CBR 17 Night Vis approaches

[Captain Can't]

Gday all,
Just curious to anyone else's experiences regarding ATC clearing jet a/c's (737s) for visual approaches on this runway...
I've been cleared several times now for this from the north and west, previously cleared to a point CB350/15 (or 12nm) for the CB (same radial as the VOR Rwy 17 (dme req'd - lovely new misleading format!) then given a radar decent to 4300' and subsequently cleared for a visual approach - having not declared 'visual'... These occasions have resulted in some quick number crunching and then a rejection of the clearance (to a seemingly strained response from ATC - after the proceeding A/C (enemy a/c ;) ) accepted the Vis App clearance )... then cleared for 'the approach of your choice'
Now from where I sit, we can't leave 4,300' until within 5nm on VASI, or the circling area - the 5nm comes first obviously - which correspondes to 4.4DME - leaving the a/c about 900' high on profile...
Am i missing something here? or is it too much to expect different handling on a pontentially hazardous app (ref the great view from my seat (RHS) at about 2.5nm final)?
Any ATCOs care to comment? Thanks, CC. :8 :confused:

[Icarus2001]

Interesting.
we can't leave 4,300' until within 5nm on VASI, or the circling area - the 5nm comes first obviously - which correspondes to 4.4DME - leaving the a/c about 900' high on profile...
Since runway 35 is "equipped with an ILS" which means the edge lighting is at CAT 1 standard then surely you could descend once within 7nm IAW ENR 1.1 - 23 para 11.5.5? I could be wrong but the lighting standard applies even though you are landing from the "wrong end".

[Captain Can't]

Hmmm, as you said Icarus, Interesting...
I've always thought that the requirements were for the particular rwy direction - for cases such as this where the terrain plays a part... Can anyone clarify??
I also was of the impression that it wasn't just the lighting, but a rwy with an ILS is surveyed and determined to have a certain terrain clearance on the approach area?? I hate my knit-picking! :}

[Keg]

What are the DME steps like? If you're cleared for a visual approach, isn't one of the requirements not below the DME steps? Do they help you down from 4300 to a more 'on slope' approach?

[Captain Can't]

From my quick check (sketchy memory at best) I don't think there is a northern 'sector' DME arrival, all I could find was a Cowra dct CB arrival... but thanks for the suggestion keg...

[Capn Bloggs]

Icarus, I hope you're not a checkie! 17 does not have an ILS so you can't use the 7nm rule. I've seen bush lawyers in action but that's taking it too far!;)
There are ILSs that aren't Cat 1: does that mean the rule doesn't apply to them?!;)

[hoss]

Unless you have 'established and can continue flight to the aerodrome with continuous visual reference to the ground or water' then ATC cant authorize a visual approach (ATC AU-706).

You said you were 'cleared for the approach of your choice'. What is stopping you from applying 'at an altitude not below the LSALT/MSA for the route segment, the appropriate step of the DME or GPS Arrival procedure, or the MDA for the procedure being flown'.

In this case why not descend below the 4300 using the VOR Rwy 17 approach this will get you down to 3250 within 5 NM of the aerodrome aligned with the runway centreline and established not below "on slope" on the T-VASIS or PAPI.

Going from your information sounds like they were doing you a favour positioning you on the radial set up nicely to apply a 'bread and butter' IFR procedure:ok: .

Icarus2001 an interesting approach(pardon the pun;) ) how many runways does this airport have 2 or 4?

Safe flying:)

[Uncommon Sense]

Is this approach or centre? i.e. are you being provided with a Radar Approach service?

Why not ring them up and ask them what they were expecting / what they were thinking?

