"Procedure NA at night"

Oh, I don't have the time right now for that. I had to log back in just to say this. Richard's real good at putting stuff together, maybe he'll offer up a scenario. Or wait 'till I get back later.
 
dtuuri said:
Oh, I don't have the time right now for that. I had to log back in just to say this. Richard's real good at putting stuff together, maybe he'll offer up a scenario. Or wait 'till I get back later.
Click to expand...

Ok. when ya get back gimme a departure airport, the fix yer talkin about and the destination. I'll fill in some blanks and we can take it from there.
 
luvflyin said:
Ok. when ya get back gimme a departure airport, the fix yer talkin about and the destination. I'll fill in some blanks and we can take it from there.
Click to expand...
In the interest of saving time let's just say we want to hop across a bit of Lake Erie (my home Lake) from KPCW (Port Clinton) to 3W2 (Put In Bay) which has no IFR approach. The Detroit sectional shows a couple towers in the 900'+ range, so add 1000' and round up to 2000' MSL for a MIA. It's only 7+ miles from the PCW NDB, so you could time from the NDB or use GPS if it's in the database. There's no SIAP, so no worry about being accused of accepting a clearance you're unequipped to fly. If there were, you might define a fix according to the AIM in terms of bearing and distance, or if 3W2 is not retrievable from the database. In the route block, "Direct". In the destination, "Put In Bay". In remarks, "Need a cruise clearance to 3W2 due to no SIAP." In cruising altitude, "3,000 ft." In alternate, "KPCW".

Your ball. If this won't work, how would you MAKE it work?

https://skyvector.com/?ll=41.54813317313482,-82.77532904280417&chart=430&zoom=3&fpl= KPCW undefined 3W2
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
In the interest of saving time let's just say we want to hop across a bit of Lake Erie (my home Lake) from KPCW (Port Clinton) to 3W2 (Put In Bay) which has no IFR approach. The Detroit sectional shows a couple towers in the 900'+ range, so add 1000' and round up to 2000' MSL for a MIA. It's only 7+ miles from the PCW NDB, so you could time from the NDB or use GPS if it's in the database. There's no SIAP, so no worry about being accused of accepting a clearance you're unequipped to fly. If there were, you might define a fix according to the AIM in terms of bearing and distance, or if 3W2 is not retrievable from the database. In the route block, "Direct". In the destination, "Put In Bay". In remarks, "Need a cruise clearance to 3W2 due to no SIAP." In cruising altitude, "3,000 ft." In alternate, "KPCW".

Your ball. If this won't work, how would you MAKE it work?

https://skyvector.com/?ll=41.54813317313482,-82.77532904280417&chart=430&zoom=3&fpl= KPCW undefined 3W2
Click to expand...

Didn’t read your whole post. I stopped at “...which has no IFR Approach...”. I’ll just agree that everything you said after that is correct because I know that you know how it works. But, this thread is about an airport that does have a published instrument approach. And there are significant differences in how ‘Cruise clearances’ work between airports with published approaches and those without.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
Didn’t read your whole post. I stopped at “...which has no IFR Approach...”. I’ll just agree that everything you said after that is correct because I know that you know how it works. But, this thread is about an airport that does have a published instrument approach. And there are significant differences in how ‘Cruise clearances’ work between airports with published approaches and those without.
Click to expand...
You should have read the rest of it,

"There's no SIAP, so no worry about being accused of accepting a clearance you're unequipped to fly. If there were, you might define a fix according to the AIM in terms of bearing and distance, or if 3W2 is not retrievable from the database."
​
So, assume there is an "NA" SIAP: Change remarks, "Need a cruise clearance to intersection of PCW 021 mag brg and DJB 304 rad. Unable IFR approach at 3W2." I would file via telephone and explain this to the briefer. "If I cannot maintain VFR at minimum instrument altitude, I'll return to Port Clinton. I'd go VFR all the way, but I want to remain within gliding distance of land and a ceiling is preventing that."
 
Flying IFR is not somewhere you should be exploring the unknown. If a procedure is labeled NA at night, then you absolutely should not fly it at night, if you do you exhibit poor ADM. You can brag, argue or be proud of the fact but odds are even though you might be able to get away with it many times, the one time you don't will probably kill you.

