Completing the Non-precision approach as a Visual Approach

[John Clonts]

I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
(Fredericksburg Texas):

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/T82_vd_gA.pdf

At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766 AGL"),
mostly in a 700 foot overcast. Through a break in the clouds I clearly see
the airport-- the visibility is about 7 miles.

I descend 166 feet and am able to remain just under the cloud deck for the
final three miles, fly the right hand pattern for runway 14 at 600 AGL, and
land.

Was my descent to about 600 AGL (a) illegal because of 91.175c and/or some
other FAR, or (b) legal because I have now in effect "converted" to a visual
approach and/or am now in uncontrolled airspace (>1 mile vis and clear of
clouds).

Mind you I'm not saying I did this last Tuesday, but I might have thought
about it if the conditions had been just so. :)

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Bob Gardner]

When you are cleared for the VOR-A you are expected to fly the
profile....fly at the MDA and not a foot lower to the missed approach point
or until you see the runway environment as defined in 91.175. When you see
the airport, you should real quick ask for a contact approach...then you can
follow ground reference and altitude is not a factor.

Bob Gardner

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
.. .
> I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
> (Fredericksburg Texas):
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/T82_vd_gA.pdf
>
> At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766
AGL"),
> mostly in a 700 foot overcast. Through a break in the clouds I clearly
see
> the airport-- the visibility is about 7 miles.
>
> I descend 166 feet and am able to remain just under the cloud deck for the
> final three miles, fly the right hand pattern for runway 14 at 600 AGL,
and
> land.
>
> Was my descent to about 600 AGL (a) illegal because of 91.175c and/or some
> other FAR, or (b) legal because I have now in effect "converted" to a
visual
> approach and/or am now in uncontrolled airspace (>1 mile vis and clear of
> clouds).
>
> Mind you I'm not saying I did this last Tuesday, but I might have thought
> about it if the conditions had been just so. :)
>
> Cheers,
> John Clonts
> Temple, Texas
> N7NZ
>
>

[Hilton]

John Clonts wrote:
> I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
> (Fredericksburg Texas):
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/T82_vd_gA.pdf
>
> At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766
AGL"),

This was (one of) your (almost) fatal mistake. At 2460' and 3 miles out,
you probably were not at 766 AGL. The 766 you see is NOT AGL as you would
first think. The 766' is the altitude above the airport elevation (for a
circling approach). Note that 1694 + 766 = 2460.

It's probable that a lot of instrument pilots do not know this.

Hilton

[[email protected]]

1. You cannot roll your own visual approach. You must have a clearance and the
weather conditions must permit it, as per the guidance in the AIM.

2. What you did is more like a contact approach, which is different from a
visual approach, both, the distinctions of which are well documented and should
be part of your instrument pilot knowledge base.

3. Eventually, such early departures from the IAP not only violate 91.175, they
can eventually result in clipping a hilltop, tree, or tower.

John Clonts wrote:

> I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
> (Fredericksburg Texas):
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/T82_vd_gA.pdf
>
> At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766 AGL"),
> mostly in a 700 foot overcast. Through a break in the clouds I clearly see
> the airport-- the visibility is about 7 miles.
>
> I descend 166 feet and am able to remain just under the cloud deck for the
> final three miles, fly the right hand pattern for runway 14 at 600 AGL, and
> land.
>
> Was my descent to about 600 AGL (a) illegal because of 91.175c and/or some
> other FAR, or (b) legal because I have now in effect "converted" to a visual
> approach and/or am now in uncontrolled airspace (>1 mile vis and clear of
> clouds).
>
> Mind you I'm not saying I did this last Tuesday, but I might have thought
> about it if the conditions had been just so. :)
>
> Cheers,
> John Clonts
> Temple, Texas
> N7NZ

[EDR]

In article et>,
Hilton > wrote:

> John Clonts wrote:
> > I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
> > (Fredericksburg Texas):
> >
> > http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/T82_vd_gA.pdf
> >
> > At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766
> AGL"),
>
> This was (one of) your (almost) fatal mistake. At 2460' and 3 miles out,
> you probably were not at 766 AGL. The 766 you see is NOT AGL as you would
> first think. The 766' is the altitude above the airport elevation (for a
> circling approach). Note that 1694 + 766 = 2460.
>
> It's probable that a lot of instrument pilots do not know this.

Let's pick nits...
Is it
Height Above Aerodrome?
or
Height Above Threshhold?