[Captain Can't]

U/S - radar vectored to the CB350/15 by centre, cleared for app by CBR Approach.

hoss,
Unless you have 'established and can continue flight to the aerodrome with continuous visual reference to the ground or water' then ATC cant authorize a visual approach (ATC AU-706)
We had not reported visual. I interpret reporting 'visual' as 'i meet the criteria and i'm requesting a visual approach' We didn't report, nor did we want a visual approach - being vectored to that point we expected to be led into the VOR app... FWIW, we did call them up, but were able to speak only to the duty officer, who was not familiar with that area and couldn't really help - except file a report.
You said you were 'cleared for the approach of your choice'. What is stopping you from applying 'at an altitude not below the LSALT/MSA for the route segment, the appropriate step of the DME or GPS Arrival procedure, or the MDA for the procedure being flown'.
We were 'cleared for an approach of our choice' after the vis app was rejected. We then flew the VOR, no particular dramas there, I just want to know why it seems routine for clearences to be given that can't be flown (with stable app req's), to the best of my knowledge hoss, you can't; why not descend below the 4300 using the VOR Rwy 17 approach this will get you down to 3250 within 5 NM of the aerodrome aligned with the runway centreline and established not below "on slope" on the T-VASIS or PAP
As, according to the AIP, or as you stated; at an altitude not below the LSALT/MSA for the route segment, the appropriate step of the DME or GPS Arrival procedure, or the MDA for the procedure being flown... does this mean that when cleared for a visual approach, you can just fly the VOR to get within 5nms? I am of the impression that only GPS/DME steps/lsalt/msa etc could be used?
I know I'm taking this way too far, I just find this little bit confusing.
Cheers, CC.

[Jenna Talia]

Captain Can't,

I think you are making an easy job difficult. Hoss had the best suggestion with - In this case why not descend below the 4300 using the VOR Rwy 17 approach this will get you down to 3250 within 5 NM of the aerodrome aligned with the runway centreline and established not below "on slope" on the T-VASIS or PAPI.

Next time and every other time, why not request to be vectored to a 10 mile final for the Rwy 17 VOR/DME approach? The rest is easy.

[Captain Can't]

JT, Thanks, but thats just what I asked in my last post, is that legal?

and yes, i plan to just get request out there next time.

[ITCZ]

Cap'n C, just out of interest, what else was happening at the time?

Specifically, what was the traffic like?

Perhaps the ATCO in question had an aircraft he wanted to get away, or had another arriving aircraft ahead of or behind you.

As you would know, a clearance for an instrument approach ties up a lot more airspace than a visual approach.

Maybe he/she was prompting you into a situation that might have expedited another aircraft's arrival or departure.

Having said that, good on you for not accepting a procedure that you didn't think was appropriate in the circumstances.

Thats why they pay us the big bucks! :ok:

[amos2]

You wanna do a visual approach into CB on 17 at night?...you're crazy!

If ATC offer you a visual approach into CB on 17 at night...they're being lazy, and crazy!

[Vref+5]

Is it really the best idea to follow an instrument when conducting a visual approach? Too many people have stuffed it up and been the victims of CFIT. Keep it simple. If doing a visual approach follow the requirements for a visual approach, if unsure do the instrument approach.

Technically you couldn't use the height on the VOR/DME approach. AIP states that you must remain at the last assigned altitude, if being radar vectored until established on the VASIS etc etc. Additionally you are not permitted to descend below the MSA unless less you have passed through an IAF of an IAP etc etc.

I have landed at CB many times on 17 at night. ATC offered us the visual approach, but our company policy was to refuse immediately and request the VOR/DME. ATC got the hint after a few months and stopped offering the visual approach.

I have also been IMC at MDA on this approach at night, despite the ATIS saying conditions were SCT 040 (I was unable to see the cloud prior to entering it) How would you get out of that one if you were doing a visual approach but following the IAP?

[Jenna Talia]

amos2,

There is nothing crazy or lazy about it. This is common practice at both radar & procedural environments. Once you are within 10 miles of the airport and advise ATC you can accept a visual approach they will give it to you. It is then up to you to maintain your own separation with surrounding terrain by complying with the AIP rules.

