A while back, I was with an experienced pilot, IMC, descending to land
at my home airport. The airport is not in an environment where ATC will
give vectors to final. As we approached, ATC asked which approach we
wanted. He said that he was "going for the visual." The ceilings were
right at the Minimum Safe altitude (MSA)--3000. I think ATC said that we
could descend to 3000 and report airport in sight.

Is this request of "going for the visual" usual?

Is it the norm if ceilings are above MSA?

-Sami
N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III

I don't know about the rest of ye all, but the real world out here is to be
vectored as low as the controller can give you, get the airport in sight, and
"cancelling IFR". That way the 1000 & 3 does not apply.

Jim




Roy Smith >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->
->The MSA has little to do with it. The MSA is an emergency altitude with
->no regulatory meaning (at least in the US). What's important is that
->you've got the weather minimums for a visual approach (1000 & 3) and
->that ATC can issue you a clearance to descend low enough that you can
->see the airport (or the aircraft you're following).

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote:
> A while back, I was with an experienced pilot, IMC, descending to land
> at my home airport. The airport is not in an environment where ATC will
> give vectors to final. As we approached, ATC asked which approach we
> wanted. He said that he was "going for the visual." The ceilings were
> right at the Minimum Safe altitude (MSA)--3000. I think ATC said that we
> could descend to 3000 and report airport in sight.
>
> Is this request of "going for the visual" usual?

It's pretty common to request a visual approach. It's usually the
simpliest and quickest way to get to the airport, if the weather
conditions allow it.

> Is it the norm if ceilings are above MSA?

The MSA has little to do with it. The MSA is an emergency altitude with
no regulatory meaning (at least in the US). What's important is that
you've got the weather minimums for a visual approach (1000 & 3) and
that ATC can issue you a clearance to descend low enough that you can
see the airport (or the aircraft you're following).

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:31:23 -0500, "O. Sami Saydjari"
> wrote:

>A while back, I was with an experienced pilot, IMC, descending to land
>at my home airport. The airport is not in an environment where ATC will
>give vectors to final. As we approached, ATC asked which approach we
>wanted. He said that he was "going for the visual." The ceilings were
>right at the Minimum Safe altitude (MSA)--3000. I think ATC said that we
>could descend to 3000 and report airport in sight.
>
>Is this request of "going for the visual" usual?
>
>Is it the norm if ceilings are above MSA?
>
>-Sami
>N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III

It has nothing to do with MSA. Basically, weather needs to be at least
1000/3, and the pilot needs to have the airport or an a/c to follow in
sight.

AIM 5-4-20. Visual Approach

a. A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes
a pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The pilot
must have either the airport or the preceding identified aircraft in sight.
This approach must be authorized and controlled by the appropriate air
traffic control facility. Reported weather at the airport must have a
ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater. ATC may
authorize this type approach when it will be operationally beneficial.
Visual approaches are an IFR procedure conducted under IFR in visual
meteorological conditions. Cloud clearance requirements of 14 CFR Section
91.155 are not applicable, unless required by operation specifications.

b. Operating to an Airport Without Weather Reporting Service. ATC will
advise the pilot when weather is not available at the destination airport.
ATC may initiate a visual approach provided there is a reasonable assurance
that weather at the airport is a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and
visibility 3 miles or greater (e.g. area weather reports, PIREPs, etc.).

=======================

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

>>Is it the norm if ceilings are above MSA?
>
>
> The MSA has little to do with it. The MSA is an emergency altitude with
> no regulatory meaning (at least in the US). What's important is that
> you've got the weather minimums for a visual approach (1000 & 3) and
> that ATC can issue you a clearance to descend low enough that you can
> see the airport (or the aircraft you're following).

OK. It just happened, in this case, that ATC was able to let us go down
to what was coincidentally that MSA for the area.

So, my question becomes, at what point do you abort the attempt to go
visual and transition to an IFR approach. Say, you have a GPS and ATC
cleared you down to 2000 ft AGL and you are 10 miles from the airport.
Do you continue at that altitude to the airport until you are right on
top of it (controller permitting), notice that you are still not out of
the clouds, and then ask for an IFR approach at that point? Just trying
to see how the transition from "going for visual" to "err, no can
do...need an instrument" happens. Does the controller force the
decision at some distance out?

-Sami

In article >,
"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote:
> So, my question becomes, at what point do you abort the attempt to go
> visual and transition to an IFR approach.

If you get as low as the controller can get you and you still can't see
the airport. Just say something like, "negative contact, request ILS"
and the controller will give you a new clearance for the instrument
approach.

> Say, you have a GPS and ATC
> cleared you down to 2000 ft AGL and you are 10 miles from the airport.
> Do you continue at that altitude to the airport until you are right on
> top of it (controller permitting), notice that you are still not out of
> the clouds, and then ask for an IFR approach at that point?

That sounds like one reasonable way of doing it. Of course, it pays to
get whatever weather info is available. If there's an AWOS/ASOS that's
reporting 1500 overcast and the controller says he can only get you down
to 2000, there's not much point.

> Just trying
> to see how the transition from "going for visual" to "err, no can
> do...need an instrument" happens. Does the controller force the
> decision at some distance out?

It's not the job of the controller to tell you what to do. You make
requests and as long as he's able to, he'll issue you clearances.

If you're north of the airport and instrument approach is the ILS-36,
you've got to go over the top of the airport to get to the appoach.
Assuming no conflicting traffic, you could ask the controller to vector
you onto downwind for 36 at the MIA to see if you can see the runway.
If you do, you can request the visual (or contact) right then and there.
If you don't see anything, you just keep going out to the IAF and fly
the approach normally.

On the other hand, if you're already pretty much lined up for an
instrument approach, you really don't gain anything by asking for a
visual.

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't know about the rest of ye all, but the real world out here is to
be
> vectored as low as the controller can give you, get the airport in sight,
and
> "cancelling IFR". That way the 1000 & 3 does not apply.
>

It does if your destination is in a surface area.

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message
...
>
> It has nothing to do with MSA. Basically, weather needs to be at least
> 1000/3, and the pilot needs to have the airport or an a/c to follow in
> sight.
>
> AIM 5-4-20. Visual Approach
>
> a. A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes
> a pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The pilot
> must have either the airport or the preceding identified aircraft in
sight.
> This approach must be authorized and controlled by the appropriate air
> traffic control facility. Reported weather at the airport must have a
> ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater. ATC may
> authorize this type approach when it will be operationally beneficial.
> Visual approaches are an IFR procedure conducted under IFR in visual
> meteorological conditions. Cloud clearance requirements of 14 CFR Section
> 91.155 are not applicable, unless required by operation specifications.

This tells you when you can commence and continue the visual approach. I
think the question was more on the lines of the appropriate communications
with ATC when you think there's a visual in your future, but you can't be
certain yet.

-- David Brooks

O. Sami Saydjari wrote:

> A while back, I was with an experienced pilot, IMC, descending to land
> at my home airport. The airport is not in an environment where ATC will
> give vectors to final. As we approached, ATC asked which approach we
> wanted. He said that he was "going for the visual." The ceilings were
> right at the Minimum Safe altitude (MSA)--3000. I think ATC said that we
> could descend to 3000 and report airport in sight.
>
> Is this request of "going for the visual" usual?
>
> Is it the norm if ceilings are above MSA?

MSA plays no role whatsoever in any altitude assigned by ATC. We don't
know or care what the MSA is. If you have to go by the airport to get
to where you would start an approach ask ATC to bring you down to the
MVA at the airport as you go by. If you see the airport you can get the
visual, if you're still in the clouds you're headed for the approach
anyways.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:


>
> It has nothing to do with MSA. Basically, weather needs to be at least
> 1000/3, and the pilot needs to have the airport or an a/c to follow in
> sight.

While the 1000/3 applies because you have to have VFR to get a visual
the ceiling needs to be higher than that because there are no MVA's that
are even as low as 1000 feet. So practically speaking the ceiling needs
to be higher than the MVA for that area.

O. Sami Saydjari wrote:


>
> So, my question becomes, at what point do you abort the attempt to go
> visual and transition to an IFR approach.

When you are over the airport and can't see it.


Say, you have a GPS and ATC
> cleared you down to 2000 ft AGL and you are 10 miles from the airport.
> Do you continue at that altitude to the airport until you are right on
> top of it (controller permitting), notice that you are still not out of
> the clouds, and then ask for an IFR approach at that point?

Yes.


Just trying
> to see how the transition from "going for visual" to "err, no can
> do...need an instrument" happens. Does the controller force the
> decision at some distance out?

He may if there is other traffic. If you are the only one and therefore
aren't causing delays for anybody I'll drive you right to the airport,
if you call it in sight then you can have the visual, if not you'll do
an instrument approach.

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:p7Ddc.110245$JO3.77994@attbi_s04...
>
> While the 1000/3 applies because you have to have VFR to get a
> visual the ceiling needs to be higher than that because there are no
> MVA's that are even as low as 1000 feet. So practically speaking
> the ceiling needs to be higher than the MVA for that area.
>

An aircraft can sight the field through a broken layer and be cleared for a
visual approach.

I have heard rumors for years that the feds were going to eliminate MSAs
because pilots persist in trying to make them part of IFR procedures. Hasn't
happened yet, and the misunderstanding is still around.

Bob Gardner

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> A while back, I was with an experienced pilot, IMC, descending to land
> at my home airport. The airport is not in an environment where ATC will
> give vectors to final. As we approached, ATC asked which approach we
> wanted. He said that he was "going for the visual." The ceilings were
> right at the Minimum Safe altitude (MSA)--3000. I think ATC said that we
> could descend to 3000 and report airport in sight.
>
> Is this request of "going for the visual" usual?
>
> Is it the norm if ceilings are above MSA?
>
> -Sami
> N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III
>

In article <7vDdc.810$nK1.8649@attbi_s54>,
Bob Gardner > wrote:
>I have heard rumors for years that the feds were going to eliminate MSAs
>because pilots persist in trying to make them part of IFR procedures. Hasn't
>happened yet, and the misunderstanding is still around.

I've never really looked at them. I lump them in with information like
"200' unlit tower 2 miles from the airport". When it becomes a factor
I'm in much bigger trouble than a bit of obstruction info is going to
fix!

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in
news:7vDdc.810$nK1.8649@attbi_s54:

> I have heard rumors for years that the feds were going to eliminate
> MSAs because pilots persist in trying to make them part of IFR
> procedures. Hasn't happened yet, and the misunderstanding is still
> around.
>
> Bob Gardner
>

I like the MSA because it gives me an idea of what the terrain is like.
We had this discussion before, but no one has given a good reason what
exactly is wrong with the MSA. It gives you 1000' obstacle clearance,
which is exactly what you need for IFR (except in mountainous areas).
Someone pointed out that MSA is not an IFR procedure because the AIM says
it is for emergency use only. Someone else said it was because MSA is not
measured to the same precision as other altitudes. Fine, but if the FAA
is going as far as eliminating it, there must be something more to this
than that. Has there ever been an accident or violation as a result of a
pilot using the MSA?

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote
> OK. It just happened, in this case, that ATC was able to let us go down
> to what was coincidentally that MSA for the area.

Right. The operational altitude is really MVA, which is not available
to you. It could be a lot lower. Right off, I can think of some
airports where it is 1400 ft lower, because the obstructions that
drive the MSA are over 20 miles from the airport.

> So, my question becomes, at what point do you abort the attempt to go
> visual and transition to an IFR approach.

That's your decision as PIC.

> Say, you have a GPS and ATC
> cleared you down to 2000 ft AGL and you are 10 miles from the airport.
> Do you continue at that altitude to the airport until you are right on
> top of it (controller permitting), notice that you are still not out of
> the clouds, and then ask for an IFR approach at that point?

You could do that. Sometimes it even works. Cloud bases are often
ragged. Or you could tell him that you're still in solid IMC and need
the approach. Your call.

> Just trying
> to see how the transition from "going for visual" to "err, no can
> do...need an instrument" happens. Does the controller force the
> decision at some distance out?

That all depends on the MVA boundaries, traffic, etc. For example,
I'm familiar with one field where the MVA is 1700 MSL from one
direction, 2000 from another, and the dividing line seems to be about
a mile from the field. As a result, if you approach from the right
direction, you can get a descent to 1700 - but if you don't get the
airport in sight in a timely manner, you get a climb which essentially
destroys any chance of doing the visual.

In general, the controller will prefer you do the visual if he has a
preference at all - it's less work than vectoring you to final, ties
up less airspace, gets you out of his hair quicker, etc. The only
time a controller doesn't want you to do the visual is if he thinks
you won't get in.

