Cleared - Straight in - another question

What would you do? Read first post first...

  • 1) Course Reversal

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • 2) Circle to Land

    Votes: 5 14.7%

  • 3) Straight in or Missed

    Votes: 19 55.9%

  • 4) Unable

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • 5) Other

    Votes: 8 23.5%
  • Total voters
    34
skidoo

skidoo

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
987
Location
Montana
Display Name
Display name:
skidoo
This thread had some good info.
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60751&highlight=straight+circling

But, I have a question regarding the following scenario.

Say you are flying IFR in VFR conditions into KCPU
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCPU

You are on a course that takes you almost straight in for runway 31. ATC is ready to clear you for the visual approach, but you see a bunch of thick smoke ahead and don't know for sure if it is VFR all the way in there. So, you choose to follow the only approach available, the GPS RWY 31 approach. ATC then asks you if you plan a straight in or course reversal. You would like to go straight in. You are descending to 5500 ft and getting close to the IAF/FAF. ATC says 5500 ft is a low as he can get you, clears you for straight-in, cross KACBY at or above 5500 ft, frequency change approved. You read back the clearance, change frequency and then quickly reach the IAF/FAF a few hundred feet above 5500. From this point, you can see the field and well beyond because the smoke has thinned.

What do you do:

1) Do the course reversal because you are too high.
2) Continue down as quickly as you can because you were cleared straight-in, and circle to land if necessary.
3) Continue down as quickly as you can because you were cleared straight-in, and go missed if you can not land straight-in.
4) You would have said unable when given that clearance.
5) Other - Discuss.

Also, I'm looking for discussion as to what is legal, appropriate, safe, practical, and proper. I'm thinking that a straight in clearance allows you to not do the course reversal but you would have the option to circle or land straight-in when you see the field. Educate me as to the proper procedure.
 
Field in-sight 7 miles out, I'd call and cancel IFR before I got below radio range. If I had to fly the approach, I'd circle as needed, the approach is protected from other IFR traffic until you call to cancel. I would not under any circumstances(other than calling ATC again) do the course reversal as they could have someone already on the way there to hold until you cancel.
 
I would say continue the approach as cleared, straight in.. If to high, fast and behind the airplane, I would say safe bet is go missed.. Second guess was to take the circle to land.. But ATC cleared you for a straight in approach, if you wanted a circle to land, this should have been addressed to ATC before switching to the advisory FREQ. someone correct me if I'm wrong.. I'd like to learn as well!
 
ATC would have no need to keep you at 5,500 ft until KACBY if you're lined up with rwy 31 already. Asking you if you want the straight in, then assigning you an altitude to maintain that doesn't meet the design criteria of the approach would be poor technique as well. At around 600 ft/nm and 90 kts GS that's only around 900 fpm, so I'd accept the straight in.
 
Why are you above 5500 ft kacby fix is 4100 ft. If you had the runway in sight that's why you where given the straight in.safest would be to go missed if you can't get down.
 
skidoo said:
You are on a course that takes you almost straight in for runway 31. ATC is ready to clear you for the visual approach, but you see a bunch of thick smoke ahead and don't know for sure if it is VFR all the way in there. So, you choose to follow the only approach available, the GPS RWY 31 approach. ATC then asks you if you plan a straight in or course reversal. You would like to go straight in. You are descending to 5500 ft and getting close to the IAF/FAF. ATC says 5500 ft is a low as he can get you, clears you for straight-in, cross KACBY at or above 5500 ft, frequency change approved. You read back the clearance, change frequency and then quickly reach the IAF/FAF a few hundred feet above 5500. From this point, you can see the field and well beyond because the smoke has thinned.
Click to expand...

That may be the lowest altitude he can issue but he can get you lower than that before reaching KACBY. There is no valid non-radar route that "takes you almost straight in for runway 31." The controller can put you on the FAC outside of KACBY, issue 5500' until established, and you cross KACBY at 4,100'.
 