The problem also arises is that ATC may hold you above their radar lower safe alt until rather late, which can result in a higher than normal approach along with its associated problems. This is maybe what Captain Can't is experiencing.

As I previously mentioned, at CB request radar vectors to a 10 mile final for the Rwy 17 VOR/DME approach. When near the end of the vector ATC will clear you for finals of the approach and the rest is easy.

Personally though, I would not accept a visual approach at night unless (at a controlled airport) I am vectored to at least a 5 mile final that places me directly onto the PAPI or VASIS (not high but on correct glide path as in the case of Rwy 30 at CB, which jets never get, anyway). Otherwise it is the final leg of an instrument approach.

On another issue, but one that I feel is relevant whilst we are on the subject - At a non controlled airport, the approaches I fly at night are a DME/GPS arrival that allows me a straight in approach, GPSNPA approach or final leg of a Rwy VOR/DME -GPS or NDB/DME-GPS approach. In other words, the less night circling approaches the better.

The advantage I find with these approaches that enable straight ins at night are less of the 'black hole' effect where PAPI or VASIS are not available plus the major advantage of not colliding with any terrain.

[woftam]

As an aside to the approach issues,the majority of the time that RWY17 is in use at night it has a tailwind component approaching the maximum due to "noise abatement".
:mad:

[Blip]

This is off the subject of visual approaches to this runway however:

Check out the VOR Rwy 17 staight-in-landing (visibility) minima and compare this to the distance the missed approach point is short of the runway. Somehow I don't think so!

The minima is only 5000m however 8km visibility is required as an absolute minimum just to see the threshold, never mind the VASIS.

5000m visibility would be fine if you were descending only to the Circling Minima and maintained that utill you could comply with circling approach requirements.

Also the Alternate Minima is only 7 km!

I always thought this runway could do with those Runway End Identification lights REIL (two strobe lights either side of the threshold) if not lead-in strobe lights.

Can't wait for the inevitable decommisioning of the T-VASIS in preference for what must be world's best practice. The near useless PAPI.

:mad:

[Uncommon Sense]

Couple of comments:

(I know nothing of CB or their ATC procedures BTW)

Capt Can't

(Insist on speaking to one of the approach controllers rated on the sector - many of the 'supervisors' have never worked the airspace, ratings or procedures of the particular sectors they are supervising - the super centres are just too large for that to be possible.)

1. I don't agree with the statement made that calling VISUAL is a 'request' for a Visual Approach. If you were being processed by an IAL by DAY I would probably 'offer' it however - but only where permitted (i.e. International Heavy aircraft that are NOT VH- or ZK- registered can not be offered - they must ask). By night in a radar approach environment I would imagine that descent on RLSALT to final on VASI's or to circling area would be the normal processing of VSA, or processed by the IAL. Issuing of VSA to IFR ACFT by NI in a Radar APP environment has not been the norm from what I have seen - usually because it is not the best or most efficient use of the radar from both an efficiency perspective and the getting down the quickest perspective.

2. I don't know the RTCC for CB. I will assume that 4300 as mentioned in the earlier post is the best that can be assigned. In that case the IAL would appear the most efficient descent profile for RWY 17 straight in. So for all intents and purposes the VSA and IAL become practically the same approach except for having a higher minima do they not?

i.e. Maint 4300 until the IAF, desc to 4100 at 10 DME, then to the MDA at 7DME and then VSA on the VASI at 5NM from the THRH? Would that not meet the requirements of the VSA criteria?




3. The controller can (and does) forget when you call Visual - believe me. Sometimes when there is a lot going on and there are maybe up to 8-9 inbound it is possible to forget who called visual. Point being - if you are cleared VSA and you are NOT visual, say so.