[JimBob]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message news:<bphub.176041$9E1.917544@attbi_s52>...
> When you are cleared for the VOR-A you are expected to fly the
> profile....fly at the MDA and not a foot lower to the missed approach point
> or until you see the runway environment as defined in 91.175. When you see
> the airport, you should real quick ask for a contact approach...then you can
> follow ground reference and altitude is not a factor.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "John Clonts" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
> > (Fredericksburg Texas):
> >
> > http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/T82_vd_gA.pdf
> >
> > At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766
> AGL"),
> > mostly in a 700 foot overcast. Through a break in the clouds I clearly
> see
> > the airport-- the visibility is about 7 miles.
> > ...
> >
> > Cheers,
> > John Clonts
> > Temple, Texas
> > N7NZ


The caviat here is you need to see the runway environment to be
allowed to descend, not just the airport.

[[email protected]]

EDR wrote:

> In article et>,
> Hilton > wrote:
>
> > John Clonts wrote:
> > > I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
> > > (Fredericksburg Texas):
> > >
> > > http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/T82_vd_gA.pdf
> > >
> > > At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766
> > AGL"),
> >
> > This was (one of) your (almost) fatal mistake. At 2460' and 3 miles out,
> > you probably were not at 766 AGL. The 766 you see is NOT AGL as you would
> > first think. The 766' is the altitude above the airport elevation (for a
> > circling approach). Note that 1694 + 766 = 2460.
> >
> > It's probable that a lot of instrument pilots do not know this.
>
> Let's pick nits...
> Is it
> Height Above Aerodrome?
> or
> Height Above Threshhold?

In the U.S. it's HAT for straight-in and HAA for circling. Height Above
Touchdown (the touchdown elevation being the highest point on the first 3,000
feet of the runway). Height Above Airport is based on the highest terrain point
on the airport.

[Newps]

Bob Gardner wrote:

> When you are cleared for the VOR-A you are expected to fly the
> profile....fly at the MDA and not a foot lower to the missed approach point
> or until you see the runway environment as defined in 91.175. When you see
> the airport, you should real quick ask for a contact approach...then you can
> follow ground reference and altitude is not a factor.

Ah, bull****. He had the runway in sight, descended and landed. What's
the problem?

[[email protected]]

Newps wrote:

> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
> > When you are cleared for the VOR-A you are expected to fly the
> > profile....fly at the MDA and not a foot lower to the missed approach point
> > or until you see the runway environment as defined in 91.175. When you see
> > the airport, you should real quick ask for a contact approach...then you can
> > follow ground reference and altitude is not a factor.
>
> Ah, bull****. He had the runway in sight, descended and landed. What's
> the problem?

Well, for starters, he entered the pattern for a Runway, which sounds like
circle-to-land to me. There are some pretty specific referenes as to what you
can, and cannot do, in flying a circle-to-land.

Alas, you may consider those regulations to be "bull****."

[David Brooks]

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:WMrub.236755$Tr4.696922@attbi_s03...
>
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
> > When you are cleared for the VOR-A you are expected to fly the
> > profile....fly at the MDA and not a foot lower to the missed approach
point
> > or until you see the runway environment as defined in 91.175. When you
see
> > the airport, you should real quick ask for a contact approach...then you
can
> > follow ground reference and altitude is not a factor.
>
> Ah, bull****. He had the runway in sight, descended and landed. What's
> the problem?

It depends on the missing information in the phrase:

> I descend 166 feet and am able to remain just under the cloud deck

John, if this had actually happened, could you see the runway all the time
during that descent?

-- David Brooks

[Hilton]

EDR wrote:
> Hilton wrote:
>
> > John Clonts wrote:
> > > I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
> > > (Fredericksburg Texas):
> > >
> > >
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/T82_vd_gA.pdf
> > >
> > > At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766
> > AGL"),
> >
> > This was (one of) your (almost) fatal mistake. At 2460' and 3 miles
out,
> > you probably were not at 766 AGL. The 766 you see is NOT AGL as you
would
> > first think. The 766' is the altitude above the airport elevation (for
a
> > circling approach). Note that 1694 + 766 = 2460.
> >
> > It's probable that a lot of instrument pilots do not know this.
>
> Let's pick nits...
> Is it
> Height Above Aerodrome?
> or
> Height Above Threshhold?

My point wasn't nitpicking. My point was that at 3 miles out there could be
a little hill that reduces the 766 to less. This becomes very significant
when there are hills on the approach and you think you're at 2000' AGL e.g.
4000 (2000) when actual AGL is significantly less. By saying "airport
elevation" I wasn't picking nits, just being correct since it was a circling
approach.

Hilton

[John Clonts]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:bphub.176041$9E1.917544@attbi_s52...
> When you are cleared for the VOR-A you are expected to fly the
> profile....fly at the MDA and not a foot lower to the missed approach
point
> or until you see the runway environment as defined in 91.175.

So, once I saw the runway environment (and kept it in sight), I was ok to
descend a hundred feet, fly a couple more miles, fly the pattern, and land,
right?