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Right. The operational altitude is really MVA, which is not available
> to you.
>

Why would the MVA not be available to him?

No way of knowing. If there had been an accident, a contributing factor
would be "improper IFR" with no details.

Bob Gardner

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
. 158...
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in
> news:7vDdc.810$nK1.8649@attbi_s54:
>
> > I have heard rumors for years that the feds were going to eliminate
> > MSAs because pilots persist in trying to make them part of IFR
> > procedures. Hasn't happened yet, and the misunderstanding is still
> > around.
> >
> > Bob Gardner
> >
>
> I like the MSA because it gives me an idea of what the terrain is like.
> We had this discussion before, but no one has given a good reason what
> exactly is wrong with the MSA. It gives you 1000' obstacle clearance,
> which is exactly what you need for IFR (except in mountainous areas).
> Someone pointed out that MSA is not an IFR procedure because the AIM says
> it is for emergency use only. Someone else said it was because MSA is not
> measured to the same precision as other altitudes. Fine, but if the FAA
> is going as far as eliminating it, there must be something more to this
> than that. Has there ever been an accident or violation as a result of a
> pilot using the MSA?
>

Alot of how it goes depends on the recent trends, are they getting in,
where are they cancelling, or are they cancelling after landing.
If they arent breaking out until 1,000' below our MIA (Minimum
IFR Altitude, similar to MVA, but not MSA), it's kind of pointless
to bother with a Visual.
If someone wants to try anyway, and if there's not a line of others
behind them, I'll let them try. But if they get right up on the airport
and then decide they want that ILS I suggested after all, it's the back
of the line.
Visuals are great, but make sure you can maintain visual with
the airport.
Chris

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> A while back, I was with an experienced pilot, IMC, descending to land
> at my home airport. The airport is not in an environment where ATC will
> give vectors to final. As we approached, ATC asked which approach we
> wanted. He said that he was "going for the visual." The ceilings were
> right at the Minimum Safe altitude (MSA)--3000. I think ATC said that we
> could descend to 3000 and report airport in sight.
>
> Is this request of "going for the visual" usual?
>
> Is it the norm if ceilings are above MSA?
>
> -Sami
> N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III
>

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 11:33:20 -0700, Jim Weir > wrote:

>I don't know about the rest of ye all, but the real world out here is to be
>vectored as low as the controller can give you, get the airport in sight, and
>"cancelling IFR". That way the 1000 & 3 does not apply.
>
>Jim

Yes, but you have to maintain VMC, whereas on a visual approach under IFR,
that is not a requirement, so long as you maintain the field in sight. In
other words, you don't have to maintain VFR cloud clearance requirements
while enroute from your present position to the field.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 19:49:41 GMT, Newps > wrote:

>While the 1000/3 applies because you have to have VFR to get a visual
>the ceiling needs to be higher than that because there are no MVA's that
>are even as low as 1000 feet. So practically speaking the ceiling needs
>to be higher than the MVA for that area.

It only has to be reported as 1000/3 at the airport, not at your present
position.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Ron Rosenfeld > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 11:33:20 -0700, Jim Weir > wrote:
>
>>I don't know about the rest of ye all, but the real world out here is
>>to be vectored as low as the controller can give you, get the airport
>>in sight, and "cancelling IFR". That way the 1000 & 3 does not apply.
>>
>>Jim
>
> Yes, but you have to maintain VMC, whereas on a visual approach under
> IFR, that is not a requirement, so long as you maintain the field in
> sight. In other words, you don't have to maintain VFR cloud clearance
> requirements while enroute from your present position to the field.
>

Or you can have the preceding aircrat in sight.

On 10 Apr 2004 03:18:21 GMT, Andrew Sarangan > wrote:

>Or you can have the preceding aircrat in sight.

Exactly. IOW, you don't have to be in VMC.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message >...

> So, my question becomes, at what point do you abort the attempt to go
> visual and transition to an IFR approach.

I know you're referring to a navaid-based approach, but to be clear, a
visual approach is also an IFR approach.

> Just trying
> to see how the transition from "going for visual" to "err, no can
> do...need an instrument" happens.

You're going at it backwards.

You don't take a visual approach until you're sure you can find the
airport visually.

(Similarly, you don't cancel IFR to land at an uncontrolled field
until you're sure you can land in VMC.)

It's very unusual, and not a good idea, to accept or request a visual
approach if you're not already sure you can make it.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 19:49:41 GMT, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>While the 1000/3 applies because you have to have VFR to get a visual
>>the ceiling needs to be higher than that because there are no MVA's that
>>are even as low as 1000 feet. So practically speaking the ceiling needs
>>to be higher than the MVA for that area.
>
>
> It only has to be reported as 1000/3 at the airport, not at your present
> position.

That's true but if the ceiling really is only 1000 you ain't gettin' in.

Brien K. Meehan wrote:


> You're going at it backwards.
>
> You don't take a visual approach until you're sure you can find the
> airport visually.

You don't accept a visual until you can actually see the aiport. You
can be vectored for a visual because you don't yet see the airport but
reasonably expect you might if you can get closer.



> It's very unusual, and not a good idea, to accept or request a visual
> approach if you're not already sure you can make it.

No it's not. There's no reason to be sure you'll get the visual to
request to go have a look see at the MVA. If you see the airport then
you can have the visual, if you don't then you'll do another approach.

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:JfTdc.114206$JO3.80855@attbi_s04...
>
> That's true but if the ceiling really is only 1000 you ain't gettin' in.
>

That's not necessarily true. A ceiling is the height above the surface of
the lowest layer of clouds or obscuring phenomenon that is reported as
broken, overcast, or obscuration. A broken layer covers 5/8 to 7/8 of the
sky, aircraft can sight the field with a broken layer at 1000 feet and be
cleared for a visual approach.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 14:10:50 GMT, Newps > wrote:

>That's true but if the ceiling really is only 1000 you ain't gettin' in.

If you restrict the "ceiling" to "overcast" conditions, I would agree. But
that often is not the case.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Newps > wrote in message news:<0jTdc.112869$K91.324392@attbi_s02>...

> > You don't take a visual approach until you're sure you can find the
> > airport visually.
>
> You don't accept a visual until you can actually see the aiport.

That constitutes being sure you can find it, UNLESS you can also see
that you won't be able to see the airport between "now" and the time
you land (e.g. you can see it through a hole in the overcast). Being
able to see the aiport isn't enough. You need to be sure you can find
it and land at it.

> > It's very unusual, and not a good idea, to accept or request a visual
> > approach if you're not already sure you can make it.
>
> No it's not. There's no reason to be sure you'll get the visual to
> request to go have a look see at the MVA.

Going lower is not the same as accepting a visual approach.

Newps > wrote in message news:<0jTdc.112869$K91.324392@attbi_s02>...

> > You don't take a visual approach until you're sure you can find the
> > airport visually.
>
> You don't accept a visual until you can actually see the aiport.

That constitutes being sure you can find it, UNLESS you can also see
that you won't be able to see the airport between "now" and the time
you land (e.g. you can see it through a hole in the overcast). Being
able to see the aiport isn't enough. You need to be sure you can find
it and land at it.

> > It's very unusual, and not a good idea, to accept or request a visual
> > approach if you're not already sure you can make it.
>
> No it's not. There's no reason to be sure you'll get the visual to
> request to go have a look see at the MVA.

Going lower is not the same as accepting a visual approach.

Newps > wrote in message news:<0jTdc.112869$K91.324392@attbi_s02>...

> You don't accept a visual until you can actually see the aiport. You
> can be vectored for a visual because you don't yet see the airport but
> reasonably expect you might if you can get closer.

Scott,

I'm finding this very confusing. Can you direct me to where it says
I must actually see the airport to accept a visual approach?

We've been cleared for a visual approach many times when more
than 10 miles from a non-towered airport w/out an IAP. The
airport was definately not in sight. No vectoring was involved.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I'm finding this very confusing. Can you direct me to where it says
> I must actually see the airport to accept a visual approach?
>
> We've been cleared for a visual approach many times when more
> than 10 miles from a non-towered airport w/out an IAP. The
> airport was definately not in sight. No vectoring was involved.
>

Had you reported a preceding aircraft in sight that had been cleared for a
visual approach?


FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control

Chapter 7. Visual

Section 4. Approaches

7-4-3. CLEARANCE FOR VISUAL APPROACH

ARTCCs and approach controls may clear aircraft for visual approaches using
the following procedures:

NOTE-
Towers may exercise this authority when authorized by a LOA with the
facility that provides the IFR service, or by a facility directive at
collocated facilities.

a. Controllers may initiate, or pilots may request, a visual approach even
when an aircraft is being vectored for an instrument approach and the pilot
subsequently reports:

1. The airport or the runway in sight at airports with operating control
towers.

2. The airport in sight at airports without a control tower.

b. Resolve potential conflicts with all other aircraft, advise an
overtaking aircraft of the distance to the preceding aircraft and speed
difference, and ensure that weather conditions at the airport are VFR or
that the pilot has been informed that weather is not available for the
destination airport. Upon pilot request, advise the pilot of the frequency
to receive weather information where AWOS/ASOS is available.

PHRASEOLOGY-
(Ident) (instructions) CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH RUNWAY (number);

or

(ident) (instructions) CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH TO (airport name)

(and if appropriate)

WEATHER NOT AVAILABLE OR VERIFY THAT YOU HAVE THE (airport) WEATHER.

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Visual Separation, Para 7-2-1.

c. Clear an aircraft for a visual approach when:

1. The aircraft is number one in the approach sequence, or

2. The aircraft is to follow a preceding aircraft and the pilot reports
the preceding aircraft in sight and is instructed to follow it, or

NOTE-
The pilot need not report the airport/runway in sight.

3. The pilot reports the airport or runway in sight but not the
preceding aircraft. Radar separation must be maintained until visual
separation is provided.

d. All aircraft following a heavy jet/B757 must be informed of the
airplane manufacturer and model.

EXAMPLE-
"Cessna Three Four Juliet, following a Boeing 757, 12 o'clock, six miles."

e. Inform the tower of the aircraft's position prior to communications
transfer at controlled airports. ARTS/STARS functions may be used provided a
facility directive or LOA specifies control and communication transfer
points.

f. In addition to the requirements of para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual
Approach, and subparas a, b, c, d, and e, ensure that the location of the
destination airport is provided when the pilot is asked to report the
destination airport in sight.

g. In those instances where airports are located in close proximity, also
provide the location of the airport that may cause the confusion.

EXAMPLE-
"Cessna Five Six November, Cleveland Burke Lakefront Airport is at
12 o'clock, 5 miles. Cleveland Hopkins Airport is at 1 o'clock 12 miles.
Report Cleveland Hopkins in sight."

REFERENCE-
FAAO 7110.65, Approaches to Multiple Runways, Para 7-4-4.

Snowbird wrote:
> Newps > wrote in message news:<0jTdc.112869$K91.324392@attbi_s02>...
>
>
>>You don't accept a visual until you can actually see the aiport. You
>>can be vectored for a visual because you don't yet see the airport but
>>reasonably expect you might if you can get closer.
>
>
>
>
> I'm finding this very confusing. Can you direct me to where it says
> I must actually see the airport to accept a visual approach?
>
> We've been cleared for a visual approach many times when more
> than 10 miles from a non-towered airport w/out an IAP. The
> airport was definately not in sight. No vectoring was involved.


You must either see the airport or the preceding aircraft. In the real
world it is only a tiny percentage of aircraft that get a visual
approach and don't have the airport in sight but are following another
aircraft. Here in Billings we give a lot of visual approach clearances
on initial contact because the pilot calls the airport in sight 40 miles
out. Are you saying that the center, for no apparent reason, is just
giving you a visual approach clearance without you first calling the
airport in sight? If that's the case just say "unable". Whether or not
an airport has an IAP is not relavant.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> > Right. The operational altitude is really MVA, which is not available
> > to you.
>
> Why would the MVA not be available to him?

Because AFAIK the MVA charts are not published anywhere pilots can get
them. I've seen some individual uncontrolled copies floating around,
but these are not really reliable because they have no expiration date
and changes are not NOTAM'd.

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Because AFAIK the MVA charts are not published anywhere pilots can get
> them. I've seen some individual uncontrolled copies floating around,
> but these are not really reliable because they have no expiration date
> and changes are not NOTAM'd.
>

Okay. But you said the MVA was not available, not the MVA chart.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
> "Snowbird" > wrote in message
> om...

