"Going for the Visual"

Is it the norm if ceilings are above MSA?


The MSA has little to do with it. The MSA is an emergency altitude with
no regulatory meaning (at least in the US). What's important is that
you've got the weather minimums for a visual approach (1000 & 3) and
that ATC can issue you a clearance to descend low enough that you can
see the airport (or the aircraft you're following).

OK. It just happened, in this case, that ATC was able to let us go down
to what was coincidentally that MSA for the area.

So, my question becomes, at what point do you abort the attempt to go
visual and transition to an IFR approach. Say, you have a GPS and ATC
cleared you down to 2000 ft AGL and you are 10 miles from the airport.
Do you continue at that altitude to the airport until you are right on
top of it (controller permitting), notice that you are still not out of
the clouds, and then ask for an IFR approach at that point? Just trying
to see how the transition from "going for visual" to "err, no can
do...need an instrument" happens. Does the controller force the
decision at some distance out?

-Sami

In article ,
"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:
So, my question becomes, at what point do you abort the attempt to go
visual and transition to an IFR approach.

If you get as low as the controller can get you and you still can't see
the airport. Just say something like, "negative contact, request ILS"
and the controller will give you a new clearance for the instrument
approach.

Say, you have a GPS and ATC
cleared you down to 2000 ft AGL and you are 10 miles from the airport.
Do you continue at that altitude to the airport until you are right on
top of it (controller permitting), notice that you are still not out of
the clouds, and then ask for an IFR approach at that point?

That sounds like one reasonable way of doing it. Of course, it pays to
get whatever weather info is available. If there's an AWOS/ASOS that's
reporting 1500 overcast and the controller says he can only get you down
to 2000, there's not much point.

Just trying
to see how the transition from "going for visual" to "err, no can
do...need an instrument" happens. Does the controller force the
decision at some distance out?

It's not the job of the controller to tell you what to do. You make
requests and as long as he's able to, he'll issue you clearances.

If you're north of the airport and instrument approach is the ILS-36,
you've got to go over the top of the airport to get to the appoach.
Assuming no conflicting traffic, you could ask the controller to vector
you onto downwind for 36 at the MIA to see if you can see the runway.
If you do, you can request the visual (or contact) right then and there.
If you don't see anything, you just keep going out to the IAF and fly
the approach normally.

On the other hand, if you're already pretty much lined up for an
instrument approach, you really don't gain anything by asking for a
visual.

O. Sami Saydjari wrote:



So, my question becomes, at what point do you abort the attempt to go
visual and transition to an IFR approach.

When you are over the airport and can't see it.


Say, you have a GPS and ATC
cleared you down to 2000 ft AGL and you are 10 miles from the airport.
Do you continue at that altitude to the airport until you are right on
top of it (controller permitting), notice that you are still not out of
the clouds, and then ask for an IFR approach at that point?

Yes.


Just trying
to see how the transition from "going for visual" to "err, no can
do...need an instrument" happens. Does the controller force the
decision at some distance out?

He may if there is other traffic. If you are the only one and therefore
aren't causing delays for anybody I'll drive you right to the airport,
if you call it in sight then you can have the visual, if not you'll do
an instrument approach.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote
OK. It just happened, in this case, that ATC was able to let us go down
to what was coincidentally that MSA for the area.

Right. The operational altitude is really MVA, which is not available
to you. It could be a lot lower. Right off, I can think of some
airports where it is 1400 ft lower, because the obstructions that
drive the MSA are over 20 miles from the airport.

So, my question becomes, at what point do you abort the attempt to go
visual and transition to an IFR approach.

That's your decision as PIC.

Say, you have a GPS and ATC
cleared you down to 2000 ft AGL and you are 10 miles from the airport.
Do you continue at that altitude to the airport until you are right on
top of it (controller permitting), notice that you are still not out of
the clouds, and then ask for an IFR approach at that point?

You could do that. Sometimes it even works. Cloud bases are often
ragged. Or you could tell him that you're still in solid IMC and need
the approach. Your call.

Just trying
to see how the transition from "going for visual" to "err, no can
do...need an instrument" happens. Does the controller force the
decision at some distance out?

That all depends on the MVA boundaries, traffic, etc. For example,
I'm familiar with one field where the MVA is 1700 MSL from one
direction, 2000 from another, and the dividing line seems to be about
a mile from the field. As a result, if you approach from the right
direction, you can get a descent to 1700 - but if you don't get the
airport in sight in a timely manner, you get a climb which essentially
destroys any chance of doing the visual.

In general, the controller will prefer you do the visual if he has a
preference at all - it's less work than vectoring you to final, ties
up less airspace, gets you out of his hair quicker, etc. The only
time a controller doesn't want you to do the visual is if he thinks
you won't get in.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
m...

Right. The operational altitude is really MVA, which is not available
to you.


Why would the MVA not be available to him?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote
Right. The operational altitude is really MVA, which is not available
to you.

Why would the MVA not be available to him?

Because AFAIK the MVA charts are not published anywhere pilots can get
them. I've seen some individual uncontrolled copies floating around,
but these are not really reliable because they have no expiration date
and changes are not NOTAM'd.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message
m...

Because AFAIK the MVA charts are not published anywhere pilots can get
them. I've seen some individual uncontrolled copies floating around,
but these are not really reliable because they have no expiration date
and changes are not NOTAM'd.


Okay. But you said the MVA was not available, not the MVA chart.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message ...

So, my question becomes, at what point do you abort the attempt to go
visual and transition to an IFR approach.

I know you're referring to a navaid-based approach, but to be clear, a
visual approach is also an IFR approach.

Just trying
to see how the transition from "going for visual" to "err, no can
do...need an instrument" happens.

You're going at it backwards.

You don't take a visual approach until you're sure you can find the
airport visually.

(Similarly, you don't cancel IFR to land at an uncontrolled field
until you're sure you can land in VMC.)

It's very unusual, and not a good idea, to accept or request a visual
approach if you're not already sure you can make it.

Brien K. Meehan wrote:


You're going at it backwards.

You don't take a visual approach until you're sure you can find the
airport visually.

You don't accept a visual until you can actually see the aiport. You
can be vectored for a visual because you don't yet see the airport but
reasonably expect you might if you can get closer.



It's very unusual, and not a good idea, to accept or request a visual
approach if you're not already sure you can make it.

No it's not. There's no reason to be sure you'll get the visual to
request to go have a look see at the MVA. If you see the airport then
you can have the visual, if you don't then you'll do another approach.

Newps wrote in message news:0jTdc.112869$K91.324392@attbi_s02...

You don't take a visual approach until you're sure you can find the
airport visually.

You don't accept a visual until you can actually see the aiport.

That constitutes being sure you can find it, UNLESS you can also see
that you won't be able to see the airport between "now" and the time
you land (e.g. you can see it through a hole in the overcast). Being
able to see the aiport isn't enough. You need to be sure you can find
it and land at it.

It's very unusual, and not a good idea, to accept or request a visual
approach if you're not already sure you can make it.

No it's not. There's no reason to be sure you'll get the visual to
request to go have a look see at the MVA.

Going lower is not the same as accepting a visual approach.