Airport in sight, yeah, right

[TangoWhiskey]

And Bob, chances are pretty good that the reason that ATC was bugging you to cancel was that there was another IFR coming or going that you were holding up. Now if you want the continued protection that IFR provides, there's no reason you should cave in and cancel, but personally I don't normally want to hold up another pilot if I've got the airport in sight and the conditions are severe VMC, even though it means that nobody might notice if I didnt' quite make it to the runway.

I agree, Lance... but if conditions are as good as we're talking about here, the guy on the ground is forgetting that he can ask to depart VFR and pick up his clearance just a bit down the road...

Yet another option!

I'll do things sometimes (such as cancel IFR early to help somebody get out) when only my buns are in the plane that I won't do if family, friends, or Angel Flight patients are on board.

Troy

 

[EdFred]

I once heard a VFR pilot tell a Center controller the airport was in sight ... and he was more than 30 NM AWAY!! The controller was incredulous that someone would even pretend at that distance.

I've been able to see KGRR from over 30 miles away on a clear night. Have been able to see the beacon at my home field from over 30 away too. Coming back from the Morris, IL gathering a couple weekends ago, I was at 9,500 during the day and was able to see my field from a good 40 out. Of course, I know exactly where to look for it too. You need to get out of that Florida humidty and haze. You can actually see more than 6 miles.

 

[Ken Ibold]

I've been able to see KGRR from over 30 miles away on a clear night. Have been able to see the beacon at my home field from over 30 away too. Coming back from the Morris, IL gathering a couple weekends ago, I was at 9,500 during the day and was able to see my field from a good 40 out. Of course, I know exactly where to look for it too. You need to get out of that Florida humidty and haze. You can actually see more than 6 miles.

I guess I should have made it clear in my original post that this was a typical Florida summer day when the viz at 8,000 was about 6 miles.

 

[EdFred]

Ah, that would make a difference.

 

[gismo]

I agree, Lance... but if conditions are as good as we're talking about here, the guy on the ground is forgetting that he can ask to depart VFR and pick up his clearance just a bit down the road...

Yet another option!

I'll do things sometimes (such as cancel IFR early to help somebody get out) when only my buns are in the plane that I won't do if family, friends, or Angel Flight patients are on board.

Troy

Does this mean you wouldn't make a local VFR flight from that airport with anyone else in the plane? That's pretty much the same level of risk as cancelling in the pattern at the and of a IFR trip.

Also AFaIK some flights are bound by their operating specs to always operate IFR with no option to cancel early or depart VFR. Also the conflicting traffic could be above or in the clouds while you are well below. I know I said "severe VMC" and if that's defined as CAVU then this wouldn't apply but each situation is different.

There is a way to pretty much give the same courtesy to the other pilot if he's already in the air, and that's to see if you can relay your cancellation via him once you are on the ground, eliminating the time wasted finding a phone to call in and the inevitable wait on hold for FSS.

 

[RobertGerace]

Does this mean you wouldn't make a local VFR flight from that airport with anyone else in the plane? That's pretty much the same level of risk as cancelling in the pattern at the and of a IFR trip.

Ok, I admit it. I'm overly-cautions...but I wouldn't make a local VFR flight for any reason other than a training flight that would be completely impractical IFR. I would not ever take friends or family on a VFR flight.

Why?

THE INSTRUMENT RATED PILOT DEPARTED ON A VFR FLIGHT PLAN (OR WITH NO FLIGHT PLAN FILED) AND CFIT OR MIDAIR, ETC. Does an IFR flight plan prevent (or relieve the PIC from) CFIT or midair? No. Does it help? Yes. Why would I want to explain to the grieving survivors (if I survived) why I did not use every available tool to keep their loved ones safe?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

I know many people swear by it, and that's fine; but it's not for me.

 

[EdFred]

I have to disagree with your assessment that simply checking IFR over VFR on a flight plan will help prevent a pilot from planting it into the ground or another plane on a severe VMC/VFR day. Flying IFR with no radar coverage may as well be VFR - except they will probably start looking for your wreckage quicker if you filed IFR.

 

[RobertGerace]

I have to disagree with your assessment that simply checking IFR over VFR on a flight plan will help prevent a pilot from planting it into the ground or another plane on a severe VMC/VFR day. Flying IFR with no radar coverage may as well be VFR - except they will probably start looking for your wreckage quicker if you filed IFR.

