"Procedure NA at night"

[RussR]

An airport has pilot-controlled MIRLs, PAPIs, rotating beacon, etc. People fly there at night all the time. However, the approach procedures have the note "Procedure NA at night."

It is night. You are cruising at, say, 10000 MSL. The ceiling is overcast at 3000 AGL. Visibility is 10+ miles. In other words, VFR.

You are above the cloud layer and need to fly the approach to get down below the ceiling. Once you do, you could cancel IFR.

However, the procedure does say "NA at night". It doesn't say "DA NA at night" or anything like that.

Can you fly this procedure? Assume that ATC's MVA is 4000 or something higher than you need.

More information - most typically, procedures that are NA at night are that way because of unlit obstacles (usually trees) that penetrate a 20:1 surface starting at the runway. This is a "visual surface", meaning that it only applies below the DA/MDA. This, of course, doesn't prevent anyone from operating VFR at the airport as long as they can avoid these obstacles. Sometimes, there is no airport survey, so lacking any information, it is assumed that the 20:1 surface is penetrated and the procedure is made NA at night - even though there really may be no obstacles at all.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Procedure NA at night = can’t use any part of the procedure at night.

 

[Radar Contact]

Can you fly this procedure? Assume that ATC's MVA is 4000 or something higher than you need.

I wouldn’t give you the approach clearance. When they deem an approach NA for night, they don’t give us a list of what if’s.

Best Hope is the MVA gets you below the clouds or shoot a legal approach somewhere and go in VFR.

 

[dtuuri]

Cruise clearance, descend to MIA, don't cancel until on the ground for SAR.

 

[Ryan F.]

Can you fly this procedure?

No.

 

[aterpster]

"Request descent to MVA (if center, MIA) for a visual approach to KPDQ."

 

[dtuuri]

"Request descent to MVA (if center, MIA) for a visual approach to KPDQ."

Assume that ATC's MVA is 4000 or something higher than you need.

 

[luvflyin]

I wouldn’t give you the approach clearance. When they deem an approach NA for night, they don’t give us a list of what if’s.

Best Hope is the MVA gets you below the clouds or shoot a legal approach somewhere and go in VFR.

Would you refuse to give the clearance if the pilot says I know it’s not authorized at night but I want to do it anyway?

 

[sarangan]

I wouldn’t give you the approach clearance. When they deem an approach NA for night, they don’t give us a list of what if’s.

Best Hope is the MVA gets you below the clouds or shoot a legal approach somewhere and go in VFR.

What about a contact approach?

 

[aterpster]

What about a contact approach?

You have to have an instrument approach procedure to get a contact approach.

 

[farangutan]

In a case like that I look for an airport nearby with approaches available at night and break off that approach when I descend below the cloud layer. That may not help you at this particular airport.

 

[luvflyin]

You have to have an instrument approach procedure to get a contact approach.

There is one in this scenario. Have you read the OP?

 

[okav8r]

Russ, I argued against this short-sighted policy until I was blue in the face, and it was a part of what drove me to retire at 55. An IAP, with suitable cautionary notes is much better than no approach at all. Give the pilot the information, and then let them make a PIC decision.
BTW, this all started when Jepp decided to put a mathematically derived vertical path on non- precision IAPs, without 8260 documentation.....
Many, many years ago in the early days of GPS

 

[MauleSkinner]

An IAP, with suitable cautionary notes is much better than no approach at all.

The FAA has too long a history of preferring scud running over an IAP. Why change?

 

[luvflyin]

Cruise clearance, descend to MIA, don't cancel until on the ground for SAR.

That sounds like 'cruisin' to an airport that doesn't have an IAP. If it does, you are stuck with 91.175 (a). Ya ain't supposed to do that 91.177 (2) (i) and (ii) roll yer own thang. And controllers ain't supposed to give it to you.

 

[dtuuri]

I don't see where I didn't give a viable solution. Use a cruise clearance: File to an intersection near the airport. If there's a ground-based NAVAID approach, you should be within service volume. Descend to MIA, that's your best shot. The PIC determines MIA, not ATC, under 91.177.

 

[Radar Contact]

Would you refuse to give the clearance if the pilot says I know it’s not authorized at night but I want to do it anyway?

