Pugachev Cobra:

not necessarily for safety
VFR minimums are not published to help VFR pilots at all that's why you can fly 'VFR' on moonless nights or in heavy haze with no horizon and still be VFR ---they are published simply to protect IFR traffic so that the two don't mix operationally when things get iffy---to see and avoid and see and be seen

one myth is you need a natural horizon to be VFR [ maybe hard nosed joe does not] you don't really need a horzon to fly VFR just ceiling and visibilty to help cut down on aluminum shower forecasts:}

remember they don't care too much about your safety or abilty just that of others

PA

Splain that one Lucy?

They don't care if you can or can not actaully control the plane by reference the/a natural horizon only that you don't interfere with IFR traffic; actual sky conditions don't matter [legally] the FAA can't be there to know that
if you go up on a hazy day find yourself in IMC on the guages due to haze or night but you can see the other aircraft [legal reported vis] and you meet the cloud clearance requirements then feel free to spiral into the ground as you wish:)

same goes for rain on the wind shield

And captjns says... Ooooooooooooookay:rolleyes:.

In the end, captjns, it is the pilots that were never taught how, nor never practiced a circling maneuver in a jet transport airplane are nearly always the ones who profoundly shout....can't be done, safely'.
Of course they are truly misinformed, nevertheless...
Best to ignore these folks, as they have their minds made up, never mind the facts.:rolleyes:

Cheers 411A. Ergo the good old axiom... airplane pilot versus simulator pilot.

I'm sorry Pugal... but who doesn't care? Can you cite the regulation approprate to your assertion?

You are confusing an IFR flight manoeuvring with visual refernce to the runway / environs and a VFR flight which is something totally different.

The ceiling of 1500ft for a VFR flight in a control zone come about as a result of two other ICAO rules;

1. minimum cruise height of 500ft AGL and

2. requirement for a VFR flight in such a case to be 1000ft vertically from cloud.

i.e. if the ceiling is 1400ft you are not going to be able to comply with the above ICAO rules.

If I make an ILS approach with a DH of 200ft and an RVR of 550m, the bit from 200ft to touchdown will be a visual manoeuvre. With circling there is simply a lot more manoeuvring before touchdown.

Hey Captjns,

There's no regulation that states that you specifically can not.
however the explanation is a little circuituous

but the reason that in controlled airspace we have basic VFR weather minima is NOT to protect pilots from themselves but rather to protect those operating in controlled airspace so that when a certain amount of cloud cover or visibilty prevails everone is under positive ATC control; also, in the US visual contact with the ground is not required[except for some limited licences i.e sport pilot, ultralights]

furthermore visibilty as reported is slant range visibility and the refractive effects of haze, lack of good sky ground contrast etc.. can cause a legal visibilty and it can be cloudless, for example, yet the natural horizon is non-existent requiring Instrument flying techniques-so the basic reason for VFR mins are
1. to allow IFR and VFR traffic the ability to see and avoid one another without being unduly restrictive
2. to set a final minima where all traffic operating within the specific class of controlled airspace must be positively controlled

Historically, basic US basic flight rules come from the Avigation Act of 1926?
written in blood-of course:)

going back to the old axiom of "what is legal is not always safe and vice versa]" there is not regulation that stops a newly minted PPL with no IR to take off over-water on a moonless night with little backgound lighting as long as he wont hit anybody--the burden of flying is on the PIC---there's no reference in the FARS about horizon just cloud clearance and visibilty

lastly the reason we have VFR mins for uncontolled airspace is becuase it is legal for an IR pilot to fly IFR in class G airspace WITHOUT even a flight plan or clearance --- dumb in most cases IMHO,...but at least he wont be contending with some fool scud running:\

I hope I've clarified myself a bit:)

PA

PA

Indeed, it is legal and frequently done in many remote areas--Africa, Canada, Australia, South Atlantic Ocean, parts of the Indian Ocean, all of it in jet planes at FLs.

GF

Hi Guys.

Just did a circling app in my last sim. I fly a cat B a/c which is limited to 135 kts on these approaches. We configure as normal on the circling app but delay landing flap till 90 degrees in the turn on final

In icing conditions, we are required to fly at a speed plus 10kts which, at certain weights, will take the speed above 135. In such cases, I assumed that we simply couldnt fly the circling approach.

Not so say our wise TRI - you simply go to the next category that the new speed takes you into, in our case, B to C

Is that legal. How can we simply re categorise our a/c. I am aware that the speeds associated with each category is based on the turn radius required to maintain a rate one and be wings level on final with sufficient distance to go, but I didnt think I could simply cherry pick the category I wished based on my airspeed.

Cheers

Yes you can use a higher category during the circling. You have to use the higher MDA and need the increased visibility.

There is noting stopping a Cat A aircraft using Cat C minima for a circling approach since all that happens by raising the minima to the CAT C ones is that the area within which the aircraft must remain gets bigger.

So if as you found that due icing or due configuration limitations etc you have to use a speed higher than 135 for your CAT B aircraft all you have to do is use the higher minima for a CAT C so as to increase the size of the circling area to accomodate your higher speed.

What you must not do is fly a CAT C aircraft and say that "today we are so light that we can fly at 135 knots during the circle so we will use the CAT B minima". That is totally against the rules.

Thank you DFC

As always, I live 'n learn

GF I always cover my butt; notice, I carefully wrote 'in most cases':}

as one very deeply missed [on our pages] aviator writes

Happy Contrails:(