Flying IFR with no radar may as well be VFR? Not if you don't bust altitudes. They won't assign you an altitude that isn't safe (unless they make a major mistake). If you fly your assigned altitudes you will not CFIT..regardless of weather...of course, you could on approach...and on the SLIM chance there isn't radar (if you fly IFR to a minimum of class-D in most cases like me), if conditions are marginal you should be flying an approach...which you are SURE to get on an IFR flight plan and might, maybe, if they have time, on a VFR flight.

Flying IFR there are procedures that have been test-flown to get you up-across-and-down. If weather is anything less than perfect, this helps. Many times a legal VFR day has a ceiling and lower than great vis due to mist, etc. Also, haze can reduce vis with sunlight to nothing. Have you ever flown west into the setting sun, under VFR, in haze, and had no forward visibility? I have. How can you say being at IFR altitudes (99% of the time IN radar coverage)...is not safer?

I don't understand how you can say IFR won't help prevent a midair either. While the FAR's are clear that it is the pilot's responsibility to see and avoid in visual conditions, the controllers in the vast majority of cases will at least call out other traffic.

Also, the controllers won't let you fly with your transponder off (or on standby) on an IFR flight plan -- again, unless there is a rare exception. So, the VFR pilot who takes off on standby gets creamed by a heads-down jet (happened here in Atlanta a few years ago)...but the IFR pilot gets 'Nxxxxx squawk 5434'

Also, the IFR pilot is going to fly at an IFR altitude (for sure -- again, if he isn't busting)...which is separated from other IFR traffic. The VFR pilot flies at a VFR altitude (maybe), and received no attempt at separation at all.

I could probably go on, but if I haven't made my point by now, I'm wasting my margin on carpal-tunnel syndrome.

 

[BruceAir]

The contact approach is described in section 5-4-23 of the AIM, which notes:

Contact Approach

a. Pilots operating in accordance with an IFR flight plan, provided they are clear of clouds and have at least 1 mile flight visibility and can reasonably expect to continue to the destination airport in those conditions, may request ATC authorization for a contact approach.
​

b. Controllers may authorize a contact approach provided:
​

1. The contact approach is specifically requested by the pilot. ATC cannot initiate this approach....

​

c. A contact approach is an approach procedure that may be used by a pilot (with prior authorization from ATC) in lieu of conducting a standard or special IAP to an airport. It is not intended for use by a pilot on an IFR flight clearance to operate to an airport not having a published and functioning IAP. Nor is it intended for an aircraft to conduct an instrument approach to one airport and then, when "in the clear," discontinue that approach and proceed to another airport. In the execution of a contact approach, the pilot assumes the responsibility for obstruction clearance. If radar service is being received, it will automatically terminate when the pilot is instructed to change to advisory frequency.

​

You can find more information in section 7-4-6 of Air Traffic Control, the official FAA handbook for air traffic controllers.

​

Both of these publications, plus many other useful, official references, are available on the FAA's Air Traffic Publications Web site (http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/), which now makes many publications avialable in both HTML and PDF formats for online reading or download to your computer.

​

 

[EdFred]

Also, the IFR pilot is going to fly at an IFR altitude (for sure -- again, if he isn't busting)...which is separated from other IFR traffic. The VFR pilot flies at a VFR altitude (maybe), and received no attempt at separation at all.

I could probably go on, but if I haven't made my point by now, I'm wasting my margin on carpal-tunnel syndrome.

Except when you are flying into an uncontrolled field with no IAP in G-space with no radar coverage. IFR won't make a lick of difference at that point. Then again with all the problems you've had with your bird, I wouldn't blame you for never filing VFR.
I also wouldnt call haze into a setting/rising sun severe VMC/VFR
Question: How do you do a sightseeing flight IFR?

 

[Greebo]

So, Bruce, if I understand the Contact Approach, if you feel a "slam dunk" coming, and you have the visibilty and cloud clearance, you can request a Contact Approach, and if approved, descend at a more comfortable pace while trying to make visual contact?

Would you then, when on a contact approach, announce "Airport in sight?"

 

[BruceAir]

If you are cleared for a contract approach, the controller may issue a clearance with alternative procedures, instructions for when to contact the tower or advisory frequency, etc. You may also receive a limit on atltude.

