What are your personal minimums for a no approach airport?

Salty

Salty

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
13,456
Location
FL
Display Name
Display name:
Salty
Haven't flown much IFR yet so I never thought about this scenario. You're cruising along above the clouds and METARS are showing ceilings at, let's say greater than 2000, which is let's also assume for the sake of conversation is above your personal minimums.

How do you perform your descent in that situation? Are you going to do a 500 fpm descent and slow down to approach speeds? Now let's say you get to 2000 and you're still in the clouds, what next?

I'm thinking I level off and start talking to ATC about my alternate.

I know I meandered quite a bit there, but thinking out loud. I just never thought about the scenario before, but with my personal minimums right now, it's probably more likely than actually shooting an approach is. Any constructive thoughts on the topic are welcome.
 
To an airport with no approaches? Depends upon how low ATC can let you go in that area; think MSA for an approach.

It's rare I fly into an airport with no approaches. What some people do for private strips is use an approach at a nearby airport to get below the clouds, then scud run to the private airport. How low do you feel scud running? That probably depends upon terrain, obstacles, and how well you know the area.

I've heard pilots asking to go below MSA, sometimes they request it multiple times. ATC won't let them. Terrain, antennas/structures and being below radar coverage drives that limit.
 
Shoot an approach into a neighboring airport and go VFR on the missed?
 
I would ask ATC if you can descend to MEA or MVA.
You are always required to file an alternate when the destination does not have an instrument let down.
Having said that, a 2000 ft ceiling is essentially VFR. That's a pretty high personal minimum.
 
sarangan said:
I would ask ATC if you can descend to MEA or MVA.
You are always required to file an alternate when the destination does not have an instrument let down.
Having said that, a 2000 ft ceiling is essentially VFR. That's a pretty high personal minimum.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It is vfr. But what if it’s not actually vfr when you get there?
 
Last edited:
Makes a real difference if it's in mountainous or hilly terrain or the flatlands.
 
You have to think MVA, tell the controller what you want to do and see if they can accommodate you. Frankly, I don't think I would do this unless I could stay out of the clouds.
 
@Salty, are you trying to get to your home drone? What is the nearest airport with an approach? With 2k ceilings and Florida geography and no TV towers, fly an approach, get into VFR/MVFR conditions and cancel IFR. Anything less than 2k and you are getting in a squeeze between legally clear of clouds (500 ft below) and 1,000 feet above congested area.
 
Hang 4 said:
@Salty, are you trying to get to your home drone? What is the nearest airport with an approach? With 2k ceilings and Florida geography and no TV towers, fly an approach, get into VFR/MVFR conditions and cancel IFR. Anything less than 2k and you are getting in a squeeze between legally clear of clouds (500 ft below) and 1,000 feet above congested area.
Click to expand...
This is theoretical, I’m heading to Kentucky, Oh, and Michigan for a trip soon so various topologies.
 
Others have already inferred you are talking about going to an airport without any approaches on an IFR flight plan. But you did not say that. So, you may want to clarify... And, I don't know if you are IFR rated or are training for it or just interested.

You ask about descending... on an IFR flight plan, you cannot just decide to descend on your own. You need authorization. Once you have it, you can decide on the rate, but it needs to be at least 500 fpm (or you need to say something). If you are joining an approach, you descend based upon the approach.

If you are going to an airport without an approach, you are basically asking for "vectors for the visual". ATC will do that but there are limits, like they can only approve some bottom altitude and no lower. ATC will put you on a heading and altitude where you should be able to see the airport (generally from 10nm out) and land. If you are still above the clouds or still in them when that happens (especially if you pass the airport), you need to go to your alternate. You can't legally go any lower. ATC will ask your intentions.
 
noahfong said:
Others have already inferred you are talking about going to an airport without any approaches on an IFR flight plan. But you did not say that. So, you may want to clarify... And, I don't know if you are IFR rated or are training for it or just interested.
Click to expand...
It states so in the thread title. I am IFR rated and current and have a few hours of actual and flown approach’s in actual down to about 700 feet. However, my minimums still are still essentially vfr with the family on board.

