Approach for Discussion

[AdamZ]

Check out the River Visual 2 to KHFD.

RADAR required. Minimums are 3000/5

A) Why use it? If the minimums are met I don't understand why you would need it I suspect its due to the MSA. but the airport is practically at sea level. I guess there would be an occasion when there really would be a 100 -200' difference in the ceiling. Then again it is a published "Visual Approach" Is the field that hard to find?

What is really interesting is that the Jepp chart which I can't post shows a straight in approach along a course of 005 degrees. The NOA chart has you following the same route until you get to the Putnam bridge then you follow curves in the river.

Can you log a "Visual approach" such as this as an instrument approach?

 

[BruceAir]

From: http://www.naco.faa.gov/index.asp?xml=naco/online/d_tpp

Charted Visual Flight Procedures (CVFP)

CVFPs are an operational technique designed to move air traffic safely and expeditiously. In addition to conventional visual approach procedures, it has been necessary to specify routes/altitudes to enhance noise abatement at some locations.

CVFPs have been developed to provide a pictorial display of these visual arrival routes.

 

[maximus]

Check out the River Visual 2 to KHFD.

RADAR required. Minimums are 3000/5

A) Why use it? If the minimums are met I don't understand why you would need it I suspect its due to the MSA. but the airport is practically at sea level. I guess there would be an occasion when there really would be a 100 -200' difference in the ceiling. Then again it is a published "Visual Approach" Is the field that hard to find?

What is really interesting is that the Jepp chart which I can't post shows a straight in approach along a course of 005 degrees. The NOA chart has you following the same route until you get to the Putnam bridge then you follow curves in the river.

Can you log a "Visual approach" such as this as an instrument approach?

My guess is that they are trying to keep traffic away from the noise sensitive area. In this case they don't want to issue a straight in visual because you will overfly the noise sensitive area.


No you can not log it for curency.

 

[grattonja]

I understand that most of these visual approaches are used for noise abatement purposes. Note that it shows "noise sensitive areas" and that they are gridded out, sort of, and you don't fly over them. I believe they are also used to bring in the big iron in an organized fashion. I.E. they give a consistent vector pattern for the big jets. Also, if you look at some of the visual approaches at PHL, for example, it looks like they may help with separation for parallel runways using visual approaches at the same time.

If I flew one, I would log it as a visual approach, but I would not think it was countable as an instrument approach, because it is "visual". I would be interested to hear what our various experts say about that.

Jim G

Edit: When you type too slowly, everyone answers your questions before you can ask them

 

[poadeleted20]

If I flew one, I would log it as a visual approach,...

Not sure why -- there's no column in my log for that, and no currency it would meet.

...but I would not think it was countable as an instrument approach, because it is "visual". I would be interested to hear what our various experts say about that.

If I qualify as an expert, then I'd say you are right -- those visual approach procedures do NOT count for 61.57(c) currency.

 

[AirBaker]

If I flew one, I would log it as a visual approach, but I would not think it was countable as an instrument approach, because it is "visual". I would be interested to hear what our various experts say about that.

Jim G

I was told that the Visual approach did count, as long as you 'flew through a cloud'.

Something else I have to look up.

 

[EdFred]

I was told that the Visual approach did count, as long as you 'flew through a cloud'.

Something else I have to look up.

How would you maintain 3000/5 if you flew through a cloud?

 

[poadeleted20]

I was told that the Visual approach did count, as long as you 'flew through a cloud'.

Since a Visual Approach requires that you maintain sight of the airport and/or the aircraft you're following and stay in VMC, it would be rather hard (impossible, actually, I should think) to legally fly through a cloud during a Visual Approach. Reference: AIM Section 5-4-21a. And for Ed, it's only 1000-3 required for a visual, but generally speaking they aren't offered when it's less than 3000-5, and from a practical standpoint, they're hard to do in less than 3000-5.

 

[EdFred]

Since a Visual Approach requires that you maintain sight of the airport and/or the aircraft you're following and stay in VMC, it would be rather hard (impossible, actually, I should think) to legally fly through a cloud during a Visual Approach. Reference: AIM Section 5-4-21a. And for Ed, it's only 1000-3 required for a visual, but generally speaking they aren't offered when it's less than 3000-5, and from a practical standpoint, they're hard to do in less than 3000-5.

This particular was 3000/5. Of course it could be few clouds at 1500, which still gives you the 3000. But flying through a cloud puts you well below 5 miles of flight vis.

 

[poadeleted20]

This particular was 3000/5. Of course it could be few clouds at 1500, which still gives you the 3000. But flying through a cloud puts you well below 5 miles of flight vis.

OK -- I misunderstood -- you were referring to the published 3000-5 min for the River Visual 2 at HFD, not visual approaches in general. But regardless of the reported weather, you cannot legally fly through a cloud on any visual approach including this one.

 

[gismo]

Since a Visual Approach requires that you maintain sight of the airport and/or the aircraft you're following and stay in VMC,

I understand that ATC cannot clear you for a visual approach until you have the airport in sight, but does that apply to this procedure from the start (which is where exactly?)? If the visibility was indeed restricted to about 5 stature miles, I suspect you'd have great difficulty picking out the airport before reaching the beginning of the charted route and I'm wondering if you can be cleared to fly the route without a clearance for a "visual approach" said approach clearance to come when you do report the airport in sight along the way. Given that a visual clearance normaly means you can descend at will, at the very least, I'd think you could be cleared to the NDB since there's an altitude restriction prior to that.

Has anyone flown this or a similar approach, and if so how did the clearance go?

Edit: I found my answer (AIM 5-4-22)

j. ATC will clear aircraft for a CVFP after the pilot reports siting a charted landmark or a preceding aircraft. If instructed to follow a preceding aircraft, pilots are responsible for maintaining a safe approach interval and wake turbulence separation.
​

 

[bbchien]

Both the Roaring Fork Visual (ASE) and the PHX Biltmore require that you have landmark in sight....that being Ruedi reservoir, the latter begin the Arizona Biltmore, in sight.

 

[poadeleted20]

Bruce has it right for the charted visuals (technically, Charted Visual Flight Procedures, or CVFP's) -- you don't need the airport itself in sight:

"Pilots must have a charted visual landmark or a preceding aircraft in sight, and weather must be at or above the published minimums before ATC will issue a CVFP clearance. ATC will clear pilots for a CVFP if the reported ceiling at the airport of intended landing is at least 500 feet above the MVA/MIA, and the visibility is 3 SM or more, unless higher minimums are published for the particular CVFP." (Ref: Instrument Procedures Handbook, page 5-41)


​

But back to the original issue, if you can't stay in VMC all the way, you can't fly the approach, so from a logging standpoint, ain't no way to make this a 61.57(c) counter.