Originally Posted by FlyingStone
(Post 10290337)
ATCos have gone to prison in the past for issuing visual approach clearances in less than optimal weather conditions, |
Night visual turned into CFIT. Read here. As a result visual approaches were forbidden for years at many Italian airport (even in daytime CAVOK). |
Originally Posted by FlyingStone
(Post 10290567)
Night visual turned into CFIT. Read here. As a result visual approaches were forbidden for years at many Italian airport (even in daytime CAVOK). edit: although reading that, it seems to me that it wasn't exactly a case of "less that optimal weather conditions". it's a little vague, but my interpretation was that the weather conditions were fine, it was that because of the aircraft's position, and the intervening terrain, the pilot couldn't have seen the airport from there. And the controller should have known that, somehow. |
I have no problem with what the OP has tried to do here. Having done visual approaches into CFU myself many times it’s one of those places that as long as you’re sensible it can make the difference between getting in and diverting to Athens. Think about it in a different way. If you were to commence the RNAV approach to runway 35, and at 1500ft tower report the tailwind is out of limits, yet you are fully visual, and in visual contact with the airport and surrounding terrain, would you do a full go around, missed approach, followed by another approach to the wrong runway, just so you could fly the circle to land? Which is pretty much what you would have done the first time round having broken off from your RNAV to fly a visual circuit to 17. One could argue that going around would be the least safe option, as 2 engine go around a seem to be the most screwed up procedure in the book. You would also save your company over a ton of fuel and about 15 mins of flying. To my mind, as long as to can satisfy the visual criteria, then a visual approach can be commenced from any part of the instrument approach in use. Indeed we would brief this. If the VOR/ILS/GPS/NDB signal is lost and we are visual we would continue. Also, Larnica has a published RNAV to visual approach. To me, if there is doubt, there is no doubt. Safety has to be absolutely paramount. However, we also have to practical about what we’re doing. p.s. Just last month I broke off an ILS in TFS to fly a visual circuit to the other runway. As did about 5 other aircraft. |
That's common sense Jonty. But forbidden in most airlines these days.... My own outfit prohibits visual approaches at night (1500'agl) but allows a circle to land off any crappy offset NDB approach down to a minimum of 1000' agl. Rules is rules.... |
Originally Posted by 763 jock
(Post 10290650)
That's common sense Jonty. But forbidden in most airlines these days.... My own outfit prohibits visual approaches at night (1500'agl) but allows a circle to land off any crappy offset NDB approach down to a minimum of 1000' agl. Rules is rules.... |
Jonty this was my second thought. I tried to be honest with ATC but didn’t helped in hindsight. Next time will do exactly that. When in final he can’t deny a visual pattern to the other runway. So if they don’t like it in one way, they will like it the other way. You have to be gentle Crazy, but true. They would accept, I am sure. As for the legality on the visual patterns, are allowed day and night in my company, no restrictions on circling procedures or wherever. A squared, yes, in EASA OPS you can check the minimum requirements for visual approach, provided the RVR is more than 800m, and has nothing to do with VFR minima. In USA I know it is done differently. Cheers |
Originally Posted by gravityf1ghter
(Post 10290397)
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. 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. |
Why not simply ask for radar vectors for downwind 17 which will bring you to the MVA of 2900 ft or fly the LCTR A approach with a CAT C/D circling minma of 1700 ft and then left base for 17. I would see that as better than the RNAV 35 anyway as you join a left downwind with the runway in sight out to the left all times.
|
Does EASA not have a Contact Approach procedure? It is in 5.4.25 of the AIM but I don't know how to include a link. Candidly, at least one of our controllers here did not know about this... |
Out of curiosity : is the local Authority considering the implementation of an RNP (AR) approach for Rwy 17 ? I understand that throughout the year the usage ration between runway 35/17 is probably an 80/20 % or so, in that case does it mean it is not worth it ? It it just one of the many examples where an RNP (AR) would be highly beneficial.
|
Does EASA not have a Contact Approach procedure? It is in 5.4.25 of the AIM but I don't know how to include a link. Candidly, at least one of our controllers here did not know about this... |
What's the ICAO ID?
|
Originally Posted by aterpster
(Post 10293099)
What's the ICAO ID?
..................... |
Originally Posted by Lantirn
(Post 10290803)
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.
Why do we even have circling minima then? Why not be practical and every time instead of applying the circling minima, shoot a straight in approach, and ask for a visual once you’re out of the clouds? |
Because circling minima is usually a lot lower than the height a visual circuit would be flown at. |
Originally Posted by Jonty
(Post 10293210)
Because circling minima is usually a lot lower than the height a visual circuit would be flown at. |
Originally Posted by A Squared
(Post 10293212)
I don't think you understood the question.
|
When you are circling to land you can have the top of the tail in the cloud base at circling altitude. You need the required visibility and be able to keep the runway in site. You must remain within the circling area, 4.2nm for CAT C, 5.28NM for CAT D. In EASA, to fly a visual approach you need to be VMC. That requires 1000' clear of cloud vertically and 1500M horizontally. A circling approach and a visual approach are fundamentally different. You can't just fly an instrument approach to one runway (to that approaches minima) then declare "visual" and self manoeuvre to land on the opposite end. If you took this argument to extremes, you could decide that you'll fly to CAT 1 minima, declare visual at 250' AGL and then call it a visual and fly a low level circuit to the other end. There is no circling minima on the RNAV 35 procedure. Unless you are able to maintain VMC (as above), the only option is to fly one of the other approaches to its associated circling minima. Simples. |
Originally Posted by 763 jock
(Post 10293646)
In EASA, to fly a visual approach you need to be VMC. That requires 1000' clear of cloud vertically and 1500M horizontally. A circling approach and a visual approach are fundamentally different. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:31. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.