Visual Approach

If going to a non towered field you can enter the pattern as you wish on a VA. ATC doesn’t clear to a specific runway in that case. If going to a towered field, it’ll be to a runway and generally they’ll issue instructions associated with the VA. If you haven’t been given a pattern entry instruction with the clearance, you can enter as you see fit.
 
Velocity173 said:
If going to a non towered field you can enter the pattern as you wish on a VA. ATC doesn’t clear to a specific runway in that case. If going to a towered field, it’ll be to a runway and generally they’ll issue instructions associated with the VA. If you haven’t been given a pattern entry instruction with the clearance, you can enter as you see fit.
Click to expand...
upload_2023-3-14_12-8-44.png
 
Pinecone said:
VFR traffic patterns are in the AIM.
Click to expand...
They are. Also in Advisory Circular(s).

There's a reason I asked about the regulations. What do 14 CFR 91.126 through 91.131 say regarding the differences between IFR and VFR aircraft?

Other aircraft must follow the FARs. They may, or may not, follow the AIM and ACs. It's an important distinction.
 
Larry in TN said:
They are. Also in Advisory Circular(s).

There's a reason I asked about the regulations. What do 14 CFR 91.126 through 91.131 say regarding the differences between IFR and VFR aircraft?

Other aircraft must follow the FARs. They may, or may not, follow the AIM and ACs. It's an important distinction.
Click to expand...
I agree with one quibble. I think it's a mistake to refer to it as a "VFR" traffic pattern. Whether mandatory FAR or quasi-regulatory AIM or AC guidance, no distinction is made between VFR and IFR.
 
Velocity173 said:
If going to a non towered field you can enter the pattern as you wish on a VA. ATC doesn’t clear to a specific runway in that case. If going to a towered field, it’ll be to a runway and generally they’ll issue instructions associated with the VA. If you haven’t been given a pattern entry instruction with the clearance, you can enter as you see fit.
Click to expand...
Many years ago, I was cleared for a visual to Camarillo from 5000 feet overhead. This was at night and outside of tower hours. Since the airport is in a valley and I couldn't see the ridges, I felt that the safe thing to do was to spiral down overhead for a downwind entry. Afterward, I was asked to call the Mugu Approach controller on the phone, because my flight path was apparently not what he was expecting. He suggested that I should have told him what I was planning. I wish it had occurred to me to ask what flight path he was expecting. (In retrospect, I guess there was a potential for conflicts with traffic for nearby Oxnard.)
 
Palmpilot said:
Many years ago, I was cleared for a visual to Camarillo from 5000 feet overhead. This was at night and outside of tower hours. Since the airport is in a valley and I couldn't see the ridges, I felt that the safe thing to do was to spiral down overhead for a downwind entry. Afterward, I was asked to call the Mugu Approach controller on the phone, because my flight path was apparently not what he was expecting. He suggested that I should have told him what I was planning. I wish it had occurred to me to ask what flight path he was expecting. (In retrospect, I guess there was a potential for conflicts with traffic for nearby Oxnard.)
Click to expand...
You should trademark the term "VDOA" (the opposite of VCOA).
 
Palmpilot said:
Many years ago, I was cleared for a visual to Camarillo from 5000 feet overhead. This was at night and outside of tower hours. Since the airport is in a valley and I couldn't see the ridges, I felt that the safe thing to do was to spiral down overhead for a downwind entry. Afterward, I was asked to call the Mugu Approach controller on the phone, because my flight path was apparently not what he was expecting. He suggested that I should have told him what I was planning. I wish it had occurred to me to ask what flight path he was expecting. (In retrospect, I guess there was a potential for conflicts with traffic for nearby Oxnard.)
Click to expand...
Since you were cleared for the visual, I would presume you had the airport in slight. If you can see the airport, there are no ridges on a direct path between you and the airport, so flying that direct path would avoid terrain.:cool:
 
MauleSkinner said:
Since you were cleared for the visual, I would presume you had the airport in slight. If you can see the airport, there are no ridges on a direct path between you and the airport, so flying that direct path would avoid terrain.:cool:
Click to expand...
He was 5,000 feet (directly?) overhead the airport, which should preclude all but the gnarliest ridges...which would preclude there being an airport underneath them, come to think of it. But the direct path of a 90-degree descent sounds scary at night. :yikes:
 
Palmpilot said:
Many years ago, I was cleared for a visual to Camarillo from 5000 feet overhead. This was at night and outside of tower hours. Since the airport is in a valley and I couldn't see the ridges, I felt that the safe thing to do was to spiral down overhead for a downwind entry. Afterward, I was asked to call the Mugu Approach controller on the phone, because my flight path was apparently not what he was expecting. He suggested that I should have told him what I was planning. I wish it had occurred to me to ask what flight path he was expecting. (In retrospect, I guess there was a potential for conflicts with traffic for nearby Oxnard.)
Click to expand...

