Descent below MDA -- what would you do?

[Roy Smith]

What would you do in this situation? You're on the GPS-22 into Ellenville,
NY (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0508/09390G22.PDF), planning to land
straight-in. Note the high MDA (1800 AGL). There's no weather reporting
at your destination, but several nearby airports are saying anywhere from
2-1/2 to 4 mile visibility. For the sake of argument, assume it's 2-1/2
miles where you are. There's scattered CU at about 4000, but you're below
that already. It's daytime, winds are light out of the south.

You're 2 miles from YARNN at the MDA and have good ground contact ahead and
to both sides. You can also see the ridgeline east of the final approach
course which is represented by the 1850 elevation marker. What you don't
see is the runway, or any of the other things called out in 91.175(c)(3).
You know from experience that this is a difficult airport to spot even in
good VFR because it blends in with the surrounding terrain.

You were cleared for the approach at Kingston VOR, and are long out of
radar and radio contact with ATC.

If you stay at the MDA (as 91.175(c) requires), it's unlikely you will ever
see the runway, as it will quickly disappear under the nose of the
airplane. Your GPS is providing you VNAV guidance, and you are already
above the synthetic glide slope. You're well above the minimums for a
contact approach, but since you're out of radio contact, you can't ask for
one; your current clearance is for the GPS-22. Continuing your descent
below the MDA, but staying above the VNAV glideslope it technically not
legal, but seems like a "no harm, no foul" kind of violation.

What would you do?

[A Lieberman]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:53:16 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

> If you stay at the MDA (as 91.175(c) requires), it's unlikely you will ever
> see the runway, as it will quickly disappear under the nose of the
> airplane. Your GPS is providing you VNAV guidance, and you are already
> above the synthetic glide slope. You're well above the minimums for a
> contact approach, but since you're out of radio contact, you can't ask for
> one; your current clearance is for the GPS-22. Continuing your descent
> below the MDA, but staying above the VNAV glideslope it technically not
> legal, but seems like a "no harm, no foul" kind of violation.

If it was me, I would not descend below MDA.

I would descend to MDA, overfly the runway and join the landing pattern to
land. I looked at airnav.com but it didn't give the pattern altitude.

I am not familiar with the terrain, but the picture at airnav.com made it
seem like it would be a rather easy airport to spot being it's an open spot
in the forest of trees.

Allen

[Garner Miller]

In article >, Roy Smith
> wrote:

> What would you do in this situation? ...
> If you stay at the MDA (as 91.175(c) requires), it's unlikely you will ever
> see the runway, as it will quickly disappear under the nose of the
> airplane. Your GPS is providing you VNAV guidance, and you are already
> above the synthetic glide slope. You're well above the minimums for a
> contact approach, but since you're out of radio contact, you can't ask for
> one; your current clearance is for the GPS-22. Continuing your descent
> below the MDA, but staying above the VNAV glideslope it technically not
> legal, but seems like a "no harm, no foul" kind of violation.
>
> What would you do?

I wouldn't descent below MDA, no. That seems like a very bad idea. I
WOULD continue the approach to the MAP, though, rather than bailing on
it early.

Yes, the runway will quickly disappear under the nose, but note that
the circling MDA and the straight-in MDA are the same. Level off at
2080, and you'll likely see the runway before the MAP. Descend as you
circle to the right (since it notes no circling east of the runway),
and you should have plenty of room to set yourself up for a nice
landing. Even a normal traffic pattern altitude should keep you well
above the obstacles on the west side.

Nothing says you can't circle right back to the "straight-in" runway;
sometimes, that's the only way you can do it, and this seems like one
of those cases.

Hope that helps.

--
Garner R. Miller
ATP/CFII/MEI
Clifton Park, NY =USA=

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 20:53:16 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:

>What would you do in this situation? You're on the GPS-22 into Ellenville,
>NY (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0508/09390G22.PDF), planning to land
>straight-in. Note the high MDA (1800 AGL). There's no weather reporting
>at your destination, but several nearby airports are saying anywhere from
>2-1/2 to 4 mile visibility. For the sake of argument, assume it's 2-1/2
>miles where you are. There's scattered CU at about 4000, but you're below
>that already. It's daytime, winds are light out of the south.
>
>You're 2 miles from YARNN at the MDA and have good ground contact ahead and
>to both sides. You can also see the ridgeline east of the final approach
>course which is represented by the 1850 elevation marker. What you don't
>see is the runway, or any of the other things called out in 91.175(c)(3).
>You know from experience that this is a difficult airport to spot even in
>good VFR because it blends in with the surrounding terrain.
>
>You were cleared for the approach at Kingston VOR, and are long out of
>radar and radio contact with ATC.
>
>If you stay at the MDA (as 91.175(c) requires), it's unlikely you will ever
>see the runway, as it will quickly disappear under the nose of the
>airplane. Your GPS is providing you VNAV guidance, and you are already
>above the synthetic glide slope. You're well above the minimums for a
>contact approach, but since you're out of radio contact, you can't ask for
>one; your current clearance is for the GPS-22. Continuing your descent
>below the MDA, but staying above the VNAV glideslope it technically not
>legal, but seems like a "no harm, no foul" kind of violation.
>
>What would you do?