Some pertinent reference links:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/dap/SCBVO01-101.PDF (CB RWY 17 VOR APCH)

http://****sutonka.port5.com/cb17.gif

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/aip/enr/15739.pdf (AIP Visual Approach from IAL)

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/aip/enr/111110.pdf (AIP Visual Approach - ATC Authorisation)


Following are the DME/GPS ARRIVAL plates for CB:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/dap/SCBDG03-101.PDF
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/dap/SCBDG02-101.PDF
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/dap/SCBDG01-101.PDF

[grip-pipe]

Hmmm, this has all got a litle bit confusing guys, the rules about night instrument approaches going over to visual approaches are not a noose about our neck but the parachute harness.

Pardon me Hoss and Capt Cant - and others, Let's go back to the basic rules here and then to CC's quandry with CB ATC:

AIP/JEPP provided that are to be No visual approaches (at night) until within the circling area for your category of aircraft, unless your on the ILS or another type of instrument approach, and then no descent below the steps (lsalts) or MDA until you get to the circling area, either way you stay on the instrument approach and not below any safe altitude until you get within the circling area, simple. The issue of clear of cloud and in sight of ground or water is actually a trap qualification on the 'out' being discussed as they cannot be achieved at night.

Why? Well gents how do you propose to remain in "sight" of the ground at night? Answer - you cannot. If you could we would not need all those expensive runway and approach lights and GPWS systems would we?

Fly it any other way you risk getting dirt through the front window.

Now back to CB ATC and the visual onto R!7. No matter what ATC might like to offer, your flying the aircraft so you take the rap, that is what the CAR's say about command responsbiility. So if you don't know where the ground is in relation to your present position not below LSALT till you do. At night you only can have safely achieved that when your in the circling area at a circuit or downwind approach height having successfully passed all the up and down bits on the way down via an approach procedure. Figure out your own descent profile in advance and then manage it. The rest is something to sort out between your Chief Checkie or Pilot and ATC in CB so yo don't get offered short cuts you can't accept.

Other than that it is a case of how to finesse the whole process, seems there is some pretty smart advice already preceding mine.

Cheers and Safe Flying

[Captain Can't]

Grip-Pipe;
At no stage have I accepted nor said I have accepted a clearance I wasn't happy with. Read closer, clearance rejected. Thank you, I'm aware of my responsibities.
I'm also aware of when I can leave RLSALT, which is within the circling area or in this case, within 5nm, aligned with the runway centreline and not below 'onslope' etc etc. My proplem is why this approach has been offered (anecdotal evidence says it's not infrequent) when it clearly is not acceptable. This has led me to wonder if I was missing something, it seems now that I haven't been missing anything, as to other a/c accepting it and flying it? I'm not too sure how it's been done. Perhaps through error in the suggested method by Hoss. I don't think Vis Apps on this runway at night are particularly prudent, as Amos2 so succinctly put it.

U/C, thanks for your once-again well informed reply, upon contacting the ATC centre in MEL, we were informed we couldn't speak to our actual controller, as he was obviously at his station - doing his job i guess! - we dropped the issue, scratched our heads to see if it could be done and resolved to just plainly request the VOR next time.
Clear as mud. Cheers.

U/C
2. I don\'t know the RTCC for CB. I will assume that 4300 as mentioned in the earlier post is the best that can be assigned. In that case the IAL would appear the most efficient descent profile for RWY 17 straight in. So for all intents and purposes the VSA and IAL become practically the same approach except for having a higher minima do they not?
Are you saying that cleared for VSA then, for the min alt requirements for the crew, the IAL (VOR 17) can then be applied? Jepps (sorry don\'t have AIP handy) ATC Departure, App and ldg procedures 1.9.5.5 Minimum Altitude Requirments section b part 1 (IFR by night) makes no mention of this being available?? It includes decent to Lsalt/MSA, DME/GPS arrival or RLSALT only.
Or is what you have mentioned what ATC expect to be flown?
Thanks once again. Captn Caaaan\'t

[Uncommon Sense]

Capt Can't asked:

Are you saying that cleared for VSA then, for the min alt requirements for the crew, the IAL (VOR 17) can then be applied? Jepps (sorry don't have AIP handy) ATC Departure, App and ldg procedures 1.9.5.5 Minimum Altitude Requirments section b part 1 (IFR by night) makes no mention of this being available?? It includes decent to Lsalt/MSA, DME/GPS arrival or RLSALT only.