When you see
> the airport, you should real quick ask for a contact approach...then you
can
> follow ground reference and altitude is not a factor.
>

Or (if I had been in class G, below 700' agl) cancel IFR "real quick"? Does
ATC have to hear me and respond, or is my call "into the blind" sufficient?


Thanks!
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[John Clonts]

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> news:WMrub.236755$Tr4.696922@attbi_s03...
> >
> >
> > Bob Gardner wrote:
> >
> > > When you are cleared for the VOR-A you are expected to fly the
> > > profile....fly at the MDA and not a foot lower to the missed approach
> point
> > > or until you see the runway environment as defined in 91.175. When you
> see
> > > the airport, you should real quick ask for a contact approach...then
you
> can
> > > follow ground reference and altitude is not a factor.
> >
> > Ah, bull****. He had the runway in sight, descended and landed. What's
> > the problem?
>
> It depends on the missing information in the phrase:
>
> > I descend 166 feet and am able to remain just under the cloud deck
>
> John, if this had actually happened, could you see the runway all the time
> during that descent?
>

Yes i did. And then flew the pattern and landed, with the runway clearly in
sight at all times.

Thanks!
John

[John Clonts]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> John Clonts wrote:
> > I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
> > (Fredericksburg Texas):
> >
> > http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/T82_vd_gA.pdf
> >
> > At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766
> AGL"),
>
> This was (one of) your (almost) fatal mistake. At 2460' and 3 miles out,
> you probably were not at 766 AGL. The 766 you see is NOT AGL as you would
> first think. The 766' is the altitude above the airport elevation (for a
> circling approach). Note that 1694 + 766 = 2460.
>

I did realize this. In fact that's why I put quotation marks around the
"766 AGL". Maybe I should have written it: 766 "AGL".

Thanks for your reply though.

The gist of my question involves either or both of these aspects:

1) Does "having the runway environment in sight...make a normal landing"
in 91.175 mean its ok to descend below MDA, fly a couple more miles to the
airport and then fly the pattern (circle to land), as long as the runway is
still in sight.

2) Once I get to class G airspace on my approach and am clear of clouds in
>1 mi vis, can I then descend below MDA by doing something like declaring
myself visual, contact, or canceled IFR.

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

[Marco Leon]

I thought the whole reason for a steep-as-reasonable descent profile during
a non-precision approach was so that if the airport/runway environment is in
sight before the MAP, you can take advantage of it and land. If you are
forced to fly not a foot lower to the missed, then therefore you can not
take advantage of the early sighting of the airport. In other words, after
arriving at the MDA and you have the runway environment in sight AND you see
you're about to enter the cloud bases again, then you therefore "must" enter
the cloud bases because you're not at the MAP yet? Then the only way to
descend is to request and get cleared for a Contact Approach?

I may be misunderstanding the situation but that's how I read your
explanation. It would seem to me that Contact Approaches would be much more
common than they are and I'd read about them more often in the various IFR
mags that I read.

Regards,

Marco


"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:bphub.176041$9E1.917544@attbi_s52...
> When you are cleared for the VOR-A you are expected to fly the
> profile....fly at the MDA and not a foot lower to the missed approach
point
> or until you see the runway environment as defined in 91.175. When you see
> the airport, you should real quick ask for a contact approach...then you
can
> follow ground reference and altitude is not a factor.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "John Clonts" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
> > (Fredericksburg Texas):
> >
> > http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/T82_vd_gA.pdf
> >
> > At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766
> AGL"),
> > mostly in a 700 foot overcast. Through a break in the clouds I clearly
> see
> > the airport-- the visibility is about 7 miles.
> >
> > I descend 166 feet and am able to remain just under the cloud deck for
the
> > final three miles, fly the right hand pattern for runway 14 at 600 AGL,
> and
> > land.
> >
> > Was my descent to about 600 AGL (a) illegal because of 91.175c and/or
some
> > other FAR, or (b) legal because I have now in effect "converted" to a
> visual
> > approach and/or am now in uncontrolled airspace (>1 mile vis and clear
of
> > clouds).
> >
> > Mind you I'm not saying I did this last Tuesday, but I might have
thought
> > about it if the conditions had been just so. :)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > John Clonts
> > Temple, Texas
> > N7NZ
> >
> >
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[John Clonts]

"JimBob" > wrote in message
om...
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:<bphub.176041$9E1.917544@attbi_s52>...
> > When you are cleared for the VOR-A you are expected to fly the
> > profile....fly at the MDA and not a foot lower to the missed approach
point
> > or until you see the runway environment as defined in 91.175. When you
see
> > the airport, you should real quick ask for a contact approach...then you
can
> > follow ground reference and altitude is not a factor.
> >
> > Bob Gardner
> >
> > "John Clonts" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
> > > (Fredericksburg Texas):
> > >
> > >
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/T82_vd_gA.pdf
> > >
> > > At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766
> > AGL"),
> > > mostly in a 700 foot overcast. Through a break in the clouds I
clearly
> > see
> > > the airport-- the visibility is about 7 miles.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > John Clonts
> > > Temple, Texas
> > > N7NZ
>
>
> The caviat here is you need to see the runway environment to be
> allowed to descend, not just the airport.