Pop back over to the controller on the radidio, cancel IFR, and VFR it the rest of the way to the field.
 
skidoo said:
You read back the clearance, change frequency and then quickly reach the IAF/FAF a few hundred feet above 5500. From this point, you can see the field and well beyond because the smoke has thinned.
Click to expand...

It's this part that makes me not quite understand what the question is - the field's in sight, it's VMC. Just cancel IFR and do whatever you have to do to get down.
 
The approach is a steep regardless of starting down from 4100 feet or 5500 feet. This is part of the reason it is designed with the holding pattern. I would take advantage of the holding pattern and not request the straight in. Having said that, a straight in clearance only deals with the issue of flying the holding pattern or not. It is not relevant to whether you circle to land or not. The same MDA is available for both the straight in and circling and this is an uncontrolled airport located in class G airspace so you follow the guidance in 91.126. The approach chart prohibits circling to the west of the runway, so you must circle to the east side of the runway as long as you keep the airport in sight. I would either overfly the runway and use right traffic to circle back to runway 31 if it is the runway in use or circle left traffic if runway 13 is in use.
 
John Collins said:
The approach is a steep regardless of starting down from 4100 feet or 5500 feet. This is part of the reason it is designed with the holding pattern. I would take advantage of the holding pattern and not request the straight in. Having said that, a straight in clearance only deals with the issue of flying the holding pattern or not. It is not relevant to whether you circle to land or not. The same MDA is available for both the straight in and circling and this is an uncontrolled airport located in class G airspace so you follow the guidance in 91.126. The approach chart prohibits circling to the west of the runway, so you must circle to the east side of the runway as long as you keep the airport in sight. I would either overfly the runway and use right traffic to circle back to runway 31 if it is the runway in use or circle left traffic if runway 13 is in use.
Click to expand...

If VMC why not just cancel? If "a few hundred above" when crossing KACBY, that means I have to lose about 3000' feet over 7 miles. In my plane, that's 3.5 minutes at 120kts. 860'/min descent.

Even if above 5500' I'm still only 1000'/min descent in VMC.

I still don't see the need to continue on with the approach. What's the issue?
 
Last edited:
skidoo said:
Also, I'm looking for discussion as to what is legal, appropriate, safe, practical, and proper. I'm thinking that a straight in clearance allows you to not do the course reversal but you would have the option to circle or land straight-in when you see the field. Educate me as to the proper procedure.
Click to expand...
In terms of what is legal, once the controller says "cleared straight in GPS runway 31 approach," you are prohibited from executing the course reversal without obtaining a revised clearance from ATC. Short of an inflight emergency requiring immediate action, you are never authorized to execute a course reversal once "cleared straight in" for that approach.

That said, the question of whether you can land straight in (in this case, come down the approach from KACBY and landing on runway 31 without circling the field) is another issue entirely. The clearance for a straight-in approach only tells you that you are not to execute the course reversal -- it does not by itself limit you to making a straight in landing. Since this is a nontowered airport, regardless of whether cleared straight in for the approach or making the course reversal, the pilot is entirely free to choose whether to land straight in versus making a circle-to-land maneuver without ATC's involvement -- ATC just doesn't care in this case. Of course, at a tower-controlled airport, you must obtain the tower's clearance to land straight-in versus circling to another runway, but since CPU is nontowered, that's not relevant to the case at hand.

So...

What do you do:

1) Do the course reversal because you are too high.
2) Continue down as quickly as you can because you were cleared straight-in, and circle to land if necessary.
3) Continue down as quickly as you can because you were cleared straight-in, and go missed if you can not land straight-in.
4) You would have said unable when given that clearance.
5) Other - Discuss.
Click to expand...
In this case, you have been cleared "straight in" for the approach, so doing a course reversal is not an option without obtaining a revised clearance. Thus, option 1 is out. However, that straight-in approach clearance does not limit your options as to whether you land straight in or circle to land. So, Option 2 is OK. Option 3 implies that you must land straight in after being cleared for a straight-in approach, and at a nontowered airport, that isn't true, so I'd reject Option 3. Ditto Option 4 -- no need to say "unable" because the straight-in landing versus circle-to-land options are still both open to you.

