altitude uncomfortable high for visual approach

P

PAPAAIR

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
14
Location
Western MD
Display Name
Lee
Just asking for suggestions, IFR approach into an uncontrolled airport on an IFR plan, cleared for visual, but scattered clouds. Kept at required minimums of 6000 but in a 10-mile valley center. Another plane entering a RNAV initial approach, but we are cleared for a visual in front of that plane. We were at 9,000 , we asked for lower, given, 7,000, asked again allowed 6,000. We talked to other aircraft and they wanted to hold while we landed. We had to lose 2,000 feet uncomfortably close to the airport, descend at over 1,000 ft per minute, leaned so not so much shock cooling, though cyl were not that hot anyway. Could not do any fancy manuver, because we could have lost sight of airport in the clouds. 6,000 down to 2,000 to fast to be nice. Our expirence, that kept to high for a nice visual, seems standard when given a visual, makes you want to ask for a RNAV or ILS. Asked to cancel IFR as soon as seemed safe, to give us more leeway. We were landing at an alternate just outside of a ice storm.
 
I’m sure I can think of situations where I would, but I’m just not a big fan of accepting a visual approach to a nontowered airport unless I can maintain VFR after being cleared for the approach.
 
I hope you considered slowing way down at the earliest time you knew this was going to be a slam dunk. Then when cleared for lower close in to the airport drop the gear (if you're in a retractable) put some flaps in, power back and descend at a good rate. 1000 fpm isn't that bad. 1500 fpm will get you down quicker.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I’m sure I can think of situations where I would, but I’m just not a big fan of accepting a visual approach to a nontowered airport unless I can maintain VFR after being cleared for the approach.
Click to expand...
… actually, in those situations, I don’t get cleared for the visual. I couple “airport in sight” with “cancel IFR.”
 
Marshall said:
Just asking for suggestions, IFR approach into an uncontrolled airport on an IFR plan, cleared for visual, but scattered clouds. Kept at required minimums of 6000 but in a 10-mile valley center. Another plane entering a RNAV initial approach, but we are cleared for a visual in front of that plane. We were at 9,000 , we asked for lower, given, 7,000, asked again allowed 6,000. We talked to other aircraft and they wanted to hold while we landed. We had to lose 2,000 feet uncomfortably close to the airport, descend at over 1,000 ft per minute, leaned so not so much shock cooling, though cyl were not that hot anyway. Could not do any fancy manuver, because we could have lost sight of airport in the clouds. 6,000 down to 2,000 to fast to be nice. Our expirence, that kept to high for a nice visual, seems standard when given a visual, makes you want to ask for a RNAV or ILS. Asked to cancel IFR as soon as seemed safe, to give us more leeway. We were landing at an alternate just outside of a ice storm.
Click to expand...
Something in this description does not make sense. You are on an IFR flight plan and clearance. ATC clears you for the Visual Approach to a non-towered field. You would have had to reported the airport in sight. The second aircraft "starting an RNAV approach" does not make sense. ATC cannot clear another aircraft for approach until you cancel IFR, either in the air or on the ground. Perhaps the IAF for the RNAV is 20nm away and a slow moving Cezzna, ATC expects you will cancel before the slow mover gets to the FAF?

What also does not make sense is if you are cleared for a visual approach, you don't need to keep asking for lower. You are already cleared to the ground from the altitude you started at.

I will agree that ATC may tend to keep aircraft higher closer to the airport. Particularly in hilly terrain. They do have Minimum Vectoring altitudes, but once you report the airport in sight and ATC clears you for a Visual Approach, then the pilot is responsible to keep the airport insight and avoid terrain.
 
I made a mistake in the original post, we had to lose 4000 ft not 2000. And we were told to expect visual, not a RNAV, but still with ATC and not canceled so we had to follow what they wanted on altitude, but realized we would get dumped to high. And we did cancel IFR at same time while watching ADSB it show a plane approach the RNAV same runway. It was 16 miles out from airport we were at about 5 miles out and then we were cleared for approach. And the PIC , me had an intestinal problem, so not want to extend my misery. We had a solid visual, but not great maneuvering with marginal VFR. Checked all the boxes ...ice north of airport another reason why we were landing. Just to high for nice visual approach.
 
