On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 23:20:54 GMT, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Why are you concerned about losing the runway environment should visibility
be lower then VFR minimums if you're already assuming IFR conditions? If a
900' ceiling makes it IFR conditions we're talking about a Class E surface
area.

Hi Steven,

I am very new to this IFR stuff so bear with me....

I was told that on a VOR A type approach or circle to land, that once you
identify the runway environment, you must remain in visual contact.

Once you lose sight of the runway environment, I was told you must execute
a missed approach. Even though I may be in class E space, I must maintain
visual contact with the runway environement to land. Thus my position to
overfly the airport and always to keep it in my sight.

If I was to extend my downwind or an extended final to such where I lose
contact with the runway (as proposed by the original poster, a five mile
final), then missed approach would be appropriate especially if you are
coming into an airport without nav aids such as a localizer or ILS.

I am based in MBO (Madison MS) and runway 17/35 does not have any nav aids
for landing other then the VOR A or B approach.

In my instrument training, I have landed at minimums at MBO with my
instructor, and I sure was glad to experience it with a CFI on board!
Coming in at minimums makes for a VERY TIGHT pattern.

The poster subsequently did post that what should be done under VFR
conditions.

Hope this makes sense.

Allen