Yes, I did. (Not much to this airport other than the runway!)

Thanks!
John

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
> (Fredericksburg Texas):
>
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/T82_vd_gA.pdf
>
> At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766
AGL"),
> mostly in a 700 foot overcast. Through a break in the clouds I clearly
see
> the airport-- the visibility is about 7 miles.
>
> I descend 166 feet and am able to remain just under the cloud deck for the
> final three miles, fly the right hand pattern for runway 14 at 600 AGL,
and
> land.
>
> Was my descent to about 600 AGL (a) illegal because of 91.175c and/or some
> other FAR,
>

By "clearly see the airport" I assume you mean the runway, as that is about
the only item in FAR 91.175(c)(3) that would seem applicable to your
scenario. If you had it in sight prior to descending below the MDA and
while you were operating below the MDA you're in compliance with FAR
91.175(c).


>
> or (b) legal because I have now in effect "converted" to a visual
> approach and/or am now in uncontrolled airspace (>1 mile vis and clear of
> clouds).
>

Not sure what you're getting at here. A visual approach is an IFR procedure
and clearance for the VOR/DME approach does not authorize a visual approach.
You can of course cancel IFR whenever you're in VFR conditions and proceed
VFR to the field.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:bphub.176041$9E1.917544@attbi_s52...
>
> When you are cleared for the VOR-A you are expected to fly the
> profile....fly at the MDA and not a foot lower to the missed approach
point
> or until you see the runway environment as defined in 91.175. When you see
> the airport, you should real quick ask for a contact approach...then you
can
> follow ground reference and altitude is not a factor.
>

There isn't much to this airport other than the "runway environment". If
you have the runway environment in sight you can descend below the MDA and
there's no reason to ask for a contact approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Hilton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> This was (one of) your (almost) fatal mistake. At 2460' and 3 miles out,
> you probably were not at 766 AGL. The 766 you see is NOT AGL as you would
> first think. The 766' is the altitude above the airport elevation (for a
> circling approach). Note that 1694 + 766 = 2460.
>
> It's probable that a lot of instrument pilots do not know this.
>

In this case he was probably more than 766 AGL. The FAF IBAVE is right on
the river, which is probably the lowest terrain nearby.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> 1. You cannot roll your own visual approach. You must have a clearance
and the
> weather conditions must permit it, as per the guidance in the AIM.
>
> 2. What you did is more like a contact approach, which is different from a
> visual approach, both, the distinctions of which are well documented and
should
> be part of your instrument pilot knowledge base.
>
> 3. Eventually, such early departures from the IAP not only violate 91.175,
they
> can eventually result in clipping a hilltop, tree, or tower.
>

Nothing in his statement suggests he departed from the IAP.

[David Brooks]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> news:bphub.176041$9E1.917544@attbi_s52...
> > When you are cleared for the VOR-A you are expected to fly the
> > profile....fly at the MDA and not a foot lower to the missed approach
> point
> > or until you see the runway environment as defined in 91.175.
>
> So, once I saw the runway environment (and kept it in sight), I was ok to
> descend a hundred feet, fly a couple more miles, fly the pattern, and
land,
> right?

Well, there is one little thing in 91.175:
> at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers

Of course the word normal has to be interpreted. If scud-running is a normal
maneuver for you, then it was probably OK. Er, would have been OK, if it had
happened. I suspect the phrase is intended to discourage abnormally
aggressive descent and/or turns.

-- David Brooks

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Height Above Airport is based on the highest terrain point on the airport.
>

Not quite. Height Above Airport is based on the highest point on an
airport's usable runways. There may be higher points on ramps or taxiways.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"JimBob" > wrote in message
om...
>
> The caviat here is you need to see the runway environment to be
> allowed to descend, not just the airport.
>

True, but in this case there isn't much to the airport that is not runway
environment.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Well, for starters, he entered the pattern for a Runway, which sounds like
> circle-to-land to me.
>

Imagine that. Circle-to-land on a VOR-A approach.


>
> There are some pretty specific referenes as to what you
> can, and cannot do, in flying a circle-to-land.
>

What are they?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> So, once I saw the runway environment (and kept it in sight), I was ok to
> descend a hundred feet, fly a couple more miles, fly the pattern, and
land,
> right?
>

Right.