Marshall said:
Just asking for suggestions, IFR approach into an uncontrolled airport on an IFR plan, cleared for visual, but scattered clouds. Kept at required minimums of 6000 but in a 10-mile valley center. Another plane entering a RNAV initial approach, but we are cleared for a visual in front of that plane. We were at 9,000 , we asked for lower, given, 7,000, asked again allowed 6,000. We talked to other aircraft and they wanted to hold while we landed. We had to lose 2,000 feet uncomfortably close to the airport, descend at over 1,000 ft per minute, leaned so not so much shock cooling, though cyl were not that hot anyway. Could not do any fancy manuver, because we could have lost sight of airport in the clouds. 6,000 down to 2,000 to fast to be nice. Our expirence, that kept to high for a nice visual, seems standard when given a visual, makes you want to ask for a RNAV or ILS. Asked to cancel IFR as soon as seemed safe, to give us more leeway. We were landing at an alternate just outside of an ice storm.
Click to expand...
This post kinda leads me to believe you don’t understand the IFR system.
 
Marshall said:
And we did cancel IFR at same time while watching ADSB it show a plane approach the RNAV same runway. It was 16 miles out from airport we were at about 5 miles out and then we were cleared for approach.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I still can’t tell what you mean. Take those two sentences. First you say you canceled IFR. Then you say you were cleared for the approach. Do you understand those two things are inconsistent? That being cleared for an approach after cancelling IFR makes no sense.
 
You are correct. We were told to EXPECT a visual ( not cleared)
The airport in sight.
Cleared for approach.
Then canceled IFR
5 miles , 4000 ft descent to Pattern altitude
 
1976 Cessna 206 520 turbo, no problem to dive, we were configured and expected that, just not cool with a passenger.
 
PAPAAIR said:
1976 Cessna 206 520 turbo, no problem to dive, we were configured and expected that, just not cool with a passenger.
Click to expand...
In a 206, 1,000'/minute descent seems like it would meet the need and shouldn't necessitate a dive or any other uncomfortable maneuvering.
 
PAPAAIR said:
1976 Cessna 206 520 turbo, no problem to dive, we were configured and expected that, just not cool with a passenger.
Click to expand...
If you canceled IFR or were even cleared for a visual approach while remaining IFR, I don't see the problem, a reason to dive, or make normal maneuvers. There must be more to the story - maybe the airport terrain environment meant you couldn't do a casual 360 to lose excess altitude?
 
If I read the original report, part of your concern was staying out of clouds. When ATC said "expect visual", I would have replied "unable", give me vectors (or whatever made sense) to the RNAV. ATC can't see the weather where you are.
 
PAPAAIR said:
Just asking for suggestions, IFR approach into an uncontrolled airport on an IFR plan, cleared for visual, but scattered clouds. Kept at required minimums of 6000 but in a 10-mile valley center. Another plane entering a RNAV initial approach, but we are cleared for a visual in front of that plane. We were at 9,000 , we asked for lower, given, 7,000, asked again allowed 6,000. We talked to other aircraft and they wanted to hold while we landed. We had to lose 2,000 feet uncomfortably close to the airport, descend at over 1,000 ft per minute, leaned so not so much shock cooling, though cyl were not that hot anyway. Could not do any fancy manuver, because we could have lost sight of airport in the clouds. 6,000 down to 2,000 to fast to be nice. Our expirence, that kept to high for a nice visual, seems standard when given a visual, makes you want to ask for a RNAV or ILS. Asked to cancel IFR as soon as seemed safe, to give us more leeway. We were landing at an alternate just outside of a ice storm.
Click to expand...
I'm confused? When you were cleared the visual you were cleared to proceed visually to the airport. Visual approaches have no required minimum altitude except don't hit the ground prior to the runway. Terrain separation became your responsibility. You can fly any altitude you need to complete the approach. Even if they say to expect the visual you can always decline it and request a specific alternate procedure. Remember, if you are asked if you have the airport or the traffic you are following in sight you can pretty much expect that the controllers next sentence will include the phrase 'cleared the visual approach.' See AIM 5-5-11(3).
 