Put it all together, and I'd just continue down without further ATC ado, land straight in if I could, and circle to land if I had to.
 
Last edited:
The safest thing, keep my IFR, descend to 4000 ft, continue to the MAP, assess the smoke again, go missed, contact the ATC to cancel (180 and land VFR) or set up another approach.
 
Last edited:
Assuming ~6000 at KACBY that's about 4500 over seven miles. At 90 knots GS that's only 1000 FPM to get down to the MDA and still have 30 seconds or so to spot the field, and make your landing (or circle). With 3600' of runway, I'd not be too concerned in my plane even if I broke out right at the runway.
 
Ron Levy said:
In terms of what is legal, once the controller says "cleared straight in GPS runway 31 approach," you are prohibited from executing the course reversal without obtaining a revised clearance from ATC. Short of an inflight emergency requiring immediate action, you are never authorized to execute a course reversal once "cleared straight in" for that approach.

That said, the question of whether you can land straight in (in this case, come down the approach from KACBY and landing on runway 31 without circling the field) is another issue entirely. The clearance for a straight-in approach only tells you that you are not to execute the course reversal -- it does not by itself limit you to making a straight in landing. Since this is a nontowered airport, regardless of whether cleared straight in for the approach or making the course reversal, the pilot is entirely free to choose whether to land straight in versus making a circle-to-land maneuver without ATC's involvement -- ATC just doesn't care in this case. Of course, at a tower-controlled airport, you must obtain the tower's clearance to land straight-in versus circling to another runway, but since CPU is nontowered, that's not relevant to the case at hand.

So...

In this case, you have been cleared "straight in" for the approach, so doing a course reversal is not an option without obtaining a revised clearance. Thus, option 1 is out. However, that straight-in approach clearance does not limit your options as to whether you land straight in or circle to land. So, Option 2 is OK. Option 3 implies that you must land straight in after being cleared for a straight-in approach, and at a nontowered airport, that isn't true, so I'd reject Option 3. Ditto Option 4 -- no need to say "unable" because the straight-in landing versus circle-to-land options are still both open to you.

Put it all together, and I'd just continue down without further ATC ado, land straight in if I could, and circle to land if I had to.
Click to expand...

This is a thorough answer and covers everything I was thinking of assuming all of it is correct. It sound right to me...

What would you think if you got down over the missed point, saw the field with plenty sufficient visibility, chose to enter right turn crosswind, right downwind, right base and final to 31, landed, immediately called ATC to cancel IFR and ATC asks you if you landed straight in or circled the field? You tell them you circled the field and they said they expected a missed? Would that be an ATC mistaken assumption maybe because they are used to towered fields? Or, would that be a pilot mistake because you really don't have that option to circle?
 
They don't care if you go straight in, circle, or go missed at a non towered field. The airspace is protected for that. All they really care about is when you cancel. Even then if it's not a busy field such as this, it's not an issue.
 
I still don't get why no one is cancelling once they know they have the field in sight and know it will be all the way to landing and forget about the straight in/CTL. Does no one cancel in the air anymore?
 
EdFred said:
I still don't get why no one is cancelling once they know they have the field in sight and know it will be all the way to landing and forget about the straight in/CTL. Does no one cancel in the air anymore?
Click to expand...

I do every time. No benefit to holding onto your IFR when the weather is nice.
 
Velocity173 said:
I do every time. No benefit to holding onto your IFR when the weather is nice.
Click to expand...

Which appears to be the case here.

From this point, you can see the field and well beyond because the smoke has thinned.
Click to expand...

"well beyond" as I read it means visibility is well over 10 since he can see it and beyond from 7nm out. Why bother with continuing the approach?

This is like asking if the engine quits due to fuel exhaustion before you get on the runway do you still perform the takeoff? No. You go put fuel in it.
 
EdFred said:
I still don't get why no one is cancelling once they know they have the field in sight and know it will be all the way to landing and forget about the straight in/CTL. Does no one cancel in the air anymore?
Click to expand...
I cancel in the air all the time going into VLL unless I'll need the IFR if for any reason I have to go around. But the OP said there was smoke in the way, so I take it there was some question as to when he would be able to cancel.
 
azure said:
I cancel in the air all the time going into VLL unless I'll need the IFR if for any reason I have to go around. But the OP said there was smoke in the way, so I take it there was some question as to when he would be able to cancel.
Click to expand...