>
> Or (if I had been in class G, below 700' agl) cancel IFR "real quick"?
Does
> ATC have to hear me and respond, or is my call "into the blind"
sufficient?
>

If you have the runway in sight you don't need to cancel or request a
contact approach.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> The gist of my question involves either or both of these aspects:
>
> 1) Does "having the runway environment in sight...make a normal landing"
> in 91.175 mean its ok to descend below MDA, fly a couple more miles to the
> airport and then fly the pattern (circle to land), as long as the runway
is
> still in sight.
>

Yes.


>
> 2) Once I get to class G airspace on my approach and am clear of clouds
in
> 1 mi vis, can I then descend below MDA by doing something like declaring
> myself visual, contact, or canceled IFR.
>

No, you do not get to Class G airspace at any point at or above the MDA.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
...
>
>I thought the whole reason for a steep-as-reasonable descent profile during
> a non-precision approach was so that if the airport/runway environment is
in
> sight before the MAP, you can take advantage of it and land. If you are
> forced to fly not a foot lower to the missed, then therefore you can not
> take advantage of the early sighting of the airport. In other words, after
> arriving at the MDA and you have the runway environment in sight AND you
see
> you're about to enter the cloud bases again, then you therefore "must"
enter
> the cloud bases because you're not at the MAP yet?
>

No, you may descend below the MDA upon sighting the runway environment.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Well, for starters, he entered the pattern for a Runway, which sounds like
> > circle-to-land to me.
> >
>
> Imagine that. Circle-to-land on a VOR-A approach.
>
> >
> > There are some pretty specific referenes as to what you
> > can, and cannot do, in flying a circle-to-land.
> >
>
> What are they?

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Well, for starters, he entered the pattern for a Runway, which sounds like
> > circle-to-land to me.
> >
>
> Imagine that. Circle-to-land on a VOR-A approach.

Your usual fine observations aside, as you well know some IAPs with
circling-only minimums are aligned exactly with a runway but don't have
straight-in minimums because of descent gradient requirements. Usually, that
type of "alpha" approach triggers the landing requirements of 91.175 rather than
the circle-to-land requirements of 91.175.

In this case, he stated he "entered the pattern."

>
>
> >
> > There are some pretty specific referenes as to what you
> > can, and cannot do, in flying a circle-to-land.
> >
>
> What are they?

They are set forth in 91.175 as you well know.

[Matthew Waugh]

"Marco Leon" <mleon(at)optonline.net> wrote in message
...
> I thought the whole reason for a steep-as-reasonable descent profile
during
> a non-precision approach was so that if the airport/runway environment is
in
> sight before the MAP, you can take advantage of it and land. If you are
> forced to fly not a foot lower to the missed, then therefore you can not
> take advantage of the early sighting of the airport. In other words, after
> arriving at the MDA and you have the runway environment in sight AND you
see
> you're about to enter the cloud bases again, then you therefore "must"
enter
> the cloud bases because you're not at the MAP yet? Then the only way to
> descend is to request and get cleared for a Contact Approach?

Check out 91.175(b)(1). It all depends on your interpretation of "normal
rate of descent" and "normal maneuvers." Only you know if you're making
normal flight maneuvers or "ducking under" and the only way we'll know if
you were ducking under is if somebody peels you off the side of a hill.

Mat

--
Matthew Waugh
Comm. SEL MEL, CFI-AI
http://home.nc.rr.com/mwaugh/learn2fly/index.htm

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

"John Clonts" writes:

> [...] 1) Does "having the runway environment in sight...make a
> normal landing" in 91.175 mean its ok to descend below MDA, fly a
> couple more miles to the airport and then fly the pattern (circle to
> land), as long as the runway is still in sight. [...]

One thing that troubles me about this is your reference to
circling-to-land. Up here in Canada, the IFR rules say that a descent
from the MDA for circling can only be done at the "final descent for
landing" - basically for the final approach. (I believe there is a
similar restriction for straight-in landings too.)

Look at it another way. If there was no prohibition against
descending below the MDA in this circumstance, what would keep a pilot
from going to 100 AGL at the earliest hole through the clouds, and
skirting the ground all the way to the airport? You are obviously
leaving all the IAP obstruction clearance margins, but are not making
that explicit by requesting a contact approach. That doesn't sound
right.

- FChE

[Kobra]

> If you have the runway in sight you don't need to cancel or request a
> contact approach

Steve,

If this ap is a non-towered ap then he would have been allowed to change
freq to CTAF once cleared for the approach. Once he was assured a landing
or after he was on the ground I think he'd have to tune back to approach
control and cancel IFR with ATC.

Kobra

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
>
> If this ap is a non-towered ap then he would have been allowed to change
> freq to CTAF once cleared for the approach. Once he was assured a landing
> or after he was on the ground I think he'd have to tune back to approach
> control and cancel IFR with ATC.
>

Or via phone call to FSS, but what's your point?

