Originally Posted by
mikewil
This is the logical way of putting it I was trying to get at.
Would that argument hold water if you had to justify your actions to the regulator?
"I conducted a full instrument approach to straight in minima then changed to VFR for the remaining 2 minutes of the flight to circumvent IFR circling requirements".
From a practical point of view I don't see much of a problem with it but somehow I don't think CASA would like it too much.
'From a practical point of view', flying a missed approach means climbing and tracking as per the missed approach, and continued VFR flight DOES NOT include a missed approach...
Perhaps your example refers to flinders island mentioned.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...LIDG01-146.pdf
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...LIGN01-146.pdf
In an attempt to return again to the original topic, you have effectively lost 2 instrument approaches. My original point is it would be better to have them redrawn as RNAV approaches. I can't imagine its a big job if they just had a circling MDA, as that is essentially what you have now... (or a few more days). I would suggest there is also the opportunity to offer two additional RWY approaches.
The Sector B at Flinders I is about as good example as any, as to why these DGA approaches are not the way forward... However the way forward should not be a step backward which seems to have occurred at Flinders Is...
By way of example here is a similarly constrained airport in the USA... (In class E
)
Charts at bottom of the page:
https://www.airnav.com/airport/KHAF