Thoughts on this approach?

[Yossarian]

Saturday was my first night IFR cross country. I was flying right seat in
a 172SP with an instructor on the left. The flight was from KHHR Hawthorne
CA to Bermuda Dunes. All was well and as expected until Palm Springs
approach. They vectored us to a point south of the VOR-C approach approx 4
miles from the VOR at 4000. We were not established on the final approach
course. Then I got "cleared for the visual".

Airport elevation is 73', meaning that a ridiculous descent of 1150 ft/min
at 90 kts would have been required to get to the MDA of 920 at the MAP if
we had been flying the VOR-C.

What was I expected to do here? I have an instrument rating but only 150
hours so I don't have much experience. I expect an instrument approach,
even a visual, to allow me to make a landing using a normal descent rate
and not have to make laps in the pattern to descend.

What happens if you refuse a visual approach?

[Lynne]

You can refuse a visual approach, and be cleared for the IAP if you so
desire. However, in this case it seems you were able to accept the
visual approach, but you would have needed to maneuver for the
approach. The good news here is that when you're cleared for a visual,
you are permitted to do whatever you need to do to make a landing.
There was nothing requiring you to go straight in, not circle, etc.

Lynne

[Dan Luke]

"Yossarian" wrote:

Situational awareness is your responsibility. Think ahead; if you feel
you're going to be too high too close to the airport, ask for lower.
You may not get it, so you should also be thinking of what you'll do if
you don't.

In the case you described, you were cleared to make whatever maneuvers
were necessary to land; that's what "cleared for the visual" means. But
if I was going to do something unusual like do a 360 to lose altitude,
I'd let the controller know.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
. 97.142...
>
> Saturday was my first night IFR cross country. I was flying right seat in
> a 172SP with an instructor on the left. The flight was from KHHR
> Hawthorne
> CA to Bermuda Dunes. All was well and as expected until Palm Springs
> approach. They vectored us to a point south of the VOR-C approach approx
> 4
> miles from the VOR at 4000. We were not established on the final approach
> course. Then I got "cleared for the visual".
>

Had you reported the field in sight?


>
> Airport elevation is 73', meaning that a ridiculous descent of 1150 ft/min
> at 90 kts would have been required to get to the MDA of 920 at the MAP if
> we had been flying the VOR-C.
>

But you weren't flying the VOR-C, you were flying a visual. Right? The VOR
is the FAF and the VOR is 8.9 miles from the runway threshold. If you were
still four miles outside the VOR you were 12.9 miles from the runway 28
threshold. At 90 knots GS that's a descent rate of just 460 fpm all the
way to touchdown.


>
> What was I expected to do here? I have an instrument rating but only 150
> hours so I don't have much experience. I expect an instrument approach,
> even a visual, to allow me to make a landing using a normal descent rate
> and not have to make laps in the pattern to descend.
>

It looks like a normal descent rate to me, based on your description. In
fact, it's a rather shallow descent.


>
> What happens if you refuse a visual approach?
>

You usually get an SIAP.

[Peter R.]

Dan Luke > wrote:

> Situational awareness is your responsibility. Think ahead; if you feel
> you're going to be too high too close to the airport, ask for lower.
> You may not get it, so you should also be thinking of what you'll do if
> you don't.

When I transitioned from a C172 to a Bonanza with it much faster cruise
speed, this point was drilled into my head by the previous owner of the
aircraft and the instructor who endorsed me.

Using 500 fpm as a guide, I now always calculate in minutes at what point I
would like to begin a descent to the IAF, glideslope intercept, traffic
pattern altitude, or in the case of a visual approach, the runway. If I
don't hear from ATC prior to reaching that point, I request lower.


--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Matt Barrow]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Dan Luke > wrote:
>
> > Situational awareness is your responsibility. Think ahead; if you feel
> > you're going to be too high too close to the airport, ask for lower.
> > You may not get it, so you should also be thinking of what you'll do if
> > you don't.
>
> When I transitioned from a C172 to a Bonanza with it much faster cruise
> speed, this point was drilled into my head by the previous owner of the
> aircraft and the instructor who endorsed me.

