Question about an "NA at night" procedure.

T

TomRV4

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
78
Location
San Antonio, TX
Display Name
Display name:
Tom
The approach procedures at my home airport are NA at night. If I'm coming home after dark and I know there's a 1000 foot ceiling, is it legal to fly the approach until breaking out then cancel IFR?

I wouldn't even ask the question since it 'seems' clear it is NA at night...but...the other night I was listening to LiveATC and the controller cleared a plane for the approach. I didn't hear if the pilot cancelled in the air or not.

Thanks
Tom
 
Probably NA because of the towers at each end of the runway (I'm guessing 5C1). If the approach is NA under your current conditions, of course you cannot fly it.
 
TomRV4 said:
The approach procedures at my home airport are NA at night. If I'm coming home after dark and I know there's a 1000 foot ceiling, is it legal to fly the approach until breaking out then cancel IFR?

I wouldn't even ask the question since it 'seems' clear it is NA at night...but...the other night I was listening to LiveATC and the controller cleared a plane for the approach. I didn't hear if the pilot cancelled in the air or not.

Thanks
Tom
Click to expand...
Not legal. Doesn't matter what the ceiling is. It's irrelevant if it says NA at night and you try to shoot the approach at night.
 
What altitude AGL does class E start at this airport? Or is it towered?
 
ATC may very well clear you for an approach at night that is NA at night. Not their problem. It is entirely the PIC's problem if somehow he/she comes to the attention of the FSDO.

More significant, say you accept clearance at night for such an approach, then have a bad accident. I suspect your insurance company would look at that as an "out."

I recently worked hard to get a local approach changed from NA at night to NA to one of two runways. All the difference in the world.
 
cheap weenie said:
Probably NA because of the towers at each end of the runway (I'm guessing 5C1). If the approach is NA under your current conditions, of course you cannot fly it.
Click to expand...

It is indeed 5C1.

KFD said:
What altitude AGL does class E start at this airport? Or is it towered?
Click to expand...

700'

aterpster said:
ATC may very well clear you for an approach at night that is NA at night. Not their problem. It is entirely the PIC's problem if somehow he/she comes to the attention of the FSDO.

More significant, say you accept clearance at night for such an approach, then have a bad accident. I suspect your insurance company would look at that as an "out."
Click to expand...

This is what I thought the answer would be. I was just hoping...

Thanks for the responses.
Tom
 
Not authorized at night.

Seems clear to me
 
I have heard a pilot request the 17 RNAV at 5c1 at night and the controller told him it is NA at night and asked pilot to state intentions.
 
Interesting. I guess some controllers know about the NA procedures and some don't. Still up to the pilot to stay legal.

The good thing about 5C1 is that San Antonio (KSAT) is only 11NM away. If I have at least MVFR I can shoot the ILS into SA and scoot over to Boerne Stage...
 
aterpster said:
ATC may very well clear you for an approach at night that is NA at night. Not their problem. It is entirely the PIC's problem if somehow he/she comes to the attention of the FSDO.

More significant, say you accept clearance at night for such an approach, then have a bad accident. I suspect your insurance company would look at that as an "out."

I recently worked hard to get a local approach changed from NA at night to NA to one of two runways. All the difference in the world.
Click to expand...

I've heard that claim about insurance quite a few times, but I am skeptical. Can anyone cite an actual incident where insurance backed out on what some might consider a "technicality"?
 
They should provide a usable approach for night, even if it means higher minimums.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
They should provide a usable approach for night, even if it means higher minimums.
Click to expand...
That wouldn't matter. It's all about the visual area. The visual area is from the VDP to the threshold or from the point where a VDP would be published when it cannot be, and the area is of defined with (Chapter 3 of TERPs). If obstacles penetrate a 20:1 slope in the visual area and are not mitigated, there cannot be a night approach to that runway. The concept of the visual area is that you are going to continue below the MDA or DA to land and the FAA doesn't want to be responsible for you colliding with an unlighted obstacle that perhaps penetrates a 3 degree slope on relatively short final.
 
dans2992 said:
I've heard that claim about insurance quite a few times, but I am skeptical. Can anyone cite an actual incident where insurance backed out on what some might consider a "technicality"?
Click to expand...
Don't know. There may not be any such cases...yet. Whoever those "some" that consider this restriction to be a technicality, let them argue that with the FAA and perhaps with the Lear Jet crew that plowed through a tree, which was the catalyst for this policy. Then, there was the UPS crew who died not following the VGSI at KBHM, on an approach that required the certified VGSI as a mitigation to the 20:1 trees they plowed into.
 