You ask about descending... on an IFR flight plan, you cannot just decide to descend on your own. You need authorization. Once you have it, you can decide on the rate, but it needs to be at least 500 fpm (or you need to say something). If you are joining an approach, you descend based upon the approach.
Click to expand...
in my experience atc descends you as you get closer to the airport even with no approach. They don’t know if you’re in clouds or not. They are waiting for you to tell them you have the airport in sight and then clear for visual approach.

If you are going to an airport without an approach, you are basically asking for "vectors for the visual". ATC will do that but there are limits, like they can only approve some bottom altitude and no lower. ATC will put you on a heading and altitude where you should be able to see the airport (generally from 10nm out) and land. If you are still above the clouds or still in them when that happens (especially if you pass the airport), you need to go to your alternate. You can't legally go any lower. ATC will ask your intentions.
Click to expand...
I’ve never had atc give me vectors to final with no approach available, just straight at the airport. I suppose I could ask for that......
 
Tarheelpilot said:
An alternate
Click to expand...
The scenario is vfr is expected, you want to descend expecting to pop out, but you haven’t popped out yet at the point you are comfortable.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Something published. Not something imagined. MEA, MVA, MOCA etc
Click to expand...
I understand the point you are making but I’m looking at it differently.

ok, so throw out my “imaginary” number. atc descends you to MEA. How would you perform the descent while IMC, same speed and descent rate and speed as an approach?

that’s what I’d do. Then, if I’m not comfortable with the ceilings at that point I’d ask for routing to the alternate. Make sense? Am I missing anything?

As a nod to comments above, living in Florida this isn’t that much of an issue, which is why I hadn’t thought about it yet. Near Sea level AGL and rarely clouds below vfr ceiling that you’d be stupid enough to fly in....
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
ok, so throw out my “imaginary” number. atc descends you to MEA. How would you perform the descent while IMC, same speed and descent rate and speed as an approach?
Click to expand...

You're not flying an approach at that point. What would you normally do when descending from your cruise altitude when flying IFR? Would you change your technique if you were descending from your cruise altitude in IMC? If so, why? It seems like you're saying that you'd change your technique in your proposed scenario from normal?

I don't think the title of this thread really reflects the question well. It sounds more to me like you're polling to see what people do when they start a descent for an airport where you're hoping to perform a visual approach.
 
mondtster said:
You're not flying an approach at that point. What would you normally do when descending from your cruise altitude when flying IFR? Would you change your technique if you were descending from your cruise altitude in IMC? If so, why? It seems like you're saying that you'd change your technique in your proposed scenario from normal?

I don't think the title of this thread really reflects the question well. It sounds more to me like you're polling to see what people do when they start a descent for an airport where you're hoping to perform a visual approach.
Click to expand...
Yeah, like I said, I meandered in my thinking.

If I’m flying down to MEA I’m going to want to be slow and stable. That’s my thinking. I tend to descend pretty quickly when VFR. I’ve literally never done a descent in IMC that wasn’t on an approach.
 
Salty said:
If I’m flying down to MEA I’m going to want to be slow and stable. That’s my thinking. I tend to descend pretty quickly when VFR. I’ve literally never done a descent in IMC that wasn’t on an approach.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, my speed for descent doesn't change from my cruise speed unless there is turbulence or some reason to slow down. IMC or VMC is not a primary consideration. My power will be reduced to maintain the speed, then left at that setting when I level off at MEA or whatever. That puts me in a good configuration to be vectored around for an approach.

I'm not sure if that helps or not, but that is what I do. If I'm wanting to do a visual approach I usually ask the controller how low they can get me so I can figure out if I think I'll be below the cloud deck or not. If it is going to be iffy, I might go down to MEA or MVA and have a look but if it is unlikely I'll get below the clouds I generally go with plan b, which in the case of an airport with no approaches likely means going to a different airport.