I would not go below MDA.

If I had the airport in sight at YARNN, I would probably do a
circle-to-land on 22 (or possibly 4 depending on the winds).

So far as a contact approach, I thought you had to have reported visibility
at the destination airport of 1+miles in order to be cleared. I don't see
that N89 has weather reporting.


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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> What would you do in this situation? You're on the GPS-22 into
> Ellenville,
> NY (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0508/09390G22.PDF), planning to land
> straight-in. Note the high MDA (1800 AGL). There's no weather reporting
> at your destination, but several nearby airports are saying anywhere from
> 2-1/2 to 4 mile visibility. For the sake of argument, assume it's 2-1/2
> miles where you are. There's scattered CU at about 4000, but you're below
> that already. It's daytime, winds are light out of the south.
>
> You're 2 miles from YARNN at the MDA and have good ground contact ahead
> and
> to both sides. You can also see the ridgeline east of the final approach
> course which is represented by the 1850 elevation marker. What you don't
> see is the runway, or any of the other things called out in 91.175(c)(3).
> You know from experience that this is a difficult airport to spot even in
> good VFR because it blends in with the surrounding terrain.
>
> You were cleared for the approach at Kingston VOR, and are long out of
> radar and radio contact with ATC.
>
> If you stay at the MDA (as 91.175(c) requires), it's unlikely you will
> ever
> see the runway, as it will quickly disappear under the nose of the
> airplane. Your GPS is providing you VNAV guidance, and you are already
> above the synthetic glide slope. You're well above the minimums for a
> contact approach, but since you're out of radio contact, you can't ask for
> one; your current clearance is for the GPS-22. Continuing your descent
> below the MDA, but staying above the VNAV glideslope it technically not
> legal, but seems like a "no harm, no foul" kind of violation.
>

A contact approach isn't available anyway as there is no weather reporting.

[Jose]

Nope. Not going below MDA. Go to the MAP, look for the runway. If I'm
concerned that it would go under the nose, I might fly a hair right to
put it to my left so I could see it. Then circle to land as appropriate.

I don't know why the MDA is what it is, and on approach is not the place
to bet your life on speculation.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dave S]

Roy Smith wrote:

> What would you do?

Go missed. Climb and re-establish radio contact. Re-do the approach and
while still in contact with approach, request a contact approach.. or
cancel IFR and request a special VFR clearance.

Dave

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Go missed. Climb and re-establish radio contact. Re-do the approach and
> while still in contact with approach, request a contact approach.. or
> cancel IFR and request a special VFR clearance.
>

Roy said there's no weather reporting at this location. That rules out a
contact approach and SVFR.

[Roy Smith]

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > Go missed. Climb and re-establish radio contact. Re-do the approach and
> > while still in contact with approach, request a contact approach.. or
> > cancel IFR and request a special VFR clearance.
> >
>
> Roy said there's no weather reporting at this location. That rules out a
> contact approach and SVFR.

Yes, I know both the Contact and SVFR were unavailable. On the other hand,
people were flying around VFR. I know my original statement of "assume
it's 2-1/2 miles where you are" eliminated VFR from the list of legal
alternatives, but for all I know, it really was 3 or 4 miles.

I could have gone missed, gotten back in contact with ATC, cancelled IFR,
and then proceeded back to the airport VFR. But that seems totally
pointless.

What if I hadn't asked you to assume it was 2-1/2 miles? The rest stays
the same, ATIS at several airports in the area reporting variously 2-1/2,
3, and 4 miles. Lacking an official report, the best I can say is "an
honest evaluation of flight visibility by the pilot could have reasonably
been said to be 3 miles".

[[email protected]]

You failed to tell us the method for closing your IFR flight plan once on the
ground. Do they give you a phone number? Do you have cell phone service on
the approach?

First, a bit of history: 91.175's predecessor section (91.116) permitted,
until 1981 as I recall, descent based on landmarks familiar to the pilot. It
was fraught with hazards although it had its origins from the "DC-3" days.
Some of the more jaded folks called it the "Farmer Jone's Barn Sighting Rule."

