In the regulations it says that you can land at an airport without an
IAP if you descend from the MEA and land under VFR, but if there is a
MOCA, can you use that instead?

kevmor wrote:
> In the regulations it says that you can land at an airport without an
> IAP if you descend from the MEA and land under VFR, but if there is a
> MOCA, can you use that instead?
>
Regulation or policy?

If the MOCA is within 22 miles of the VOR sure you can use it. Or, if
the center will provide the service you can use their MIA, if lowwer.

If the MOCA is not within 22 miles of the VOR but you have IFR-certified
GPS, a good case can be made you can use the MOCA regardless.

On 03/01/07 17:53, Sam Spade wrote:
> kevmor wrote:
>> In the regulations it says that you can land at an airport without an
>> IAP if you descend from the MEA and land under VFR, but if there is a
>> MOCA, can you use that instead?
>>
> Regulation or policy?
>
> If the MOCA is within 22 miles of the VOR sure you can use it. Or, if
> the center will provide the service you can use their MIA, if lowwer.
>
> If the MOCA is not within 22 miles of the VOR but you have IFR-certified
> GPS, a good case can be made you can use the MOCA regardless.

Of course, if you're in VMC you can cancel IFR and proceed VFR...


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

Mark Hansen wrote:

> On 03/01/07 17:53, Sam Spade wrote:
>
>>kevmor wrote:
>>
>>>In the regulations it says that you can land at an airport without an
>>>IAP if you descend from the MEA and land under VFR, but if there is a
>>>MOCA, can you use that instead?
>>>
>>
>>Regulation or policy?
>>
>>If the MOCA is within 22 miles of the VOR sure you can use it. Or, if
>>the center will provide the service you can use their MIA, if lowwer.
>>
>>If the MOCA is not within 22 miles of the VOR but you have IFR-certified
>>GPS, a good case can be made you can use the MOCA regardless.
>
>
> Of course, if you're in VMC you can cancel IFR and proceed VFR...
>
>
That's too easy. ;-)

> In the regulations it says that you can land at an airport without an
> IAP if you descend from the MEA and land under VFR, but if there is a
> MOCA, can you use that instead?

Which regulation do you mean? The only place I see this in Part 91 is
91.169(c)(2), which sets requirements for the alternate airport. If weather
allows a descent and landing under basic VFR from the MEA, then you can use an
alternate airport that has no IAP. I don't see any provision to substitute
the MOCA for this. However, this is rarely an issue, because if the weather
is so good, you probably won't need to file an alternate in the first place.

The requirements for conducting a visual approach are not listed explicitly in
Part 91, but are in the AIM, 5-4-22. There's nothing about the MEA, just that
you must:
- be able to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport
- have in sight either the airport or traffic to follow
- have destination weather at least 1000 foot ceiling and 3 miles vis.
(weather reporting not required if there is "reasonable assurance" that these
are met.

So if you're at the MOCA, can see the airport, and weather is better than
1000/3, then yes, you should be able to get a visual approach. Often you'll
be at the sector's minimum vectoring altitude, below the published MEA or
MOCA.

Barry

> In the regulations it says that you can land at an airport without an
> IAP if you descend from the MEA and land under VFR, but if there is a
> MOCA, can you use that instead?

One more point on this. Some instrument-rated pilots don't realize that you
can always file IFR to an airport that has no IAP - you just have to
file an alternate, regardless of the weather (see FAR 91.167(b)(1)). If the
weather there is (and is forecast to remain) good VFR, then your alternate can
be any nearby little airport that also has no IAP.

A lot of times it's useful to file IFR if the weather's marginal and you want
to go to a place that has no IAP. Controllers might have a creative way of
getting you in. Once (before 9/11) I flew into Washington Executive (W32),
which as I remember at the time had no IAP, or at least not one for which I
was equipped. The controller asked if I wanted to do the ILS for Andrews.
Apparently it was common practice there in marginal weather for people to
descend on the ILS, get below the clouds, then scud run over to Executive,
only about 3 miles away. In my case, the weather was good enough that I
didn't have to do this.

Barry

On Mar 1, 6:53 pm, "kevmor" > wrote:
>
> In the regulations it says that you can land at an airport without an
> IAP if you descend from the MEA and land under VFR, but if there is a
> MOCA, can you use that instead?
>

What regulation are you referring to?

There's one gotcha to cancelling IFR when below the clouds - if you
don't have the proper VFR cloud clearances (500 feet in some airspaces)
then you can't legally cancel IFR.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I'm not sure of the regulation, I've just read it in several places
studying for the instrument oral...

> What regulation are you referring to?

On Mar 2, 7:54 pm, "kevmor" > wrote:
> In the regulations it says that you can land at an airport without an
> IAP if you descend from the MEA and land under VFR, but if there is a
> MOCA, can you use that instead?

> > What regulation are you referring to?

> I'm not sure of the regulation, I've just read it in several places
> studying for the instrument oral...
>
Are you thinking about 91.169 (c) (2), where it states that if your
alternate airport does not have an IAP, the ceiling and visibility
have to allow from a descent from MEA approach and landing under basic
VFR in order to be a valid alternate? It is the only place in the regs
where I remember seeing a phrase like that....

"kevmor" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> I'm not sure of the regulation, I've just read it in several places
> studying for the instrument oral...
>

The only place in Part 91 I'm aware of with language similar to what you
wrote is § 91.169(c)(2), but that has to do with filing an IFR flight plan,
not the actual operation of the aircraft.


§ 91.169 IFR flight plan: Information required.
(c) IFR alternate airport weather minima. Unless otherwise authorized by the
Administrator, no person may include an alternate airport in an IFR flight
plan unless appropriate weather reports or weather forecasts, or a
combination of them, indicate that, at the estimated time of arrival at the
alternate airport, the ceiling and visibility at that airport will be at or
above the following weather minima:

(2) If no instrument approach procedure has been published in part 97 of
this chapter and no special instrument approach procedure has been issued by
the Administrator to the operator, for the alternate airport, the ceiling
and visibility minima are those allowing descent from the MEA, approach, and
landing under basic VFR.

"Barry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which regulation do you mean? The only place I see this in Part 91 is
> 91.169(c)(2), which sets requirements for the alternate airport. If
> weather allows a descent and landing under basic VFR from the MEA, then
> you can use an alternate airport that has no IAP. I don't see any
> provision to substitute the MOCA for this.
>

Why would that exclude a MOCA?