Yes. We simply aren’t allowed to. This is now in our directives...at least locally. We were just re-briefed this again recently. On our IDS4 (info screen at each position) they list all the approaches NA at the moment as a reminder. I seem to remember in years past it was PD. Guessing that’s how it was when you were in?

 

[Radar Contact]

What about a contact approach?

Gets pretty gray there. It says there must be a “functioning IAP”. I’d say if the only approach is deemed NA at the time. It’s not functioning. Obviously if the GPS or navaid is working there’s an argument here. The two ATC’ers in my house don’t think it’s worth trying. Fairly academic at this point. We’ve got almost 35 years experience between the two of us and have never heard a request for a contact approach.

 

[dtuuri]

We’ve got almost 35 years experience between the two of us and have never heard a request for a contact approach.

The OP is at 10,000' above an overcast, so I don't think you'll be hearing one here either.

 

[MauleSkinner]

We’ve got almost 35 years experience between the two of us and have never heard a request for a contact approach.

i had a copilot who was convinced they weren’t safe...3000 feet until the downwind on a visual was safe, but 3000 feet until the downwind on a contact was unsafe.

 

[FORANE]

I like contact approaches, request them regularly. But, I will not request them at night so have to agree with radar contact it is academic. With regards to the functioning approach, I have had a contact approach request denied for lack of a local awos.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I like contact approaches, request them regularly. But, I will not request them at night so have to agree with radar contact it is academic. With regards to the functioning approach, I have had a contact approach request denied for lack of a local awos.

Weather reporting at the airport is one of the requirements for a contact approach.

 

[luvflyin]

I don't see where I didn't give a viable solution. Use a cruise clearance: File to an intersection near the airport. If there's a ground-based NAVAID approach, you should be within service volume. Descend to MIA, that's your best shot. The PIC determines MIA, not ATC, under 91.177.

I suppose you could make a case for it but I wouldn't put my money down on you would prevail if you got violated. The case you would have to make is it would not be "...necessary to use an instrument approach..."(91.175 a.) Or that because the only Approach there is N/A at night, right now it is night, so therefore that approach doesn't exist again until tomorrow morning. By using the 'approach not necessary' angle you would be saying there is that Cruise Clearance procedure thang for use at airports without a Published Approach so I will do that. While we're here I recall from many years ago that the language in 91.175, "...necessary to use an instrument approach...," use to read 'if an instrument let down is necessary' or something like that. Do you remember that or do you have old FAR's handy enough that you could find it without to much trouble. Try circa 1977

 

[luvflyin]

Weather reporting at the airport is one of the requirements for a contact approach.

Yup. There's two visibility's in play for Contact Approach. Reported surface viz gotta be 1 mile for the controller to give the clearance AND you gotta have and keep 1 mile flight viz to accept and fly it.

 

[luvflyin]

i had a copilot who was convinced they weren’t safe...3000 feet until the downwind on a visual was safe, but 3000 feet until the downwind on a contact was unsafe.

Well there is that 1 mile vs 3 mile viz thang. But yeah, a blanket they aren't safe period is over doing it. I've worked with many controllers who simply won't do it period, regardless of conditions.

 

[luvflyin]

Gets pretty gray there. It says there must be a “functioning IAP”. I’d say if the only approach is deemed NA at the time. It’s not functioning. Obviously if the GPS or navaid is working there’s an argument here. The two ATC’ers in my house don’t think it’s worth trying. Fairly academic at this point. We’ve got almost 35 years experience between the two of us and have never heard a request for a contact approach.

Where you work, very busy Radar Approach, I can certainly see that they are a no no. But they do have their time and place. Where they really make a difference often is in areas of no Radar.

 

[dtuuri]

I suppose you could make a case for it but I wouldn't put my money down on you would prevail if you got violated. The case you would have to make is it would not be "...necessary to use an instrument approach..."(91.175 a.)

The rest of that quote is "...to an airport." Not making an "approach" to an airport. Making an approach to a fix at minimum instrument altitude, in compliance with a listed alternate and fuel to reach it according to FARs for just such a circumstance. Also in accordance with the stated definition of a cruise clearance in the Pilot's and Controller's Glossary, so why would I get "violated"?

You could think of it as a composite flight plan, I suppose, if you want.