It's important to know that history, because the revocation of that rule is a
very handy cite for a sharp FAA attorney to rebutt a pilot claim of defense
that he saw Jone's barn and knows the area well, so he knows that leads to the
runway...and so forth.

Thus, what others advise about remaining at MDA and going to the airport then
circling to land is not only good safety advice, it is very good legal advice.

The reason I ask about the phone is because you could have opted to cancel IFR
and then do whatever you wanted to do to get in and land.

Roy Smith wrote:

> What would you do in this situation? You're on the GPS-22 into Ellenville,
> NY (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0508/09390G22.PDF), planning to land
> straight-in. Note the high MDA (1800 AGL). There's no weather reporting
> at your destination, but several nearby airports are saying anywhere from
> 2-1/2 to 4 mile visibility. For the sake of argument, assume it's 2-1/2
> miles where you are. There's scattered CU at about 4000, but you're below
> that already. It's daytime, winds are light out of the south.
>
> You're 2 miles from YARNN at the MDA and have good ground contact ahead and
> to both sides. You can also see the ridgeline east of the final approach
> course which is represented by the 1850 elevation marker. What you don't
> see is the runway, or any of the other things called out in 91.175(c)(3).
> You know from experience that this is a difficult airport to spot even in
> good VFR because it blends in with the surrounding terrain.
>
> You were cleared for the approach at Kingston VOR, and are long out of
> radar and radio contact with ATC.
>
> If you stay at the MDA (as 91.175(c) requires), it's unlikely you will ever
> see the runway, as it will quickly disappear under the nose of the
> airplane. Your GPS is providing you VNAV guidance, and you are already
> above the synthetic glide slope. You're well above the minimums for a
> contact approach, but since you're out of radio contact, you can't ask for
> one; your current clearance is for the GPS-22. Continuing your descent
> below the MDA, but staying above the VNAV glideslope it technically not
> legal, but seems like a "no harm, no foul" kind of violation.
>
> What would you do?

[Doug]

Click the mic and turn the lights on.

[A Lieberman]

On 14 Aug 2005 07:54:47 -0700, Doug wrote:

> Click the mic and turn the lights on.

Doug,

No PCL per Duat.

Allen

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:46:09 -0500, A Lieberman >
wrote:

>On 14 Aug 2005 07:54:47 -0700, Doug wrote:
>
>> Click the mic and turn the lights on.
>
>Doug,
>
>No PCL per Duat.
>
>Allen

PCL on 122.8 per the Jepp approach chart
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Gary Drescher]

> wrote in message ...
> The reason I ask about the phone is because you could have opted to cancel
> IFR
> and then do whatever you wanted to do to get in and land.

In the absence of radio or phone contact, can you unilaterally cancel IFR
and inform ATC after you land?

--Gary

[Doug]

Go MISSED! It is descending below the MDA like this that caused the
Gulfstream crash at Aspen. Trying to "stuff it in" they discovered the
visibility blocked the runway and they CRASHED and DIED.

[[email protected]]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
> > The reason I ask about the phone is because you could have opted to cancel
> > IFR
> > and then do whatever you wanted to do to get in and land.
>
> In the absence of radio or phone contact, can you unilaterally cancel IFR
> and inform ATC after you land?
>
> --Gary

For non-commercial operations I don't see why not. But, it's not clean and
someone may say it was wrong to hold the airspace when you had "cancelled" as a
state of mind. Or, some might argue that a cancellation does not take effect
until ATC acknowledges its receipt.

Murky waters but I suspect the not-for-hire pilot would prevail in any
enforcement proceeding. It's more of an issue of ATC policy as opposed to
regulations, per se.

[Gary Drescher]

> wrote in message ...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > The reason I ask about the phone is because you could have opted to
>> > cancel
>> > IFR
>> > and then do whatever you wanted to do to get in and land.
>>
>> In the absence of radio or phone contact, can you unilaterally cancel IFR
>> and inform ATC after you land?
>>
>> --Gary
>
> For non-commercial operations I don't see why not. But, it's not clean
> and
> someone may say it was wrong to hold the airspace when you had "cancelled"
> as a
> state of mind.

But if the alternative were to not cancel at all, then the airspace would be
just as held-up.

> Or, some might argue that a cancellation does not take effect
> until ATC acknowledges its receipt.

Yup, that's what I'm unsure about. Also, if you did cancel unilaterally,
would you then squawk 1200 in case ATC still had radar contact?

--Gary

[Matt Whiting]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
>
>>The reason I ask about the phone is because you could have opted to cancel
>>IFR
>>and then do whatever you wanted to do to get in and land.
>
>
> In the absence of radio or phone contact, can you unilaterally cancel IFR
> and inform ATC after you land?

