f.3160$8q.947@dukeread08...
>
> If the weather was as good as you say, there is no
> prohibition on operating under IFR and VFR at the same time,
> the approach clearance is a clearance to operate in the
> protected airspace,
>

How would one operate IFR and VFR at the same time on this approach?


>
> just follow the IFR rules while in IMC
> and when in VMC, fly safely.
>

It's a good idea to fly safely when in IMC as well.

5-4-24. Contact Approach

a. Pilots operating in accordance with an IFR flight
plan, provided they are clear of clouds and have at least 1
mile flight visibility and can reasonably expect to continue
to the destination airport in those conditions, may request
ATC authorization for a contact approach.

b. Controllers may authorize a contact approach
provided:

1. The contact approach is specifically requested by
the pilot. ATC cannot initiate this approach.

EXAMPLE-
Request contact approach.

2. The reported ground visibility at the destination
airport is at least 1 statute mile.

3. The contact approach will be made to an airport
having a standard or special instrument approach procedure.

4. Approved separation is applied between aircraft so
cleared and between these aircraft and other IFR or special
VFR aircraft.

EXAMPLE-
Cleared contact approach (and, if required) at or
below (altitude) (routing) if not possible (alternative
procedures) and advise.

c. A contact approach is an approach procedure that
may be used by a pilot (with prior authorization from ATC)
in lieu of conducting a standard or special IAP to an
airport. It is not intended for use by a pilot on an IFR
flight clearance to operate to an airport not having a
published and functioning IAP. Nor is it intended for an
aircraft to conduct an instrument approach to one airport
and then, when "in the clear," discontinue that approach and
proceed to another airport. In the execution of a contact
approach, the pilot assumes the responsibility for
obstruction clearance. If radar service is being received,
it will automatically terminate when the pilot is instructed
to change to advisory frequency.

Note that FLIGHT VISIBILITY of ONE MILE is required
and the pilot determines flught visibility.




--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their
rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and
duties.




"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
nk.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:4Tv%f.3147$8q.416@dukeread08...
| >
| > You can always request a contact approach and fly any
| > altitude and path including the normal VFR pattern and
still
| > be "on an IFR clearance."
| >
|
| Well, you can always request a contact approach, but you
can't always get
| one. Clearance for a contact approach requires a reported
ground visibility
| of at least one mile. Not all airports have weather
reporting.
|
|
| >
| > If you are working for an
| > operator who does not allow cancellation of IFR, then it
is
| > up to the PIC to determine the method required to comply
| > with IAP and VFR traffic pattern.
| >
|
| Compliance with the "VFR traffic pattern" is not required
in this case.
| Review the regulation, before you get to " make all turns
of that airplane
| to the left", you have "unless otherwise authorized or
required." If you're
| on the VOR-A and intend to land on runway 16 compliance
with the restriction
| on circling east of the runway will require turns to the
right
|
|

The same way you always follow the rules, IFR lets you fly
into and near clouds and when under IFR in VMC you also
follow the see and avoid rules of VFR.

I must ask, are you having a reaction to your medication?


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:Wmx%f.3160$8q.947@dukeread08...
| >
| > If the weather was as good as you say, there is no
| > prohibition on operating under IFR and VFR at the same
time,
| > the approach clearance is a clearance to operate in the
| > protected airspace,
| >
|
| How would one operate IFR and VFR at the same time on this
approach?
|
|
| >
| > just follow the IFR rules while in IMC
| > and when in VMC, fly safely.
| >
|
| It's a good idea to fly safely when in IMC as well.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:zVz%f.3168$8q.1032@dukeread08...
>
> 5-4-24. Contact Approach
>
> a. Pilots operating in accordance with an IFR flight
> plan, provided they are clear of clouds and have at least 1
> mile flight visibility and can reasonably expect to continue
> to the destination airport in those conditions, may request
> ATC authorization for a contact approach.
>
> b. Controllers may authorize a contact approach
> provided:
>
> 1. The contact approach is specifically requested by
> the pilot. ATC cannot initiate this approach.
>
> EXAMPLE-
> Request contact approach.
>
> 2. The reported ground visibility at the destination
> airport is at least 1 statute mile.
>
> 3. The contact approach will be made to an airport
> having a standard or special instrument approach procedure.
>
> 4. Approved separation is applied between aircraft so
> cleared and between these aircraft and other IFR or special
> VFR aircraft.
>
> EXAMPLE-
> Cleared contact approach (and, if required) at or
> below (altitude) (routing) if not possible (alternative
> procedures) and advise.
>
> c. A contact approach is an approach procedure that
> may be used by a pilot (with prior authorization from ATC)
> in lieu of conducting a standard or special IAP to an
> airport. It is not intended for use by a pilot on an IFR
> flight clearance to operate to an airport not having a
> published and functioning IAP. Nor is it intended for an
> aircraft to conduct an instrument approach to one airport
> and then, when "in the clear," discontinue that approach and
> proceed to another airport. In the execution of a contact
> approach, the pilot assumes the responsibility for
> obstruction clearance. If radar service is being received,
> it will automatically terminate when the pilot is instructed
> to change to advisory frequency.
>
> Note that FLIGHT VISIBILITY of ONE MILE is required
> and the pilot determines flught visibility.
>