 

[luvflyin]

Yes. We simply aren’t allowed to. This is now in our directives...at least locally. We were just re-briefed this again recently. On our IDS4 (info screen at each position) they list all the approaches NA at the moment as a reminder. I seem to remember in years past it was PD. Guessing that’s how it was when you were in?

The basic national guidance, 7110.65 4-8-1 note 2 has not changed since I last worked, 2007, and I remember it going back a lot further than that. AIM 5-5-4 a. 1. and b. 1. hammers home the point even further. I'm not saying a Controller should be throwing out Approach Clearances that the pilot will probably refuse to accept. If a pilot requests an Approach you know is N/A at that time for whatever reason, it is certainly appropriate to say 'you know that's not authorized don't you.' But if he says 'yeah, I want it anyway,' refusing to give it could lead to a situation where the FAA is going to have to get the checkbook out. I can see the need for that IDS4 thingy where you work. There are what, like about a hundred Approaches there? I suppose there are Approaches on the list that are not just about N/A situations on the Approaches, but which ones aren't in use right now concerning what ever parallel/simultaneous approach configuration you are in.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The rest of that quote is "...to an airport." Not making an "approach" to an airport. Making an approach to a fix at minimum instrument altitude, in compliance with a listed alternate and fuel to reach it according to FARs for just such a circumstance. Also in accordance with the stated definition of a cruise clearance in the Pilot's and Controller's Glossary, so why would I get "violated"?

You could think of it as a composite flight plan, I suppose, if you want.

Is that kinda like the 200-kt speed limit below Cass B only applies if the Class B is “in the vicinity of an airport”?

 

[Palmpilot]

What about a contact approach?

You have to have an instrument approach procedure to get a contact approach.

How about special VFR? The minimums are the same as for a contact approach, and there is no requirement for an approach procedure to exist.

Of course that requires controlled airspace to the surface, and it still leaves the problem of the OP's 3000-foot ceiling with a 4000-foot MVA.

 

[luvflyin]

The rest of that quote is "...to an airport." Not making an "approach" to an airport. Making an approach to a fix at minimum instrument altitude, in compliance with a listed alternate and fuel to reach it according to FARs for just such a circumstance. Also in accordance with the stated definition of a cruise clearance in the Pilot's and Controller's Glossary, so why would I get "violated"?

You could think of it as a composite flight plan, I suppose, if you want.

Gimme the Clearance you'd get and the series of transmissions between you and ATC

 

[Palmpilot]

Cruise clearance, descend to MIA, don't cancel until on the ground for SAR.

I don't see where I didn't give a viable solution. Use a cruise clearance: File to an intersection near the airport. If there's a ground-based NAVAID approach, you should be within service volume. Descend to MIA, that's your best shot. The PIC determines MIA, not ATC, under 91.177.

The rest of that quote is "...to an airport." Not making an "approach" to an airport. Making an approach to a fix at minimum instrument altitude, in compliance with a listed alternate and fuel to reach it according to FARs for just such a circumstance. Also in accordance with the stated definition of a cruise clearance in the Pilot's and Controller's Glossary, so why would I get "violated"?

You could think of it as a composite flight plan, I suppose, if you want.

So if I understand this correctly, you would would be applying paragraph b below, and you would need to reach VFR conditions by the time you reached the intersection that you referred to. Otherwise you would have to fly to an alternate.

Pilot/Controller Glossary Excerpt:

CRUISE− Used in an ATC clearance to authorize a
pilot to conduct flight at any altitude from the
minimum IFR altitude up to and including the
altitude specified in the clearance. The pilot may
level off at any intermediate altitude within this block
of airspace. Climb/descent within the block is to be
made at the discretion of the pilot. However, once the
pilot starts descent and verbally reports leaving an
altitude in the block, he/she may not return to that
altitude without additional ATC clearance. Further, it
is approval for the pilot to proceed to and make an
approach at destination airport and can be used in
conjunction with:

a. An airport clearance limit at locations with a​

standard/special instrument approach procedure. The
CFRs require that if an instrument letdown to an
airport is necessary, the pilot shall make the letdown
in accordance with a standard/special instrument
approach procedure for that airport, or

b. An airport clearance limit at locations that are​

within/below/outside controlled airspace and without
a standard/special instrument approach
procedure. Such a clearance is NOT AUTHORIZATION
for the pilot to descend under IFR conditions
below the applicable minimum IFR altitude nor does
it imply that ATC is exercising control over aircraft
in Class G airspace; however, it provides a means for
the aircraft to proceed to destination airport, descend,
and land in accordance with applicable CFRs
governing VFR flight operations. Also, this provides
search and rescue protection until such time as the
IFR flight plan is closed.
​

When you say "File to an intersection near the airport," wouldn't you actually have to file to the airport, and just include the intersection as a waypoint in your flight plan? The reason I say that is that paragraph b above specifies an "airport" clearance limit.