Quite so.

In fact, EVERYTHING you do when transitioning to HP aircraft has to be
thought out much further in advance.

Analogy: When taking the Bondurant High Speed Driving Course the instructor
said, "Now you're driving 120 instead of 60, so you're twice as fast, but
you need to be thinking four times as far ahead." He also said (withour
reference) that the average driver on the highways is looking no more than
100 feet ahead.

[Yossarian]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
link.net:


>
> Had you reported the field in sight?
>
>


no



>>
>> Airport elevation is 73', meaning that a ridiculous descent of 1150
>> ft/min at 90 kts would have been required to get to the MDA of 920 at
>> the MAP if we had been flying the VOR-C.
>>
>
> But you weren't flying the VOR-C, you were flying a visual. Right?
> The VOR is the FAF and the VOR is 8.9 miles from the runway threshold.
> If you were still four miles outside the VOR you were 12.9 miles from
> the runway 28 threshold. At 90 knots GS that's a descent rate of
> just 460 fpm all the way to touchdown.
>

Sorry, I was unclear. I meant 4 miles from the VOR, but on the airport
side, i.e. about 4 miles from the airport.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
. 97.142...
>
> no
>

Interesting. One must report the field before a visual approach clearance
can be issued.


>
> Sorry, I was unclear. I meant 4 miles from the VOR, but on the airport
> side, i.e. about 4 miles from the airport.
>

Which way were you headed at that time?

[Roy Smith]

Yossarian > wrote:
>Saturday was my first night IFR cross country. I was flying right seat in
>a 172SP with an instructor on the left. The flight was from KHHR Hawthorne
>CA to Bermuda Dunes. All was well and as expected until Palm Springs
>approach. They vectored us to a point south of the VOR-C approach approx 4
>miles from the VOR at 4000. We were not established on the final approach
>course. Then I got "cleared for the visual".
>
>Airport elevation is 73', meaning that a ridiculous descent of 1150 ft/min
>at 90 kts would have been required to get to the MDA of 920 at the MAP if
>we had been flying the VOR-C.
>
>What was I expected to do here?

Navigate to the airport visually and land. The required descent rate
really doesn't matter much on a visual. You're free to maneuver as
necessary to manage the descent (S-turns, spiral down, whatever).

If you felt you could not do that (i.e. could not remain visual), you
should refuse the clearance, "unable visual approach".

> I have an instrument rating but only 150 hours so I don't have much
> experience. I expect an instrument approach, even a visual, to
> allow me to make a landing using a normal descent rate and not have
> to make laps in the pattern to descend.

No such requirement on a visual.

>What happens if you refuse a visual approach?

They give you another approach. Typically, you would indicate which
approach you wanted when you turned down the visual.

[Peter R.]

Yossarian > wrote:

> Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> link.net:
>
>>
>> Had you reported the field in sight?
>>
>
> no

That is strange. You have to call the airport in sight before ATC can
clear you for a visual approach. Perhaps you don't remember this exchange
occurring (CFI did it for you)?

Based on my experiences flying in the Northeast US, I have learned to
request the approach I desire when I first check in with the ATC facility
that controls the approaches for my destination airport, unless the weather
is really low and every aircraft is flying the ILS. This saves a second
exchange with ATC to state my intentions that would occur otherwise.

It seems to me that ATC and perhaps most airline pilots prefer the visual
approach since it offers more liberties in traffic spacing and results in a
quicker method for aircraft to land. If I do not request an approach and
the weather allows, ATC will almost always include "expect the visual
approach" upon initial contact.



--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Doug]

If you put "request practice instrument approach at destination
airport" in the comments in your flight plan, it might help you get the
actual instrument approach. If it's VFR the ATC guy only budgets enough
time to clear you for the visual. You go around requesting an
instrument approach and he might get kinda ****ed off, cause he was
planning on you taking the visual and he's done with you.