Perhaps I am misinterpreting the bolding below but that is how I would have read it if for example there was no ATC there whatsoever:

(Just re-read Grip Pipe's post and he/she seems to read it the same way)

ref: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/aip/enr/15739.pdf



1.14

Visual Approaches

Subject to the requirements of paragraphs 1.7, 1.10 and 1.13, the
pilot need not commence or may discontinue the approved instrument approach procedure to that aerodrome when:

b. By Night. At an altitude not below the LSALT/MSA for the route
segment, the appropriate step of the DME or GPS Arrival Procedure,
or the MDA for the procedure being flown, the aircraft is
established:
(1) clear of cloud;
(2) in sight of ground or water;
(3) with a flight visibility not less then 5,000M; and
(4) within the circling area or VAA – H, as applicable; or
(5) within 5NM (7NM for a runway equipped with an ILS) of
that aerodrome aligned with the runway centreline and
established not below “on slope” on the T-VASIS or PAPI;
or
(6) within 10NM (14NM for Runways 16L and 34L at
Sydney) of that aerodrome, established not below the
ILS glide path with less than full scale azimuth deflection.



My bolding above. (Is it that Jepps have omitted this part of it, or have I taken it out of context?)

So my interpretation of that as a pilot is if I elected to fly the Runway Specific VOR approach ( i.e. given choice by ATC or no ATC avail), and I met the criteria of not below the MDA, I could then legally conduct the VSA if the other criteria were met and be comfortable on a 300ft/min descent profile more or less to pick up the VASI at 5 NM to TCHD.

Is this what ATC expect? I really don't know if this is what CB App would expect as I don't know their procedures.

In the places I have worked it is not something I have had to consider from an ATC point of view - i.e. VSA at night (IFR) are not given unless radar vectored to circling area or final on the VASIS. This does includes some places with terrain at least as critical as Canberra , in some cases requiring long circle down approaches for unpressurised aircraft.

ATC use their own documents which inlude the following:


6.2.6. Approach Clearances
Instrument approaches
6.2.6.1 Unless authorised to make a visual approach, an IFR flight must conform to the published instrument approach procedure nominated by ATC......

..../
6.2.6.2
A controller shall not issue an air traffic clearance which authorises or requires a pilot to descend in IMC below the lowest safe altitude for the route segment in a manner different from that specified in:

a. DME, DME or GPS, or GPS Arrival procedures;
b. the procedures, plan and profile diagram of IAL charts published in
AIP / FLIP Terminal;
c. an approved instrument approach procedure published in NOTAM;
d. approved radar procedures.

6.2.6.3 When a flight other than that described in 6.2.6.4 is within 30 NM of an aerodrome, a visual approach may be authorised by day or night to:
a. a VFR flight; or
b. an IFR flight when:
1. the pilot has established and can continue flight to the aerodrome with continuous visual reference to the ground or water; and
2. the visibility along the flight path is not less than 5,000 M (or by day, the aerodrome is in sight).

6.2.6.4 In addition to the requirements of 6.2.6.3, with the exception of Australian and New Zealand operators and aircraft conducting independent visual approaches at Sydney, HEAVY jet aircraft shall only be assigned a visual approach when:

a. specifically requested by the pilot and the pilot has reported the landing runway is in sight; or
b. the straight-in approach aid is unserviceable.