How do you "unilaterally" cancel IFR?

Matt

[[email protected]]

Doug wrote:

> Go MISSED! It is descending below the MDA like this that caused the
> Gulfstream crash at Aspen. Trying to "stuff it in" they discovered the
> visibility blocked the runway and they CRASHED and DIED.

That was a night approach into an airport that is marginally (at best) an
IFR airport. And, it was a jet airplane.

A single-engine light aircraft going to a relatively flat-land CAT A/B
only airport in the daytime, and with pretty good weather is a very
different set of circumstances than what happened at Aspen.

[Newps]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> > wrote in message ...
>
>>The reason I ask about the phone is because you could have opted to cancel
>>IFR
>>and then do whatever you wanted to do to get in and land.
>
>
> In the absence of radio or phone contact, can you unilaterally cancel IFR
> and inform ATC after you land?

No.

[Roy Smith]

In article >, wrote:
> You failed to tell us the method for closing your IFR flight plan once on the
> ground. Do they give you a phone number? Do you have cell phone service on
> the approach?

Well, it was a training flight; the plan (negotiated with the controller
ahead of time) was to go missed and call them in the hold for further
clearance.

> The reason I ask about the phone is because you could have opted to cancel IFR
> and then do whatever you wanted to do to get in and land.

Let's assume I still had radio contact with ATC 2 miles out and canceled at
that point. I could see how that would improve the legal picture, but it
certainly doesn't make it any safer. In fact, it could have made it worse.
As we came in, there was a guy on the ground holding short of the runway,
presumably waiting for his IFR release. Had I canceled, he might have been
released, not seen me swimming towards him in the haze, and gone out on the
runway right in front of me.

[A Lieberman]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:09:07 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

> On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:46:09 -0500, A Lieberman >
> wrote:
>
>>On 14 Aug 2005 07:54:47 -0700, Doug wrote:
>>
>>> Click the mic and turn the lights on.
>>
>>Doug,
>>
>>No PCL per Duat.
>>
>>Allen
>
> PCL on 122.8 per the Jepp approach chart
> Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Dang Ron,

Had I looked at the FAA chart close enough on the FAA chart provided on the
original post, I would have noticed the white L circled in black by the
CTAF frequency. Answer was right under my nose.

Thanks for correcting me!

Allen

[Jose]

> Had I canceled, he might have been
> released, not seen me swimming towards him in the haze, and gone out on the
> runway right in front of me.

.... and you would have seen him, and he would have seen you. This is
supposed to be VFR weather, right? Now, if you are flying visually with
no IFR clearance in IFR murk, that's another story, and the book should
be thrown.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 15:07:24 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:

>Let's assume I still had radio contact with ATC 2 miles out and canceled at
>that point. I could see how that would improve the legal picture, but it
>certainly doesn't make it any safer. In fact, it could have made it worse.
>As we came in, there was a guy on the ground holding short of the runway,
>presumably waiting for his IFR release. Had I canceled, he might have been
>released, not seen me swimming towards him in the haze, and gone out on the
>runway right in front of me.

How does it improve the legal situation to cancel IFR when you are still
IMC? (You mentioned visibility of 2 1/2 miles).



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

[Roy Smith]

Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
> How does it improve the legal situation to cancel IFR when you are still
> IMC? (You mentioned visibility of 2 1/2 miles).

I my original post, I said something like "reports of 2-1/2 to 4, assume
2-1/2". In a followup, I asked people to ignore that assumption and
consider accept the possibility that it might be 3. My apologies if I
confused the issue with this pair of contradictory statements.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes, I know both the Contact and SVFR were unavailable. On the other
> hand, people were flying around VFR. I know my original statement of
> "assume
> it's 2-1/2 miles where you are" eliminated VFR from the list of legal
> alternatives, but for all I know, it really was 3 or 4 miles.
>
> I could have gone missed, gotten back in contact with ATC, cancelled IFR,
> and then proceeded back to the airport VFR. But that seems totally
> pointless.
>
> What if I hadn't asked you to assume it was 2-1/2 miles? The rest stays
> the same, ATIS at several airports in the area reporting variously 2-1/2,
> 3, and 4 miles. Lacking an official report, the best I can say is "an
> honest evaluation of flight visibility by the pilot could have reasonably
> been said to be 3 miles".
>

Are you asking what's legal or what's wise?

Assuming the former, as long as you have at least three miles visibility and
remain at least 500 feet below, 1000 feet above, and 2000 feet lateral
clearance from all clouds I'd say you can legally land. FAR 91.175 would no
longer apply as you're no longer operating under IFR.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> In the absence of radio or phone contact, can you unilaterally cancel IFR
> and inform ATC after you land?
>

I don't know of anything that prohibits it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> In the absence of radio or phone contact, can you unilaterally cancel IFR
>> and inform ATC after you land?
>>
>
> No.
>

Why not?