> Had you reported a preceding aircraft in sight that had been cleared for a
> visual approach?

Nope. No one else going in to that non-towered airport IFR.
Typical exchange would go something like
"XX Center, Grumman 123 requests slow descent into Podunk"
"Grumman 123, descend and maintain three thousand."
(3000 will lose radar coverage and radio contact will be
iffy)
(around 3500 ft)
"Grumman 123, radar contact lost, you are cleared for the
visual approach into Podunk, no observed traffic between
you and the airport, change to advisory approved, report
cancellation with Flight Service"

> FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control
> Chapter 7. Visual
> 2. The airport in sight at airports without a control tower.

That looks pretty unambiguous.

My guess is what I've run into is someone who knows if he
waits to clear me until I report the airport in sight, the
chances that he'll have lost both radar contact and comms
with me are pretty high, and has decided to simplify his
life.

Cheers,
Sydney





> b. Resolve potential conflicts with all other aircraft, advise an
> overtaking aircraft of the distance to the preceding aircraft and speed
> difference, and ensure that weather conditions at the airport are VFR or
> that the pilot has been informed that weather is not available for the
> destination airport. Upon pilot request, advise the pilot of the frequency
> to receive weather information where AWOS/ASOS is available.
>
> PHRASEOLOGY-
> (Ident) (instructions) CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH RUNWAY (number);
>
> or
>
> (ident) (instructions) CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH TO (airport name)
>
> (and if appropriate)
>
> WEATHER NOT AVAILABLE OR VERIFY THAT YOU HAVE THE (airport) WEATHER.
>
> REFERENCE-
> FAAO 7110.65, Visual Separation, Para 7-2-1.
>
> c. Clear an aircraft for a visual approach when:
>
> 1. The aircraft is number one in the approach sequence, or
>
> 2. The aircraft is to follow a preceding aircraft and the pilot reports
> the preceding aircraft in sight and is instructed to follow it, or
>
> NOTE-
> The pilot need not report the airport/runway in sight.
>
> 3. The pilot reports the airport or runway in sight but not the
> preceding aircraft. Radar separation must be maintained until visual
> separation is provided.
>
> d. All aircraft following a heavy jet/B757 must be informed of the
> airplane manufacturer and model.
>
> EXAMPLE-
> "Cessna Three Four Juliet, following a Boeing 757, 12 o'clock, six miles."
>
> e. Inform the tower of the aircraft's position prior to communications
> transfer at controlled airports. ARTS/STARS functions may be used provided a
> facility directive or LOA specifies control and communication transfer
> points.
>
> f. In addition to the requirements of para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual
> Approach, and subparas a, b, c, d, and e, ensure that the location of the
> destination airport is provided when the pilot is asked to report the
> destination airport in sight.
>
> g. In those instances where airports are located in close proximity, also
> provide the location of the airport that may cause the confusion.
>
> EXAMPLE-
> "Cessna Five Six November, Cleveland Burke Lakefront Airport is at
> 12 o'clock, 5 miles. Cleveland Hopkins Airport is at 1 o'clock 12 miles.
> Report Cleveland Hopkins in sight."
>
> REFERENCE-
> FAAO 7110.65, Approaches to Multiple Runways, Para 7-4-4.

Newps > wrote in message news:<ol2ec.8025$wP1.27020@attbi_s54>...
> You must either see the airport or the preceding aircraft. In the real
> world it is only a tiny percentage of aircraft that get a visual
> approach and don't have the airport in sight but are following another
> aircraft.

We're not following another aircraft.

> Here in Billings we give a lot of visual approach clearances
> on initial contact because the pilot calls the airport in sight 40 miles
> out.

(wolf whistle) Nice.

Here in the midwest, we get a lot of summer wx where there's not a
cloud in the sky and the vis is nominally VFR -- at least you can
make out airports which are >3 miles away by GPS. But it's really
flight by reference to instruments. The forward vis is nil.
And once one starts a descent, the radius shrinks. Practically
speaking, I'm not going to see the airport until I'm practically
flying over it, yet there's no question whatsoever about my
ability to land there under VFR.

> Are you saying that the center, for no apparent reason, is just
> giving you a visual approach clearance without you first calling the
> airport in sight?

The latter (vis approach clearance without me first calling the
airport in sight), but not the former. At the MIA, both radar
and radio reception will be tenuous -- and at an airport with no
IAP there's no requirement to assure radio reception at a given
altitude as there is with, for example, a MAHP. Operationally,
there are several apparent reasons why it's probably helpful to
go ahead and issue the clearance.

Cheers,
Sydney

(Snowbird) wrote
> My guess is what I've run into is someone who knows if he
> waits to clear me until I report the airport in sight, the
> chances that he'll have lost both radar contact and comms
> with me are pretty high, and has decided to simplify his
> life.

That sounds realistic. On the other hand, the controller has an
option that is just as simple and not contrary to regulation. The
option is a cruise clearance. That allows you to shoot any approach,
which presumably includes the visual and preserves the option of
shooting a SIAP if you don't get the airport in sight, or the contact
if the vis isn't quite good enough for the visual.

Michael

(Michael) wrote:
> That sounds realistic. On the other hand, the controller has an
> option that is just as simple and not contrary to regulation. The
> option is a cruise clearance. That allows you to shoot any approach,
> which presumably includes the visual and preserves the option of
> shooting a SIAP if you don't get the airport in sight, or the contact
> if the vis isn't quite good enough for the visual.

As somebody who flies mostly in the New York area, I've never gotten a
cruise clearance in my life, so I'm not really up on the details. What
happens if I get "Cleared to the White Plains airport, via direct,
cruise 3000, frequency change approved, have a nice night"? For the
moment, let's assume it's 2:00 AM and the tower is closed.

I plug HPN into my GPS, climb to 3000, and keep turning the little
airplane icon until the track and bearing say the same number. Then
what?

I need 1000 and 3 to fly a visual. 30 miles out, I tune in the ATIS and
hear that the weather is 2500 & 10. I'm currently in IMC. When do I
begin my descent out of 3000 for the visual? I'm guessing I can't and
must shoot an instrument approach?

OK, I decided to shoot the GPS-34
(http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/NorthEast/HPN_agr34.pdf).
At what point do I stop going direct HPN and start heading to TUGME (the
IAF)? And when do I begin my descent out of 3000? I'm guessing only
once I pass TUGME, so let's assume that for the moment.

So, I start on down from TUGME, and quickly break out right at 2500 and
see the airport. Can I then change my mind about flying the GPS-34 and
switch to the visual? I'm guessing I can, so I make a right turn,
heading 000, to get lined up for a straight-in to 29 (my preferred
runway since it puts me closest to my parking spot).

Halfway to the airport, I discover I made a poor choice in breaking off
the GPS approach because suddenly I find myself in a rain shower and
quickly after that, back in IMC at 2000. I'm not worried about terrain
in the immediate vicinity because I know I'm above anything close, but I
figure a climb back to the MSA makes sense anyway, so I do that. Now
what? If I decide to climb to 3000 and head back to TUGME for another
GPS approach, am I still operating within my cruise clearance?

I guess the gist of my question is, does the cruise clearance let me fly
a single approach, or does it let me stooge around in the vicinity of
the airport trying multiple approaches until I get in or give up?

Roy Smith > wrote in news:roy-
:

> As somebody who flies mostly in the New York area, I've never gotten a
> cruise clearance in my life, so I'm not really up on the details. What
> happens if I get "Cleared to the White Plains airport, via direct,
> cruise 3000, frequency change approved, have a nice night"? For the
> moment, let's assume it's 2:00 AM and the tower is closed.

As somebody who flies mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, with spotty radar and
communications coverage, I get them all the time, pretty much every IFR
flight offshore. Center knows we can't talk below 2000' or so, and radar
coverage will also be lost. A cruise clearance gives you all the airspace
at and below the cruise altitude until you report out of it. If you report
leaving an altitude, you can't climb back up to it, but until you report
leaving it (if you do report it) you can go up and down all you like. The
cruise clearance includes the instrument approach of your choice, and a
missed approach clearance if you miss. We have a standard missed in a
letter of agreement, as well as lost comm instructions. The airspace
around your destination is yours until you cancel IFR or report a missed
approach.

You can descend to whatever altitude you like, down to the MEA, and to the
published altitude for any transitions you fly. A direct clearance can
make things difficult, because of terrain clearances. You can fly direct
to the airport, an IAF, or whatever, because ATC must protect all the
airspace, because the cruise clearance is a clearance for any approach.
That's why you don't get them very often up there. I'm not familiar with
the airspace, so I can't comment on the routing you postulated, but in
reality you can do whatever you like, as long as you can maintain a safe
altitude. I would likely set myself up for the most direct published
approach, and fly that, unless I broke out and had the airport in sight.
You can fly the visual at any time you have the airport in sight. A cruise
clearance is a wonderful thing, if you can get it, because it lets you do
pretty much whatever you like.

> I guess the gist of my question is, does the cruise clearance let me fly
> a single approach, or does it let me stooge around in the vicinity of
> the airport trying multiple approaches until I get in or give up?
>
My understanding is that you can stooge around if you need to, but good
planning should obviate a lot of stooging. Judgement is always necessary,
especially when flying IFR.

--
Regards,

Stan

(Snowbird) wrote in
om:

> The latter (vis approach clearance without me first calling the
> airport in sight), but not the former. At the MIA, both radar
> and radio reception will be tenuous -- and at an airport with no
> IAP there's no requirement to assure radio reception at a given
> altitude as there is with, for example, a MAHP. Operationally,
> there are several apparent reasons why it's probably helpful to
> go ahead and issue the clearance.

I have to agree that center is incorrect in giving a clearance for a visual
when you don't have the airport in sight. A cruise clearance would be more
appropriate. OTOH, once you receive the clearance, it's not your
responsibility to worry about the legality of ATC issuing it. The only
problem can be that you can't find the airport, or not see the airport when
you get to it. Then you have to get a clearance for an approach, and
center will have to come up with something. You can always request a
cruise clearance. Center may or may not issue it, but it's perfectly OK to
ask for one at any time.

--
Regards,

Stan

Snowbird wrote:

> We're not following another aircraft.

Then you decline the visual.

>
>
>>Here in Billings we give a lot of visual approach clearances
>>on initial contact because the pilot calls the airport in sight 40 miles
>>out.
>
>
> (wolf whistle) Nice.
>
> Here in the midwest, we get a lot of summer wx where there's not a
> cloud in the sky and the vis is nominally VFR -- at least you can
> make out airports which are >3 miles away by GPS. But it's really
> flight by reference to instruments. The forward vis is nil.
> And once one starts a descent, the radius shrinks. Practically
> speaking, I'm not going to see the airport until I'm practically
> flying over it, yet there's no question whatsoever about my
> ability to land there under VFR.

That's why we no longer live in the midwest. Every day that it's not
snowing the vis is over 100 miles.

>
>
>> Are you saying that the center, for no apparent reason, is just
>>giving you a visual approach clearance without you first calling the
>>airport in sight?
>
>
> The latter (vis approach clearance without me first calling the
> airport in sight), but not the former. At the MIA, both radar
> and radio reception will be tenuous -- and at an airport with no
> IAP there's no requirement to assure radio reception at a given
> altitude as there is with, for example, a MAHP. Operationally,
> there are several apparent reasons why it's probably helpful to
> go ahead and issue the clearance.

Operationally it's not legal to give a clearance in that situation. You
should decline the clearance.

Roy Smith wrote:


> As somebody who flies mostly in the New York area, I've never gotten a
> cruise clearance in my life,

And you won't in that airspace.


so I'm not really up on the details. What
> happens if I get "Cleared to the White Plains airport, via direct,
> cruise 3000, frequency change approved, have a nice night"? For the
> moment, let's assume it's 2:00 AM and the tower is closed.

You go to White Plains, staying between the MEA and 3000 until you see
the airport or get to a fix on an approach, shoot the approach and
cancel like at any nontowered airport.


>
> I need 1000 and 3 to fly a visual. 30 miles out, I tune in the ATIS and
> hear that the weather is 2500 & 10. I'm currently in IMC. When do I
> begin my descent out of 3000 for the visual? I'm guessing I can't and
> must shoot an instrument approach?

Yes.


>
> OK, I decided to shoot the GPS-34
> (http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/NorthEast/HPN_agr34.pdf).
> At what point do I stop going direct HPN and start heading to TUGME (the
> IAF)?

Whenever you want.


And when do I begin my descent out of 3000?

When you are established on the approach as per the plate.