See 5-4-24.b.2. above. Note that the reported ground visibility at the
destination airport must be at least 1 statute mile in order for ATC to
issue a clearance for a contact approach. Note also that actually reading
what you intend to post prior to posting it can help you to appear less
stupid.

How is it that someone with the ratings and experience you claim to possess
was not aware a contact approach required a reported ground visibility of a
mile or more?

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Y1A%f.3169$8q.1299@dukeread08...
>
> The same way you always follow the rules, IFR lets you fly
> into and near clouds and when under IFR in VMC you also
> follow the see and avoid rules of VFR.
>

"See and avoid" is not a VFR rule. "See and avoid" comes from FAR
91.113(b), you'll find it among the General rules of Part 91 Subpart B, FARs
91.101 through 91.149. You'll find Visual Flight Rules, FARs 91.151 through
91.165, immediately after them.

How is it that someone with the ratings and experience you claim to possess
doesn't have a better understanding of Part 91?


>
> I must ask, are you having a reaction to your medication?
>

Nope, I'm feeling exceptionally good today!

I must ask, are you related to Norm Melick?

> How would one operate IFR and VFR at the same time on this approach?

You would follow IFR (Instrument flight rules) and VFR (visual flight
rules) at the same time. VFR is primarily see and avoid. If you are in
VMC, you must see and avoid.

To follow IFR and VFR at the same time is more restrictive than to
simply follow IFR and disregard VFR, which you can do when you are IMC.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> How would one operate IFR and VFR at the same time on this approach?
>
> You would follow IFR (Instrument flight rules) and VFR (visual flight
> rules) at the same time. VFR is primarily see and avoid. If you are in
> VMC, you must see and avoid.

But see-and-avoid isn't specifically a VFR requirement. In fact, 91.113b
says explicitly, "When weather conditions permit, *regardless of whether an
operation is conducted under IFR or VFR*, vigilance shall be maintained by
each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft"
(emphasis added).

So seeing and avoiding during an instrument approach does not amount to some
sort of IFR-VFR hybrid. Rather, it is just IFR.

--Gary

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>
> You would follow IFR (Instrument flight rules) and VFR (visual flight
> rules) at the same time. VFR is primarily see and avoid. If you are in
> VMC, you must see and avoid.
>

How is that following IFR (Instrument flight rules) and VFR (visual flight
rules) at the same time? "See and avoid" is not a VFR rule. "See and
avoid" comes from FAR 91.113(b), you'll find it among the General rules of
Part 91 Subpart B, FARs 91.101 through 91.149. You'll find Visual Flight
Rules, FARs 91.151 through 91.165, immediately after them.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:1nx%f.3161$8q.2075@dukeread08...
>
> The FAA will establish controlled airspace as part of the
> authorization of an IAP. The FAA must have control of
> airspace in order to issue a clearance, Class G does not
> meet that requirement.
>

How do you explain all those IAPs in Class G airspace?


>
> We seem to have a problem, my experience is just what I've
> said...
> 8,000 hours;FAR 141 former chief flight instructor, FAR 135
> Director of Operations, single-pilot IFR in all models King
> Air 90 ,200 and 300 and other ASEL/AMEL Beech aircraft.
> Gold Seal CFI ASMEI. No violations.
>

The problem is your knowledge level is far less than what would be expected
of someone with the experience you claim. But that's not my problem.


>
> What do you have?
>

Dimples on my butt.


>
> What do you think I'm fibbing about?
>

I think you're fibbing about your experience.

Gary Drescher wrote:

> So seeing and avoiding during an instrument approach does not amount to some
> sort of IFR-VFR hybrid. Rather, it is just IFR.
>
> --Gary
>
>
Then, there is a TCAS RA during IMC. The IFR track, whether it be a
route or a terminal procedure, must be compromised to the extent
necessary to resolve the RA.

