roncachamp
Final Approach
To lose altitude without being out of RADAR contact for any longer than necessary?
Why is that important?
To lose altitude without being out of RADAR contact for any longer than necessary?
I guess this is the only way if as claimed before this was really a GPS-WAAS approach.I'm sure there is a mechanism to get the approach data included on your database update
I would be wasting my time with this group.
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.
Not in that order.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.
Why is that important?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is there any way to have a private airport with an instrument approach? If so, how would that get set up?
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.
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).That's legal. Safe? May or may not be. If constructed carefully it probably would be safe as well.
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.
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.
True, but irrelevant to this discussion.
How is it irrelevant?