The section from Air Traffic Control that I cited earlier is illustrative:

7-4-6. CONTACT APPROACH
​

Clear an aircraft for a contact approach only if the following conditions are met:
​

a. The pilot has requested it.
​

NOTE-
When executing a contact approach, the pilot is responsible for maintaining the required flight visibility, cloud clearance, and terrain/obstruction clearance. Unless otherwise restricted, the pilot may find it necessary to descend, climb, and/or fly a circuitous route to the airport to maintain cloud clearance and/or terrain/obstruction clearance. It is not in any way intended that controllers will initiate or suggest a contact approach to a pilot.
​

b. The reported ground visibility is at least 1 statute mile.
​

c. A standard or special instrument approach procedure has been published and is functioning for the airport of intended landing.
​

d. Approved separation is applied between aircraft so cleared and other IFR or SVFR aircraft. When applying vertical separation, do not assign a fixed altitude but clear the aircraft at or below an altitude which is at least 1,000 feet below any IFR traffic but not below the minimum safe altitude prescribed in 14 CFR Section 91.119.
​

NOTE-
14 CFR Section 91.119 specifies the minimum safe altitude to be flown:
(a) Anywhere.
(b) Over congested areas.
(c) Other than congested areas. To provide for an emergency landing in the event of power failure and without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(d) Helicopters. May be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paras (b) and (c) above if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface.
​

e. An alternative clearance is issued when weather conditions are such that a contact approach may be impracticable.
​

PHRASEOLOGY-
CLEARED CONTACT APPROACH,

And if required,
AT OR BELOW (altitude) (routing).

IF NOT POSSIBLE, (alternative procedures), AND ADVISE.
​

 

[wsuffa]

Does an IFR flight plan prevent (or relieve the PIC from) CFIT or midair? No. Does it help?

Maybe it helps. Sometimes it doesn't.

I wish I had kept a copy of the story of the guy who departed from Scottsdale or Mesa Arizona IFR, ATC gave him a vector toward a butte and forgot about him - too busy to get a word in on the frequency.

I can tell you personally of a couple of times that ATC cleared me to land straight in on final while at the same time clearing someone else to take off opposite direction.

I agree that another set of eyes help. That's why I fly IFR (especially on a day like today - clear and a million - when I went to Louisiana). Just be careful before you put too much trust in it....

And then there are the cases where ATC wants you at 17K or in the FLs to even think about clearing you over the top of a Class Bravo. Yet you can fly over the top VFR. I went at 17K today and took the winds. Other times I'd be tempted to save the 60+ mile detour.

bill

 

[gismo]

Flying IFR with no radar may as well be VFR? Not if you don't bust altitudes. They won't assign you an altitude that isn't safe (unless they make a major mistake). If you fly your assigned altitudes you will not CFIT..regardless of weather...of course, you could on approach...and on the SLIM chance there isn't radar (if you fly IFR to a minimum of class-D in most cases like me), if conditions are marginal you should be flying an approach...which you are SURE to get on an IFR flight plan and might, maybe, if they have time, on a VFR flight.

Flying IFR there are procedures that have been test-flown to get you up-across-and-down. If weather is anything less than perfect, this helps. Many times a legal VFR day has a ceiling and lower than great vis due to mist, etc. Also, haze can reduce vis with sunlight to nothing. Have you ever flown west into the setting sun, under VFR, in haze, and had no forward visibility? I have. How can you say being at IFR altitudes (99% of the time IN radar coverage)...is not safer?

I don't understand how you can say IFR won't help prevent a midair either. While the FAR's are clear that it is the pilot's responsibility to see and avoid in visual conditions, the controllers in the vast majority of cases will at least call out other traffic.

Also, the controllers won't let you fly with your transponder off (or on standby) on an IFR flight plan -- again, unless there is a rare exception. So, the VFR pilot who takes off on standby gets creamed by a heads-down jet (happened here in Atlanta a few years ago)...but the IFR pilot gets 'Nxxxxx squawk 5434'

Also, the IFR pilot is going to fly at an IFR altitude (for sure -- again, if he isn't busting)...which is separated from other IFR traffic. The VFR pilot flies at a VFR altitude (maybe), and received no attempt at separation at all.

I could probably go on, but if I haven't made my point by now, I'm wasting my margin on carpal-tunnel syndrome.

Bob, this may be a pointless discussion as I certainly don't want to "talk" you into doing something you're not comfortable with, but I'm finding your perspective interesting to say the least so I'm going to comment further. Please don't consider this a criticism of your beliefs/behavior.