[John Clonts]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "John Clonts" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The gist of my question involves either or both of these aspects:
> >
> > 1) Does "having the runway environment in sight...make a normal
landing"
> > in 91.175 mean its ok to descend below MDA, fly a couple more miles to
the
> > airport and then fly the pattern (circle to land), as long as the runway
> is
> > still in sight.
> >
>
> Yes.
>

Thanks, this is as I hoped. Somewhere along the way I had picked up a
suspicion that I couldn't legally descend from MDA until aligned with the
runway.
>
> >
> > 2) Once I get to class G airspace on my approach and am clear of
clouds
> in
> > 1 mi vis, can I then descend below MDA by doing something like declaring
> > myself visual, contact, or canceled IFR.
> >
>
> No, you do not get to Class G airspace at any point at or above the MDA.
>
>

Ok, if not on this particular example, let's say it was
http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/BWD_vr17.pdf
where MDA is 434 haa/hat, and class G up to 700? Do any new options open
up to me once I descend out of controlled airspace at 700 agl, clear of
clouds and >1 mi vis? E.g. I could cancel IFR at that point...

Thanks again,
John

[J Haggerty]

On a circling approach, it's always Height Above Airport (HAA)

EDR wrote:
> In article et>,
> Hilton > wrote:
>
>
>>John Clonts wrote:
>>
>>>I'm inbound on the final approach segment of the VOR-A approach at T82
>>>(Fredericksburg Texas):
>>>
>>>http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/T82_vd_gA.pdf
>>>
>>>At about 3 miles east of the airport I'm at the MDA of 2460 MSL ("766
>>
>>AGL"),
>>
>>This was (one of) your (almost) fatal mistake. At 2460' and 3 miles out,
>>you probably were not at 766 AGL. The 766 you see is NOT AGL as you would
>>first think. The 766' is the altitude above the airport elevation (for a
>>circling approach). Note that 1694 + 766 = 2460.
>>
>>It's probable that a lot of instrument pilots do not know this.
>
>
> Let's pick nits...
> Is it
> Height Above Aerodrome?
> or
> Height Above Threshhold?

[Kobra]

> Or via phone call to FSS, but what's your point?
>
Hmmm....I just re-read your post and I thought you were stating that he
would not have to cancel *IFR*. Now that I read closer I see you were
referring to a *contact approach*.

What's my point? I'm a lousy reader.

Kobra

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kobra" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hmmm....I just re-read your post and I thought you were stating that he
> would not have to cancel *IFR*. Now that I read closer I see you were
> referring to a *contact approach*.
>
> What's my point? I'm a lousy reader.
>

I was saying he wouldn't have to cancel IFR or request a contact approach in
order to descend from the MDA if he had the runway in sight. Of course he
would still have to cancel his IFR clearance eventually.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ok, if not on this particular example, let's say it was
> http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/SouthCentral/BWD_vr17.pdf
> where MDA is 434 haa/hat, and class G up to 700? Do any new options open
> up to me once I descend out of controlled airspace at 700 agl, clear of
> clouds and >1 mi vis? E.g. I could cancel IFR at that point...
>

Yes, on this approach you enter Class G airspace before reaching the MDA.

[Marco Leon]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message ...
>
> No, you may descend below the MDA upon sighting the runway environment.

That's what I thought and was instructed to do.



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[Dave Butler]

John Clonts wrote:

<snip>

> Somewhere along the way I had picked up a
> suspicion that I couldn't legally descend from MDA until aligned with the
> runway.

I've seen this recommended as a conservative rule to keep yourself safe on a
circling approach, but it's not regulatory. On some approaches it will be just
about impossible. You'll find that in order to descend using "normal" maneuvers
you'll need to start your descent before alignment with the runway.

Consider what happens if you are circling with visibility near the minimum for
the approach and don't descend from MDA until you are aligned. Will you be able
to get down?

OTOH, whenever you decide to descend below MDA, you are giving up the obstacle
protection that the approach designers built in, and substituting your own
visual obstacle avoidance. It's a tradeoff.

<snip>

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply directly

[Michael]

"John Clonts" > wrote
> Thanks, this is as I hoped. Somewhere along the way I had picked up a
> suspicion that I couldn't legally descend from MDA until aligned with the
> runway.

This is often taught as normal procedure but (1) it's not regulatory
and (2) on most circling approaches to minimums (meaning visibility
minimums) it's either dangerous or just plain unworkable.

Look at it this way - the visibility min on most circling approaches
is 1 sm. That means that in order to keep the runway in sight, you
can't ever get more than a mile from it. That means that your pattern
will be 3/4 mile wide, max, if you're not going to exceed 1 sm from
the runway when turning base. That means that when you turn final,
you have 3/4 of a mile to get down, max. On a 4 degree glideslope
(which is about the steepest I would recommend in low vis) that's 300
ft. On a 7 degree glideslope (which is normal power-off 10:1 glide
for a light single) that's barely over 500 ft. Circling minimums are
usually higher than 500 ft. Does that mean you're going to slip down
final with a mile of vis? Are you planning on trying this trick at
night too?