Insurance. If it's not excluded it's covered. I can't imagine insurance excluding coverage if a pilot breaks a FAR. I mean, if you run a stop sign with your car, and get a ticket, does your car insurance pay? It may raise your rates more. But the REAL answer is in the wording of YOUR policy. Don't ever let someone who has NEVER EVEN SEEN your insurance policy tell you what it does and doesnt cover.

But as for what NA at night means? That means you can't fly it at night. You know, it means its against the rules.
 
Last edited:
aterpster said:
That wouldn't matter. It's all about the visual area. The visual area is from the VDP to the threshold or from the point where a VDP would be published when it cannot be, and the area is of defined with (Chapter 3 of TERPs). If obstacles penetrate a 20:1 slope in the visual area and are not mitigated, there cannot be a night approach to that runway. The concept of the visual area is that you are going to continue below the MDA or DA to land and the FAA doesn't want to be responsible for you colliding with an unlighted obstacle that perhaps penetrates a 3 degree slope on relatively short final.
Click to expand...

Yeah. If the airport, or a particular runway, we're not authorized to be used at night for those reasons, VFR or IFR, it follows to not have an approach. It'd be nice though to have something to get you down so you can cancel and be on your way. There are approaches out there with minimums so high that they are really nothing more than a "let down" procedure. The missed approach point on those is so far beyond where a VDP "would be" that it's a moot point.
How do approaches with "fly visual to field" segments figure into this?
 
aterpster said:
ATC may very well clear you for an approach at night that is NA at night. Not their problem. It is entirely the PIC's problem if somehow he/she comes to the attention of the FSDO.

More significant, say you accept clearance at night for such an approach, then have a bad accident. I suspect your insurance company would look at that as an "out."

I recently worked hard to get a local approach changed from NA at night to NA to one of two runways. All the difference in the world.
Click to expand...

Was that SEE
 
Navaid that is part of the procedure but is not monitored at night?

Bob Gardner
 
luvflyin said:
Yeah. If the airport, or a particular runway, we're not authorized to be used at night for those reasons, VFR or IFR, it follows to not have an approach. It'd be nice though to have something to get you down so you can cancel and be on your way. There are approaches out there with minimums so high that they are really nothing more than a "let down" procedure. The missed approach point on those is so far beyond where a VDP "would be" that it's a moot point.
How do approaches with "fly visual to field" segments figure into this?
Click to expand...
Policy is much tighter on fly visual to airport than it used to be. The minimums must be no less than 1,000 and 3 unless Flight Standards approves an exception. If a fly visual to airport approach had 20:1 penetrations in the visual segment, without either lighting or a flight inspected VGSI it would be NA at night.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Insurance. If it's not excluded it's covered. I can't imagine insurance excluding coverage if a pilot breaks a FAR. I mean, if you run a stop sign with your car, and get a ticket, does your car insurance pay? It may raise your rates more. But the REAL answer is in the wording of YOUR policy. Don't ever let someone who has NEVER EVEN SEEN your insurance policy tell you what it does and doesnt cover.

But as for what NA at night means? That means you can't fly it at night. You know, it means its against the rules.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Insurance companies cannot deny claims due to FAR violations. If they could practically no accidents would be covered. If you had an accident there is likely some FAR was violated in the process, or at least the insurance company could find some way to escape paying out.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Bingo. Insurance companies cannot deny claims due to FAR violations. If they could practically no accidents would be covered. If you had an accident there is likely some FAR was violated in the process, or at least the insurance company could find some way to escape paying out.
Click to expand...
Since it would be an intentional violation, they may try and may or may not succeed. I am very jaded about light aircraft insurance companies.
 
aterpster said:
Since it would be an intentional violation, they may try and may or may not succeed. I am very jaded about light aircraft insurance companies.
Click to expand...

Intent does not matter, as we learned with Hillary. An insurance company cannot deny a claim due to FAR violation.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Intent does not matter, as we learned with Hillary. An insurance company cannot deny a claim due to FAR violation.
Click to expand...
Insurance companies are hard ass, not political entities such as the FBI Director, or the probable next POTUS.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I can see towers better at night than day. This reason seems silly.
Click to expand...

MAKG1 said:
Maybe if they are lit. Not all are.

Even if they are lit, background light confusion can hide them.
Click to expand...

Or the lights failed. The NOTAM process isn't automatic nor that quick on that. A friend works for the second largest tower company in the country and from discussion with him, they struggle to issue the information to FAA to issue the NOTAM in time to miss being fined. They usually get it, but that's also usually a couple of days.