>
> So, I start on down from TUGME, and quickly break out right at 2500 and
> see the airport. Can I then change my mind about flying the GPS-34 and
> switch to the visual?

Yes.


I'm guessing I can, so I make a right turn,
> heading 000, to get lined up for a straight-in to 29 (my preferred
> runway since it puts me closest to my parking spot).
>
> Halfway to the airport, I discover I made a poor choice in breaking off
> the GPS approach because suddenly I find myself in a rain shower and
> quickly after that, back in IMC at 2000. I'm not worried about terrain
> in the immediate vicinity because I know I'm above anything close, but I
> figure a climb back to the MSA makes sense anyway, so I do that. Now
> what?

Pick another approach and do it.


If I decide to climb to 3000 and head back to TUGME for another
> GPS approach, am I still operating within my cruise clearance?

Yes.


>
> I guess the gist of my question is, does the cruise clearance let me fly
> a single approach, or does it let me stooge around in the vicinity of
> the airport trying multiple approaches until I get in or give up?

You can do whatever you want until you land or give up.

Roy Smith > wrote
> What
> happens if I get "Cleared to the White Plains airport, via direct,
> cruise 3000, frequency change approved, have a nice night"? For the
> moment, let's assume it's 2:00 AM and the tower is closed.

Well, I doubt you would ever get that at HPN (even at night, the area
is pretty busy) but something like that has been known to happen at
Huntsville (UTS) where 2200 is a perfectly valid IFR altitude but
RADAR coverage below about 4000 just won't happen. I like to take
students there (assuming their airplanes are fast enough to make the
trip worthwhile) when we have a stratus layer, just so they can get
that "You are on your own" feeling, and understand what it's like to
do the full approach (and maybe the full missed approach) without
being able to talk to anyone.

Anyway, my point is that I know what it's like to be cut loose 30
miles from the airport, even if I never have heard the magic word
(cruise) because out here it is done. If you pull up the VOR-DME A
approach for UTS (http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/UTS_vd_gA.pdf)
you will note that it has 3 IAF's. Out there, you don't normally get
a clearance to one of them - you get a clearance for the approach.
Right away that should trip an alarm - the exact route is undefined!
What this means in practice is this - the controller doesn't care.
He's perfectly happy to block out a huge chunk of airspace for you,
because nobody else wants it.

> I need 1000 and 3 to fly a visual. 30 miles out, I tune in the ATIS and
> hear that the weather is 2500 & 10. I'm currently in IMC. When do I
> begin my descent out of 3000 for the visual? I'm guessing I can't and
> must shoot an instrument approach?

Why not? Your clearance is good for any altitude between 3000 and the
minimum applicable IFR altitude. As long as you can assure that you
will comply with 91.177, you may descend at your discretion. If
you're on a random route, all you need is 1000 ft above obstacles
within 4 nm (since the terrain is not mountainous). If you're on an
airway, HPN is well within 22nm of CMK, and the MOCA's are all lower
than 3000. That's the whole point of a cruise clearance - you own
everything from 3000 on down.

> OK, I decided to shoot the GPS-34
> (http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/NorthEast/HPN_agr34.pdf).
> At what point do I stop going direct HPN and start heading to TUGME (the
> IAF)?

At any point. You are the only guy around. Nobody else is using the
airspace, or you would never have gotten that clearance. Just make
sure that you can comply with 91.177 on your random route without
exceeding 3000.

> And when do I begin my descent out of 3000? I'm guessing only
> once I pass TUGME, so let's assume that for the moment.

Well, see above. Maybe yes, maybe no.

> So, I start on down from TUGME, and quickly break out right at 2500 and
> see the airport. Can I then change my mind about flying the GPS-34 and
> switch to the visual? I'm guessing I can, so I make a right turn,
> heading 000, to get lined up for a straight-in to 29 (my preferred
> runway since it puts me closest to my parking spot).

Sounds good to me so far.

> Halfway to the airport, I discover I made a poor choice in breaking off
> the GPS approach because suddenly I find myself in a rain shower and
> quickly after that, back in IMC at 2000. I'm not worried about terrain
> in the immediate vicinity because I know I'm above anything close, but I
> figure a climb back to the MSA makes sense anyway, so I do that.

No problem. MSA is 3000 and your clearance is to cruise 3000. Since
you never reported vacating 3000, it's still yours.

> Now
> what? If I decide to climb to 3000 and head back to TUGME for another
> GPS approach, am I still operating within my cruise clearance?

Well, since you have yet to complete an approach, I can't see why not.

> I guess the gist of my question is, does the cruise clearance let me fly
> a single approach, or does it let me stooge around in the vicinity of
> the airport trying multiple approaches until I get in or give up?

I would think the latter. Remember, you got that clearance because
you're the only idiot flying around there. You were given a big block
of airspace, and you own it until you either cancel IFR or report that
you can't get in and need to do something else.

Michael

Careful on that one.

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't know about the rest of ye all, but the real world out here is to
be
> vectored as low as the controller can give you, get the airport in sight,
and
> "cancelling IFR". That way the 1000 & 3 does not apply.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
> Roy Smith >
> shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:
>
> ->
> ->The MSA has little to do with it. The MSA is an emergency altitude with
> ->no regulatory meaning (at least in the US). What's important is that
> ->you've got the weather minimums for a visual approach (1000 & 3) and
> ->that ATC can issue you a clearance to descend low enough that you can
> ->see the airport (or the aircraft you're following).
>
> Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
> VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
> http://www.rst-engr.com

Uhh, I'd check that one. A year or two ago there was an article in IFR or IFR
Refresher about this subject. FAA busted some guy who cancelled when clear of
the clouds because he was not legal for VFR. IIRC, the guy busted had like 750
and 6+. The gist of the article was that unless you were in legal VFR you can't
cancel in the air.

Otis Winslow wrote:

> Careful on that one.
>
> "Jim Weir" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I don't know about the rest of ye all, but the real world out here is to
> be
> > vectored as low as the controller can give you, get the airport in sight,
> and
> > "cancelling IFR". That way the 1000 & 3 does not apply.
> >
> > Jim
> >

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Yes, there was an article like that.
But didn't it turn out that the article was a fabrication?
I think it was one of those "It could have happened..." stories.
That sort of journalism appalls me.
---JRC---

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message =
...
> Uhh, I'd check that one. A year or two ago there was an article in =
IFR or IFR
> Refresher about this subject. FAA busted some guy who cancelled when =
clear of
> the clouds because he was not legal for VFR. IIRC, the guy busted had =
like 750
> and 6+. The gist of the article was that unless you were in legal VFR =
you can't
> cancel in the air.
>=20
> Otis Winslow wrote:
>=20
> > Careful on that one.
> >
> > "Jim Weir" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I don't know about the rest of ye all, but the real world out here =
is to
> > be
> > > vectored as low as the controller can give you, get the airport in =
sight,
> > and
> > > "cancelling IFR". That way the 1000 & 3 does not apply.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
>=20
> --
> --Ray Andraka
>

Ray Andraka > wrote in
:

> Uhh, I'd check that one. A year or two ago there was an article in
> IFR or IFR Refresher about this subject. FAA busted some guy who
> cancelled when clear of the clouds because he was not legal for VFR.
> IIRC, the guy busted had like 750 and 6+. The gist of the article was
> that unless you were in legal VFR you can't cancel in the air.

Depends on where you are. In Class E, you need 1000/3 to be VFR. In Class
G, it's legal. If you're landing to an uncontrolled airport with a Class E
surface area, you need to wait until you're on the ground. If you're out
in the boonies with a 1200', or even a 700', floor, you should be ok
cancelling in the air, as long as you're below the floor of the Class E
airspace.

--
Regards,

Stan

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> (Snowbird) wrote
> > My guess is what I've run into is someone who knows if he
> > waits to clear me until I report the airport in sight, the
> > chances that he'll have lost both radar contact and comms
> > with me are pretty high, and has decided to simplify his
> > life.

> That sounds realistic. On the other hand, the controller has an
> option that is just as simple and not contrary to regulation. The
> option is a cruise clearance. That allows you to shoot any approach,
> which presumably includes the visual and preserves the option of
> shooting a SIAP if you don't get the airport in sight, or the contact
> if the vis isn't quite good enough for the visual.

Well, there isn't an SIAP and IIRC one can't fly a contact approach
to an airport without an SIAP.

But otherwise, I think you've got a great point. A cruise clearance
would accomplish exactly what we both want, and be perfectly legal.

Cheers,
Sydney

Stan Gosnell > wrote in message >...

> I have to agree that center is incorrect in giving a clearance for a visual
> when you don't have the airport in sight. A cruise clearance would be more
> appropriate. OTOH, once you receive the clearance, it's not your
> responsibility to worry about the legality of ATC issuing it. The only
> problem can be that you can't find the airport, or not see the airport when
> you get to it. Then you have to get a clearance for an approach, and
> center will have to come up with something. You can always request a
> cruise clearance. Center may or may not issue it, but it's perfectly OK to
> ask for one at any time.

I think that's likely what we'll do next time.

I make no bones about declining a visual approach if I have any doubts
about my ability to remain clear of clouds and find the airport. Even
if I'm having my arm twisted really really hard by ATC. If I have such
doubts I'll be amending my destination to one which has an SIAP.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned on this thread (maybe it has been
and I missed it) is that a visual approach explicitly has no missed
approach segment and IMO the pilot has to consider this carefully when
making a decision as to whether or not to accept a visual approach.
If one isn't able to complete the visual, instructions are "remain
clear of clouds and contact ATC". There are plenty of places we've
met where this can put the pilot in a cleft stick, if he accepts the
visual and in fact can't make it in -- stuck at an altitude where
radio reception is tenuous or where a long wait may be necessary in
order to clear the pilot under non-radar rules.

Cheers,
Sydney

Stan Gosnell > wrote:
> I have to agree that center is incorrect in giving a clearance for a visual
> when you don't have the airport in sight.

I've always figured, "cleared visual" is just a shorthand way of
avoiding the following conversation: "Report the airport in sight",
"Field in sight", The visual approach is available if you'd like it",
"Request visual", "Cleared visual approach". It's one transmission
instead of five, and while it may not meet the letter of the law, it's
pretty unlikely to cause any confusion or harm.

On the other hand, I've had NY Approach trying hard to sell me a visual
when I was in solid IMC. I can only assume that based on the best
weather information the controller had, he thought things were better
than they really were. For all I know, the guy in front of me was in a
hurry, didn't mind cheating, and gave a bogus pirep to approach to get
in faster.

So, I think the bottom line is if you're offered a visual and you don't
think it makes sense, simply follow Nancy Reagan's advice: 'Just say
"No"'.

(Snowbird) wrote
> Well, there isn't an SIAP and IIRC one can't fly a contact approach
> to an airport without an SIAP.

You recall correctly. The visual is the only choice here.

> But otherwise, I think you've got a great point. A cruise clearance
> would accomplish exactly what we both want, and be perfectly legal.

OK, now ask yourself why you weren't issued a cruise clearance, when
that's the legal way of accomplishing what you both want. Some
suggested answers:

(a) The controller is ornery and likes breaking the rules
(b) The controller doesn't care about rules and can't be bothered to
do anything differently.
(c) The controller doesn't believe in cruise clearances
(d) The controller doesn't know about cruise clearances

Which do YOU think is correct?

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
>
> OK, now ask yourself why you weren't issued a cruise clearance, when
> that's the legal way of accomplishing what you both want. Some
> suggested answers:
>
> (a) The controller is ornery and likes breaking the rules
> (b) The controller doesn't care about rules and can't be bothered to
> do anything differently.
> (c) The controller doesn't believe in cruise clearances
> (d) The controller doesn't know about cruise clearances
>
> Which do YOU think is correct?
>

d

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> FAA Order 7110.65P Air Traffic Control
> [...]
> the pilot subsequently reports:
>
> 1. The airport or the runway in sight at airports with operating control
> towers.
>
> 2. The airport in sight at airports without a control tower.

Why the distinction? Given that the runway is part of the airport,
under what circumstances could you possibly have the runway, but not the
airport, in sight?

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why the distinction? Given that the runway is part of the airport,
> under what circumstances could you possibly have the runway,
> but not the airport, in sight?
>

Beats the hell outta me.

Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> I've always figured, "cleared visual" is just a shorthand way of
> avoiding the following conversation: "Report the airport in sight",
> "Field in sight", The visual approach is available if you'd like it",
> "Request visual", "Cleared visual approach". It's one transmission
> instead of five, and while it may not meet the letter of the law, it's
> pretty unlikely to cause any confusion or harm.