[Yossarian]

No, we definitely didn't have the field in sight at the time of the
visual clearance because the runway lights were off. We changed to
advisory, clicked the lights on, and went back to PSP appch to cancel
IFR.

You're right, I should have requested the VOR approach from further
out. My concern with the visual is that I didn't want to do a lot of
maneuvering to get down because it was night in an unfamiliar area.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> If you put "request practice instrument approach at destination
> airport" in the comments in your flight plan, it might help you get the
> actual instrument approach.
>

You'll still have to tell him which actual instrument approach you'd like.
You can do that on initial contact and skip the remark.


>
> If it's VFR the ATC guy only budgets enough
> time to clear you for the visual.
>

Let's see, "Cleared visual approach to Bermuda Dunes Airport" versus
"Cleared VOR Charlie approach to Bermuda Dunes Airport". How much more time
does it take to issue the VOR-C clearance? A tenth of a second? Less?


>
> You go around requesting an
> instrument approach and he might get kinda ****ed off, cause he was
> planning on you taking the visual and he's done with you.
>

Well, so what if he gets kinda ****ed off?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> You're right, I should have requested the VOR approach from further
> out.
>

What difference would that make? You said you were being vectored for the
VOR-C when you were cleared for the visual, so you must have made them aware
that you wanted the VOR-C sometime before that.

[Yossarian]

No, I didn't say we were being vectored for the VOR-C, and I had not
made them aware that I wanted that approach. You are assuming too
much.


Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Yossarian" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > You're right, I should have requested the VOR approach from further
> > out.
> >
>
> What difference would that make? You said you were being vectored for the
> VOR-C when you were cleared for the visual, so you must have made them aware
> that you wanted the VOR-C sometime before that.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Yossarian" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> No, I didn't say we were being vectored for the VOR-C, and I had not
> made them aware that I wanted that approach. You are assuming too
> much.
>

Am I? You wrote, "All was well and as expected until Palm Springs
approach. They vectored us to a point south of the VOR-C approach approx 4
miles from the VOR at 4000." How much is it reasonable for me to assume
from your narrative? What were they vectoring you for?

[Roy Smith]

Yossarian > wrote:
> My concern with the visual is that I didn't want to do a lot of
> maneuvering to get down because it was night in an unfamiliar area.

A perfectly legitimate reason to request an SIAP.

[Peter R.]

Yossarian > wrote:

> You're right, I should have requested the VOR approach from further
> out. My concern with the visual is that I didn't want to do a lot of
> maneuvering to get down because it was night in an unfamiliar area.

An excellent concern, especially around the mountains of Palm Springs.
Next time you encounter this uneasiness, feel very comfortable in
requesting whatever instrument approach you need to take you safely to the
runway.

Even if you are past the IAF for the approach when you discover that a
visual approach cannot be completed successfully, tell ATC and request
vectors back around to the IAF, or even delaying vectors to give you time
to properly brief and setup the approach.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Scott Skylane]

Yossarian wrote:
> No, I didn't say we were being vectored for the VOR-C, and I had not
> made them aware that I wanted that approach. You are assuming too
> much.
>

Sooo, what *were* you doing, being vectored within 4 miles of your
destination, if you hadn't requested any specific approach??? Flying
IFR, to a specific airport, means you should have planned on, and
requested, an appropriate procedure much earlier than that. Can you
recount the events that occurred beginning, say, 35 miles out of UDD?

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Doug]

Well, if they clear you for the approach they gotta tell you all this
other stuff and stay with you longer. Anyway, that's what has happened
to me. Guy suggested we put ii in the remarks in our flight plan and I
have had better results with that.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Well, if they clear you for the approach they gotta tell you all this
> other stuff and stay with you longer.
>

Do you mean more stuff for a SIAP than a visual approach? Other than what
I've already written, what more do they have to do? Why do they have to
"stay with you longer" on a SIAP than a visual?

