Filing to destination without legal approach
- Thread starter paflyer
- Start date
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
...and you have to be able to descend from the MIA to the destination under VFR conditions.
paflyer
Final Approach
Yeah, strategy is to file to nearby airport with usable approaches then cancel when close.
Before my home field had an approach we would file to home, request minimum vectoring altitude over the field and if not able to cancel then fly approach at nearby TRSA. we would break off approach at the TRSA and scud run to home.
azure
Final Approach
Really, this is the same question as, can I file IFR to a VFR-only destination airport (i.e., no IAPs)? The answer is (of course) yes, but you need to file an alternate regardless of the weather. And, as Mark said, you need to be able to descend from the MIA under visual conditions.
Fearless Tower
Touchdown! Greaser!
If it’s VFR and you can descend visually, why?
They are going to descend you, tell you ‘airport is at xx o’clock, report in sight’ and you do a normal visual approach.
paflyer
Final Approach
The question is filing to a non-legal (no IFR GPS in the airplane) airport.
MauleSkinner
Touchdown! Greaser!
91.169 is the applicable reg. No equipment for an available approach is the equivalent of no published approaches.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Unfortunately, someone asked the Chief Counsel about this. 
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...015/collins - (2015) legal interpretation.pdf
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...015/collins - (2015) legal interpretation.pdf
That Counsel ruling doesn't really address this problem as the person didn't ask it.
The question didn't ask about approach selection. It asked about "the route to be flown." Obviously, you MUST have navigational equipment for the route to be flown, how else are you supposed to do it?
Let's say I want to go to LKU which with only a VOR-equipped plane (its approaches require DME or GPS). If my filed route is "...GVE" and CHO is an alternate (nothing in the filing requires you to file a route to your alternate, but getting to CHO from GVE is defined), I would be equipped to flight the "route to be flown" as unless I arrive over GVE VFR and can do a visual approach into LKU, I'm going missed.
The question didn't ask about approach selection. It asked about "the route to be flown." Obviously, you MUST have navigational equipment for the route to be flown, how else are you supposed to do it?
Let's say I want to go to LKU which with only a VOR-equipped plane (its approaches require DME or GPS). If my filed route is "...GVE" and CHO is an alternate (nothing in the filing requires you to file a route to your alternate, but getting to CHO from GVE is defined), I would be equipped to flight the "route to be flown" as unless I arrive over GVE VFR and can do a visual approach into LKU, I'm going missed.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Because of the way he asked the two questions, I assumed that Mr. Collins was hoping for an answer applicable to the situation in which the portion of the route that the plane was not equipped for was the approach phase of flight, but you're right, he didn't specifically ask that.
midlifeflyer
Touchdown! Greaser!
That's what John actually intended to ask.
Sac Arrow
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 11, 2010
- Messages
- 20,360
- Location
- Charlotte, NC
- Display Name
Display name:
Snorting his way across the USA
Assuming you expect VMC by some reportable fix prior to the destination, can't you just file a composite IFR/VFR plan to it and be done with it?
Bill Watson
En-Route
Shooting from the hip, I agree. I file my no-approach home airport as an IFR destination frequently. I know that I’m to file an alternate with an approach.
I’m sure there are some fine points that I’d need to know as an attorney untangling some accident situation but as a practical matter, skipping the alternate does not result in rejection of the flight plan. If I can’t get in visually the question whether spoken or unspoken is, “what are your intentions”.
I just make sure I have alternate plans of action worked out appropriate to the weather. That’s all that matters except in the case of lost comm, no?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
azure
Final Approach
As far as I know, the alternate is recorded by FSS but the strip generated for ATC does not even show it, so yes, I don't think ATC cares whether you've filed one or not. (In an emergency, of course, they can still get it, but as I understand it, it's not directly visible to them.)
I was speaking only from what the regs require. Not sure where you got the idea that I was saying the FP would be rejected if it didn't contain a suitable alternate.