From his original post he could see well beyond the field which at this point 7nm away. Hell, I've flown VFR with less visibility around here. That's not even scud running it.
 
EdFred said:
I still don't get why no one is cancelling once they know they have the field in sight and know it will be all the way to landing and forget about the straight in/CTL. Does no one cancel in the air anymore?
Click to expand...


Pilot is relatively new IR, is used to terrain where you can not reach ATC until 8K ft or higher. In this case, it was VFR conditions except for the thick smoke where you could not see through it directly ahead towards the approach. Frequency change was made before getting through the smoke. Pilot unsure how low he can get and still reach ATC. Pilot and ATC had already agreed to cancel on the ground. Pilot needs to get down now at a busy time, communicate with CTAF, etc... Is it a big deal at an airport such as this to not cancel until on the ground?


What I have a hard time understanding is why so many chose to go missed in the poll. For those who chose this, please help me understand why you would go missed if you could clearly see the field and could circle around and land?
 
skidoo said:
Pilot is relatively new IR, is used to terrain where you can not reach ATC until 8K ft or higher. In this case, it was VFR conditions except for the thick smoke where you could not see through it directly ahead towards the approach. Frequency change was made before getting through the smoke. Pilot unsure how low he can get and still reach ATC. Pilot and ATC had already agreed to cancel on the ground. Pilot needs to get down now at a busy time, communicate with CTAF, etc... Is it a big deal at an airport such as this to not cancel until on the ground?


What I have a hard time understanding is why so many chose to go missed in the poll. For those who chose this, please help me understand why you would go missed if you could clearly see the field and could circle around and land?
Click to expand...

Hit flip flop switch on radio.
"Center, N12345 will cancel IFR."
"Cancellation received, squawk VFR, frequency change approved."
Hit flip flop switch.

Now you've absolved yourself of dealing with MDAs, whether you need to circle or not, whether you need to fly a course reversal, and lessened your workload.

I have popped back over to center frequency and cancelled after I've been told frequency change approved and then come back to CTAF.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
From his original post he could see well beyond the field which at this point 7nm away. Hell, I've flown VFR with less visibility around here. That's not even scud running it.
Click to expand...
I'd have probably done the same thing based on the description. But my cardinal rule (no pun intended) is never to question another pilot's decision to err on the side of safety. I disobeyed my finish-up CFII when he wanted me to cancel on a downwind landing after breaking out a couple hundred feet above MDA. Landing was almost assured, but almost isn't 100%. I'd do it again, and so I'll certainly never second guess someone who wants to hold onto an IFR clearance because they have doubts about whether they can get on the ground safely without it.
 
roncachamp said:
That may be the lowest altitude he can issue but he can get you lower than that before reaching KACBY. There is no valid non-radar route that "takes you almost straight in for runway 31." The controller can put you on the FAC outside of KACBY, issue 5500' until established, and you cross KACBY at 4,100'.
Click to expand...

Do you know the MIAs prior to KACBY?
 
skidoo said:
You read back the clearance, change frequency and then quickly reach the IAF/FAF a few hundred feet above 5500. From this point, you can see the field and well beyond because the smoke has thinned.

What do you do:
Click to expand...
Given your scenario of clear VFR with the smoke a non-issue, being 7 miles from the runway and able to make a pretty normal VFR approach from my altitude, I'd call ATC back to cancel IFR.

IFR I'd ask ATC for a clearance to to a turn in the HILO if I had accepted a straight in (first clue that the HILO is in part for altitude loss purposes is the transition from HEKGO). I doubt I would have asked for or accepted a straight in to begin with until I was almost to KACBY and confident it would not be an issue.
 
Last edited:
frfly172 said:
Why are you above 5500 ft kacby fix is 4100 ft.
Click to expand...
He was on his way down from higher.