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:39:15 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:

>Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
>> How does it improve the legal situation to cancel IFR when you are still
>> IMC? (You mentioned visibility of 2 1/2 miles).
>
>I my original post, I said something like "reports of 2-1/2 to 4, assume
>2-1/2". In a followup, I asked people to ignore that assumption and
>consider accept the possibility that it might be 3. My apologies if I
>confused the issue with this pair of contradictory statements.

I confuse easily these days <g>.

But assuming you were legal to cancel IFR, and wanted to do so, could you
not contact FSS through one of the relatively close VOR's, and cancel that
way? Or are they, too, out of radio reception range at that altitude? I
note HUO or CMK might be within range.


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

[Roy Smith]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> Are you asking what's legal or what's wise?

Neither. I'm asking what other people would do.

[John Clonts]

"Ron Rosenfeld" > wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:39:15 -0400, Roy Smith > wrote:
>
>>Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:
>>> How does it improve the legal situation to cancel IFR when you are still
>>> IMC? (You mentioned visibility of 2 1/2 miles).
>>
>>I my original post, I said something like "reports of 2-1/2 to 4, assume
>>2-1/2". In a followup, I asked people to ignore that assumption and
>>consider accept the possibility that it might be 3. My apologies if I
>>confused the issue with this pair of contradictory statements.
>
> I confuse easily these days <g>.
>
> But assuming you were legal to cancel IFR, and wanted to do so, could you
> not contact FSS through one of the relatively close VOR's, and cancel that
> way? Or are they, too, out of radio reception range at that altitude? I
> note HUO or CMK might be within range.
>

On 2 1/2 mile final in such conditions I'm not going to be trying to get through to FSS. ATC maybe, since
they're frequency is still on my "flip-flop".

But then again if I'm on 2 1/2 mile final and the visibility is 3 miles (VFR), then I can see the runway, so
yeah, I'm gonna come down and land... Conversely, if I can't see the runway then I am concluding that the
visibility is not 3 miles :)
--
Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 02:11:06 GMT, "John Clonts" >
wrote:

>On 2 1/2 mile final in such conditions I'm not going to be trying to get through to FSS. ATC maybe, since
>they're frequency is still on my "flip-flop".

The OP has already written that he is "long out of radar and radio contact
with ATC." So contacting ATC directly is not an option.
>
>But then again if I'm on 2 1/2 mile final and the visibility is 3 miles (VFR), then I can see the runway, so
>yeah, I'm gonna come down and land... Conversely, if I can't see the runway then I am concluding that the
>visibility is not 3 miles :)

As I previously wrote, I would not cancel either and I certainly would not
descend below MDA without having the requisite 91.175 items in view.

But the OP was posing a hypothetical in which he wanted to descend below
MDA; in this hypothetical he was in VMC conditions, but still on an IFR
flight plan.

So far as contacting FSS to cancel IFR when in VMC, it's no big deal (so
long as you have the airport in sight). I frequently try to do that
returning to my home base where there is no radio contact with ATC below
about 4000' (airport at 40' MSL). Of course, my home base rarely has
traffic.


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

[Michael]

> You're 2 miles from YARNN at the MDA and have good ground
> contact ahead and
> to both sides. You can also see the ridgeline east of the final approach
> course which is represented by the 1850 elevation marker. What
> you don't see is the runway, or any of the other things called out in
> 91.175(c)(3).

Who else besides you knows what you can and can't see? Are you certain
you can't see it?

Once upon a time, you were allowed to descend based on seeing a
landmark that was familiar to you. This reflected the reality of how
people really do thins, so of course it's not legal any longer - but
that doesn't mean it's not done. My home field (EYQ) is pretty hard to
spot, but there is a factory on the downwind-to-base turn for Rwy 9
that sticks out like a sore thumb. It's been years since Wyman-Gordon
actually owned it, but Wyman-Gordon it remains for generations of
student pilots - and when they become instrument students and learn to
shoot the NDB or GPS, it's what they learn to look for. Once you see
that, you know exactly where the runway is. Are you sure you can't see
it? I bet you can just make it out in the haze.

> You know from experience that this is a difficult
> airport to spot even in good VFR because it blends in with the
> surrounding terrain.

Sure it does. But if you know where to look, you can just see it
outlined in the haze.

> Continuing your descent
> below the MDA, but staying above the VNAV glideslope it technically not
> legal, but seems like a "no harm, no foul" kind of violation.