WRT VFR flight vs IFR in general, I'm pretty much with you on the idea of making most x/c flight under IFR. For one thing it's usually easier and safer because as you said you are following proven procedures that are designed to keep you from meeting up with terra firma other than a runway. But if that's your main motivation, why consider a visual approach at all. You are allowed to fly any available approach you want in VMC, and by doing so you are extending the "protection" that IFR procedures offer all the way to the MDA or DH. As I posted earlier some professional operators make it a rule to always use an IFR approach procedure for that very reason. OTOH, if you are OK with visual approaches then I submit that there is very little gained safety wise by remaining on an IFR clearance to a non-towered field in good VMC. As far as I can see the only potential benefits are that doing so significantly reduces the possibility of coming nose to nose with another IFR aircraft, plus the more rapid SAR response if you don't arrive safely. If you are below radar coverage you won't be getting any traffic avoidance help, and even when radar service is available you aren't likely to get more than an observation regarding how many aircraft are between you and the airport or in the pattern at the point that you are cleared for the visual.

How do you see remaining IFR on a visual approach into a non-towered, non radar environment increases your safety by a perceptible amount?

 

[RobertGerace]

Hey Lance!

Great points. However, the approach and landing phase is but a very small part of the flight. So, the vast majority is enroute, and I feel safer for all the reasons we agree on.

As to the visual, based on this thread I've come to a new way of thinking -- posted in a much eariler post. From now on, to heck to 'speeding up the system' I am going to request the approach even in VMC.

Flying is different things to different people. To me it is transportation. To others it is sightseeing. While I've been doing this since 1980, I've really only been doing it a LOT since 1999. Since 1999 I've been involved in two near-mid-air's...with two pilots in the airplane with heads on swivels. Had we not been looking we would have been creamed both times.

Maybe when most people flew around NORDO see-and-avoid meant something; but in this day and age of everybody flying a Garmin I just don't feel safe.

I'm not knocking the NORDO (or high-tech) pilot who never files, talks or never talks, or whatever. The system is what it is for all of us to share. I know the rules and the risks, and I'm fine with "I'm OK; You're OK". But the point is, I'm OK thinking IFR is safer, and conducting myself that way.

 

[wsuffa]

Hey, Bob,

One other thing to keep in mind. At some airports, ATC will resist heavily if you ask for non-visual approach in clear conditions.

Here's an example. San Antonio International normally uses Rwys 12 (12R is the long runway with ILS, 12L is a shorter VFR runway). There is also Rwy 3, which some of the carriers (SWA) use because the approach end is very close to the terminal gates. Under relatively calm conditions, SAT will use 12R & L for arrivals (12L for training), and Rwys 12R, 12L, and 3 for takeoffs.

If the winds are as they were today (020, 15Kts Gusting 20), SAT uses Rwy 3 for all operations.

By decree of the local ATC folks, when SAT is using single-runway configuration (i.e. Rwy 3), they will assign a visual approach (assuming VMC), and they will refuse practice ILS/Instrument approaches. Too much traffic. I don't know what happens if you're operating IFR-in-VMC and you insist, but I suspect they will send you to purgatory to hold for next-to-forever when they get a big hole in arrival and departure traffic.

I heard them refuse a couple of guys today that wanted practice approaches to rwy 3 (including one arrival from out-of-area), and I've been refused before.

When the conditions are IMC, they will still not allow practice approaches in the Rwy 3 configuration - you are expected to land unless conditions are bad enough to require a missed.

Just something to stick in the back of your mind as you come to airports in certain areas.

best,

bill

 

[Gary Sortor]

What about a contact approach?
If I understand those correctly, you can request one if you can see the ground, can remain clear of clouds in 1-mile visibility, and basically know that you can navigate yourself to the airport without hitting anything (even if you can't see the airport itself yet). But you're still IFR. Sounds perfect for this situation.

--Kath

I don't think ATC would clear you for a contact approach in CAVU. There would be no need for ATC to provide this service. It is used instead of published procedures to expedite your arrival. If he insists on remaining IFR, he should expect and accept the visual approach clearance and state that he wishes to remain on the IFR flight plan until cancelled. He can also request "lower".

 

[lsimonds]

I don't think ATC would clear you for a contact approach in CAVU. There would be no need for ATC to provide this service. It is used instead of published procedures to expedite your arrival.

Agreed. Contact approaches are often used with no published IAP when the controller can't issue a descent clearance low enough to get the aircraft VMC. Back to the visual approaches...they're easy on the controller, but it sure sounds like there's some poor service resulting. I just don't understand holding a guy up so long, especially in some of these scenarios where there isn't traffic to justify it. This mystifies me.

 

[Gary Sortor]

Contact approaches are often used with no published IAP when the controller can't issue a descent clearance low enough to get the aircraft VMC.