What I normally hear is "Airport 12 o'clock and 10 miles, report it in
sight". When I do report the airport in sight, I get a clearance for a
visual approach. If I'm still in IMC when I receive the first
transmission, I tell approach that I am and what approach I want.
Technically, it's not legal for the controller to clear you for a visual
until you report the airport in sight. The fact that some do doesn't
legalize it, but I'm sure it still happens, likely more in some places than
others. I've never had it happen down here.

--
Regards,

Stan

Roy Smith > wrote in news:roy-
:

> Why the distinction? Given that the runway is part of the airport,
> under what circumstances could you possibly have the runway, but not the
> airport, in sight?
>
Roy, you're expecting logic from the FAA? ??? :-D

--
Regards,

Stan

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message =
ink.net...
>=20
> "Roy Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Why the distinction? Given that the runway is part of the airport,
> > under what circumstances could you possibly have the runway,
> > but not the airport, in sight?
> >
>=20
> Beats the hell outta me.
>=20
>=20

Case of airport OR runway:
At big places like KIAD and CYYZ,
it's easy to have a runway in sight, but not the whole airport.
Been there, done that.
Probably the same at KDFW and KDEN, too.

Case of airport-only (with no control tower):
Special consideration for those hard-to-see grass strips, maybe?
---JRC---

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
...
>
> Case of airport OR runway:
> At big places like KIAD and CYYZ,
> it's easy to have a runway in sight, but not the whole airport.
> Been there, done that.
> Probably the same at KDFW and KDEN, too.
>

There's no requirement to see the whole airport.

In article >,
Stan Gosnell > wrote:

> Roy Smith > wrote in news:roy-
> :
>
> > Why the distinction? Given that the runway is part of the airport,
> > under what circumstances could you possibly have the runway, but not the
> > airport, in sight?
> >
> Roy, you're expecting logic from the FAA? ??? :-D

I know, I should be ashamed of myself.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message =
ink.net...
>=20
> "John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Case of airport OR runway:
> > At big places like KIAD and CYYZ,
> > it's easy to have a runway in sight, but not the whole airport.
> > Been there, done that.
> > Probably the same at KDFW and KDEN, too.
>=20
> There's no requirement to see the whole airport.
>=20
Clearly so. That's what I tried to say..
---JRC---

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> (Snowbird) wrote
> > Well, there isn't an SIAP and IIRC one can't fly a contact approach
> > to an airport without an SIAP.
>
> You recall correctly. The visual is the only choice here.
>
> > But otherwise, I think you've got a great point. A cruise clearance
> > would accomplish exactly what we both want, and be perfectly legal.
>
> OK, now ask yourself why you weren't issued a cruise clearance, when
> that's the legal way of accomplishing what you both want. Some
> suggested answers:
>
> (a) The controller is ornery and likes breaking the rules
> (b) The controller doesn't care about rules and can't be bothered to
> do anything differently.
> (c) The controller doesn't believe in cruise clearances
> (d) The controller doesn't know about cruise clearances
>
> Which do YOU think is correct?
>

I say "d" with a twist: The controller knows there is something in the book
about a cruise clearance, but doesn't know how a cruise clearance works.
This seems most likely to me, since the controller also doesn't know how a
visual approach works either...

Chip, ZTL

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
[snipped]
>
> One thing I haven't seen mentioned on this thread (maybe it has been
> and I missed it) is that a visual approach explicitly has no missed
> approach segment and IMO the pilot has to consider this carefully when
> making a decision as to whether or not to accept a visual approach.
> If one isn't able to complete the visual, instructions are "remain
> clear of clouds and contact ATC". There are plenty of places we've
> met where this can put the pilot in a cleft stick, if he accepts the
> visual and in fact can't make it in -- stuck at an altitude where
> radio reception is tenuous or where a long wait may be necessary in
> order to clear the pilot under non-radar rules.
>

Sydney, to me this paragraph of yours illustrates why it is legally
important for the pilot to first report sighting the airfield (or aircraft
to follow etc) before ATC issues a visual apprach clearance. A remote
Visual Approach clearance issued way before you see the airport, followed by
lost comm and lost radar as you descend trying to find it, just doesn't
sound like positive IFR air traffic control to me. At ZTL, the controller
(if caught, which is a big IF) would be credited with an operational error.
Sadly, an FAA controller OE investigation would likely come only after the
NTSB crash site investigation was completed... too late to do the pilot any
good.

Chip, ZTL

Since this topic is being beat into submission as usual, I'll
add a pet peeve of a lot of controllers I know, myself included:

N1234: "airport in sight"
controller: "cleared visual approach"
N1234: "roger, we'll cancel IFR"

This happens daily, why? What is the point in reporting the airport
and a) not requesting the visual, if it's wanted, or, b) canceling in
the first transmission if the visual isn't wanted? Someone brought
up wasted transmissions, there's an example.

Speaking of wasted transmissions, and someone used the example
of five transmissions to get the Visual approach sequence rolling,
the controller who will be issuing the approach should on initial
call-in advise of what to expect. This should make it clearer
and what's expected of the pilot later. Example:
"N1234, expect visual runway 25, advise when you have atis Xray
and the airport in sight" (technically now I guess we have to say
the name of the airport and it's position - is it done? not often)
Anyway, that transmission sure shouldn't leave much doubt in
anyone's mind. It's also a good time if the pilot is requesting something
other than that.

Cruise Clearances: the reason it's not used much and rarely offered,
here anyway, is terrain and radio/radar coverage. It's basically
a block altitude from whatever you give away, to the ground, and
if it doesn't work out, back up to whatever altitude you assign. That's
one hell of a chunk of airspace to lock up. And you are never sure
how long you are really giving it away for as you may not hear the
aircraft cancel. Also things not used often or on a regular basis,
controllers get rusty on, let's be honest.
Contact Approaches: Read last sentence, just not requested enough
and pilots and controllers both get rusty on it. Example: had a guy
ask for one at an airport with no SIAP, another one asked for one
where the tower said they were totally IFR less than a mile visibility,
virtually impossible to accomplish. On the controller side, you'll see
the "standby" as they ask their supervisor if/how to do it.
Some observations,
Chris

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 06:48:17 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
> wrote:

>"N1234, expect visual runway 25, advise when you have atis Xray
>and the airport in sight"

Why not just: "N5843Q, expect visual runway 32"?

It's shorter and conveys the same information and (implied) request.

Even better is when the "visual" is on an ATIS, if available.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Chip Jones" > wrote
> > (d) The controller doesn't know about cruise clearances

> I say "d" with a twist: The controller knows there is something in the book
> about a cruise clearance, but doesn't know how a cruise clearance works.

I agree. This is exactly what I'm talking about - he knows that
cruise clearances exist - meaning he heard the term somewhere,
probably in training - but he doesn't actually know anything ABOUT
cruise clearances, in the sense that he would be able to use them.

> This seems most likely to me, since the controller also doesn't know how a
> visual approach works either...

I think that's a bit unfair. He probably issues visual approaches
properly under normal circumstances. This is a special circumstance.
He COULD be an ass about it - keep the plane at an altitude high
enough to assure radio comms and force the pilot to accept the
resulting slam dunk - or cancel IFR. Instead, he's doing what makes
sense. The problem is that he doesn't know the correct phraseology to
accomplish this, and as a result he's breaking regs because he doesn't
know the correct magic word to use.

Are the regs unnecessarily complicated? This is a guy who talks to
airplanes issuing instructions and clearances 40+ hours a week, every
week. If he can't keep all the regs straight, what sort of chance
does a weekend pilot have?

Michael

(Snowbird) wrote:
> (around 3500 ft)
> "Grumman 123, radar contact lost, you are cleared for the
> visual approach into Podunk, no observed traffic between
> you and the airport, change to advisory approved, report
> cancellation with Flight Service"

I was just re-reading some back postings in this thread and something
struck me odd about the above. If the radar coverage floor is 3500, how
could there *possibly* be any observed traffic between you and the
airport.

"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote
> >"N1234, expect visual runway 25, advise when you have atis Xray
> >and the airport in sight"
>
> Why not just: "N5843Q, expect visual runway 32"?
> It's shorter and conveys the same information and (implied) request.

It may be shorter, but we are required to know the other two items:
that you have the current weather (atis) and that you have the airport
in sight.

> Even better is when the "visual" is on an ATIS, if available.

Can skip that info if pilot advises he has the ATIS, but since the
rule says the controller shall advise of the approach on initial
contact or as soon as possible thereafter, the pilot has to advise
of the ATIS on his initial contact. Most airports I do approaches
to dont have an ATIS, so it's a moot point.

See 7110.65 Par 4-7-10
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0407.html#4-7-1

4-7-10. APPROACH INFORMATION

a. Both en route and terminal approach control sectors shall provide
current approach information to aircraft destined to airports for which they
provide approach control services. This information shall be provided on
initial contact or as soon as possible thereafter. Approach information
contained in the ATIS broadcast may be omitted if the pilot states the
appropriate ATIS code or items 3-5 below may be omitted for pilots destined
to uncontrolled airports when they advise receipt of the automated weather;
otherwise, issue approach information by including the following:

1. Approach clearance or type approach to be expected if two or more
approaches are published and the clearance limit does not indicate which
will be used.

2. Runway if different from that to which the instrument approach is
made.

3. Surface wind.

4. Ceiling and visibility if the reported ceiling at the airport of
intended landing is below 1,000 feet or below the highest circling minimum,
whichever is greater, or the visibility is less than 3 miles.

5. Altimeter setting for the airport of intended landing.


Chris

"SeeAndAvoid" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> It may be shorter, but we are required to know the other two items:
> that you have the current weather (atis) and that you have the airport
> in sight.
>

How are you going to know the current weather at fields without weather
reporting?


>
> Can skip that info if pilot advises he has the ATIS, but since the
> rule says the controller shall advise of the approach on initial
> contact or as soon as possible thereafter, the pilot has to advise
> of the ATIS on his initial contact. Most airports I do approaches
> to dont have an ATIS, so it's a moot point.
>
> See 7110.65 Par 4-7-10
> http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0407.html#4-7-1
>
> 4-7-10. APPROACH INFORMATION
>
> a. Both en route and terminal approach control sectors shall provide
> current approach information to aircraft destined to airports for which
they
> provide approach control services. This information shall be provided on
> initial contact or as soon as possible thereafter. Approach information
> contained in the ATIS broadcast may be omitted if the pilot states the
> appropriate ATIS code or items 3-5 below may be omitted for pilots
destined
> to uncontrolled airports when they advise receipt of the automated
weather;
> otherwise, issue approach information by including the following:
>
> 1. Approach clearance or type approach to be expected if two or more
> approaches are published and the clearance limit does not indicate which
> will be used.
>
> 2. Runway if different from that to which the instrument approach is
> made.
>
> 3. Surface wind.
>
> 4. Ceiling and visibility if the reported ceiling at the airport of
> intended landing is below 1,000 feet or below the highest circling
minimum,
> whichever is greater, or the visibility is less than 3 miles.
>
> 5. Altimeter setting for the airport of intended landing.
>

I'm going to an uncontrolled field without weather reporting. How are you
going to comply with that paragraph?

"SeeAndAvoid" > wrote in
link.net:

> Cruise Clearances: the reason it's not used much and rarely offered,
> here anyway, is terrain and radio/radar coverage. It's basically
> a block altitude from whatever you give away, to the ground, and
> if it doesn't work out, back up to whatever altitude you assign.
> That's one hell of a chunk of airspace to lock up. And you are never
> sure how long you are really giving it away for as you may not hear
> the aircraft cancel. Also things not used often or on a regular
> basis, controllers get rusty on, let's be honest.

Anyone gets rusty on things they don't do. The ZHU controllers tend to
stay up on cruise clearances because they issue them all the time. It's
the only way things can get done out in the Gulf, because of lack of radar
and radio coverage. We go out IFR and fly instrument approaches to
offshore platforms, and our letters of agreement with ZHU say that we
'shall' request a cruise clearance when within 40NM of our destination.
(Whoever wrote that LOA didn't know the legal meaning of 'shall',
obviously, since it's used many times when the context makes it obvious it
should be 'will' or 'should'). It does tie up lots of airspace, but there
is just no other way of doing it, with the current equipment situation.
Everyone tries to cooperate by cancelling as soon as possible, and we all
have company comm centers which can call center for us and cancel when we
lose comm with ATC. I've never received a cruise clearance inbound,
though.