The OPs scenario would give you a visual approach at probably 99% of the airports in the country.
 
Palmpilot said:
The OP's scenario is that the ceiling is below the MVA, so no way to get low enough to start a visual approach.
Click to expand...

Missed that, thanks. That makes it even dumber to fly the approach if labeled NA at night.
 
RussR said:
Can you fly this procedure? Assume that ATC's MVA is 4000 or something higher than you need.
Click to expand...
If I were flying in many countries other than the U.S. I would have that information displayed on my iPad with ship's position.
MMCU MVAS.jpg
 
aterpster said:
If I were flying in many countries other than the U.S. I would have that information displayed on my iPad with ship's position.
View attachment 90779
Click to expand...

That is quite the name there... Imagine the frequency congestion when that tower shuts down and it reverts to a Pilot Controlled airport. Y'all thought KLAS was bad... :D
 
smv said:
That is quite the name there... Imagine the frequency congestion when that tower shuts down and it reverts to a Pilot Controlled airport. Y'all thought KLAS was bad... :D
Click to expand...
Chi-waa-waa.
 
aterpster said:
You have to have an instrument approach procedure to get a contact approach.
Click to expand...

Just because the procedure is restricted doesn't make it non-existent. The requirement is "The contact approach will be made to an airport having a standard or special approach procedure." No requirement that the it has to be flyable by the plane requesting the contact appraoch.
 
flyingron said:
Just because the procedure is restricted doesn't make it non-existent. The requirement is "The contact approach will be made to an airport having a standard or special approach procedure." No requirement that the it has to be flyable by the plane requesting the contact appraoch.
Click to expand...
Could be. It would depend upon ATC at the time.

Having said that, I wouldn't call the IAP restricted when it is not authorized.
 
aterpster said:
Could be. It would depend upon ATC at the time.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. The ATC handbook differs from the AIM as in that it says "is functioning" Of course, the latter is not a well-defined term either.
 
smv said:
Are you being intentionally obtuse? I was obviously referring to the name of the airport. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
No. I was referring to one of the approach charts. I presumed you had them, and/or flew in Latin America. My mistake.:D
MMCU Frequencies.jpg
 
smv said:
Are you being intentionally obtuse? I was obviously referring to the name of the airport. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

aterpster said:
No. I was referring to one of the approach charts. I presumed you had them, and/or flew in Latin America. My mistake.:D
Click to expand...

You two are funny. Wally, I'm pretty sure @smv was joking about the AIM requirement to use the airport name in traffic calls at uncontrolled airports. So if the tower here is closed, the call would be "Gen Div P A Roberto Fierro Villalobos Intl traffic, Cessna 123 left downwind runway 36R, full stop, Gen Div P A Roberto Fierro Villalobos Intl"
 
  • Like
Reactions: smv
RussR said:
You two are funny. Wally, I'm pretty sure @smv was joking about the AIM requirement to use the airport name in traffic calls at uncontrolled airports. So if the tower here is closed, the call would be "Gen Div P A Roberto Fierro Villalobos Intl traffic, Cessna 123 left downwind runway 36R, full stop, Gen Div P A Roberto Fierro Villalobos Intl"
Click to expand...
A huge percentage of the airports in Latin America are named after generals. But, in those cases the tower has a different name. San Jose, Costa Rica is Coco approach control and Coco tower.

As to MMCU, when the tower is closed you will almost certainly be the only one in the traffic area. (No VFR in Mexico at night). Finally, the U.S. AIM doesn't apply outside FAA's jurisdiction, although common sense says to use CTAF procedures at a non-towered airport down there.
 
IT WAS A JOKE!!!!

I was certain the green text and big green smiley guy would be a dead giveaway.
 
smv said:
IT WAS A JOKE!!!!

I was certain the green text and big green smiley guy would be a dead giveaway.
Click to expand...
I see the green text now. I didn't on the first go-around. I'm old and it was early.
 
  • Like
Reactions: smv
aterpster said:
I see the green text now. I didn't on the first go-around. I'm old and it was early.
Click to expand...

All that aside, I do appreciate your explanations and knowledge sharing in this thread and many others.
 
hqdefault.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: smv
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top