The airport must still have an instrument approach procedure to use a contact approach. That's one of the requirements . . . the contact approach must be in lieu of conducting a published instrument approach procedure at that airport. If ATC cleared you for a contact approach at an airport without an IAP, then they made a mistake.

 

[lsimonds]

The airport must still have an instrument approach procedure to use a contact approach. That's one of the requirements . . . the contact approach must be in lieu of conducting a published instrument approach procedure at that airport. If ATC cleared you for a contact approach at an airport without an IAP, then they made a mistake.

Gary, thank you. You are correct. Now I'm wondering if I remembered that wrong from way back when or if it changed at some point during the past 15 years. Sure thought I remembered that being an alternative to non IAP airports, but maybe not.

 

[poadeleted1]

I think his point is that he doesn't want to get a slam dunk descent to the runway.

I once heard a VFR pilot tell a Center controller the airport was in sight ... and he was more than 30 NM AWAY!! The controller was incredulous that someone would even pretend at that distance.

Ken,

I am not 100% sure of the distance, but I have been 10 SE of KBDL inbound for KBAF and could CLEARLY see the field, the VASI/PAPI (forget which) - I had all reads. CFI said you are below the glide path for rwy 2, what do you think you should do?? LOL....lets keep puttin' along at 7500 and see if we intercept it was the only thing I could think of. It was a severe clear evening and about -15 F. And I was glad that DA20C1 heat worked!!!

KP

 

[bbchien]

Flying is different things to different people. To me it is transportation. To others it is sightseeing. While I've been doing this since 1980, I've really only been doing it a LOT since 1999. Since 1999 I've been involved in two near-mid-air's...with two pilots in the airplane with heads on swivels. Had we not been looking we would have been creamed both times.

Amazing how pilots who use the a/c as transportation always come to the same conclusions....

 

[azure]

Ken,

I am not 100% sure of the distance, but I have been 10 SE of KBDL inbound for KBAF and could CLEARLY see the field, the VASI/PAPI (forget which) - I had all reads. CFI said you are below the glide path for rwy 2, what do you think you should do?? LOL....lets keep puttin' along at 7500 and see if we intercept it was the only thing I could think of. It was a severe clear evening and about -15 F. And I was glad that DA20C1 heat worked!!!

KP

I AM sure of the distance. The one and only time I flew 76G - APN, as a student pilot, I could make out the field well enough to identify it from the north shore of Saginaw Bay at 6500. That's nearly 50nm. It was severe clear, of course, and I wasn't even talking to APN Approach at that point, so no reason to call it in sight... and to be honest I kept thinking no, it CAN'T be. But it was. Of course, I would have needed a telescope to see the VASI...

Liz

 

[Earthroamer]

Bob,

If you dont want to cancel, dont. It's your flight plan and you know that. In our Op Spec's we are not allowed to cancel in the air (CFR135 runs). We are probably one of those guys you cuss waiting for us to cancel on the ground. However, if an inspector catches us doing so, we are violated.

I would be more inclined not to call the field. One example is Sugarland, TX for us. We go down there every Wednesday and Thursday in the morning as the sun is coming up. With the amout of humidity and haze and the sun position, it is very rare for us to see the airport until right on it. ATC always pushes us to call the field once we make that final turn on the arrival wish is over 20NM out. We finally just started asking for direct EBOKE and "lower" which is one of the points on the GPS approach. This lets them quit worrying about us and more on the traffic going into HOU or IAH. If we do not do this there is a chance to run into Class B without meaning too and we have heard numerous pilots do so from that exact position. Usually around EBOKE we pick it up and then call the field but at least for the last 20 to 30 miles he hasnt been waiting for us to call the field.

Most of the pilots here in T-town would just call the visual and run on the GPS.

Brent

 

[poadeleted3]

Ken,

I am not 100% sure of the distance, but I have been 10 SE of KBDL inbound for KBAF and could CLEARLY see the field, the VASI/PAPI (forget which) - I had all reads. CFI said you are below the glide path for rwy 2, what do you think you should do?? LOL....lets keep puttin' along at 7500 and see if we intercept it was the only thing I could think of. It was a severe clear evening and about -15 F. And I was glad that DA20C1 heat worked!!!

KP

When we went down to Charleston, WV, in April, I was able to clearly see the runways from 25 miles out, according to the GPS, on two seperate days over the weekend. I was cleared for the straight in, maybe the only time I'll be lining up on the runway for a vfr straight in from that far out. We had simply stunning weather on that trip.