[Doug]

I dunno. It's his job, I don't do ATC stuff, I'm the pilot. But he had
to read off a bunch of stuff to us. Notams I think. It was Center
clearing us into Goodland KS, not Approach, if that matters. He acted
perturbed cause we requested the ILS. I really don't know why. Maybe he
wanted donut or something. Maybe he was in a hurry. Maybe this, maybe
that. Like I say I'm the pilot. I don't do the ATC stuff. Been in a
tower a couple of times and toured Denver Tracon once. Hardly makes me
an expert.

Another thing they do. If you do a touch and go on your IFR cross
country, sometimes they cancel your IFR flight plan even though you
want to continue on. You know, the IFR cross country requires some
landings at more than one airport, so typically you do quick stop or a
touch and go, you take off and they've cancelled your flight plan if
you do it at a towered airport. Go to get your IFR clearance on takeoff
and the guy can't find it. Solution. File a seperate flight plan. I've
had that happen to me too.

One thing with me. If it's VMC and nice and clear, if they ask me if I
can see the airport, I say yes even if I can't. I mean I may not be
able to see it, but I know where it is, right at the end of my
navigation line on the screen. So its a roger I see it. I know this may
be fudging a bit, and I dont do it if there are any clouds or poor
visibility. But they can clear me for the visual and let me descend.
See, if you aren't cleared for the visual, they can't descend you. So I
say yes, and it definitely helps. ATC sometimes thinks I have
helicopter up there or something the way they leave you hanging up
there. But they have these rules. I don't know them all. No one does.

[Doug]

I'm having trouble seeing this in my mind...

Were you coming from up top (PSP) or from V64? 4000 I think is the MEA
between TRM and PSP, right (V137 TRM radial 304)? I am having trouble
"seeing" in my head how you can be "south of the VOR-C" and 4 miles
from the VOR and closer to the airport than the VOR when the VOR is
"generally" south of UDD... what was your heading at the time? Were
you pointed to the VOR or the field?

Even so, I think there must have been some sort of communication
breakdown, either between you and the instructor, you and the
controller, or the instructor and the controller. There could have
been erroneous assumptions made (perhaps the controller had just
cleared a bunch of aircraft VMC? perhaps the controller had told you to
expect vectors to visual and you forgot? If you were coming from PSP,
perhaps the controller erroneously thought that since you had pretty
much overflew the field at 4000, you could see the field (thinking it
was VMC), or the instructor radioed that s/he could see the field...

In any event...clarifications should have been in order...

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I dunno. It's his job, I don't do ATC stuff, I'm the pilot.
>

You wrote; " If it's VFR the ATC guy only budgets enough time to clear you
for the visual." What were you referring to?


>
> But he had to read off a bunch of stuff to us. Notams I think.
>

Are you saying he has to do that for a SIAP but not for a visual approach?


>
> It was Center
> clearing us into Goodland KS, not Approach, if that matters.
>

I don't see how it would.


>
> He acted
> perturbed cause we requested the ILS. I really don't know why. Maybe he
> wanted donut or something.
>

Are you saying controllers can eat donuts while aircraft are conducting
visual approaches but not while they're conducting SIAPs? Or is it just
ILSs?


>
> Maybe he was in a hurry.
>

Are you saying it takes less time to issue a visual approach clearance than
it does to issue a clearance for a SIAP?


>
> Maybe this, maybe
> that. Like I say I'm the pilot. I don't do the ATC stuff. Been in a
> tower a couple of times and toured Denver Tracon once. Hardly makes me
> an expert.
>

So what are you basing your comments on then?


>
> Another thing they do. If you do a touch and go on your IFR cross
> country, sometimes they cancel your IFR flight plan even though you
> want to continue on.
>

Is the touch and go being done at your clearance limit?


>
> You know, the IFR cross country requires some
> landings at more than one airport, so typically you do quick stop or a
> touch and go, you take off and they've cancelled your flight plan if
> you do it at a towered airport. Go to get your IFR clearance on takeoff
> and the guy can't find it. Solution. File a seperate flight plan. I've
> had that happen to me too.
>

Unnecessary. An IFR clearance is cancelled upon landing at a towered
airport that is the clearance limit. ATC takes no action to cancel it. If
the airport is not your clearance limit you still have an IFR clearance.