--
Regards,

Stan

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 14:27:41 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
> wrote:

>"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote
>> >"N1234, expect visual runway 25, advise when you have atis Xray
>> >and the airport in sight"
>>
>> Why not just: "N5843Q, expect visual runway 32"?
>> It's shorter and conveys the same information and (implied) request.
>
>It may be shorter, but we are required to know the other two items:
>that you have the current weather (atis) and that you have the airport
>in sight.

Oops, I overlooked the ATIS in your initial callup and I agree that if the
pilot does not report it, that you should request it. I was always taught
to advise the controller on my initial callup that I have the ATIS.

But, it is frequent for me to be asked if I have the ATIS even when I have
just called in reporting that I DO have the ATIS!

So far as the other, the pilot should know that he has to report the
airport (or preceding a/c) in sight in order to get the visual. So when
you say "expect", that primes me to report the airport in sight.

>Most airports I do approaches to dont have an ATIS, so it's a moot point.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Do you say you have "the ATIS" or do you say you have the
appropriate/current ATIS code. Makes a difference to the controller.

JPH

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 14:27:41 GMT, "SeeAndAvoid"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron Rosenfeld" wrote
>>
>>>>"N1234, expect visual runway 25, advise when you have atis Xray
>>>>and the airport in sight"
>>>
>>>Why not just: "N5843Q, expect visual runway 32"?
>>>It's shorter and conveys the same information and (implied) request.
>>
>>It may be shorter, but we are required to know the other two items:
>>that you have the current weather (atis) and that you have the airport
>>in sight.
>
>
> Oops, I overlooked the ATIS in your initial callup and I agree that if the
> pilot does not report it, that you should request it. I was always taught
> to advise the controller on my initial callup that I have the ATIS.
>
> But, it is frequent for me to be asked if I have the ATIS even when I have
> just called in reporting that I DO have the ATIS!
>
> So far as the other, the pilot should know that he has to report the
> airport (or preceding a/c) in sight in order to get the visual. So when
> you say "expect", that primes me to report the airport in sight.
>
>
>>Most airports I do approaches to dont have an ATIS, so it's a moot point.
>
>
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I've had the same experience. I usually check in with something like
"Approach, Cherokee 3351W, level five thousand, information papa."

about half the time I get asked if I have the ATIS, told to report when I have
the ATIS, or told ATIS papa is current.

J Haggerty wrote:

> Do you say you have "the ATIS" or do you say you have the
> appropriate/current ATIS code. Makes a difference to the controller.
>
>
> > But, it is frequent for me to be asked if I have the ATIS even when I have
> > just called in reporting that I DO have the ATIS!
> >
>

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Ray Andraka > wrote:
> I've had the same experience. I usually check in with something like
> "Approach, Cherokee 3351W, level five thousand, information papa."

To change the topic a bit...

I've been flying lately with somebody who tends to leave off the "who
you're talking to" part of radio calls. He would make the above call as
simply, "Cherokee 3351W, level five thousand, information papa". It
drives me nuts, but the more I think about it, I wonder if it's really a
problem?

What do you controllers say? Do you like to have every pilot call you
by name at the beginning of each call, or is it just extraneous verbiage
that could be dropped with no harm done?

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> To change the topic a bit...
>
> I've been flying lately with somebody who tends to leave off the "who
> you're talking to" part of radio calls. He would make the above call as
> simply, "Cherokee 3351W, level five thousand, information papa". It
> drives me nuts, but the more I think about it, I wonder if it's really a
> problem?
>
> What do you controllers say? Do you like to have every pilot call you
> by name at the beginning of each call, or is it just extraneous verbiage
> that could be dropped with no harm done?
>

I find being called by name to be useful, especially when it's the wrong
name.

I get called all kinds of things, and I usually joke about it that
I'm used to it being married and all.

I guess it's not such a big deal, and I dont rub it in if I get called
the wrong facility, but it'd be nice if the crew knew where they
were I'd think.

On the flip side, what if I reply "504 (leaving out airline callsign),
roger". Technically it's incorrect, and not being a walking FAR
knowitall, I'd guess you are supposed to identify what facility you are
calling, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

Being called "approach" is about the only real insult, on those
occasions I may reply with the name of an airline that may
offend them, or call a Citation a twin cessna, etc.

So in summary, the wrong facility name when I'm not staring at
the scope may send up a warning flag that someone possibly
got the wrong freq. No facility name at all to me means they
didnt understand it from the last sector, very possible, forgot
it, also possible, or lazy, equally possible.

Chris

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Ray Andraka > wrote:
> > I've had the same experience. I usually check in with something like
> > "Approach, Cherokee 3351W, level five thousand, information papa."
>
> To change the topic a bit...
>
> I've been flying lately with somebody who tends to leave off the "who
> you're talking to" part of radio calls. He would make the above call as
> simply, "Cherokee 3351W, level five thousand, information papa". It
> drives me nuts, but the more I think about it, I wonder if it's really a
> problem?
>
> What do you controllers say? Do you like to have every pilot call you
> by name at the beginning of each call, or is it just extraneous verbiage
> that could be dropped with no harm done?

We have some airports that have AWOS, but we don't get any of
that info into our computer, but the pilot can receive it.
We have a couple that we have no weather reporting, but the pilot
can get it from their company on the ground, and they let us know.
And theres a couple that MAYBE they can get someone to answer
unicom and get the weather.
There are only a few left I can think of that have no SIAP, no AWOS,
and lucky to have anything living within 20nm of it. Those pilots
usually know what they are dealing with way in advance and have
done it regularly and cancel way out. They arent going to get a
contact approach, those are the ones that will on occasion ask for
a cruise clearance, but those are also airports with sometimes no
phones and no cellular coverage.
In the end it's up to the pilot to get the weather, and if it's not
available we have to advise them of that, too.
Luckily the weather at those airports are VFR probably 350 days
out of the year, but talk about remote. One guy called from a
phonebooth, needed a clearance, but also time to drive back to the
airport (30mins away), get started and go. A couple have recently
worked out private approaches and someone available on the
ground associated with the airplane to get them the weather, Lifeguard
flights usually, with an employee of the hospital nearby giving them
the conditions.
Chris


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "SeeAndAvoid" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> >
> > It may be shorter, but we are required to know the other two items:
> > that you have the current weather (atis) and that you have the airport
> > in sight.
> >
>
> How are you going to know the current weather at fields without weather
> reporting?
>
>
> >
> > Can skip that info if pilot advises he has the ATIS, but since the
> > rule says the controller shall advise of the approach on initial
> > contact or as soon as possible thereafter, the pilot has to advise
> > of the ATIS on his initial contact. Most airports I do approaches
> > to dont have an ATIS, so it's a moot point.
> >
> > See 7110.65 Par 4-7-10
> > http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0407.html#4-7-1
> >
> > 4-7-10. APPROACH INFORMATION
> >
> > a. Both en route and terminal approach control sectors shall provide
> > current approach information to aircraft destined to airports for which
> they
> > provide approach control services. This information shall be provided on
> > initial contact or as soon as possible thereafter. Approach information
> > contained in the ATIS broadcast may be omitted if the pilot states the
> > appropriate ATIS code or items 3-5 below may be omitted for pilots
> destined
> > to uncontrolled airports when they advise receipt of the automated
> weather;
> > otherwise, issue approach information by including the following:
> >
> > 1. Approach clearance or type approach to be expected if two or more
> > approaches are published and the clearance limit does not indicate which
> > will be used.
> >
> > 2. Runway if different from that to which the instrument approach is
> > made.
> >
> > 3. Surface wind.
> >
> > 4. Ceiling and visibility if the reported ceiling at the airport of
> > intended landing is below 1,000 feet or below the highest circling
> minimum,
> > whichever is greater, or the visibility is less than 3 miles.
> >
> > 5. Altimeter setting for the airport of intended landing.
> >
>
> I'm going to an uncontrolled field without weather reporting. How are you
> going to comply with that paragraph?
>
>

"SeeAndAvoid" > wrote:
> One guy called from a phonebooth, needed a clearance, but also time
> to drive back to the airport (30mins away), get started and go.

I believe it's a TERPS requirement that to have an approach you need to
have a working and publicly accessable landline phone on the field.
Don't know anything about departures, though :-)

I once got into a ****ing contest with Verizon (they were probably
calling themselves Bell Atlantic back then) when they tore the only
public phone out of a small airport around here because it wasn't
generating enough revenue. I had gone to call for a clearance and found
the booth still there, but wires just hanging out where there used to be
a phone.

I talked to everybody I could think of (the Public Service Commission,
the FSDO, the airport manager, NY Tracon, AOPA, etc). Nobody seemed too
worried about it.

"SeeAndAvoid" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> We have some airports that have AWOS, but we don't get any of
> that info into our computer, but the pilot can receive it.
> We have a couple that we have no weather reporting, but the pilot
> can get it from their company on the ground, and they let us know.
> And theres a couple that MAYBE they can get someone to answer
> unicom and get the weather.
> There are only a few left I can think of that have no SIAP, no AWOS,
> and lucky to have anything living within 20nm of it. Those pilots
> usually know what they are dealing with way in advance and have
> done it regularly and cancel way out. They arent going to get a
> contact approach, those are the ones that will on occasion ask for
> a cruise clearance, but those are also airports with sometimes no
> phones and no cellular coverage.
> In the end it's up to the pilot to get the weather, and if it's not
> available we have to advise them of that, too.
> Luckily the weather at those airports are VFR probably 350 days
> out of the year, but talk about remote. One guy called from a
> phonebooth, needed a clearance, but also time to drive back to the
> airport (30mins away), get started and go. A couple have recently
> worked out private approaches and someone available on the
> ground associated with the airplane to get them the weather, Lifeguard
> flights usually, with an employee of the hospital nearby giving them
> the conditions.
>

What about those fields with SIAPs but no weather reporting at all?

In article . net>,
SeeAndAvoid > wrote:
>Being called "approach" is about the only real insult, on those
>occasions I may reply with the name of an airline that may
>offend them, or call a Citation a twin cessna, etc.

That's good to know. I was getting flight following last Sunday and the
frequency was dead quiet. I wanted to make a request, but I couldn't
remember if I was talking to approach or center so I had to look it up.
I wouldn't want to find out what they demote a single to. ;-)

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

In article <CwFfc.151835$JO3.89405@attbi_s04>,
(Ben Jackson) wrote:

> In article . net>,
> SeeAndAvoid > wrote:
> >Being called "approach" is about the only real insult, on those
> >occasions I may reply with the name of an airline that may
> >offend them, or call a Citation a twin cessna, etc.
>
> That's good to know. I was getting flight following last Sunday and the
> frequency was dead quiet. I wanted to make a request, but I couldn't
> remember if I was talking to approach or center so I had to look it up.
> I wouldn't want to find out what they demote a single to. ;-)

Off-frequency, they call you flib.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:28:09 -0500, J Haggerty >
wrote:

>Do you say you have "the ATIS" or do you say you have the
>appropriate/current ATIS code. Makes a difference to the controller.
>
>JPH

If I say I have an ATIS, I always identify it by code.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
> What about those fields with SIAPs but no weather reporting at all?

I havent read every approach chart, yet, but I think every one I've
read has a note about whether the procedure is approved or
not without the local altimeter or one from a designated nearby
airport.
"When local altimeter not received, procedure not authorized"
or
"Obtain Local altimeter setting on CTAF; when not received
use XXX altimeter setting"
At one of our tower controlled airports, there is no AWOS/ASOS,
just an ATIS, and when the tower closes it's just a looped recording
until they reopen. But we get the weather hourly in our computer,
so we have to issue it for a/c heading there.
Just glancing through the SW-1 book, I cant find any airports that
dont have some kind of weather reporting, or a note about alternate
weather or saying procedure not authorized.
Then again, AWOS/ASOS's can fail, and there'd be an airport
with an SIAP without weather reporting.
As always it all comes down to the pilot.
Chris

"SeeAndAvoid" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> I havent read every approach chart, yet, but I think every one I've
> read has a note about whether the procedure is approved or
> not without the local altimeter or one from a designated nearb
> airport.
> "When local altimeter not received, procedure not authorized"
> or
> "Obtain Local altimeter setting on CTAF; when not received
> use XXX altimeter setting"
> At one of our tower controlled airports, there is no AWOS/ASOS,
> just an ATIS, and when the tower closes it's just a looped recording
> until they reopen. But we get the weather hourly in our computer,
> so we have to issue it for a/c heading there.
> Just glancing through the SW-1 book, I cant find any airports that
> dont have some kind of weather reporting, or a note about alternate
> weather or saying procedure not authorized.
> Then again, AWOS/ASOS's can fail, and there'd be an airport
> with an SIAP without weather reporting.
> As always it all comes down to the pilot.
>

In other words, you cannot do what you said you're required to do.