They call those brownish things mountainous terrain. He's on an ifr clearance with either no radar services in the approach environment or limited radar services with a 5500 MVA.
 
midlifeflyer said:
They call those brownish things mountainous terrain. He's on an ifr clearance with either no radar services in the approach environment or limited radar services with a 5500 MVA.
Click to expand...

If radar service was unavailable he could not be on a course that takes him almost straight in for runway 31.
 
skidoo said:
This is a thorough answer and covers everything I was thinking of assuming all of it is correct. It sound right to me...
Click to expand...
Thank you.

What would you think if you got down over the missed point, saw the field with plenty sufficient visibility, chose to enter right turn crosswind, right downwind, right base and final to 31, landed, immediately called ATC to cancel IFR and ATC asks you if you landed straight in or circled the field?
Click to expand...
I'd tell them what I did, then ask why they cared.

You tell them you circled the field and they said they expected a missed?
Click to expand...
I'd ask to speak to a supervisor and start making notes for a call to the Regional ATO to find out what the folks in that ATC facility were thinking. In any event, ATC must always allow for a missed, and never expect exclusively either a landing or a missed. As for landing straight-in or circling to land at a nontowered airport, ATC doesn't know and shouldn't care -- it changes nothing in how they handle the flight.
 
EdFred said:
I still don't get why no one is cancelling once they know they have the field in sight and know it will be all the way to landing and forget about the straight in/CTL. Does no one cancel in the air anymore?
Click to expand...
Sometimes you can't cancel in the air upon seeing the airport because you haven't attained the requisite 91.155 cloud clearance/visibility to do so (e.g., not yet 500 below the clouds while still in E-space) or the airport has E-to-the-surface and they're not reporting 1000-3. A real enforcement case on this was the subject of an AOPA Pilot Counsel article a few years back. In other cases, you're below radio coverage when you break out so unless you can dial your cell phone while flying (probably about as safe as texting while driving), you'll have to get on the ground to cancel.

As for "no one is cancelling", that's not true, since I and my trainees do it all the time -- once we're in legal VMC, will stay that way to landing, and can still talk to ATC.
 
Last edited:
roncachamp said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Also, s/b decent radar coverage from Stockton ASR.

KCPUMVAs_zps165d0983.jpg
 
Ron Levy said:
As for "no one is cancelling", that's not true, since I and my trainees do it all the time -- once we're in legal VMC, will stay that way to landing, and can still talk to ATC.
Click to expand...
Same here. I cancel in the air whenever I safely and legally can. Much easier than calling from the ground.
 
Well the MVA explains the restriction then. Wouldn't exactly say it's obvious either since KACBY is just inside the 5,500 area.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Sometimes you can't cancel in the air upon seeing the airport because you haven't attained the requisite 91.155 cloud clearance/visibility to do so (e.g., not yet 500 below the clouds while still in E-space) or the airport has E-to-the-surface and they're not reporting 1000-3. A real enforcement case on this was the subject of an AOPA Pilot Counsel article a few years back. In other cases, you're below radio coverage when you break out so unless you can dial your cell phone while flying (probably about as safe as texting while driving), you'll have to get on the ground to cancel.

As for "no one is cancelling", that's not true, since I and my trainees do it all the time -- once we're in legal VMC, will stay that way to landing, and can still talk to ATC.
Click to expand...

Which was not the scenario in the OP. My question as to why is no one cancelling was directed to the scenario presented. Which did not have clouds, and visibility was over 10. So again, I ask...

Why is no one cancelling in the air?
 
aterpster said:
1.76 miles to be exact.
Click to expand...

Yeah I wasn't thinking it was in a mountainous area either (2,000 ft asessment). Although it appears it might be using a 1,000 ft buffer to comply with the IAP???
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Which was not the scenario in the OP. My question as to why is no one cancelling was directed to the scenario presented. Which did not have clouds, and visibility was over 10. So again, I ask...

Why is no one cancelling in the air?
Click to expand...
Maybe because it wasn't one of the choices in the poll? A number of folks said in their posts they would cancel in the air, starting with Post #2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top