Net Net - don't do a visual approach unless you've got a nice clear day, no clouds under or in front of you all the way to the airport and a little beyond. If any question about that, continue on the RVAV. Even if that means you pop out into VMC above pattern altitude, and "gee, I could have done the visual if I was dropped lower by ATC".
 
PAPAAIR said:
And we were told to expect visual,
Click to expand...
I was also going to pile-on to call out the inconsistencies with your question, but caught that others already did.
FYI... You an go back toy your original post and add an "Edit:" or "Added:" to your post to clarify you were only told "expect" the Visual.

As for what to do. If you see that ATC is keeping you high, start to pull the power back, possibly even WAY back. This will then set you up to do a fast descent with better control of your speed. It also slows how quickly you're approaching your destination, so ATC may let you go down and you've still got a fair distance between you and the airport. Obviously if you have retractable gear, consider dropping it even if you then bring it back up if you're still a far distance from the Airport.

I used to be based under the NYC Class B and when arriving from the south (after refusing to go out over the ocean at 5,000ft for about 68nm :eek:) they'd take you up the coast to JFK at 5000ft and then they'd Clear you down to 1600ft to expect the ILS 14. So you knew to slow way down when getting close to JFK, then you'd drop the gear and dive down at around 800-1000ft/min so that you'd have a few miles to get stabilized again for the Approach.
 
M20K said:
I used to be based under the NYC Class B and when arriving from the south (after refusing to go out over the ocean at 5,000ft for about 68nm :eek:) they'd take you up the coast to JFK at 5000ft and then they'd Clear you down to 1600ft to expect the ILS 14. So you knew to slow way down when getting close to JFK, then you'd drop the gear and dive down at around 800-1000ft/min so that you'd have a few miles to get stabilized again for the Approach.
Click to expand...

Ah yes... the famous ILS 14 slam dunk into KFRG. Had a few and ended up being vectored around JFK during a sporty descent to the localizer with not room remaining to level off and slow down to gear speed. I'm sure some tailwinds were also involved during the descent which contributed to making these slam dunks onto the localizer even faster. I doubt ATC realizes that Mooneys can either slow down, or go down... at least it seems that way.

With reported cloud bases high enough to run a pattern upon breaking out, once handed off to tower I confessed we're a little fast and asked upon breaking out permission to overfly the runway then enter a left downwind to run the pattern.

Was never denied the requests, and it enabled lots of time to level off above the runway, slow down, reconfigure the plane and fly a normal pattern. Worked like a charm.
 
Rick A said:
Ah yes... the famous ILS 14 slam dunk into KFRG. Had a few and ended up being vectored around JFK during a sporty descent to the localizer with not room remaining to level off and slow down to gear speed.
Click to expand...
Often wished I had speed breaks! :D

But since I was based there I knew to expect it. So that's why the slowing before JFK and then when I got the descent I'd drop the gear. If you still fly into FRG, keep it in mind.
 
M20K said:
Often wished I had speed breaks! :D

But since I was based there I knew to expect it. So that's why the slowing before JFK and then when I got the descent I'd drop the gear. If you still fly into FRG, keep it in mind.
Click to expand...

Coming in from the west vectors were generally pointed in the direction of JFK before any excursions began out over the ocean, and they were not too far offshore.

The issue was being held at 5000' until past JFK after slowing down, and with frequency congestion having to find a few seconds to jump in (frustrating) to remind approach (125.7) we need lower. In retrospect lowering the gear before starting down would have been a good idea.

Wish I had speed brakes, especially in an earlier 1967 F model that had a lower gear extension speed (120 KTS?) than the J's. When being vectored outside the IAP, and told to keep the speed up, the answer would be "we'll do the best we can... we have a low gear extension speed". Sometimes that would knock us back in the landing sequence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top