You know, this question has a lot in common with another one being
discussed on r.a.piloting (Illegal charters - google for it - it's the
usual private pilot compensation thing). You know the chance of
getting busted on it is zero. You also know that there are rules
against it - and that these rules are in place for good reasons - but
they could't possibly be in place to keep you from doing this, because
this clearly isn't dangerous.

There are reasons why you're not supposed to descend based on a
landmark that is familiar to you. In general, they are good reasons.
When you pick out a landmark in the fog and mist, coming in on an NDB
approach with no distance and iffy course guidance, it's all too easy
to believe that new dairy barn is actually Farmer Brown's old barn, and
put yourself into the highway (or worse) instead of the runway.

Once again, it boils down to this - is it ever OK to substitute your
own judgment for the rules. It's a yes or no answer. Either you
always drive at or below the speed limit, come to a full stop at every
red light and stop sign before turning right, never fly one pound
overgross, never accept a clearance contrary to the FAR's, etc. - or
you use your best judgment, and sometimes decide that the rule can be
bent.

So ask yourself this - what makes it OK to accept a clearance you know
is improper to avoid being sent to the back of the line, but not OK to
decend here?

Michael

[gman]

I don't beleive weather reporting is a requirement for Special VFR per
FAR 91.157.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I don't beleive weather reporting is a requirement for Special VFR per
> FAR 91.157.
>

Special VFR exists only in a surface area, weather reporting is a
requirement for a surface area.

[gman]

Steven,
Could you point me to correct FAR paragraph? A quick search of the
part 91 FARs on AOPA's website did not turn up anything supporting your
statement.

Thanks

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Steven,
> Could you point me to correct FAR paragraph? A quick search of the
> part 91 FARs on AOPA's website did not turn up anything supporting your
> statement.
>

Which statement? That Special VFR exists only in a surface area or that
weather reporting is a requirement for a surface area?

[gman]

For both.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gman" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> For both.
>


FAR 91.155(c) states, " Except as provided in §91.157, no person may operate
an aircraft beneath the ceiling under VFR within the lateral boundaries of
controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport when the
ceiling is less than 1,000 feet." That refers to a surface area.

From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:

SURFACE AREA- The airspace contained by the lateral boundary of the Class B,
C, D, or E airspace designated for an airport that begins at the surface and
extends upward.


The procedures for establishing surface areas are found in FAA Order 7400.2,
"Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters". There are two requirements that
must be met prior to establishing a surface area:

1.) Communications capability with aircraft must exist down to the runway
surface of the primary airport either directly with ATC or by rapid relay
through another communications facility which is acceptable to ATC, such as
a FSS.

2.) Weather observations must be taken at the primary airport during the
time of designation of the surface area.

[Roy Smith]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> From the Pilot/Controller Glossary:
> SURFACE AREA- The airspace contained by the lateral boundary of the Class B,
> C, D, or E airspace designated for an airport that begins at the surface and
> extends upward.

I probably should know this, but now that I (re-)read the above, I see that
there's several ways to parse that sentence with respect to B and C
airspace:

1) Only the inner cylinder that touches the surface is the surface area,
i.e. SVFR is not available in the outer rings of B/C airspace.

2) The boundaries of the surface area are exactly the same (vertical and
lateral) as the B/C airspace. This is what I had always assumed.

3) The surface area includes all the airspace from the edge of the
outermost ring projected down to the surface. This would be extremely
illogical, but it is one possible parsing.

Which is correct?

Is there such a thing as B, C, or D airspace in the US which is not
"designated for an airport"?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> I probably should know this, but now that I (re-)read the above, I see
> that there's several ways to parse that sentence with respect to B and C
> airspace:
>
> 1) Only the inner cylinder that touches the surface is the surface area,
> i.e. SVFR is not available in the outer rings of B/C airspace.
>
> 2) The boundaries of the surface area are exactly the same (vertical and
> lateral) as the B/C airspace. This is what I had always assumed.
>
> 3) The surface area includes all the airspace from the edge of the
> outermost ring projected down to the surface. This would be extremely
> illogical, but it is one possible parsing.
>
> Which is correct?
>

Prior to airspace reclassification there were control zones within and
distinct from ARSAs and TCAs and SVFR was clearly limited to just the
control zone. If SVFR was now available within the entire Class B or Class
C airspace it would mean a major change that was not mentioned or discussed
during reclassification.

FAR 91.155(c) states, "Except as provided in FAR 91.157, no person may
operate an aircraft beneath the ceiling under VFR within the lateral
boundaries of controlled airspace designated to the surface for an airport
when the ceiling is less than 1,000 feet." Since we're only concerned with
the portion within 1000 feet of the surface scenario 2) would be eliminated.


