approaches to private fields?

Sec. 91.177

Minimum altitudes for IFR operations.

(a) Operation of aircraft at minimum altitudes. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft under IFR below--

If you land on something that is not an airport, e.g. the 'hay field' that conveniently runs next to your 'machine shed', 91.175 doesn't apply either.

So descent below the MIA in IMC is okay as long as the landing site is not an airport?

If you are located somewhere in the land of 'high class G', you could go off airway, cancel IFR and find your way to your little field without goverment approved help.
Not in that order.
 
Last edited:
Hard to land without losing altitude. I don't know too many MRA/MEA/MOCAs at 0AGL.

You have an amazing grasp of the obvious. Why is it important to lose altitude without being out of radar contact for any longer than necessary?
 
You have an amazing grasp of the obvious. Why is it important to lose altitude without being out of radar contact for any longer than necessary?

Just to clear up airspace. Not that there is a lot of traffic up there, but a V does run within 4nm of the field, and it wouldn't be out of the question for it to take 30 minutes or more to be able to cancel after on the ground. The pay phone may or may not work, and cell service is almost non-existent.
 
Just to clear up airspace. Not that there is a lot of traffic up there, but a V does run within 4nm of the field, and it wouldn't be out of the question for it to take 30 minutes or more to be able to cancel after on the ground. The pay phone may or may not work, and cell service is almost non-existent.

If your approach takes you below the min Alt of the victor airway, and the missed would take you to some hold point, why would a no-radar approach lock down the victor airway?? I can understand holding the airspace for the approach and missed. Your rationale, while well intentioned, doesn't make much sense.
 
If your approach takes you below the min Alt of the victor airway, and the missed would take you to some hold point, why would a no-radar approach lock down the victor airway?? I can understand holding the airspace for the approach and missed. Your rationale, while well intentioned, doesn't make much sense.

I *thought* and I could be wrong was that the airspace gets locked down until they have RADAR contact, or until the plane is verified on the ground. There are no assumptions that the plane is out of the air. But I don't have all that memorized.
 
I *thought* and I could be wrong was that the airspace gets locked down until they have RADAR contact, or until the plane is verified on the ground. There are no assumptions that the plane is out of the air. But I don't have all that memorized.

The APPROACH does. With regards to your assumptions regarding the approach you are on the right track. The victor airways are not the approach.

If I'm on the victor airway and you descend 500 feet below me on your transition to the approach, we have separation.

If YOU go missed you fly to your MAP and you get reassimilated into the enroute structure with or without radar contact. The world around you carries on without incident, unless they are holding for the approach (or airspace impacted by that approach) to open back up.
 
Most GPSs let you manually select sensitivity. For example, on my KLN94, I select 1.0 NM instead of 5.0 NM for en-route, because I like it better and it works better with my autopilot. The Garmin 530 I let stick to automatic.

In both cases, when you select an approach, it automatically goes to approach mode and scales down as appropriate.

My understanding is that the private approach will be included in the GPS database. For example, Heavens Landing (GE99), a private airport with a RNAV GPS approach they paid for, is in the Garmin database, but the approach charts are numbered and strictly controlled. So, the approach is in the database for everyone and if you have the chart, you will know the rest of the story.
 
The APPROACH does. With regards to your assumptions regarding the approach you are on the right track. The victor airways are not the approach.

If I'm on the victor airway and you descend 500 feet below me on your transition to the approach, we have separation.

If YOU go missed you fly to your MAP and you get reassimilated into the enroute structure with or without radar contact. The world around you carries on without incident, unless they are holding for the approach (or airspace impacted by that approach) to open back up.

I am just assuming that since I'm so close to the victor, I could in theory pop back up on the scope and cause a lack of separation. There is also another intersecting victor that may be affected as well.
 
If your approach takes you below the min Alt of the victor airway, and the missed would take you to some hold point, why would a no-radar approach lock down the victor airway?? I can understand holding the airspace for the approach and missed. Your rationale, while well intentioned, doesn't make much sense.

The IAP and airway would have to overlap, but it would only "lock down" the airway from 1000' above the missed approach hold altitude and below.
 
