IFR Flight Plan to VFR airports

Ron Levy said:
Because the FAA doesn't want people using contact approaches as a means of legalized scud-running when they could not otherwise get into that airport. That's why they put the requirement for a published approach in the regulation in the first place. I suspect that if this ever becomes a legal issue, and the court doesn't buy their position, they'll do like they did with the "possession/personal possession" question on pilot papers and revise the reg.
Click to expand...
Would you say that the FAA approves of "legalized scud-running" only if they could "otherwise get into that airport"?
I might suggest the reason for the existence of the "contact approach" is to allow pilots to proceed visually to the airport in controlled airspace with conditions of less than 1000/3 but at least CC/1 (same as required in class G) while providing separation from other IFR traffic.
 
Plenty of people have home grown approaches to get into their farm strips. If they are smart enough to do that right and not get killed then they are smart enough to not go on the internet and write about it.
 
How do they fly these "home grown" approaches while talking to ATC? Do they cancel while still in IMC, then fly their "approach"?
 
dans2992 said:
How do they fly these "home grown" approaches while talking to ATC? Do they cancel while still in IMC, then fly their "approach"?
Click to expand...

I'm sure they're are a few that do that. Definitely not the smartest thing.

We used to have a guy who had a grass strip just north of our air station's class D. On bad wx days he'd do a PAR at the air station, get below the clouds, cancel and then request a SVFR to the north. Approach would take back the freq and clear him SVFR at or below 1,500 to the north. Once clear and field in sight, radar services terminated.
 
dans2992 said:
How do they fly these "home grown" approaches while talking to ATC? Do they cancel while still in IMC, then fly their "approach"?
Click to expand...
Why do you assume there was any communication to begin with?
 
Ron Levy said:
...Keep in mind at all times that there is no "missed approach" procedure for a visual approach, so once you cancel IFR or accept a visual approach clearance, you are obligated to remain clear of clouds/remain VFR (as applicable) until/unless you obtain a new IFR clearance from ATC.
Click to expand...

In the case of a visual approach, where is this obligation published?
 
Last edited:
ChrisK said:
This is all theoretical because the odds of me requesting a contact approach are damn near zero, but I'm legitimately confused. A contact approach is an IFR operation. I'm required to be equipped to fly at least one IAP to an airport in order to request a contact approach. I'm not required to be so equipped to be cleared for a visual approach. Is that all correct?
Click to expand...
I think that accurately reflects the position the FAA would take. Note that there does not have to be an IAP at an airport to get a visual approach clearance.
 
peerlesscowboy said:
Other than Levy's opinion, where does it say THAT?
So..........let's say we're equipped "/A", filed and cleared to an airport with only a GPS approach available. Pre-flight briefing forecast we'd have good VFR weather for our arrival but it turns out more like two miles visibility in light rain and mist. ATC clears us down to MVA where we're clear of cloud in 2 miles..............would you suggest we're not legal to request and accept a contact approach in this circumstance simply because we're not equipped to fly the GPS approach that we never intended to fly?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that is exactly what the FAA would tell you.
 
peerlesscowboy said:
Would you say that the FAA approves of "legalized scud-running" only if they could "otherwise get into that airport"?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that's true. I think their position is that as long as there is an approach you could fly, then you aren't forced to choose between a contact approach and diverting. That puts less pressure on the pilot to do something really stupid.
 
Palmpilot said:
Ron Levy said:
...Keep in mind at all times that there is no "missed approach" procedure for a visual approach, so once you cancel IFR or accept a visual approach clearance, you are obligated to remain clear of clouds/remain VFR (as applicable) until/unless you obtain a new IFR clearance from ATC.
Click to expand...