There are two airports I regularly go into with no approaches. Thankfully there are airports with many approach options that aren't too far away that I can go to and either land or fly an approach and scud run back to the first choice airport. I've done both in the past but 99% of the time I can just descend from MEA under VFR conditions so I just cancel IFR and proceed that way.
 
Salty said:
I understand the point you are making but I’m looking at it differently.

ok, so throw out my “imaginary” number. atc descends you to MEA. How would you perform the descent while IMC, same speed and descent rate and speed as an approach?

that’s what I’d do. Then, if I’m not comfortable with the ceilings at that point I’d ask for routing to the alternate. Make sense? Am I missing anything?

As a nod to comments above, living in Florida this isn’t that much of an issue, which is why I hadn’t thought about it yet. Near Sea level AGL and rarely clouds below vfr ceiling that you’d be stupid enough to fly in....
Click to expand...
Yes just that, from the lowest enroute it has to be VFR if you want to cancel or VMC if you ask for a contact approach. The danger of a contact approach in VMC is if you go IMC what’s the missed??? That said I’ve done them but that was before I became a *****. Now I don’t like IMC in piston single at all. I’m not proficient for that anymore.

this is my best swag digging it up. If I’m wrong I’m sure someone will correct me soon.
 
Yep. Like others have said, if the destination ceiling is above MVA, then it's easy-peasy to get an IFR descent to the MVA over the destination airport and cancel once the airport is in sight. Syracuse Approach does this routinely for me when I fly home to my airport (VGC) if there is a chance I can avoid having to fly the RNAV approach. It gets me out of their hair quicker if I can cancel IFR at MVA. If things don't work out then I can get vectors for the approach and cancel on the ground. In the case of a VFR-only destination with no IFR approach, then you would just proceed on to your filed IFR destination and try again some other time to get to your VFR destination if the MVA descent was not sufficient. There is no way I'm asking for a contact approach, especially at a strange airport where I don't know the terrain. I wouldn't even try it at my home airport as the surrounding terrain is not always so easy to identify in reduced visibility, and is quite dangerous. A short diversion and a ride, or waiting for more favorable weather, is no big deal.
 
Keep in mind that a “contact approach” is an IFR procedure that, among other things, requires weather reporting and a published instrument approach at the airport, so that won’t work in the OP’s scenario.

First thing to me is communicate with ATC early on.
*Make sure they know you’re looking for the MVA to get the visual approach.

*Your clearance limit is probably the airport...if you get over the airport and don’t see it, you need to know where ATC will want you to go.

*if I’m still in the clouds at MVA, but they have breaks in them, I’ll request a “cruise clearance”. A cruise clearance is also an approach clearance (visual or instrument), so if I break out into a big enough hole and see the airport, I can just initiate my descent to the airport without taking the time to report it in sight for the visual.
 
OK...thanks for clarifying. What I think you are saying is that you normally want around 2000AGL when VFR (as your personal minimum). So, when vectored to an airport without approaches on an IFR flight plan, assuming the MVA is lower than that, how would we descend, assuming we can bust out of the clouds at any time, AND when ATC gives us that final lower altitude.

Like Mondster said, I would just continue down at cruise speed (or faster). I would come down "hard", around 800-1000 fpm so that I get through the clouds ASAP and see the airport before getting too close. If I get down to the final altitude and find myself still in the coulds, I would prepare to go to the alternate. Chances are, though, the final altitude would be more than 2000agl.

Salty said:
I’ve never had atc give me vectors to final with no approach available, just straight at the airport. I suppose I could ask for that......
Click to expand...
Sorry...I probably mis-spoke here. ATC may not give "vectors for the visual" at an airport without an approach. (I'm not sure). But VFV will point you direct to the airport anyway. No difference.
 
noahfong said:
Like Mondster said, I would just continue down at cruise speed (or faster). I would come down "hard", around 800-1000 fpm so that I get through the clouds ASAP and see the airport before getting too close. If I get down to the final altitude and find myself still in the coulds, I would prepare to go to the alternate.
Click to expand...
Better than coming down “hard” would be coming down “early”.
 