I've done that when I missed the name of the facility I was being handed off
to.

One time I missed the name of the facility, but my copilot did not. As he
was flying and I was working the radios, I asked him repeatedly the name,
but I thought he was trying to play a joke on me.

Being my first time flying through central North Carolina, I wasn't familiar
with an approach facility named Seymour Johnson. Keep in mind that my help
was from a guy who on occasion files flight plans under the name of "Ben
Dover".

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Ray Andraka > wrote:
> > I've had the same experience. I usually check in with something like
> > "Approach, Cherokee 3351W, level five thousand, information papa."
>
> To change the topic a bit...
>
> I've been flying lately with somebody who tends to leave off the "who
> you're talking to" part of radio calls. He would make the above call as
> simply, "Cherokee 3351W, level five thousand, information papa". It
> drives me nuts, but the more I think about it, I wonder if it's really a
> problem?
>
> What do you controllers say? Do you like to have every pilot call you
> by name at the beginning of each call, or is it just extraneous verbiage
> that could be dropped with no harm done?

In article <xpSfc.3663$yD1.13307@attbi_s54>, Brad Z
> wrote:

> Being my first time flying through central North Carolina, I wasn't familiar
> with an approach facility named Seymour Johnson. Keep in mind that my help
> was from a guy who on occasion files flight plans under the name of "Ben
> Dover".

Oh, that's in Delaware.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Ray Andraka > wrote:
> > I've had the same experience. I usually check in with something like
> > "Approach, Cherokee 3351W, level five thousand, information papa."
>
> To change the topic a bit...
>
> I've been flying lately with somebody who tends to leave off the "who
> you're talking to" part of radio calls. He would make the above call as
> simply, "Cherokee 3351W, level five thousand, information papa". It
> drives me nuts, but the more I think about it, I wonder if it's really a
> problem?
>
> What do you controllers say? Do you like to have every pilot call you
> by name at the beginning of each call, or is it just extraneous verbiage
> that could be dropped with no harm done?

I prefer to be called by name.

Chip, ZTL

"SeeAndAvoid" > wrote in message
link.net...
> I get called all kinds of things, and I usually joke about it that
> I'm used to it being married and all.
>
> I guess it's not such a big deal, and I dont rub it in if I get called
> the wrong facility, but it'd be nice if the crew knew where they
> were I'd think.

I *usually* don't rub it in. Call me "Memphis Center" and I'm cool. Call
me "Indy Center" and I'm insulted. Call me "Approach" or "Radio" and I
retaliate immediately.

>
> On the flip side, what if I reply "504 (leaving out airline callsign),
> roger". Technically it's incorrect, and not being a walking FAR
> knowitall, I'd guess you are supposed to identify what facility you are
> calling, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
>
> Being called "approach" is about the only real insult, on those
> occasions I may reply with the name of an airline that may
> offend them, or call a Citation a twin cessna, etc.

I like to use "Eastern" or "Braniff" if I'm talking to an air carrier...

Chip, ZTL

"Michael" > wrote in message
...
> "Chip Jones" > wrote
> > > (d) The controller doesn't know about cruise clearances
>
> > I say "d" with a twist: The controller knows there is something in the
book
> > about a cruise clearance, but doesn't know how a cruise clearance works.
>
> I agree. This is exactly what I'm talking about - he knows that
> cruise clearances exist - meaning he heard the term somewhere,
> probably in training - but he doesn't actually know anything ABOUT
> cruise clearances, in the sense that he would be able to use them.

Probably because as a Center guy he avoids working low altitude airspace
like the plague...

>
> > This seems most likely to me, since the controller also doesn't know how
a
> > visual approach works either...
>
> I think that's a bit unfair. He probably issues visual approaches
> properly under normal circumstances. This is a special circumstance.
> He COULD be an ass about it - keep the plane at an altitude high
> enough to assure radio comms and force the pilot to accept the
> resulting slam dunk - or cancel IFR. Instead, he's doing what makes
> sense. The problem is that he doesn't know the correct phraseology to
> accomplish this, and as a result he's breaking regs because he doesn't
> know the correct magic word to use.

Well, I agree with nuch of what you say in this paragraph, but I don't think
what I said about the controller is unfair. This controller is supposed to
be an air safety professional. Safety first and above all, right? You pay
him to be correct 100% of the time, every time. There is no excuse for
issuing an illegal approach clearance. That's how pilots die.... Heck,
that's how all these regs got written to begin with, because of sloppy
procedure.

I think this controller is breaking regs because he doesn't know any better.
How does ATC issuing a visual approach clearance under these circumstances
make sense? "Oops, your non-radar now, I'd better shift the burden of
positive IFR air traffic control to the cockpit now before I lose comm
too..." What happens when this pilot never reports his cancellation to FSS?
What if he never spots the airport and he's non radar, lost comm, below the
MIA?

Also, so what if you have to "slam dunk" the airport? If that's what you
have to do to get into a place under IFR, that's what you have to do. You
get down to the MIA, you see the airport, you get the clearance. You
descend and land. We're not talking a split-S wingover. If you spiral
down, so be it. I don't break the regs to keep pilots from the "slam
dunk". IFR aircraft don't get below the MIA until it's legal to get below
it. By legal, I'm talking "controller" legal here, not pilot legal. No
question in my opinion that the pilot is legal when the controller issues
the approach clearance. I don't see the "being an ass" part about it
either. I'd rather see the controller doing his job properly because that's
the safest thing for him to do, and he's in the safety business.

>
> Are the regs unnecessarily complicated? This is a guy who talks to
> airplanes issuing instructions and clearances 40+ hours a week, every
> week. If he can't keep all the regs straight, what sort of chance
> does a weekend pilot have?

With this controller losing radar contact with an IFR, and then illegally
clearing that aircraft for a visual approach to a distant airport the pilot
hasn't yet seen, followed by loss of comm between pilot and controller, what
chance does the weekend pilot have, indeed?


Chip, ZTL

"Chip Jones" wrote:
> Call me "Approach" or "Radio" and I
> retaliate immediately.

There must be bad blood in Atlanta. A couple of times, Center has
handed me off to Approach and I've checked in still using "Center." It
got me a very frosty reply both times.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan Luke wrote:
> "Chip Jones" wrote:
>
>>Call me "Approach" or "Radio" and I
>>retaliate immediately.
>
>
> There must be bad blood in Atlanta. A couple of times, Center has
> handed me off to Approach and I've checked in still using "Center." It
> got me a very frosty reply both times.

Controlling is tedious work and you thus have to make your own
excitement. :-)


Matt

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Dan Luke wrote:
> > "Chip Jones" wrote:
> >
> >>Call me "Approach" or "Radio" and I
> >>retaliate immediately.
> >
> >
> > There must be bad blood in Atlanta. A couple of times, Center has
> > handed me off to Approach and I've checked in still using "Center." It
> > got me a very frosty reply both times.
>
> Controlling is tedious work and you thus have to make your own
> excitement. :-)
>

BLOCKED! :-)

Chip, ZTL

Chip Jones wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dan Luke wrote:
>>
>>>"Chip Jones" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Call me "Approach" or "Radio" and I
>>>>retaliate immediately.
>>>
>>>
>>>There must be bad blood in Atlanta. A couple of times, Center has
>>>handed me off to Approach and I've checked in still using "Center." It
>>>got me a very frosty reply both times.
>>
>>Controlling is tedious work and you thus have to make your own
>>excitement. :-)
>>
>
>
> BLOCKED! :-)
>
> Chip, ZTL
>
>

Oh, no, I think it got through just fine! :-)

Matt

"Chip Jones" > wrote
> Safety first and above all, right?

No, not right. If safety was first and above all, we would all ground
ourselves and fly the airlines. No matter what we do, we won't ever
be able to match the airline safety record - our equipment, training,
and experienec are simply not up to it. So the very fact that we fly
these little airplanes demonstrates that safety is NOT the most
important thing, and that we are willing to trade off safety for what
appear to us to be good and sufficient reasons - be they cost, fun, or
convenience.

> You pay him to be correct 100% of the time, every time.

Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Nobody is correct 100% of the time.
Mistakes are going to be made. Any system that depends on human
reliability is unreliable. Further, the more complex you make the
system, the more mistakes will be made. If you need consistently
correct execution of a complex set of rules some of which are used
only rarely, you need a computer, not a human.

> I think this controller is breaking regs because he doesn't know any better.

I agree. The important question to ask is WHY doesn't he know any
better? He's not an isolated example. Try asking for an IFR climb
while providing own obstacle clearance sometime.

In my opinion, the rules are overly complex. The complexity is the
result of accidents that have occurred - an attempt is made to have
the rules cover every possible situation. First, that's impossible
anyway. Second, this results in a complex set of rules some of which
are applicable only rarely. This is a situation that encourages an
increase in human error. I think at some point you have to simplify
the rules, even if this makes them less comprehensive, because the
reduction in human error will more than offset the systematic error in
rare cases.

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Chip Jones" > wrote
> > Safety first and above all, right?
>
> No, not right. If safety was first and above all, we would all ground
> ourselves and fly the airlines. No matter what we do, we won't ever
> be able to match the airline safety record - our equipment, training,
> and experienec are simply not up to it. So the very fact that we fly
> these little airplanes demonstrates that safety is NOT the most
> important thing, and that we are willing to trade off safety for what
> appear to us to be good and sufficient reasons - be they cost, fun, or
> convenience.

I was referring to the controller. Controllers aren't flying those "little
airplanes". They're operating an air traffic system where safety is the
most important goal, even above efficiency.


>
> > You pay him to be correct 100% of the time, every time.
>
> Sorry, but that's just nonsense. Nobody is correct 100% of the time.

I never said anyone was correct 100% of the time. I said the controller is
paid to be correct 100% of the time- that is the air safety goal of the FAA,
zero errors. Not saying it's achievable, but that is the goal and that is
part of why the controller is drawing a salary funded by your tax dollars.


> Mistakes are going to be made. Any system that depends on human
> reliability is unreliable.

I strongly disagree. Human ATC is not unreliable at all, nor is it
inherintly error prone.

>Further, the more complex you make the
> system, the more mistakes will be made. If you need consistently
> correct execution of a complex set of rules some of which are used
> only rarely, you need a computer, not a human.

LOL! What is so complex about issuing a legal Visual Approach Clearance?

>
> > I think this controller is breaking regs because he doesn't know any
better.
>
> I agree. The important question to ask is WHY doesn't he know any
> better? He's not an isolated example.

Maybe this controller is the product of the Clinton-era "Train to Succeed"
program, in which FAA management deemed that any human being, especially
female and minority human beings, could succeed as a full performance level
controllers, if only given enough training time, regardless of failing
benchmark checkrides. The result is that now we have some weak controllers
whom we can't fire because we don't have a replacement pipe-line. In my
facility, we don't even have time to do recurrent training anymore.

>Try asking for an IFR climb
> while providing own obstacle clearance sometime.

What? Be more specific- I see this done correctly every day.

>
> In my opinion, the rules are overly complex. The complexity is the
> result of accidents that have occurred - an attempt is made to have
> the rules cover every possible situation. First, that's impossible
> anyway. Second, this results in a complex set of rules some of which
> are applicable only rarely. This is a situation that encourages an
> increase in human error. I think at some point you have to simplify
> the rules, even if this makes them less comprehensive, because the
> reduction in human error will more than offset the systematic error in
> rare cases.

Interesting points, but I don't see the rules governing cruise clearances
and visual approaches to be overly complex.

Chip, ZTL

> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Chip Jones" > wrote
> Maybe this controller is the product of the Clinton-era "Train to Succeed"

Oh, dont get me started on that piece of crapola program. I always called
it "Train to Suck". And now they wonder why all these operational
errors are popping up, often with these people.

> >Try asking for an IFR climb
> > while providing own obstacle clearance sometime.
>
> What? Be more specific- I see this done correctly every day.

My guess of what he may mean here is this ridiculous
request for a, and I quote, "VMC Climb" that so many, mostly
Air Shuttle (Mesa), pilots keep asking for. What they want is a
VFR climb for terrain, but not provide their own separation from
traffic. They have been told repeatedly on freq about it, they have
been made to call in about it, and their ops have been called about
it to knock it off. You want to provide your own terrain separation,
great, you want a VFR climb, great. But there's no such clearance
as a "VMC Climb" clearance. I ignore it, and just say "climb
VFR to and maintain 17,000". If they say, or I ask if they can
provide their own terrain and obstacle clearance, it doesn't have
to be restated in the clearance, like "cleared to soandso as filed,
provide your own terrain and obstruction clearance and climb
and..." no way jose.