Not sure what the controller was expecting in that case. To me, spiraling down from that altitude meets “proceed to the airport in a normal manner.”

Unfortunately there’s no specific distance to protect for with a VA so it’s up to the controller to do the best they can. Kinda like IFR clearances from non towered airports. “when entering controlled airspace…” can result in varying distances from the airport. I remember a few times aircraft popping up on radar from a non towered field IFR thinking, huh didn’t expect to see you there. Generally that happens though when the person issuing the clearance didn’t get a planned departure runway from the pilot.
 
midlifeflyer said:
(My post was triggered by a pilot saying in an online comment he would not descend below the MSA on a visual approach.
Click to expand...
My suspicion is that comments like that come from amateur pilots as an overreaction to accidents like UPS 1354 in Birmingham. They convince themselves that as long as they stay above MSA until they absolutely have to, then they won't hit anything.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Since you were cleared for the visual, I would presume you had the airport in slight. If you can see the airport, there are no ridges on a direct path between you and the airport, so flying that direct path would avoid terrain.:cool:
Click to expand...
Direct path to the airport from 5000 feet over the airport. I wanna see that.
 
Fearless Tower said:
My suspicion is that comments like that come from amateur pilots as an overreaction to accidents like UPS 1354 in Birmingham. They convince themselves that as long as they stay above MSA until they absolutely have to, then they won't hit anything.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. I think the guy was just convinced the MSA is an operational, as opposed to, by regulatory definition, an emergency altitude.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Since you were cleared for the visual, I would presume you had the airport in slight. If you can see the airport, there are no ridges on a direct path between you and the airport, so flying that direct path would avoid terrain.:cool:
Click to expand...

Yes I had the airport in sight. However, since I was nearly overhead at about 5000 AGL when I received the visual-approach clearance, flying direct to it would have exceeded Vne for sure. Spiraling down was the only option unless I wanted to first fly away from the airport (and thus toward the invisible terrain) at night. :eek2:

I decided that if I ever flew there at night in the future, it would probably be more efficient to file to an IAF instead of to the on-field VOR.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Yes I had the airport in sight. However, since I was nearly overhead at about 5000 AGL when I received the visual-approach clearance, flying direct to it would have exceeded Vne for sure. Spiraling down was the only option unless I wanted to first fly away from the airport (and thus toward the invisible terrain) at night. :eek2:

I decided that if I ever flew there at night in the future, it would probably be more efficient to file to an IAF instead of to the on-field VOR.
Click to expand...
Totally on board with your thinking at the time, having been scared by my own visual into a valley airport at night. I really got to appreciate the risks the next day in daylight observing the airport environment. I can’t believe that controller would have any problem with what you did. But, I too have recognized that often the safest thing to do is fly the instrument approach at night to an unfamiliar airport with terrain around even in good VMC.
 
Last edited:
MajorTurbulence said:
Totally on board with your thinking at the time, having been scared by my own visual into a valley airport at night. I really got to appreciate the risks the next day in daylight observing the airport environment. I can’t believe that controller would have any problem with what you did. But, I too have recognized that often the safest thing to do is fly the instrument approach at night to an unfamiliar airport with terrain around even in good VMC.
Click to expand...

Before I met my ex-wife-to-be, her uncle smashed into Mt. Tamalpais one dark night, which made me very conscious of the pitfalls of night VFR in mountainous terrain. (It also meant that learning to fly was not an option for me until after the divorce.)
 
Palmpilot said:
He suggested that I should have told him what I was planning. I wish it had occurred to me to ask what flight path he was expecting. (In retrospect, I guess there was a potential for conflicts with traffic for nearby Oxnard.)
Click to expand...
A controller's failure to provide any applicable restrictions to a clearance he issues is not the pilot's problem.

What you did was not at all unreasonable. He just didn't anticipate it. Of course, he knows exactly where all the mountains are and probably thinks pilots do, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top