In the case of a visual approach, where is this obligation published?
Click to expand...
AIM 5-4-23:
e. A visual approach is not an IAP and therefore has no missed approach segment. If a go around is necessary for any reason, aircraft operating at controlled airports will be issued an appropriate advisory/clearance/instruction by the tower. At uncontrolled airports, aircraft are expected to remain clear of clouds and complete a landing as soon as possible. If a landing cannot be accomplished, the aircraft is expected to remain clear of clouds and contact ATC as soon as possible for further clearance. Separation from other IFR aircraft will be maintained under these circumstances.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Yes, I think that's true. I think their position is that as long as there is an approach you could fly, then you aren't forced to choose between a contact approach and diverting. That puts less pressure on the pilot to do something really stupid.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
So the FAA approves of just a little bit stupid as long as it's not really stupid :confused:
 
Jaybird180 said:
Sounds like a poor man's roll your own Synthetic Vision. Be careful with that as some of the lat/long entries for some airports are the center of the airport, which may not coincide with the center of the runway.

Workaround: (this is also NOT legal) plant yourself at each end of the runway and make a custom waypoint. Do the triangulation to create waypoints for the extended runway centerline.

Just saying....
Click to expand...

Most of these airports have only one runway so the geo centroid is at the center of the runway. But even on airports with muliple runways using the GPS OBS function is better than a VOR or ADF approach. I zoom in into the destination airport and line up the OBS course to the desired runway. I found that the runway number could be in error by 10deg, caused by changes in the magnetic variation over the years.

José
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
Why do you need to be 500 feet below the clouds to accept a visual approach clearance while still IFR, when special VFR minimums are clear of clouds? Can you just ask them to switch you from IFR to special VFR (assuming controlled airspace, which is unlikely if there's no approach anyway)?
Click to expand...
Just request a Contact Approach instead, it is for all practical purposes essentially the same thing as SVFR.
 
peerlesscowboy said:
Just request a Contact Approach instead, it is for all practical purposes essentially the same thing as SVFR.
Click to expand...

SVFR is available only in a surface area. A contact approach requires weather reporting and a functioning IAP.
 
ChrisK said:
Ooh. Weather reporting. I assume this is to confirm that visibility is >1mi?
Click to expand...

It's a requirement for the issuance of the clearance. The reported ground visibility must be at least 1 statute mile.
 
roncachamp said:
It's a requirement for the issuance of the clearance. The reported ground visibility must be at least 1 statute mile.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It is obvious once you think about it. You can't have a reported visibility without weather reporting =)
 
Keep in mind that a visual approach is still performed under IFR. A visual approach under VFR rules (i.e. no separation services being provided by ATC) is just a straight-in. From FAA JO7110.65U (ATC reg):
A visual approach is an ATC authorization for an aircraft on an IFR flight plan to proceed visually to the airport of intended landing; it is not an instrument approach procedure. Also, there is no missed approach segment. An aircraft unable to complete a visual approach must be handled as any go-around and appropriate separation must be provided.
Click to expand...

If you are trying to get to an airfield with no published IAPs (or for that matter, only approaches that you cannot fly), you have a couple options:
1) fly a visual if the weather supports it (see 7-4-2 from the above link)
2) cancel IFR and proceed visually if you have the cloud clearances

But what happens if the field is obscured by weather? Say an overcast layer prevents you from descending below min IFR altitude, but still provides for VFR/SVFR clearances? You can do exactly this:

Velocity173 said:
We used to have a guy who had a grass strip just north of our air station's class D. On bad wx days he'd do a PAR at the air station, get below the clouds, cancel and then request a SVFR to the north. Approach would take back the freq and clear him SVFR at or below 1,500 to the north. Once clear and field in sight, radar services terminated.
Click to expand...

Utilize an IAP at a nearby airfield to get you below the weather to a point where you can proceed visually (by a go-around/low approach, or touch & go, canceling, etc.) to your intended destination.
 
Last edited:
boilert said:
...Utilize an IAP at a nearby airfield to get you below the weather to a point where you can proceed visually (by a go-around/low approach, or touch & go, canceling, etc.) to your intended destination.
Click to expand...

We used to do that at Palo Alto a lot before we got our approaches. We would fly an approach to Hayward, and then fly VFR across the bay.
 
Dave Wartofsky (crazy man he is) used to have an approach plate that was the "ILS into ADW then SPECIAL VFR to VKX" procedure kicking around (was on the website). I think he may have abandoned that when Potomac got a real GPS approach instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top