One last point on this IFR climb while providing own terrain
clearance, this guy (Mesa again) didnt like it that I wouldnt
give him approval to do just that the other day. The problem was
he wanted an IFR clearance and provide terrain separation but
wanted an altitude 1,000' BELOW my MIA, and the terrain only
got higher the further he went. He wouldnt accept an OTP
clearance, and sure wouldnt go VFR, and unless someone can
find it somewhere, we cant assign an altitude like that in this
situation. I know our MIA's are not readily accesible to pilots,
but he was also below the MEA of a nearby airway, and even
lower than the transition from the VOR to the ILS he was overflying.
Out here in the land of 14'rs, we get it all the time from above
about assigning an altitude below our MIA's, as someone will go
NORDO, go into an area of higher MIA's, and smack. Sometimes
the MIA's are higher than MEA's, sometimes lower.
Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in.
Chris

We've got Mesa out here now flying the RJ's to Phoenix and Vegas. Haven't
had any goofy requests like that. I'll have to watch that.



"SeeAndAvoid" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> My guess of what he may mean here is this ridiculous
> request for a, and I quote, "VMC Climb" that so many, mostly
> Air Shuttle (Mesa), pilots keep asking for. What they want is a
> VFR climb for terrain, but not provide their own separation from
> traffic. They have been told repeatedly on freq about it, they have
> been made to call in about it, and their ops have been called about
> it to knock it off. You want to provide your own terrain separation,
> great, you want a VFR climb, great. But there's no such clearance
> as a "VMC Climb" clearance. I ignore it, and just say "climb
> VFR to and maintain 17,000". If they say, or I ask if they can
> provide their own terrain and obstacle clearance, it doesn't have
> to be restated in the clearance, like "cleared to soandso as filed,
> provide your own terrain and obstruction clearance and climb
> and..." no way jose.
>
> One last point on this IFR climb while providing own terrain
> clearance, this guy (Mesa again) didnt like it that I wouldnt
> give him approval to do just that the other day. The problem was
> he wanted an IFR clearance and provide terrain separation but
> wanted an altitude 1,000' BELOW my MIA, and the terrain only
> got higher the further he went. He wouldnt accept an OTP
> clearance, and sure wouldnt go VFR, and unless someone can
> find it somewhere, we cant assign an altitude like that in this
> situation. I know our MIA's are not readily accesible to pilots,
> but he was also below the MEA of a nearby airway, and even
> lower than the transition from the VOR to the ILS he was overflying.
> Out here in the land of 14'rs, we get it all the time from above
> about assigning an altitude below our MIA's, as someone will go
> NORDO, go into an area of higher MIA's, and smack. Sometimes
> the MIA's are higher than MEA's, sometimes lower.
> Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in.
> Chris
>
>

"SeeAndAvoid" > wrote
> > >Try asking for an IFR climb
> > > while providing own obstacle clearance sometime.
> >
> > What? Be more specific- I see this done correctly every day.
>
> My guess of what he may mean here is this ridiculous
> request for a, and I quote, "VMC Climb"

Nope, not at all. What I mean is this:

I have departed VFR under low but legal (say 1500 ft) ceilings, and
call to pick up my IFR clearance. I didn't get it on the ground
because there is no clearance delivery frequency, and doing it by
phone is a pain - and should not be necessary anyway. So I get "Climb
VFR to 2000" only of course I can't because of the 1500 ft ceilings.
So I say "Unable, but I can provide my own obstruction clearance to
2000 on this heading." Sometimes it works as advertised, but
sometimes the controller insists there is no such thing, and either I
accept the VFR climb or I can squawk VFR, but he can't issue me a
clearance below the MIA. Well, I can get ****ed, or I can land and
start over, or I can demand to call the manager, or I can just grit my
teeth and climb.

> that so many, mostly
> Air Shuttle (Mesa), pilots keep asking for. What they want is a
> VFR climb for terrain, but not provide their own separation from
> traffic.

Well, that's I want too. I understand I'm below you MIA - I'll
provide my own terrain clearance until I get there. All I want is for
you to spearate me from other IFR traffic while I do. It's in the
book, and it's not unreasonable.

> One last point on this IFR climb while providing own terrain
> clearance, this guy (Mesa again) didnt like it that I wouldnt
> give him approval to do just that the other day. The problem was
> he wanted an IFR clearance and provide terrain separation but
> wanted an altitude 1,000' BELOW my MIA, and the terrain only
> got higher the further he went. He wouldnt accept an OTP
> clearance, and sure wouldnt go VFR, and unless someone can
> find it somewhere, we cant assign an altitude like that in this
> situation.

Well, I encountered this practice in Part 121 while studying for my
ATP written. See, you're making my point for me. Clearly the rules
are too complex - because here's a pilot trying to gain an operational
advantage by doing it like it says in the book - probably because his
copilot just ran into it studying for ATP written - and you've never
heard of it.

> I know our MIA's are not readily accesible to pilots,
> but he was also below the MEA of a nearby airway, and even
> lower than the transition from the VOR to the ILS he was overflying.
> Out here in the land of 14'rs, we get it all the time from above
> about assigning an altitude below our MIA's, as someone will go
> NORDO, go into an area of higher MIA's, and smack. Sometimes
> the MIA's are higher than MEA's, sometimes lower.
> Anyway, just thought I'd throw that in.

Well, actually the rules for taking advantage of that particular twist
in the regs require that you have at least 5 miles vis, be at least
1000 ft above any bkn/ovc layers, and any layers above you be at least
1000 ft above MEA. So I don't think smacking into terrain is too
likely.

Michael

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
>
> No, not right. If safety was first and above all, we would all ground
> ourselves and fly the airlines.
>

Oh, of course, because nobody ever came to harm flying the airlines.

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message et>...
> "Snowbird" > wrote in message
> om...
> [snipped]
> > One thing I haven't seen mentioned on this thread (maybe it has been
> > and I missed it) is that a visual approach explicitly has no missed
> > approach segment and IMO the pilot has to consider this carefully when
> > making a decision as to whether or not to accept a visual approach.
> > If one isn't able to complete the visual, instructions are "remain
> > clear of clouds and contact ATC". There are plenty of places we've
> > met where this can put the pilot in a cleft stick, if he accepts the
> > visual and in fact can't make it in -- stuck at an altitude where
> > radio reception is tenuous or where a long wait may be necessary in
> > order to clear the pilot under non-radar rules.

> Sydney, to me this paragraph of yours illustrates why it is legally
> important for the pilot to first report sighting the airfield (or aircraft
> to follow etc) before ATC issues a visual apprach clearance. A remote
> Visual Approach clearance issued way before you see the airport, followed by
> lost comm and lost radar as you descend trying to find it, just doesn't
> sound like positive IFR air traffic control to me. At ZTL, the controller
> (if caught, which is a big IF) would be credited with an operational error.
> Sadly, an FAA controller OE investigation would likely come only after the
> NTSB crash site investigation was completed... too late to do the pilot any
> good.

Chip, excellent points. However, I'm not sure to what extent the
legally correct alternative (a 'cruise clearance') provides more
positive IFR traffic control in the situation I'm considering
(plane flying into rural airport with no IAP, pilot planning to
conduct visual approach procedure). In both cases I would assume
the prudent controller is going to maintain IFR separation until
the flight plan has been cancelled through FSS.

In both cases, as far as I can tell, the burden of safe operation
really remains with the pilot -- to be jolly darn sure there really
is a safe margin to operate in visual conditions at the MIA for
the area and to have a good procedure worked out to climb back to
the MIA and resume communications with ATC if for any reason the
landing can not be made (fog forming over the airport, say).

If the pilot crashed, the real operational error IMO would be the
pilot's, for using a visual approach as an excuse to operate in
marginal conditions and for not flight-planning the "alternative
if the flight can not be completed as planned". (I don't want
to incite a scud-running vs. IFR debate here, but I think everyone
will agree that scud-running is something which requires
a much higher degree of planning and situational awareness to
conduct with any margin of safety -- not something to blunder
into without planning at the end of a flight in the clear-blue
over a layer).

Best,
Sydney

"SeeAndAvoid" > wrote in message t>...
> > "Michael" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Chip Jones" > wrote

> > >Try asking for an IFR climb
> > > while providing own obstacle clearance sometime.

> > What? Be more specific- I see this done correctly every day.
>
> My guess of what he may mean here is this ridiculous
> request for a, and I quote, "VMC Climb" that so many, mostly
> Air Shuttle (Mesa), pilots keep asking for. What they want is a
> VFR climb for terrain, but not provide their own separation from
> traffic.

I can't be sure what Michael meant, but what I think he meant is
straight out of 7110.65, 4-2-8d in the old paper edition I have.
"When a VFR aircraft, operating below the minimum altitude for
IFR operations, requests an IFR clearance and you are aware
that the pilot is unable to climb in VFR conditions to the
minimum IFR altitude:
1. before issuing a clearance, ask if the pilot is able to
maintain terrain and obstacle clearance during a climb to
the minimum IFR altitude
2. if the pilot is able to maintain terrain and obstacle
separation, (give 'em their IFR clearance)
3. if unable to maintain terrain and obstacle clearance,
instruct the pilot to maintain VFR and to state intentions
(etc)"

I haven't had any trouble with it beyond the occasional prompting
"Sir, I can maintain my own terrain and obstacle clearance to 4
thousand this heading" "standby" (which I assume covers a little
questioning "why did she say that?" on the part of the occasional
trainee...)

I wouldn't have a clue what someone meant by "VMC climb" myself.
If you wanna be VFR, say so, if you wanna be IFR but can maintain
your own obstacle clearance during climb say that too. But I've
never heard anyone ask for such a beast.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Chip Jones" > wrote in message et>...

Hi, guys, sorry to be bringing this up again late. Haven't been
able to keep up with the ng for a while.

> What happens when this pilot never reports his cancellation to FSS?
> What if he never spots the airport and he's non radar, lost comm, below the
> MIA?

IMO, this is the pilot's error. Whether or not it's legal, the pilot
needs to understand that he must never, never, ever accept a visual
approach clearance if he isn't positive he can make it in, or climb
under VFR back to some altitude where he can contact ATC. Never, no
matter how hard his ears are being twisted by ATC. Been there heard
that, sorry I don't care how many commuters you have to hold I am
in a cloud, if I go visual you'll be the second to know (if I can still
talk to you), I"m flying the IAP.

> Also, so what if you have to "slam dunk" the airport? If that's what you
> have to do to get into a place under IFR, that's what you have to do. You
> get down to the MIA, you see the airport, you get the clearance. You
> descend and land. We're not talking a split-S wingover. If you spiral
> down, so be it. I don't break the regs to keep pilots from the "slam
> dunk". IFR aircraft don't get below the MIA until it's legal to get below
> it. By legal, I'm talking "controller" legal here, not pilot legal. No
> question in my opinion that the pilot is legal when the controller issues
> the approach clearance. I don't see the "being an ass" part about it
> either. I'd rather see the controller doing his job properly because that's
> the safest thing for him to do, and he's in the safety business.

Chip, speaking as a pilot, I guess I don't agree that being kept above
MIA until I have the airport in sight is the safest thing for me.

We fly into little rural airports a lot. You never know what you're
gonna find there. Last weekend at an airport which shall remain nameless,
it was a chap in a beautiful XXXXX practicing an aerobatic routine about
2 miles off the runway below a 2500 ft ceiling. No NOTAM about an aerobatic
box or anything of the sort natch. I got a low wing plane, vis below me
is limited. Think I want to spiral down on top of that kind of thing? No
Way Ho Say. I even give up my desire to be able to glide to the runway
to descend down to TPA in good time. (and another argument for the "dive
and drive" method of flying NP approaches too, IMO).

Of course I agree the best thing is to be legal, by issuing a cruise
clearance when it seems warranted. In fact next time I'll ask for one.

> With this controller losing radar contact with an IFR, and then illegally
> clearing that aircraft for a visual approach to a distant airport the pilot
> hasn't yet seen, followed by loss of comm between pilot and controller, what
> chance does the weekend pilot have, indeed?

Realistically speaking, Chip, in terms of safety for the pilot, what
advantage do you perceive the (legal) cruise clearance to have over
the (not legal) visual w/out the field in sight?

Cheers,
Sydney