I know, FLIBs don't have TCAS, but some Kingairs (bird that started this
trying thread ;-) do.

Jim Macklin wrote:

> 5-4-24. Contact Approach

> 2. The reported ground visibility at the destination
> airport is at least 1 statute mile.
>

Reported ground visibility is what matters to ATC.

Even then ATC is under no obligation to grant your request for a contact
approach. It depends upon the overall traffic picture and controller
workload.

There are no IAP IN Class G, there are many IAP in Class E
that have the airport in Class G. The initial approach,
final approach and missed approach are all in Class E.


Any one who wants can look at my certificates on the FAA web
site, that is my name and I live in Kansas.

As for ATC and instrument approaches, when you depart from
an airport in Class G airspace, with an IFR clearance, you
will be issued a clearance that says, enter controlled
airspace on heading such and such. If you depart VFR you
will be told to maintain VFR until they can coordinate your
entering controlled airspace with IFR separation from other
IFR traffic.

Since you seem to be just a troll with dimples on your butt,
I'll not further explain.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
message
k.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:1nx%f.3161$8q.2075@dukeread08...
| >
| > The FAA will establish controlled airspace as part of
the
| > authorization of an IAP. The FAA must have control of
| > airspace in order to issue a clearance, Class G does not
| > meet that requirement.
| >
|
| How do you explain all those IAPs in Class G airspace?
|
|
| >
| > We seem to have a problem, my experience is just what
I've
| > said...
| > 8,000 hours;FAR 141 former chief flight instructor, FAR
135
| > Director of Operations, single-pilot IFR in all models
King
| > Air 90 ,200 and 300 and other ASEL/AMEL Beech aircraft.
| > Gold Seal CFI ASMEI. No violations.
| >
|
| The problem is your knowledge level is far less than what
would be expected
| of someone with the experience you claim. But that's not
my problem.
|
|
| >
| > What do you have?
| >
|
| Dimples on my butt.
|
|
| >
| > What do you think I'm fibbing about?
| >
|
| I think you're fibbing about your experience.
|
|

Sam Spade > wrote:
>Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> So seeing and avoiding during an instrument approach does not amount to some
>> sort of IFR-VFR hybrid. Rather, it is just IFR.
>>
>> --Gary
>>
>>
>Then, there is a TCAS RA during IMC. The IFR track, whether it be a
>route or a terminal procedure, must be compromised to the extent
>necessary to resolve the RA.

Yikes! I hope the TCAS processors are terrain aware.

Does TCAS give track instructions? I though all RA's were either
"climb now" or "descend now".

In article <kUM%f.29991$bm6.27382@fed1read04>,
Sam Spade > wrote:
>Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> 5-4-24. Contact Approach
>
>> 2. The reported ground visibility at the destination
>> airport is at least 1 statute mile.
>>
>
>Reported ground visibility is what matters to ATC.
>
>Even then ATC is under no obligation to grant your request for a contact
>approach. It depends upon the overall traffic picture and controller
>workload.

Does it depend on whether the controller has dimples on his butt?

> How is that following IFR (Instrument flight rules) and VFR (visual flight
> rules) at the same time?

I suppose it's not, really. VFR is a set of rules (altitudes,
visibilities and cloud clearances) designed around that principle, to
make it reasonable to do. You are right, they cannot technically both be
followed at the same time.

I think what Jim is getting at:

> If the weather was as good as you say, there is no
> prohibition on operating under IFR and VFR at the same time

is that one can, while remaining on an IFR flight plan, circle to land
via a VFR traffic pattern if the weather would permit ordinary VFR
traffic to do that. He appears to claim (and I find reasonable) that
this would not violate the "circling to the {whatever} prohibited".

I suppose the FAA might differ, which raises the question - when you
maneuver under an IFR flight plan at the end of an approach that is not
straight in, is it always considered "circling" even if the maneuvering
is well above the MDA and within the VFR traffic pattern?

Any cases to support supporting the prohibition?

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:q9N%f.3224$8q.661@dukeread08...
>
>There are no IAP IN Class G, there are many IAP in Class E
> that have the airport in Class G. The initial approach,
> final approach and missed approach are all in Class E.
>

You're wrong. The IAP is also in Class G airapace at those airports. Look
at the ILS RWY 17 approach at MTW as an example. Class E airspace begins at
700 AGL, you'd enter Class G airspace about 1.6 miles prior to the MAP on
final approach and you'd obviously have to climb through 500' of Class G
airspace on the missed approach procedure. There are many approaches like
this.

http://map.aeroplanner.com/mapping/chart/chart.cfm?chart=Sectional&typ=APT&txt=mtw

http://map.aeroplanner.com/plates/FaaPlates_pdfs/05281I17.PDF

How is it that someone with the ratings and experience you claim to possess
is so unfamiliar with this situation?


