Originally Posted by
gravityf1ghter
I’m curious as to the robustness of being cleared, and then established, on one type of approach (in this case RNAV) and then requesting another approach (in this case visual). Essentially this seems to me like you’re using the benefits of one approach to get to a lower minima, and then asking to change the type of approach onto another, more beneficial one to you, where you can operate outside of the approved minima of the approaches (descending below circling minima).
Whether the approach has circling minima I agree is not relevant as to whether you can fly a visual pattern, but then in my view if you were truly visual in terms of doing the visual pattern, you wouldn’t have commenced the RNAV to run into a circling vs visual debate.
None of this is meant in a critical way, simply for conversations sake.
Yes of course you benefit of the lower minima to get lower down safely. If by 1500 ft you have everything in sight, I don’t see anything wrong here to execute a visual pattern to the other runway. You don’t operate outside of the approved minima of the approach when you are visual!
The only common here is the wording “circle” that confuses many people. Circling minima have other reasons to be there, such as technical reasons, either high terrain not justifying straight in minima or offset procedures, but also practical reasons when you really need to circle in marginal weather, with safe obstacle clearance in a large radius from thresholds and safe escape manueuvering towards the runway during a missed approach, and all of this is called an instrument approach.
But all those above are not required when you fly a visual approach. Because you are not flying any instrument, you just revert to visual.
Of course you can be truly visual when the clouds are OVC016 and you continue a visual pattern. It can make huge difference by hitting TOGA at 2000ft in VOR or 1700ft in LCTR
Everything is TEM management. You give something you take something. 1500ft is not so low. It’s the standard pattern altitude. A visual approach at night with terrain has to be considered and also the familiarity with the airport. Also look at plus points, minus points, sacrifices/benefits of all available resources (like instrument approaches and minimums) and select a course of action. Something working well for someone could feel dangerous for another pilot. Everything is acceptable but we have to be thinking with common sense. Doing this and flying a visual pattern at 800 ft is almost a recipe for a CFIT.