6.2.6.5 In the case of the straight-in approach aid being unserviceable, the aircraft must be:

a. radar vectored to intercept final no closer than 8 NM from the runway threshold, at an altitude not less than 2500 FT above aerodrome level (AAL); and
b. assigned a straight-in visual approach when:
1. established on final or on a heading to intercept final course at an angle of not more than 30 degrees; and
2. visual glideslope guidance (VASIS / PAPI) is available; and
3. the pilot has reported the landing runway in sight.

Radar Vectoring for VISUAL approach at night

6.2.6.6 If being radar vectored at night, an IFR aircraft other than a HEAVY jet aircraft as described at 6.2.6.4, may be assigned a visual approach at any distance from an aerodrome if:
a. the flight is assigned the minimum radar LSALT; and
b. given heading instructions to intercept final or to position the aircraft within the circling area of the aerodrome.
6.2.6.7 The phraseology used when assigning a visual approach at night shall
be:
a. “WHEN ESTABLISHED IN THE CIRCLING AREA CLEARED
VISUAL APPROACH” if the flight has been radar vectored;or
b. “WHEN ESTABLISHED ON THE VASIS / GLIDEPATH CLEARED
VISUAL APPROACH” if joining final from outside the circling area.

Hope this helps.

[Captain Can't]

Yes, it seems I was... Thanks U/C.
But as to the discrepency as to what I was quoting from vs what you are using... I was using the section of Jepps dedicated to CTR ops. I have double checked, there is no reference to 'MDA of the procedure being flown'; however , a quick flick to the Terminal section - which deals with IAL procedures in general, it's there. I wonder is this a discrepency? or a difference in meaning? The terminal reference to this dealing with VSA makes no mention of ATC clearances either way - I don't think it is dealing with CTR in any case - and mentions '... the pilot need not commence or may discontinue the approved instument approach procedure when:' it goes on to cover what you have mentioned. (Jepps Terminal AU-23 3.16.1)
Thanks again for your discussion.

[enicalyth]

Much enjoyed this. I had prepared some stuff from AirServices Australia and got beaten to it. Luckily for me because I had missed something! I really like to see a well-conducted thread and not the name-calling that can go on elsewhere. Makes me proud to be an Aussie.

[amos2]

"Dirt through the front window"...yeah! I like that!

OK! So, now we're agreed that visual approaches into 17 at CB at night are not on, let's have a think about circling approaches at night into, you name it, not being on also!

[Tiberius]

Captain Can't....check your PM's

[grip-pipe]

Capt Can't

Why do controllers issue you clearances you cannot safely ahieve or comply with? because they can!

I was attempting to illustrate that something we all have to be on guard against, and I did note that you were alert to that issue, hence the thread. The point is that blindly following an ATC instruction, however legal, may not be safe for your aircraft for a variety of reasons, while ATC have a duty of care they are not responsible for its terrain clearance, the captain is in the same way we are ultimately responsbile for avoiding a collision that a control blunder may have created, we all carefully exercise that privilege daily.

The way I figure it if I've planned the approach in advance, at night that will be an instrument approach, I'll expedite if I can and accept alternate routing as long as I keep withing the appropriate lsalts. The trouble is, this is a VOR/DME approach is it not, which by its very nature is a -non precision approach- and that is the point to my mind, unless fortuitously so aligned they are not designed to get you on the runway using a 3 times profile descent but only to the circling area at a safe circling height to then manouevre for a landing. By my math you have to be high on this approach so as to join upwind then left turn into the safe circling area for a standard left downwind circuit. Or you can lose the excess height on the final to R17, and if that is within 'normal' rates of descent and stabilised for type, that's OK.

ATC to my mind seem to forget this basic problem especially if they have been mixing and matching flows and changing runways with precision and non-precision approaches. The offer to conduct a visual approach is an out for them to let your take responsibility for the approach phase and for traffic as well, on a quiet night in good weather that's OK, still fly the approach and as you did, tell them that is what your doing, your call obliges them to accept it!

Safe flying