>
> Any one who wants can look at my certificates on the FAA web
> site, that is my name and I live in Kansas.
>

We don't know that you're posting under your real name.


>
> As for ATC and instrument approaches, when you depart from
> an airport in Class G airspace, with an IFR clearance, you
> will be issued a clearance that says, enter controlled
> airspace on heading such and such.
>

Not necessarily. You may simply be cleared as filed.


>
> If you depart VFR you
> will be told to maintain VFR until they can coordinate your
> entering controlled airspace with IFR separation from other
> IFR traffic.
>

Only if there is conflicting IFR traffic.


>
> Since you seem to be just a troll with dimples on your butt,
> I'll not further explain.
>

Other than the inconsistency between your knowledge level and claimed
experience, there is nothing for you to explain. These discussions are an
opportunity to for you to learn, I suggest you take advantage of them.

Stephen P. McNicoll said:
> These discussions are an
> opportunity to for you to learn, I suggest you take advantage of them.

I'm just curious - have you ever learned from these discussions?
(except about the unbelievable ineptitude of others?)

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> I'm just curious - have you ever learned from these discussions?

Probably. I engage in a lot of discussions here so chances are I've learned
something I hadn't known before through them but I can't recall any specific
example off the top of my head.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> The FAA will establish controlled airspace as part of the
> authorization of an IAP. The FAA must have control of
> airspace in order to issue a clearance, Class G does not
> meet that requirement.
>
> We seem to have a problem, my experience is just what I've
> said...
> 8,000 hours;FAR 141 former chief flight instructor, FAR 135
> Director of Operations, single-pilot IFR in all models King
> Air 90 ,200 and 300 and other ASEL/AMEL Beech aircraft.
> Gold Seal CFI ASMEI. No violations.
>
> What do you have? What do you think I'm fibbing about?
>
>
I've met a lot (too many, actually) pilots who have similar such
credentials and, alas, who never really mastered some of the finer
points of airspace.

EVERY IAP at a CLass E airport (excepting those with Class E surface
areas) that has a MDA or DA with a HAT (or HAA for circling) of less
than 700 feet has some portion of the final approach and missed approach
segments in Glass G airspace.

You are correct in that ATC cannot issue IFR clearances in Class G
airspace. But, when you are cleared for an approach to an airport with
an MDA or DA well below Class E airspace, you are not yet in Class G
airspace, thus the clearance is proper. It is up to you to not descend
below the floor of Class E airspace in the final approach segment, if
you choose to remain in Class E airspace. That is not a concern for ATC.

OTOH, if you are issued a departure clearance from such an airport, it
will contain the caveat "...upon entering controlled airspace.." because
you are in Class G airspace when issued the departure clearance.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Jose" > wrote in message
> t...
>
>>I'm just curious - have you ever learned from these discussions?
>
>
> Probably. I engage in a lot of discussions here so chances are I've learned
> something I hadn't known before through them but I can't recall any specific
> example off the top of my head.
>
>
I have the same problem. I like to think I am perfect but I carry the
baggage of knowing I was wrong one time in my life; that was the time I
thought I was wrong when actually I was right.

Roy Smith wrote:

> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>Gary Drescher wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So seeing and avoiding during an instrument approach does not amount to some
>>>sort of IFR-VFR hybrid. Rather, it is just IFR.
>>>
>>>--Gary
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Then, there is a TCAS RA during IMC. The IFR track, whether it be a
>>route or a terminal procedure, must be compromised to the extent
>>necessary to resolve the RA.
>
>
> Yikes! I hope the TCAS processors are terrain aware.
>
> Does TCAS give track instructions? I though all RA's were either
> "climb now" or "descend now".

The TCAS processors certainly aren't terrain aware, but the TAWS is. On
an instrument approach or departure procedure, descent is not an option.
With an aircraft in approach or landing configuration the only option
might be to turn away from the conflict.