Personally, I recommend starting the descent early enough that you can
maintain a constant and comfortable 3 degree descent (about 500 fpm at
90 kts) all the way to touchdown.

When the sky is blue, it's no big deal to pull the power to idle, roll
into a maximum effort slip, get down, roll out just before the flare,
and put it on the numbers. Any reasonably competent VFR pilot should
be able to do it. When visibilities drop below 2 miles, especially at
night, with rain and mist, or both, it's really not a good idea. The
subtle visual cues that form the true basis for "seat of the pants"
flying are gone. As a rule of thumb, if you wouldn't maneuver that
way in IMC, don't do it when the vis is less than 2 miles.

> > > 2) Once I get to class G airspace on my approach and am clear of
> clouds
> in
> > > 1 mi vis, can I then descend below MDA by doing something like declaring
> > > myself visual, contact, or canceled IFR.

If you are actually in Class G and have 1 mile and clear of clouds,
you can cancel IFR. IMO this is a suboptimal procedure.

For example, suppose that an airplane is holding for release. The
moment you cancel IFR, the controller will release it. If you are
operating at low altitude in minimum visibility near the airport, do
you really want company?

A visual approach requires VFR minimums to be issued. I believe you
need 3 miles of visibility for that.

A contact approach is fine with 1 mile and clear of clouds, and can be
issued in controlled airspace. However, if you can see the runway,
you don't need a contact approach. On the other hand, if you can't
see the runway but can see the ground, are familiar with the area,
know where you are, and are confident you can fly to the airport
visually while remaining clear of clouds and maintaining 1 mile flight
visibility, a contact approach is the way to go.

Michael

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Your usual fine observations aside, as you well know some IAPs with
> circling-only minimums are aligned exactly with a runway but don't have
> straight-in minimums because of descent gradient requirements.
>

This ain't one of 'em.


>
> They are set forth in 91.175 as you well know.
>

They? Hmmmm.... They, third-person plural pronoun, hmmmm...... I can find
only one reference to circle-to-land in FAR 91.175, and it doesn't apply
below the MDA.


§ 91.175 Takeoff and landing under IFR.

(e) Missed approach procedures. Each pilot operating an aircraft, except a
military aircraft of the United States, shall immediately execute an
appropriate missed approach procedure when either of the following
conditions exist:

(2) Whenever an identifiable part of the airport is not distinctly
visible
to the pilot during a circling maneuver at or above MDA, unless the
inability to see an identifiable part of the airport results only from a
normal bank of the aircraft during the circling approach.

[[email protected]]

I'm with you on this one Frank. On a circling or straight in
approach, I dont see how a pilot can descend below the mda, to 100 ft
above the airport, level off, and still claim he is "continuously" in
a position from which a descent can be made "at a normal rate". Who
"normally" makes a descent to land at less than, say, 2 1/2 degrees?
The far could be better worded, I admit. However, I've never seen
anyone descend at say 1 degree, which an early descent well prior to a
VDP would entail.

91.175(c)Operation below DH or MDA. Where a DH or MDA is applicable,
no pilot may operate an aircraft ... at any airport below the
authorized MDA ... unless

(1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to
a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of
descent using normal maneuvers...

my ramblings, Stan




On 18 Nov 2003 16:47:32 -0500, (Frank Ch. Eigler)
wrote:

>
>"John Clonts" writes:
>
>> [...] 1) Does "having the runway environment in sight...make a
>> normal landing" in 91.175 mean its ok to descend below MDA, fly a
>> couple more miles to the airport and then fly the pattern (circle to
>> land), as long as the runway is still in sight. [...]
>
>One thing that troubles me about this is your reference to
>circling-to-land. Up here in Canada, the IFR rules say that a descent
>from the MDA for circling can only be done at the "final descent for
>landing" - basically for the final approach. (I believe there is a
>similar restriction for straight-in landings too.)
>
>Look at it another way. If there was no prohibition against
>descending below the MDA in this circumstance, what would keep a pilot
>from going to 100 AGL at the earliest hole through the clouds, and
>skirting the ground all the way to the airport? You are obviously
>leaving all the IAP obstruction clearance margins, but are not making
>that explicit by requesting a contact approach. That doesn't sound
>right.
>
>- FChE