 

[dtuuri]

Is that kinda like the 200-kt speed limit below Cass B only applies if the Class B is “in the vicinity of an airport”?

Huh?

 

[luvflyin]

An airport has pilot-controlled MIRLs, PAPIs, rotating beacon, etc. People fly there at night all the time. However, the approach procedures have the note "Procedure NA at night."

It is night. You are cruising at, say, 10000 MSL. The ceiling is overcast at 3000 AGL. Visibility is 10+ miles. In other words, VFR.

You are above the cloud layer and need to fly the approach to get down below the ceiling. Once you do, you could cancel IFR.

However, the procedure does say "NA at night". It doesn't say "DA NA at night" or anything like that.

Can you fly this procedure? Assume that ATC's MVA is 4000 or something higher than you need.

More information - most typically, procedures that are NA at night are that way because of unlit obstacles (usually trees) that penetrate a 20:1 surface starting at the runway. This is a "visual surface", meaning that it only applies below the DA/MDA. This, of course, doesn't prevent anyone from operating VFR at the airport as long as they can avoid these obstacles. Sometimes, there is no airport survey, so lacking any information, it is assumed that the 20:1 surface is penetrated and the procedure is made NA at night - even though there really may be no obstacles at all.

I been lookin for some "...unless otherwise authorized by the FAA..."(91.175 a.) thing that gets you off the hook for complying with the note. Can't find one

 

[MauleSkinner]

Huh?

Sorry... “designated for an airport” is the terminology in 91.117...

(c) No person may operate an aircraft in the airspace underlying a Class B airspace area designated for an airport or in a VFR corridor designated through such a Class B airspace area, at an indicated airspeed of more than 200 knots (230 mph).

 

[luvflyin]

Huh?

There was a thread about this awhile back. In some foreign countries there is Class B airspace that is not around airports. So far the US hasn't done that but there's nuthin sayin it couldn't happen someday.

 

[luvflyin]

So if I understand this correctly, you would would be applying paragraph b below, and you would need to reach VFR conditions by the time you reached the intersection that you referred to. Otherwise you would have to fly to an alternate.

Pilot/Controller Glossary Excerpt:

CRUISE− Used in an ATC clearance to authorize a
pilot to conduct flight at any altitude from the
minimum IFR altitude up to and including the
altitude specified in the clearance. The pilot may
level off at any intermediate altitude within this block
of airspace. Climb/descent within the block is to be
made at the discretion of the pilot. However, once the
pilot starts descent and verbally reports leaving an
altitude in the block, he/she may not return to that
altitude without additional ATC clearance. Further, it
is approval for the pilot to proceed to and make an
approach at destination airport and can be used in
conjunction with:

a. An airport clearance limit at locations with a​

standard/special instrument approach procedure. The
CFRs require that if an instrument letdown to an
airport is necessary, the pilot shall make the letdown
in accordance with a standard/special instrument
approach procedure for that airport, or

b. An airport clearance limit at locations that are​

within/below/outside controlled airspace and without
a standard/special instrument approach
procedure. Such a clearance is NOT AUTHORIZATION
for the pilot to descend under IFR conditions
below the applicable minimum IFR altitude nor does
it imply that ATC is exercising control over aircraft
in Class G airspace; however, it provides a means for
the aircraft to proceed to destination airport, descend,
and land in accordance with applicable CFRs
governing VFR flight operations. Also, this provides
search and rescue protection until such time as the
IFR flight plan is closed.​

When you say "File to an intersection near the airport," wouldn't you actually have to file to the airport, and just include the intersection as a waypoint in your flight plan? The reason I say that is that paragraph b above specifies an "airport" clearance limit.

Here's the Controllers side of the story. Be sure to read all the way down to Note 2.