No doubt, it can get a bit ugly. Hopefully, if it's IMC the alert won't
occur during a departure or approach.

yep
"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:dyP%f.34407$bm6.1633@fed1read04...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > The FAA will establish controlled airspace as part of
the
| > authorization of an IAP. The FAA must have control of
| > airspace in order to issue a clearance, Class G does not
| > meet that requirement.
| >
| > We seem to have a problem, my experience is just what
I've
| > said...
| > 8,000 hours;FAR 141 former chief flight instructor, FAR
135
| > Director of Operations, single-pilot IFR in all models
King
| > Air 90 ,200 and 300 and other ASEL/AMEL Beech aircraft.
| > Gold Seal CFI ASMEI. No violations.
| >
| > What do you have? What do you think I'm fibbing about?
| >
| >
| I've met a lot (too many, actually) pilots who have
similar such
| credentials and, alas, who never really mastered some of
the finer
| points of airspace.
|
| EVERY IAP at a CLass E airport (excepting those with Class
E surface
| areas) that has a MDA or DA with a HAT (or HAA for
circling) of less
| than 700 feet has some portion of the final approach and
missed approach
| segments in Glass G airspace.
|
| You are correct in that ATC cannot issue IFR clearances in
Class G
| airspace. But, when you are cleared for an approach to an
airport with
| an MDA or DA well below Class E airspace, you are not yet
in Class G
| airspace, thus the clearance is proper. It is up to you
to not descend
| below the floor of Class E airspace in the final approach
segment, if
| you choose to remain in Class E airspace. That is not a
concern for ATC.
|
| OTOH, if you are issued a departure clearance from such an
airport, it
| will contain the caveat "...upon entering controlled
airspace.." because
| you are in Class G airspace when issued the departure
clearance.

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> How is that following IFR (Instrument flight rules) and VFR (visual
>> flight rules) at the same time?
>
> I suppose it's not, really. VFR is a set of rules (altitudes,
> visibilities and cloud clearances) designed around that principle, to make
> it reasonable to do. You are right, they cannot technically both be
> followed at the same time.
>
> I think what Jim is getting at:
>
>> If the weather was as good as you say, there is no prohibition on
>> operating under IFR and VFR at the same time
>
> is that one can, while remaining on an IFR flight plan, circle to land via
> a VFR traffic pattern if the weather would permit ordinary VFR traffic to
> do that. He appears to claim (and I find reasonable) that this would not
> violate the "circling to the {whatever} prohibited".
>
> I suppose the FAA might differ, which raises the question - when you
> maneuver under an IFR flight plan at the end of an approach that is not
> straight in, is it always considered "circling" even if the maneuvering is
> well above the MDA and within the VFR traffic pattern?
>
> Any cases to support supporting the prohibition?
>
> Jose
> --
> The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
> for Email, make the obvious change in the address.


Well said, Jose.

Al

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <kUM%f.29991$bm6.27382@fed1read04>,
> Sam Spade > wrote:
>
>>Jim Macklin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 5-4-24. Contact Approach
>>
>>> 2. The reported ground visibility at the destination
>>>airport is at least 1 statute mile.
>>>
>>
>>Reported ground visibility is what matters to ATC.
>>
>>Even then ATC is under no obligation to grant your request for a contact
>>approach. It depends upon the overall traffic picture and controller
>>workload.
>
>
> Does it depend on whether the controller has dimples on his butt?
>
The gentleman makes it sound like a contact approach is a given if the
pilot wants it. What part of that don't you understand?

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>
> I suppose it's not, really. VFR is a set of rules (altitudes,
> visibilities and cloud clearances) designed around that principle, to make
> it reasonable to do. You are right, they cannot technically both be
> followed at the same time.
>

Well, they cannot both be followed while on approach, that's why I made the
distinction. But there is one situation where they can be followed
simultaneously. If you're on a VFR-on-top clearance FAR 91.179, an
Instrument Flight Rule, requires compliance with FAR 91.159, a Visual Flight
Rule.


>
> I think what Jim is getting at:
>
>> If the weather was as good as you say, there is no prohibition on
>> operating under IFR and VFR at the same time
>
> is that one can, while remaining on an IFR flight plan, circle to land via
> a VFR traffic pattern if the weather would permit ordinary VFR traffic to
> do that. He appears to claim (and I find reasonable) that this would not
> violate the "circling to the {whatever} prohibited".
>
> I suppose the FAA might differ, which raises the question - when you
> maneuver under an IFR flight plan at the end of an approach that is not
> straight in, is it always considered "circling" even if the maneuvering is
> well above the MDA and within the VFR traffic pattern?
>
> Any cases to support supporting the prohibition?
>

None that I'm aware of. I don't see how it could become an issue.