>
> Is there such a thing as B, C, or D airspace in the US which is not
> "designated for an airport"?
>

I don't know of any Class B or C like that, but there has been some odd
Class D
airspace areas.

One of them was Pearson Field in Vancouver, WA, about seven miles northeast
of Portland International. Pearson had Class D airspace from the surface
to the overlying Portland Class C airspace. Vancouver had no control tower
and was the only airport in the Class D surface area. Vancouver now has a
Class E surface area.

Another one is adjacent to the Seattle Class B surface area on the west
side. This one still exists, you can view it at the following link:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F27B2314B


A third one was south of the El Toro MCAS which is now closed, the Class D
airspace apparently was dropped when the base closed. Part of this one
didn't even touch the surface. I have old charts which depict this area, I
can post some images if you're interested.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> A third one was south of the El Toro MCAS which is now closed, the Class D
> airspace apparently was dropped when the base closed. Part of this one
> didn't even touch the surface. I have old charts which depict this area, I
> can post some images if you're interested.

When El Toro closed KSNA lost half of its Class C airspace because of the way
the rules were made piecemeal. It took over a year to get that airspace
modified and redesignated to provide the Class C protection for KSNA that used
to be there when El Toro was operating.

Airspace designations are only as good as the regional airspace staffs
responsible for them.

[gman]

Steven,
FAR 91.155(c) explicitly refers to "controlled airspace" i.e. airspace
classified as E,D,C,B, and A. Since it is possible to be in E airspace
without being near an airport, it is possible to operate under Special
VFR as long as the requirements in FAR 91.157 are met. Moreover,
ground based weather reporting is NOT required for Special VFR and FAR
91.157 (c)(2) explains what to do if "..ground visibility is not
reported..".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Steven,
> FAR 91.155(c) explicitly refers to "controlled airspace" i.e. airspace
> classified as E,D,C,B, and A. Since it is possible to be in E airspace
> without being near an airport, it is possible to operate under Special
> VFR as long as the requirements in FAR 91.157 are met.
>

Yes, it's possible to be in Class E airspace without being near an airport,
but I don't think it's possible to be "within the airspace contained by the
upward extension of the lateral boundaries of the controlled airspace
designated to the surface for an airport" without being near an airport. Do
you?


>
> Moreover, ground based weather reporting is NOT required for Special VFR
> and FAR
> 91.157 (c)(2) explains what to do if "..ground visibility is not
> reported..".
>

FAR 91.157(c)(1) says no person may take off or land an aircraft (other than
a helicopter) under special VFR unless ground visibility is at least 1
statute mile. If ground visibility isn't being reported it's because the
AWOS/ASOS is on the fritz or the weather observer overslept.

[gman]

I'm sorry for dragging this thing on but part (a) of the paragraph you
quoted (FAR 91.155) says that if the weather conditions (visibility,
and cloud clearance) are below the prescribed minimums, you cannot
"operate an aircraft under VFR" unless you go Special VFR. The weather
minimums in paragraph 91.155(a) only refer to classes of airspace not
only to those around an airport.

You are correct about FAR 91.155(c,d). However, this rule is in
addition to the other parts of section 91.155.

Since the original poster was on a GPS approach, and most certainly in
controlled airspace, he could have requested a Special VFR clearance
and landed as long as he operated clear of clouds and flight visibility
was greater than 3SM. Even though the airport does not have an
official weather reporting systems, the FARs authorize the pilot to use
his/her own judgment in determining visibility.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I'm sorry for dragging this thing on but part (a) of the paragraph you
> quoted (FAR 91.155) says that if the weather conditions (visibility,
> and cloud clearance) are below the prescribed minimums, you cannot
> "operate an aircraft under VFR" unless you go Special VFR. The weather
> minimums in paragraph 91.155(a) only refer to classes of airspace not
> only to those around an airport.
>
> You are correct about FAR 91.155(c,d). However, this rule is in
> addition to the other parts of section 91.155.
>
> Since the original poster was on a GPS approach, and most certainly in
> controlled airspace, he could have requested a Special VFR clearance
> and landed as long as he operated clear of clouds and flight visibility
> was greater than 3SM. Even though the airport does not have an
> official weather reporting systems, the FARs authorize the pilot to use
> his/her own judgment in determining visibility.
>

Since the original poster told us there was no weather reporting at the
destination airport we can conclude there is no surface area because weather
reporting is required to establish a surface area. Since SVFR exists only
in a surface area we can conclude that SVFR was not available even if he had
requested it.