>
> One thing with me. If it's VMC and nice and clear, if they ask me if I
> can see the airport, I say yes even if I can't. I mean I may not be
> able to see it, but I know where it is, right at the end of my
> navigation line on the screen. So its a roger I see it. I know this may
> be fudging a bit, and I dont do it if there are any clouds or poor
> visibility. But they can clear me for the visual and let me descend.
> See, if you aren't cleared for the visual, they can't descend you.
>

They can descend you to the MIA/MVA without an approach clearance, any
approach clearance allows a descent. If you request a contact approach or
just cancel IFR under the conditions you describe you don't have to fudge on
any rules.


>
> So I
> say yes, and it definitely helps. ATC sometimes thinks I have
> helicopter up there or something the way they leave you hanging up
> there. But they have these rules. I don't know them all. No one does.
>

I do.

[Jose]

>> Another thing they do. If you do a touch and go on your IFR cross
>> country, sometimes they cancel your IFR flight plan even though you
>> want to continue on.
>
> Is the touch and go being done at your clearance limit?

Interesting. Suppose I wanted to do multple approaches at ABC including
touch and goes. If I filed DXR ABC XYZ, could my IFR flight plan be
cancelled upon touching for the first time at ABC? (I presume it could
if I filed DXR ABC with multple approaches and T&Gs at ABC)

Then, back in the air after doing my T&Gs at ABC, I ask for a clearance
back to DXR, changing my destination from XYZ to DXR. Would this work?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Interesting. Suppose I wanted to do multple approaches at ABC including
> touch and goes. If I filed DXR ABC XYZ, could my IFR flight plan be
> cancelled upon touching for the first time at ABC?
>

No.


>
> (I presume it could if
> I filed DXR ABC with multple approaches and T&Gs at ABC)
>

If ABC has an operating control tower, yes. Nothing is actually done to
cancel it, it's "cancelled" because you've safely reached your clearance
limit.


>
> Then, back in the air after doing my T&Gs at ABC, I ask for a clearance
> back to DXR, changing my destination from XYZ to DXR. Would this work?
>

Yes, but why not file DXR..ABC..DXR if that's what you want?

[Roy Smith]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> why not file DXR..ABC..DXR if that's what you want?

It's been a while since I tried something like this, but FSS (at least
around here) use to insist that you could not do that, and had to file two
distinct flight plans, one DXR->ABC, and a second one ABC->DXR. I have no
idea why, but that's what they would say.

Personally, I avoid filing with FSS as much as possible (sometimes you
can't avoid it). I file through DUATS. The computer never makes up silly
rules and just does what you tell it to do.

[Jose]

> Yes, but why not file DXR..ABC..DXR if that's what you want?

I suppose. My instructors have always filed DXR-ABC and then ABC-DXR,
with a full stop to pick up the new clearance. They have said that
round robin flights can be a problem. I've never tried it myself.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's been a while since I tried something like this, but FSS (at least
> around here) use to insist that you could not do that, and had to file two
> distinct flight plans, one DXR->ABC, and a second one ABC->DXR. I have no
> idea why, but that's what they would say.
>

They're fulla crap. The route should be filed with a delay in hours and
minutes at the point the approaches are to be made. If you intend to fly
approaches for one hour it would be DXR..ABC/D1+00..DXR, half an hour would
be DXR..ABC/D0+30..DXR.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jose" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I suppose. My instructors have always filed DXR-ABC and then ABC-DXR,
> with a full stop to pick up the new clearance. They have said that round
> robin flights can be a problem. I've never tried it myself.
>

The "problem" is probably due to not filing a delay at the point where the
approaches are to be flown. If an hour of approaches is desired, the format
would be DXR..ABC/D1+00..DXR. Without the appropriate delay you'd be
overdue one hour at all posted fixes between ABC and DXR. If ABC is served
by an ARTCC the computer will generate time updates, but that gets annoying.

[Jose]

> The "problem" is probably due to not filing a delay at the point where the
> approaches are to be flown.

Thanks. I'll try that next time. :)

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.