4−5−7. ALTITUDE INFORMATION
Issue altitude instructions as follows:
REFERENCE−
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 4−2−1, Clearance Items.
a. Altitude to maintain or cruise. When issuing cruise in conjunction with an airport clearance limit and an unpublished route will be used, issue an appropriate crossing altitude to ensure terrain clearance until the aircraft reaches a fix, point, or route where the altitude information is available to the pilot. When issuing a cruise clearance to an airport which does not have a published instrument approach, a cruise clearance without a crossing restriction may be issued.
PHRASEOLOGY−
MAINTAIN/CRUISE (altitude). MAINTAIN (altitude) UNTIL (time, fix, waypoint),
or
(number of miles or minutes) MILES/MINUTES PAST (fix, waypoint).
CROSS (fix, point, waypoint),
or
INTERCEPT (route) AT OR ABOVE (altitude), CRUISE (altitude).
NOTE−
1.
The crossing altitude must assure IFR obstruction clearance to the point where the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure.
2.
When an aircraft is issued a cruise clearance to an airport which does not have a published instrument approach procedure, it is not possible to satisfy the requirement for a crossing altitude that will ensure terrain clearance until the aircraft reaches a fix, point, or route where altitude information is available to the pilot. Under those conditions, a cruise clearance without a crossing restriction authorizes a pilot to determine the minimum IFR altitude as prescribed in 14 CFR Section 91.177 and descend to it at pilot discretion if it is lower than the altitude specified in the cruise clearance.

 

[dtuuri]

When you say "File to an intersection near the airport," wouldn't you actually have to file to the airport, and just include the intersection as a waypoint in your flight plan? The reason I say that is that paragraph b above specifies an "airport" clearance limit.

The flight plan form requires the destination airport entered, IIRC, for all flight plans, even composite ones ending in VFR conditions. So, in that sense you are right. But I would put my plan to "cruise" to an intersection in Remarks. I'd also make use of the radio to spell out what my intention is to ATC. I wouldn't feel comfortable shooting an NA approach, since who really knows why it's NA. But if the NAVAIDs are within service volume and not NOTAM'd, I'd feel safe descending to MIA if I measured it out beforehand. The published minimum altitude for the initial approach segment might come in handy for that purpose, since it has the same lateral and vertical obstacle clearance as enroute airways.

 

[Palmpilot]

Here's the Controllers side of the story. Be sure to read all the way down to Note 2.

4−5−7. ALTITUDE INFORMATION
Issue altitude instructions as follows:
REFERENCE−
FAA Order JO 7110.65, Para 4−2−1, Clearance Items.
a. Altitude to maintain or cruise. When issuing cruise in conjunction with an airport clearance limit and an unpublished route will be used, issue an appropriate crossing altitude to ensure terrain clearance until the aircraft reaches a fix, point, or route where the altitude information is available to the pilot. When issuing a cruise clearance to an airport which does not have a published instrument approach, a cruise clearance without a crossing restriction may be issued.
PHRASEOLOGY−
MAINTAIN/CRUISE (altitude). MAINTAIN (altitude) UNTIL (time, fix, waypoint),
or
(number of miles or minutes) MILES/MINUTES PAST (fix, waypoint).
CROSS (fix, point, waypoint),
or
INTERCEPT (route) AT OR ABOVE (altitude), CRUISE (altitude).
NOTE−
1.
The crossing altitude must assure IFR obstruction clearance to the point where the aircraft is established on a segment of a published route or instrument approach procedure.
2.
When an aircraft is issued a cruise clearance to an airport which does not have a published instrument approach procedure, it is not possible to satisfy the requirement for a crossing altitude that will ensure terrain clearance until the aircraft reaches a fix, point, or route where altitude information is available to the pilot. Under those conditions, a cruise clearance without a crossing restriction authorizes a pilot to determine the minimum IFR altitude as prescribed in 14 CFR Section 91.177 and descend to it at pilot discretion if it is lower than the altitude specified in the cruise clearance.

Seems consistent with the P/CG, as far as I can tell.

 

[dtuuri]

NOTE−
1. ...
2. ...a cruise clearance without a crossing restriction authorizes a pilot to determine the minimum IFR altitude as prescribed in 14 CFR Section 91.177 and descend to it at pilot discretion if it is lower than the altitude specified in the cruise clearance.

So, I'm right, right?