I file to airports without approaches sometimes. My plan is to ask for the MVA. I descend normal power at an increased airspeed if it’s not too rough. If I get below I’ll do a normal pattern entry and power/speed reduction at that point. If it’s still IMC I usually have a planned nearby alternate to shoot an approach down to 1000agl and then fly to my intended airport if after my research I can do so safely with terrain/obstructions. Otherwise I land at the alternate and come up with a different plan.
 
Shoot approach at a different field, break out, cancel, and fly in class G clear of clouds.

600' OVC from SAW ( was VFR in the D) to 6Y9 on July 4th weekend. I knew where the towers were between the two
 
I have frequently flown to airports that do not have approaches. My strategy has always been to file the airport of intended landing if it is basic vfr. My flight plan will allow me to climb to VFR conditions above a layer after departure, and fly pretty much the enroute portion out of the clouds, or I won't go. When I am nearing my destination I will request to descend to MDA near the airport if the reported ceilings in the area are above MDA. If they are not, I will request an approach to my alternate, which will always be the closest airport with an approach that gets me out of the clouds comfortably and then will allow me to fly from that airport to my intended airport in no less than 1200 ft and clear of clouds. That airport also needs to be within about 10 to 15 miles with not a lot of obstacles between the two. Rather than a hard and fast rule about set minimums every time, you might want to be able to evaluate each scenario differently, based on forecast weather in the area, and the terrain or obstacles between your intended descent clear of clouds and the airport you want to land at. That is much more important to me when I am needing to fly at lower altitudes under the clouds than anything else. In other words, if the highest obstacle from the airport with the approach and my intended destination is only a farmers 50 ft silo, then I will be much more comfortable flying at 1000 ft agl than I would flying 1800 agl with a number of 1500 ft television towers between the two airports. Also visibility gives me much more confidence as well. If I can see 6 to 10 miles ahead of me, I feel a lot better. Another thing that makes things a little easier these days is a tablet and a sectional moving map. That way you can chart your path and if you follow the magenta line, you can see the obstacles near your course on the map.

champ driver said:
Makes a real difference if it's in mountainous or hilly terrain or the flatlands.
Click to expand...

Clip4 said:
And day or night.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I won't try it if I have to "scud run" at night.
 
noahfong said:
ATC may not give "vectors for the visual" at an airport without an approach. (I'm not sure).
Click to expand...

AIM 5-4-25c says there must be a published and functioning IAP in order to fly a contact approach. There's no similar requirement for visual approaches. (See AIM 5-4-23.)
 
Piper18O said:
I have frequently flown to airports that do not have approaches. My strategy has always been to file the airport of intended landing if it is basic vfr. My flight plan will allow me to climb to VFR conditions above a layer after departure, and fly pretty much the enroute portion out of the clouds, or I won't go. When I am nearing my destination I will request to descend to MDA near the airport if the reported ceilings in the area are above MDA. If they are not, I will request an approach to my alternate, which will always be the closest airport with an approach that gets me out of the clouds comfortably and then will allow me to fly from that airport to my intended airport in no less than 1200 ft and clear of clouds. That airport also needs to be within about 10 to 15 miles with not a lot of obstacles between the two. Rather than a hard and fast rule about set minimums every time, you might want to be able to evaluate each scenario differently, based on forecast weather in the area, and the terrain or obstacles between your intended descent clear of clouds and the airport you want to land at. That is much more important to me when I am needing to fly at lower altitudes under the clouds than anything else. In other words, if the highest obstacle from the airport with the approach and my intended destination is only a farmers 50 ft silo, then I will be much more comfortable flying at 1000 ft agl than I would flying 1800 agl with a number of 1500 ft television towers between the two airports. Also visibility gives me much more confidence as well. If I can see 6 to 10 miles ahead of me, I feel a lot better. Another thing that makes things a little easier these days is a tablet and a sectional moving map. That way you can chart your path and if you follow the magenta line, you can see the obstacles near your course on the map.





