"Going for the Visual"

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 19:49:41 GMT, Newps wrote:

While the 1000/3 applies because you have to have VFR to get a visual
the ceiling needs to be higher than that because there are no MVA's that
are even as low as 1000 feet. So practically speaking the ceiling needs
to be higher than the MVA for that area.

It only has to be reported as 1000/3 at the airport, not at your present
position.


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

Ron Rosenfeld wrote in
:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 11:33:20 -0700, Jim Weir wrote:

I don't know about the rest of ye all, but the real world out here is
to be vectored as low as the controller can give you, get the airport
in sight, and "cancelling IFR". That way the 1000 & 3 does not apply.

Jim

Yes, but you have to maintain VMC, whereas on a visual approach under
IFR, that is not a requirement, so long as you maintain the field in
sight. In other words, you don't have to maintain VFR cloud clearance
requirements while enroute from your present position to the field.


Or you can have the preceding aircrat in sight.

On 10 Apr 2004 03:18:21 GMT, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

Or you can have the preceding aircrat in sight.

Exactly. IOW, you don't have to be in VMC.


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

"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.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 19:49:41 GMT, Newps wrote:


While the 1000/3 applies because you have to have VFR to get a visual
the ceiling needs to be higher than that because there are no MVA's that
are even as low as 1000 feet. So practically speaking the ceiling needs
to be higher than the MVA for that area.


It only has to be reported as 1000/3 at the airport, not at your present
position.

That's true but if the ceiling really is only 1000 you ain't gettin' in.

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:JfTdc.114206$JO3.80855@attbi_s04...

That's true but if the ceiling really is only 1000 you ain't gettin' in.


That's not necessarily true. A ceiling is the height above the surface of
the lowest layer of clouds or obscuring phenomenon that is reported as
broken, overcast, or obscuration. A broken layer covers 5/8 to 7/8 of the
sky, aircraft can sight the field with a broken layer at 1000 feet and be
cleared for a visual approach.

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 14:10:50 GMT, Newps wrote:

That's true but if the ceiling really is only 1000 you ain't gettin' in.

If you restrict the "ceiling" to "overcast" conditions, I would agree. But
that often is not the case.


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

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.

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.