[John Clonts]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "John Clonts" > wrote
> > Thanks, this is as I hoped. Somewhere along the way I had picked up a
> > suspicion that I couldn't legally descend from MDA until aligned with
the
> > runway.
>
> This is often taught as normal procedure but (1) it's not regulatory
> and (2) on most circling approaches to minimums (meaning visibility
> minimums) it's either dangerous or just plain unworkable.
>
> Look at it this way - the visibility min on most circling approaches
> is 1 sm. That means that in order to keep the runway in sight, you
> can't ever get more than a mile from it. That means that your pattern
> will be 3/4 mile wide, max, if you're not going to exceed 1 sm from
> the runway when turning base. That means that when you turn final,
> you have 3/4 of a mile to get down, max. On a 4 degree glideslope
> (which is about the steepest I would recommend in low vis) that's 300
> ft. On a 7 degree glideslope (which is normal power-off 10:1 glide
> for a light single) that's barely over 500 ft. Circling minimums are
> usually higher than 500 ft. Does that mean you're going to slip down
> final with a mile of vis? Are you planning on trying this trick at
> night too?
>
> Personally, I recommend starting the descent early enough that you can
> maintain a constant and comfortable 3 degree descent (about 500 fpm at
> 90 kts) all the way to touchdown.
>
> When the sky is blue, it's no big deal to pull the power to idle, roll
> into a maximum effort slip, get down, roll out just before the flare,
> and put it on the numbers. Any reasonably competent VFR pilot should
> be able to do it. When visibilities drop below 2 miles, especially at
> night, with rain and mist, or both, it's really not a good idea. The
> subtle visual cues that form the true basis for "seat of the pants"
> flying are gone. As a rule of thumb, if you wouldn't maneuver that
> way in IMC, don't do it when the vis is less than 2 miles.
>
> > > > 2) Once I get to class G airspace on my approach and am clear of
> > clouds
> > in
> > > > 1 mi vis, can I then descend below MDA by doing something like
declaring
> > > > myself visual, contact, or canceled IFR.
>
> If you are actually in Class G and have 1 mile and clear of clouds,
> you can cancel IFR. IMO this is a suboptimal procedure.
>
> For example, suppose that an airplane is holding for release. The
> moment you cancel IFR, the controller will release it. If you are
> operating at low altitude in minimum visibility near the airport, do
> you really want company?
>
> A visual approach requires VFR minimums to be issued. I believe you
> need 3 miles of visibility for that.
>
> A contact approach is fine with 1 mile and clear of clouds, and can be
> issued in controlled airspace. However, if you can see the runway,
> you don't need a contact approach. On the other hand, if you can't
> see the runway but can see the ground, are familiar with the area,
> know where you are, and are confident you can fly to the airport
> visually while remaining clear of clouds and maintaining 1 mile flight
> visibility, a contact approach is the way to go.
>
> Michael

Excellent elaborations as usual, thanks!

John

[Snowbird]

"John Clonts" > wrote in message >...
> 1) Does "having the runway environment in sight...make a normal landing"
> in 91.175 mean its ok to descend below MDA, fly a couple more miles to the
> airport and then fly the pattern (circle to land), as long as the runway is
> still in sight.

FWIW, that's my understanding. If you have the vis and you have the
runway environment clearly in sight. Just realize that circling is
tricky, and descending then circling doesn't make it less tricky.
Also, if the cloud deck is ragged and you lose the airport, what's
your plan for how low you will go to stay visual? The "MDA"
gives you a firm floor until you have the airport and the vis.
Once you start your descent, if you're far enough from the airport
that you might realistically lose it if conditions change a mite,
what's your personal "floor" and how did you choose it?

> 2) Once I get to class G airspace on my approach and am clear of clouds in
> >1 mi vis, can I then descend below MDA by doing something like declaring
> myself visual, contact, or canceled IFR.

Personally, if you have to descend below MDA to stay visual I
think I would vote for "none of the above". What if the cloud
deck is ragged and something rolls in, you have to go missed?
What if there's someone else waiting for the same approach? Or
another IFR waiting to be released?

I don't see what a contact approach gains you.

For visual approach you need 3 miles vis.

FWIW,
Sydney

[Kobra]

> A visual approach requires VFR minimums to be issued. I believe you
> need 3 miles of visibility for that.

I think it depends on your AGL altitude. If you're below 1200' AGL outside
any magenta circles you only need 1mile vis. and inside the magenta circle
you would have to be below 700' AGL and only need 1 mile vis. If it was a
class E surface area then you would need 3 miles vis. to get in VFR. I
think.

Kobra


>
> A contact approach is fine with 1 mile and clear of clouds, and can be
> issued in controlled airspace. However, if you can see the runway,
> you don't need a contact approach. On the other hand, if you can't
> see the runway but can see the ground, are familiar with the area,
> know where you are, and are confident you can fly to the airport
> visually while remaining clear of clouds and maintaining 1 mile flight
> visibility, a contact approach is the way to go.
>
> Michael