I *thought* and I could be wrong was that the airspace gets locked down until they have RADAR contact, or until the plane is verified on the ground. There are no assumptions that the plane is out of the air. But I don't have all that memorized.

Nonradar separation procedures could be used.
 
The APPROACH does. With regards to your assumptions regarding the approach you are on the right track. The victor airways are not the approach.

If I'm on the victor airway and you descend 500 feet below me on your transition to the approach, we have separation.

Minimum vertical separation is 1000 feet.
 
Is there any way to have a private airport with an instrument approach? If so, how would that get set up?

Legal or Roll Your Own? There is a way to do it legally for sure, even unpublished. I've flown into a few private communities that had published and unpublished approaches. I had a "roll your own" VOR/GPS cross referencing approach in Class G to get into my ranch back then. It would safely get me to 300' AGL over a known high visibility reference point (Porn Shop/Truck Stop with bright flashing lights, can't buy a beer but we got 3 Porn Shops...) 6 miles down a major highway to a landmarked turn to a 2 mile final. The path is basically unobstructed above 50' agl.

There would be maybe 10 days a year where this would fail to get me in.
 
Unless the guy is a trained TERPs designer and has a way to modify the database too include the approach (he would have to be a Garmin engineer as well, at least for RNAV) the approach most certainly does not meet any of the requirements of a legal approach.

Then there is:

1. VFR weather violations
2. Minimum safe altitude violations
3. Airspace violations
4. 91.175 violations

If the feds catch such an arrogant idiot he should be shot at sunrise.

They ain't lookin dude... We all know it's not legal, fine. That does not necessarily make it unsafe. There are huge parts of this country that are flat and sparsely obstructed. We don't really have to concern ourselves with minimum clearances because we can enter values of "infinity". I fly at the lowest IFR altitude to the IAF I created on the V-Airway, ask if he has any traffic near me, cancel my IFR and descend into G airspace. I've already called my wife and got the altimeter and ceiling. I have a missed approach that has me in safe terrain in G until I can get back with ATC and on the Airway to an ILS. Some places it's safe to do, other places it's not.
 
That's legal. Safe? May or may not be. If constructed carefully it probably would be safe as well.
I don't think this one was very safe. It was a 2 mile leg that you timed based on how long it took you under different, not very well controlled conditions. At 60 kts, that's 2 minutes +- at least 5 seconds. So to really give yourself a safety buffer, you have to add a few seconds to your time. But from the power line to the approach end of the runway is about 1500 feet, or 15 seconds at 60 kts. Wait 5 seconds too long before starting down and you're slipping it in unless you have a strong headwind (unusual at night).

I'm too lazy right now to do the math to verify that all that works out, but that was my experience flying it visually in daylight. Basically if I was going to use that runway at night I'd wait until I was practically over the threshold and slip it in. Usually I just landed the other way at night, even if it meant a slightly downwind landing.
 
My understanding is that the private approach will be included in the GPS database. For example, Heavens Landing (GE99), a private airport with a RNAV GPS approach they paid for, is in the Garmin database, but the approach charts are numbered and strictly controlled. So, the approach is in the database for everyone and if you have the chart, you will know the rest of the story.

This is referring to a Roll-Your-Own approach, i.e. doing your 5 nm leg GPS approach. In that case, it would not be in the database. You would have to manually input the waypoints.

In the case of the private field that has a paid for legal GPS approach, that is another matter.
 
Minimum vertical separation is 1000 feet.

IFR altitudes are 1000 ft apart. VFR aircraft cruising altitudes are interspersed between the IFR ones. If you are at 6000 ft and I'm VFR at 5500, we are separated wether we see each other or not.
 
IFR altitudes are 1000 ft apart. VFR aircraft cruising altitudes are interspersed between the IFR ones. If you are at 6000 ft and I'm VFR at 5500, we are separated wether we see each other or not.

True, but irrelevant to this discussion.
 
How is it irrelevant?

Because the issuance of an approach clearance wouldn't "lock down" the Victor airways (or the additional Class E airspace that would have to be established to contain the IAP) to VFR operations. Separation would be an issue only between IFR aircraft.
 
Back
Top