Agreed. I won't try it if I have to "scud run" at night.
Click to expand...
As a instrument rated pilot I should probably know this, but I don't: how do you know what MDA is? Is it charted? (I know airways show a MEA / MOCA) and I know charts show an OROCA for each section...is that what you use? Isn't there also a MVA for ATC vectoring? Geesh, I really should know this stuff.
What I've always done is what others have mentioned: fly to an approach, and if I pop out of the clouds vfr on the approach, I head vfr over to the airport that doesn't have the approach. I also always let the controller know I'm going to do this...sometimes I even file with a mention in the notes section of the ifr flight plan that I intend to do this.
 
sarangan said:
Having said that, a 2000 ft ceiling is essentially VFR. That's a pretty high personal minimum.
Click to expand...

Is it really crazy though? If TPA is 1000' and you need 1000' above you for VFR cloud clearance, then to fly in the traffic pattern, you legally need 2000'. You can fly an abnormal pattern altitude if clouds are lower, but I don't base my flights on planning to do abnormal things.

The common solution I've heard for the original problem is to let down via an approach to a nearby airport and scud run to where you want to go. "Nearby" is a relative term and with a 2000' ceiling, you can do pretty well with that. Of course, if the MEA/MOCA/OROCA is lower than the ceiling, you just descend under it and cancel.
 
Country Flier said:
As a instrument rated pilot I should probably know this, but I don't: how do you know what MDA is? Is it charted? (I know airways show a MEA / MOCA) and I know charts show an OROCA for each section...is that what you use? Isn't there also a MVA for ATC vectoring? Geesh, I really should know this stuff.
What I've always done is what others have mentioned: fly to an approach, and if I pop out of the clouds vfr on the approach, I head vfr over to the airport that doesn't have the approach. I also always let the controller know I'm going to do this...sometimes I even file with a mention in the notes section of the ifr flight plan that I intend to do this.
Click to expand...


MDA is/was on the plates - I think they gave it a new name for all instances.

MSA is on the plates in the plan view.

MVA is only known by controllers, and generally lower than what is published for us pilots. Because guess what would happen if us pilots knew what MVA was...."Well, I can get down a little bit lower since MVA is..."
 
EdFred said:
MDA is/was on the plates - I think they gave it a new name for all instances.

MSA is on the plates in the plan view.

MVA is only known by controllers, and generally lower than what is published for us pilots. Because guess what would happen if us pilots knew what MVA was...."Well, I can get down a little bit lower since MVA is..."
Click to expand...
But we're talking about airports with no approach...so no plates.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Better than coming down “hard” would be coming down “early”.
Click to expand...

Well...you can only go down when ATC lets you go down. We're talking IFR after all.

Having said that, whenever given the opportunity to go lower I almost always take it and not waste time. Better to get below the clouds sooner. And be able to see my airport from farther out.
 
bflynn said:
Is it really crazy though? If TPA is 1000' and you need 1000' above you for VFR cloud clearance, then to fly in the traffic pattern, you legally need 2000'.
Click to expand...
You only need 500’ below clouds, right?

of course, if you get down into the Good airspace, close to the Ground, you only need to be clear of clouds.
 
noahfong said:
Well...you can only go down when ATC lets you go down. We're talking IFR after all.

Having said that, whenever given the opportunity to go lower I almost always take it and not waste time. Better to get below the clouds sooner. And be able to see my airport from farther out.
Click to expand...
I’ve never had a problem with getting down early in this scenario. It’s generally an easy request.
 
MauleSkinner said:
I’ve never had a problem with getting down early in this scenario. It’s generally an easy request.
Click to expand...

No argument here. But still better to hustle down for the stated reasons. The only time I don't is on a glideslope...reason obvious.
 
noahfong said:
No argument here. But still better to hustle down for the stated reasons. The only time I don't is on a glideslope...reason obvious.
Click to expand...
As long as “hustle down” isn’t something outside of your normal IFR techniques?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top