[gman]

But FAR 91.155(c) says: "_EXCEPT_ as provided in =A791.157, no person
may operate an aircraft beneath the ceiling under VFR within the
lateral boundaries of controlled airspace designated to the surface for
an airport...." That means if you flying under 91.157 (i.e. Special
VFR) you need not comply with 91.155.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> But FAR 91.155(c) says: "_EXCEPT_ as provided in §91.157, no person
> may operate an aircraft beneath the ceiling under VFR within the
> lateral boundaries of controlled airspace designated to the surface for
> an airport...." That means if you flying under 91.157 (i.e. Special
>VFR) you need not comply with 91.155.
>

Where can you fly under FAR 91.157?

[[email protected]]

Michael wrote:
>
> > You know from experience that this is a difficult
> > airport to spot even in good VFR because it blends in with the
> > surrounding terrain.
>
> Sure it does. But if you know where to look, you can just see it
> outlined in the haze.
>
> > Continuing your descent
> > below the MDA, but staying above the VNAV glideslope it technically not
> > legal, but seems like a "no harm, no foul" kind of violation.
>

You pays your money and you takes your chance.

Let's throw "legal" about the window because it's not really relevant.

This reminds me of something my CFII told me when we did our first ILS
to real minimums. "I'm not telling you to go below minimums, because
it's not legal, but if you just keep those needles absolutely nailed,
sooner or later you're going to crack it up right on that spot on the
runway."

This has little to do with legality because if you land fine no one can
ever be the wiser, and if you get it wrong, you can discuss the FARs
with Saint Peter. You've constructed a hypothetical scenario where
descending below minimums looks like a completely practical decision.
Having done it once, do you make a habit of it?

Search for descent below MDA and you will see many stories of pilots
who presumably thought they had their s--t together, as well as quite a
few who clearly were going into seriously unexplored territory. What we
don't know are how many pilots have violated the letter of the law by
25, 50, or 500 feet, and come out just fine. And don't even try to
pretend that following the FARs to the letter guarantees a safe
outcome, either. Flying IFR in your typical single involves taking more
than a few perfectly legal risks. There's a continuum between "Happy
landing" and "No survivors" and going for a peek is simply moving you
closer to the latter. How much? Read some of those accident reports and
compare.

Personally, would I do it? No. I'm a low-time IFR pilot and don't have
all the equipment you do. Ask me again how I feel in a few hundred
hours.

-cwk.

[Doug Carter]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> This reminds me of something my CFII told me when we did our first ILS
> to real minimums. "I'm not telling you to go below minimums, because
> it's not legal, but if you just keep those needles absolutely nailed,
> sooner or later you're going to crack it up right on that spot on the
> runway."

Might, except the glideslope is not guarenteed below something like
100'. You would, at least, crash on the airport.

[Roy Smith]

Peter > wrote:

> Doug Carter > wrote
>
> >Might, except the glideslope is not guarenteed below something like
> >100'.
>
> The localiser should be, otherwise CAT 2/3 approaches wouldn't work.
> The coupled autopilot uses a radalt for the last ~ 100ft but it uses
> the localiser all the way down, AFAIK.
>
> In an emergency and with no other options, technically speaking, one
> should be able to fly an ILS all the way down, in 0/0 conditions, and
> walk away from it.

On an ILS, at TDZE + 100, you are 2000 feet out from the GS antenna, or
1000 out from the threshold. You would have to make some drastic pitch
changes (i.e. double your descent rate) to land short of the threshold from
that point. If you made it to DH with the needles centered, just hold that
pitch attitude and power setting another 10 seconds or so, and you're there.

That being said, it's not something you want to do unless you've run out of
other choices. I've done it once -- when I was an instrument student. My
instructor took me out on an evening when the ground fog was already
starting to settle in when we took off. By the time we came back a couple
of hours later, things were pretty well socked in. Our home field (CDW)
had a localizer only; we took one (rather pointless) shot at that, then
went to the next field over (MMU) which had an ILS. That too was below
minimums, but we landed anyway. Fortunately, the same conditions that lead
to ground fog also make for an easy ILS -- zero wind. I kept the needles
in the donut all the way down and just kept going when we got to the DH.
Eventually, the runway loomed out of the soup and we landed. It was so
thick, we could only see a couple of runway edge lights ahead. The tower
never saw us. Good for war stories, but not an experience I'd like to
repeat.

Of course, we were infected with a bad case of get-home-itis, or at least
my instructor was and I was foolish enough to go along with it. He had to
be to work the next day, and landing 10 miles away from home was close
enough. We had fuel to make it to someplace with better weather but much
less convenient.

Given a choice of where to bust minimums, I'd go for someplace that has a
published Cat-II/III approach. Even if you're not certified for it, you
know the nav signals are good down to the ground, and those runways tend to
have gazillion-megawatt approach light systems. Might as well give
yourself every advantage you can get.