Not all failures are a full lighting failure but enough of them are to make one realize there's a decent percentage of "lit" towers out there at any one particular time, that aren't. And aren't NOTAMed yet.

Up until a few years go they didn't even have lighting monitors on many of them. That changed when fines started being levied from the last known good lighting check to the date the outage was reported by someone.

His territory to manage sites covers about six states. And FAA grants lighting repair extensions once the NOTAM is out, often. Once the NOTAM is issued, it can be a long time that the tower stands dark before someone can go fix it.
 
denverpilot said:
Or the lights failed. The NOTAM process isn't automatic nor that quick on that. A friend works for the second largest tower company in the country and from discussion with him, they struggle to issue the information to FAA to issue the NOTAM in time to miss being fined. They usually get it, but that's also usually a couple of days.

Not all failures are a full lighting failure but enough of them are to make one realize there's a decent percentage of "lit" towers out there at any one particular time, that aren't. And aren't NOTAMed yet.

Up until a few years go they didn't even have lighting monitors on many of them. That changed when fines started being levied from the last known good lighting check to the date the outage was reported by someone.

His territory to manage sites covers about six states. And FAA grants lighting repair extensions once the NOTAM is out, often. Once the NOTAM is issued, it can be a long time that the tower stands dark before someone can go fix it.
Click to expand...
Towers such as those are too tall to be penetrations of a visual area 20:1.

Attached is a photo of an industrial building that penetrates the visual area 20:1 at KEMT Runway 19. The lights are sufficient mitigation to retain night minimums.
KEMT 20_to_1 mitigation.jpg
 
Can an adjustment to the VGSI angle allow the NA at night to be removed? My former home base, KVLL, was trying that route to get the restriction removed on the RNAV 9, but last I checked the approach was still NA at night.
 
azure said:
Can an adjustment to the VGSI angle allow the NA at night to be removed? My former home base, KVLL, was trying that route to get the restriction removed on the RNAV 9, but last I checked the approach was still NA at night.
Click to expand...
The VGSI angle may be fine, but it has to be flight inspected and certified by the FAA to be a mitigation to the 20:1 penetrations of the visual segment. That was the case when UPS crashed on short final to runway 18 at KBHM. The IAPs to Runway 18 still have that mitigation.
 
Your airport might fall under the FAA's new push towards enforcing the 20:1 penetration slope. They've turn a blind eye towards it for years, but after the Aspen crash and some other close calls they've decided to enforce it. The FAA ran all the approaches through a matrix which spit out several levels of noncompliance. Several of the high levels require the approach to be N/A at night until the guilty obstruction can be removed. It could be as simple as one tree busting the slope.

https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/advocacy-briefs/20-to-1-airport-obstructions
 
aterpster said:
Towers such as those are too tall to be penetrations of a visual area 20:1.

Attached is a photo of an industrial building that penetrates the visual area 20:1 at KEMT Runway 19. The lights are sufficient mitigation to retain night minimums.
View attachment 46414
Click to expand...

I was simply discussing their visibility at night.
 
aterpster said:
Towers such as those are too tall to be penetrations of a visual area 20:1.

Attached is a photo of an industrial building that penetrates the visual area 20:1 at KEMT Runway 19. The lights are sufficient mitigation to retain night minimums.
View attachment 46414
Click to expand...

If I'm seeing that picture right, the building seems off to the side of final. How far from extended centerline, or edge of runway, is protected?
 
luvflyin said:
If I'm seeing that picture right, the building seems off to the side of final. How far from extended centerline, or edge of runway, is protected?
Click to expand...
Attached are the pertinent four pages from TERPs. The graphic on the second page (Figure 3-3-2) is what applies for the runway in the photograph. That area splays out to a hypothetical VDP predicated on the highest circling MDA for the runway.
 

Attachments

  • Visual Area.pdf
    436 KB · Views: 10
Interesting discussion. I like to fly approaches at night even in VFR conditions to ensure the ground doesn’t sneak up on me, particularly when there is little ambient lighting. An airport I frequent has an RNAV (LNAV) procedure that is NA at night. The same runway has a 3 degree VGSI. I understand objects likely penetrate the 20:1 slope in the visual segment, so what is the “safest” aid to visually land this runway at night? RNAV to MDA? VGSI all the way? RNAV to MDA then transition to VGSI?
 
The VGSI may be fine. But, unless it has been flight inspected and certified, it won't mitigate penetrations of the 20:1. Too many non-certified VGSIs get out of kilter, etc. The best defense is to know the airport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top