"Going for the Visual"

O. Sami Saydjari wrote:

A while back, I was with an experienced pilot, IMC, descending to land
at my home airport. The airport is not in an environment where ATC will
give vectors to final. As we approached, ATC asked which approach we
wanted. He said that he was "going for the visual." The ceilings were
right at the Minimum Safe altitude (MSA)--3000. I think ATC said that we
could descend to 3000 and report airport in sight.

Is this request of "going for the visual" usual?

Is it the norm if ceilings are above MSA?

MSA plays no role whatsoever in any altitude assigned by ATC. We don't
know or care what the MSA is. If you have to go by the airport to get
to where you would start an approach ask ATC to bring you down to the
MVA at the airport as you go by. If you see the airport you can get the
visual, if you're still in the clouds you're headed for the approach
anyways.

I have heard rumors for years that the feds were going to eliminate MSAs
because pilots persist in trying to make them part of IFR procedures. Hasn't
happened yet, and the misunderstanding is still around.

Bob Gardner

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...
A while back, I was with an experienced pilot, IMC, descending to land
at my home airport. The airport is not in an environment where ATC will
give vectors to final. As we approached, ATC asked which approach we
wanted. He said that he was "going for the visual." The ceilings were
right at the Minimum Safe altitude (MSA)--3000. I think ATC said that we
could descend to 3000 and report airport in sight.

Is this request of "going for the visual" usual?

Is it the norm if ceilings are above MSA?

-Sami
N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III

In article 7vDdc.810$nK1.8649@attbi_s54,
Bob Gardner wrote:
I have heard rumors for years that the feds were going to eliminate MSAs
because pilots persist in trying to make them part of IFR procedures. Hasn't
happened yet, and the misunderstanding is still around.

I've never really looked at them. I lump them in with information like
"200' unlit tower 2 miles from the airport". When it becomes a factor
I'm in much bigger trouble than a bit of obstruction info is going to
fix!

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"Bob Gardner" wrote in
news:7vDdc.810$nK1.8649@attbi_s54:

I have heard rumors for years that the feds were going to eliminate
MSAs because pilots persist in trying to make them part of IFR
procedures. Hasn't happened yet, and the misunderstanding is still
around.

Bob Gardner


I like the MSA because it gives me an idea of what the terrain is like.
We had this discussion before, but no one has given a good reason what
exactly is wrong with the MSA. It gives you 1000' obstacle clearance,
which is exactly what you need for IFR (except in mountainous areas).
Someone pointed out that MSA is not an IFR procedure because the AIM says
it is for emergency use only. Someone else said it was because MSA is not
measured to the same precision as other altitudes. Fine, but if the FAA
is going as far as eliminating it, there must be something more to this
than that. Has there ever been an accident or violation as a result of a
pilot using the MSA?

No way of knowing. If there had been an accident, a contributing factor
would be "improper IFR" with no details.

Bob Gardner

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
. 158...
"Bob Gardner" wrote in
news:7vDdc.810$nK1.8649@attbi_s54:

I have heard rumors for years that the feds were going to eliminate
MSAs because pilots persist in trying to make them part of IFR
procedures. Hasn't happened yet, and the misunderstanding is still
around.

Bob Gardner


I like the MSA because it gives me an idea of what the terrain is like.
We had this discussion before, but no one has given a good reason what
exactly is wrong with the MSA. It gives you 1000' obstacle clearance,
which is exactly what you need for IFR (except in mountainous areas).
Someone pointed out that MSA is not an IFR procedure because the AIM says
it is for emergency use only. Someone else said it was because MSA is not
measured to the same precision as other altitudes. Fine, but if the FAA
is going as far as eliminating it, there must be something more to this
than that. Has there ever been an accident or violation as a result of a
pilot using the MSA?

Alot of how it goes depends on the recent trends, are they getting in,
where are they cancelling, or are they cancelling after landing.
If they arent breaking out until 1,000' below our MIA (Minimum
IFR Altitude, similar to MVA, but not MSA), it's kind of pointless
to bother with a Visual.
If someone wants to try anyway, and if there's not a line of others
behind them, I'll let them try. But if they get right up on the airport
and then decide they want that ILS I suggested after all, it's the back
of the line.
Visuals are great, but make sure you can maintain visual with
the airport.
Chris

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote in message
...
A while back, I was with an experienced pilot, IMC, descending to land
at my home airport. The airport is not in an environment where ATC will
give vectors to final. As we approached, ATC asked which approach we
wanted. He said that he was "going for the visual." The ceilings were
right at the Minimum Safe altitude (MSA)--3000. I think ATC said that we
could descend to 3000 and report airport in sight.

Is this request of "going for the visual" usual?

Is it the norm if ceilings are above MSA?

-Sami
N2057M, Piper Turbo Arrow III