Bill Watson
En-Route
Huh? I was agreeing with you and sharing my experience and thoughts on top of your points.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Last edited:
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Unfortunately, someone asked the Chief Counsel about this.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2015/collins - (2015) legal interpretation.pdf
You'd think members of PoA would be smart enough to not ask the Chief Counsel anything. They rarely rule favorably. It's like asking your mom if you can eat sugar for dinner. The only time you get the answer you want is when she isn't paying attention.
azure
Final Approach
Then I misread your post. Sounded to me as if you were arguing with something that I didn't say. No worries.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,228
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Sure why not? You can also file to an uncontrolled airport that doesn't have any kind of approach what so ever. In a condensed nutshell, as others have said, you just need to be able to get there VFR and have an alternate filed (see rules for alternates)
People around here do this sometimes. If there is a marine layer at CRQ/MYF for example and you are flying up to Kern or some other place (no CT, no approaches, etc.) then it's a great way to be able to depart IFR and get through the class Bs around here then cancel at some point
Again read the counsel decision posted above. An airport without an approach is DIFFERENT than an airport with approaches you aren't equipped to fly. There's no way (at least based on that decision) to file an "intent" to make a VFR approach to landing at a destination that has published approaches.
Yes, it's stupid that having an approach you don't have equipment for makes such an airport in a worse situation than an airport with no approaches at all, but that's where we are. If you want to write the FAA and make your case, perhaps we can get that corrected.
Tantalum
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2017
- Messages
- 9,228
- Display Name
Display name:
San_Diego_Pilot
Peculiar, thanks. I'm sure there's a reason for the difference. Haven't personally had that situation of filing to an airport with approaches but none that I had equipment for
File somewhere else then and cancel when VFR assured seems the only option then
azure
Final Approach
I don't see that the opinion addresses that question at all. As stated above, John Collins asked about a case where the plane lacked navigational equipment "suitable for the route to be flown". With that wording, the Chief Counsel's opinion was IMO a foregone conclusion. And as stated above, the scenario in question is probably what he intended to ask about, but since he didn't ask it, I don't think we're quite there yet.
This is one of those cases where I'm not sure it makes sense to ask for further clarification from the Chief Counsel. They might actually make the crazy conclusion people are coming to here explicit. Do we really want that? Are we sure we're already there?
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,256
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
So the CC letter is saying the “route to be flown” must only be the IAPs at the airport?
What’s up with that signature too???
What’s up with that signature too???
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
There doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement in that opinion letter that what equipment is suitable for the route to be flown can be affected by what type of approach will be flown. If the airport had a VOR approach and an RNAV approach, for example, I doubt that the author of the letter would have claimed that a VOR-equipped aircraft had to also be RNAV-equipped in order to file to that airport. If the forecasts predict that a visual approach will be possible, I don't see why that should receive any less consideration than the fact that another type of published approach is available. The FAA has published rules for visual approaches, and as long as those rules are followed, I don't see why the visual approach option should be ignored.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
For the same reason that A Private Pilot can be reimbursed by his company for a flight as long as he's by himself but as soon as he takes someone else along with him for a flight incidental to business suddenly he needs to be a commercial pilot. Because the chief counsel's office has their head up their ass more often than they don't.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,256
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Which is exactly the way I interpret it. I think the CC is just stating the obvious. If your “route to be flown” is an RNAV approach, then you can’t file there because you need the appropriate equipment to fly it. If the “route to be flown” is a VA, then the appropriate equipment (91.205) can be met by being /A. Still need an alternate though.
azure
Final Approach
No argument there, but again, I just don't see that the conclusion that you can't file IFR to that airport without equipment to fly the approach is warranted. Collins's question didn't ask that.
I think this may be a case of garbage in, garbage out. But I don't want to be the one to pin the CC down on it, because as you say, they have their head up their behind as often as not.
azure
Final Approach
Exactly. And since I never put in the approach to be flown when I file, my "route to be flown" will never include any leg I don't have the equipment to fly. Problem solved.
Dave S.
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2017
- Messages
- 228
- Display Name
Display name:
thetexan
Yes. You can even file to a fix over the airport which will be your clearance limit. You won’t need an approach to even exist at the airport. But that’s as far as you will get. You’ll be expected to cancel IFR upon or before reaching the fix because there is no further route filed.
So let’s say you do that and roll the dice with the weather and you lose; the weather is IFR when you get there. At least 5 minutes before reaching the fix ATC will want to know your intentions. If you can’t cancel you’ll have to hold for improvement or file to another fix or airport. Whenever the destination becomes an airport you will have to comply with all of the requirements of alternates, etc.
Tex
So let’s say you do that and roll the dice with the weather and you lose; the weather is IFR when you get there. At least 5 minutes before reaching the fix ATC will want to know your intentions. If you can’t cancel you’ll have to hold for improvement or file to another fix or airport. Whenever the destination becomes an airport you will have to comply with all of the requirements of alternates, etc.
Tex